rejected

Jet2 has issued an important travel insurance alert for passengers that affects anyone with these common health conditions

Jet2 has issued a travel alert to passengers about an important declaration they must make, or they could face ‘rejection’. It comes as millions of flight seats are set to depart from UK airports during the six-week summer break as Brits make the most of the school holidays.

As exciting as it can be to go on holiday, plans could easily be ruined if certain documents aren’t filled out correctly – including travel insurance. Sorting travel insurance as soon as you book a holiday is crucial, as it is not just for medical emergencies abroad, but for protecting your upfront investment from day one.

It’s important to declare all health conditions when you’re buying travel insurance. This is because standard policies usually don’t cover pre-existing medical conditions, and if you don’t mention them, you could lose your coverage entirely.

Jet2 reiterated this point in a social media alert posted on X this week. The popular UK airline told passengers: “Going away this summer? Declare your medical conditions when you buy travel insurance – it could save you thousands. If your details aren’t up to date, your claim could be rejected.”

Medical conditions can include, but are not limited to:

• Heart conditions/stroke
• Diabetes
• High blood pressure
• Respiratory conditions (such as asthma)
• Mental health conditions
• Any form of cancer

For passengers with common health conditions, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, declaring them is vital as these conditions are major risk factors for heart and metabolic issues. Insurers typically see them as directly related to serious and expensive medical emergencies.

Even if your health is stable and controlled with medication, these conditions are still seen as serious warning signs for possible health problems. If you don’t disclose them, your emergency medical coverage could be completely void, and you would be responsible for hospital costs that could easily amount to tens of thousands of pounds.

A statement on the Gov.uk Travel Aware page explains: “You must declare all pre-existing medical conditions when buying travel insurance. If you already have cover, you should check that your list of medical conditions is updated before each trip abroad.

“Failure to do this could mean your claim is rejected if you have a medical emergency while travelling. You must be honest about any medical conditions you have, to avoid risking a big bill. Check your policy to see what you need to declare.”

It added: “A British national was hospitalised and admitted to intensive care following a stroke while abroad. The insurance provider refused to cover the medical costs after it emerged the individual had not declared a previous stroke. As a result, the family was left to meet significant medical expenses.”

What is a pre-existing medical condition?

According to Jet2, any of the following medical conditions from which you have suffered or received medical advice, treatment (including surgery, tests, investigations by your doctor/consultant /specialist) or prescribed drugs or medication in the last five years include:

1. Any cancer condition (including leukaemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and any type of skin cancer)
2. Any heart-related or blood circulatory condition (including high blood pressure and high cholesterol)
3. Any diabetic condition
4. Any neurological condition (including stroke, brain haemorrhage, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and dementia)
5. Any breathing condition (including asthma, bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
6. Any renal, kidney or liver condition
7. Any psychiatric or psychological condition (including anxiety, stress and depression)
8. Any chronic condition that can be controlled but not cured (including back pain, Crohn’s, diverticular and coeliac disease and ulcerative colitis)

And/or any other medical condition for which you have been prescribed medication or which you have received or are waiting to receive treatment (including surgery, tests, or investigations) within the last 12 months.

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled Senate on Thursday narrowly approved President Reagan’s request for $100 million in aid to the Nicaraguan guerrillas–the first affirmative vote by Congress in three years on an aid package for the rebels that includes military assistance.

The 53-47 vote was a significant victory for the President, who conducted a tireless lobbying drive for his request and saw it narrowly rejected only a week ago by the Democratic-controlled House. The White House hopes that the Senate vote will help stimulate a reversal in the House, where the proposal will be reconsidered in mid-April.

Not since 1983, when Congress approved covert aid as part of the fiscal 1984 defense budget, has either chamber voted for military aid to the contras, as the rebels are called. Sentiment against such assistance rose sharply in early 1984 after it was learned that the CIA had secretly mined Nicaraguan harbors.

A Reassuring Signal

En route to his mountaintop retreat near Santa Barbara at the time of the vote, the President declared that the Senate action would “send a profoundly reassuring signal to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua and to Nicaragua’s threatened neighbors.”

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, hailed Thursday’s vote as a “good victory” for the President. “This is a very important issue for him–having spent two weeks turning heaven and earth to get this result,” he said.

But Democrats insisted that the narrow margin did not constitute an endorsement of Reagan’s Central American policy. “The vote was so close you can’t call it a victory for the Administration’s policy here in a body that his party controls,” Sen. Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.) said.

Eleven Senate Democrats voted with Reagan, but he lost 11 Republicans. Sen. Pete Wilson (R-Calif.) voted with the majority; Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) voted against the measure. Among the Democrats supporting Reagan was Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, who earlier had opposed contra aid and is believed to be preparing to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988.

Senate Democrats failed in their effort to withhold military aid for a brief period while forcing Reagan to seek bilateral negotiations with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. A Democratic alternative authored by Sasser failed by a 67-33 vote, and another proposal by Cranston calling for bilateral talks was rejected, 66 to 34.

Warnings of Another Vietnam

Advocates of bilateral talks frequently warned that Reagan’s more belligerent approach was leading the nation into another Vietnam.

“It’s time to know where we are going in Central America before we find ourselves with U.S. troops on the battlefield and body bags coming home once again,” Sasser said. “We say negotiate first. This Administration owes that to the American people. This Administration owes that to our brave young men who will be called upon to fight and die in Nicaragua unless peace is achieved.”

Although the President was forced to make a few additional concessions to gain a majority, the package approved by the Senate was not significantly different from the compromise that Reagan offered voluntarily a week ago as an executive order in his unsuccessful effort to win House approval.

The measure would provide $25 million to the contras immediately and release $15 million every 90 days thereafter with the understanding that the President would search for a diplomatic solution during that period. With the first allotment of money, the contras would be permitted to buy surface-to-air missiles to use against Nicaraguan helicopters.

No offensive weapons for the contras would be funded until July 1, and then only after the President determines that the conflict cannot be solved by diplomacy. At least $30 million of the money would be used for humanitarian purposes, $3 million of it for human rights programs.

Direct Talks Not Required

Under the Senate plan, the President is not required to seek direct bilateral talks unless the Sandinistas are willing to negotiate with the contras as well–something the Nicaraguan government has declined to do. Reagan staunchly refused to agree to talks without contras involvement, even though it would have won him broad bipartisan support for the aid package.

Despite Reagan’s opposition, Lugar insisted that the Administration’s special envoy, Philip C. Habib, eventually would go to Managua seeking talks. But Democrats noted that Reagan never kept a pledge for bilateral negotiations that he made to the Senate in a letter last year to win approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras.

The rejected Democratic alternative proposed by Sasser would have withheld all military aid for six months to encourage negotiations. The President would have been required to enter into the talks if the Nicaraguans first agreed to a cease-fire.

Republicans said that Sasser’s proposal might have gained some GOP support if he had limited the waiting period to 90 days and provided some assistance for defensive weaponry during that period. “He went too far out to the left,” a top GOP aide said.

Cranston’s amendment would have withheld the money for only 90 days but, like Sasser’s proposal, it provided nothing but humanitarian aid during that period.

Amendments Defeated

The Senate also defeated amendments from the far left and far right. The vote was 74 to 24 against a proposal by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to eliminate all aid. A proposal by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.)–what he described as a “put up or shut up” provision–which would have released all aid on May 15 if the Sandinistas refused to adhere to democratic principles by then, was defeated by a 60-39 vote.

The only amendment that succeeded was one offered by Sen. Alan J. Dixon (D-Ill.) that would prohibit American trainers and advisers inside Nicaragua. It passed by voice vote.

Although the Administration seized upon the recent incursion of Nicaraguan troops into Honduras as evidence of the need for contras aid, Lugar insisted that the fighting along Nicaragua’s northern border had no impact on the outcome in the Senate. However, the Administration hopes that House Democrats will be swayed by the incursion.

Despite the narrow vote, it was apparent that the mood of Congress had changed significantly since last year when the President had to fight almost as hard to get congressional approval of $27 million in humanitarian aid for the contras. Many Democrats who opposed all aid last year voted for the Sasser proposal this time.

As a result, it was frequently compared during floor debate to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution that opened the way for U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.) predicted that the amount would continue to increase in the years ahead as it has since 1981 when the Administration first provided covert aid to the contras.

‘Tinkering With $100 Million’

“I don’t believe $100 million is going to do the trick, and I don’t think anybody does,” Bumpers said. “If Nicaragua represents a serious security threat to this hemisphere, why are we tinkering with $100 million?”

Wilson insisted that it was not a Gulf of Tonkin resolution for Central America. “We are asked not to send our sons, but to send a pittance,” the California Republican said.

But Sen. David Durenberger (R-Minn.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, which has access to Administration intelligence reports from Central America, charged that Reagan had overstated the threat posed by the Sandinistas.

As it did in the House last week, Reagan’s highly partisan campaign on behalf of his contras aid request succeeded only in angering many senators, who resented White House efforts to portray their opponents as supporters of the Marxist regime in Managua.

“No one is more anti-Communist than I am,” Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) said. “I deeply resent the President’s sickening display of neo-McCarthyism in this debate.”

A bitter battle that exposed deep divisions over the direction of America’s conservation movement reached culmination with the announcement Wednesday that Sierra Club members had overwhelmingly rejected a campaign by immigration control advocates to control the venerable environmental group.

In what was termed the largest voter turnout in the Sierra Club’s 112-year history, more than 22% of the group’s 757,000 members cast ballots to select its governing board. The votes, which were submitted by members in March and April, were tallied Wednesday. The members elected a slate backed by the club’s leaders and which received more than 110,000 votes apiece.

By contrast, a slate of candidates seeking to bring a strong immigration control agenda to the club garnered only minimal support — former Colorado Gov. Richard Lamm, the best known, received 13,090 votes.

“I never argue with the voters. My congratulations to the winners,” Lamm said in an e-mail shortly after the results were announced. He declined to be interviewed.

Five seats were up for grabs on the club’s 15-member governing board. The election took place via mail and the Internet starting in March.

The election was the second time in less than a decade that the Sierra Club, arguably the nation’s most influential environmental group, has publicly wrestled with the issue of restricting immigration. Members voted to remain neutral on the issue in 1998, following a campaign that featured accusations that conservationists were resorting to immigrant bashing, and counterclaims that political correctness was leading to environmental cowardice. The same accusations were raised this year.

Despite the 1998 vote, an increasingly vocal group of environmentalists continued to argue that the Sierra Club needed to aggressively support strict immigration controls, citing the destructive effect of unchecked U.S. population growth on the nation’s natural resources.

Three prominent immigration control advocates — UCLA astronomy professor Ben Zuckerman, Wisconsin Secretary of State Doug LaFollette, and Paul Watson, leader of the group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, already had won seats to the board in recent years, putting majority control within the grasp of the dissidents in this year’s election.

Sierra Club leaders said after the landslide vote that they hoped the rancorous dispute had finally been resolved.

“I thought the issue should have been laid to rest after 1998, and I certainly don’t see anything in these results to suggest [members] have had a change of heart,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope.

“We are delighted that the turnout was so strong. This may have been the largest election turnout ever for a nonprofit organization other than the NRA,” the National Rifle Assn.

However, it quickly became clear on Wednesday that the losing side considered the issue far from resolved. Rather than seeing the results as evidence that Sierra Club members did not support an immigration platform, critics called it proof that dirty tactics by the status quo to promote their favorites had unfairly tipped the scales.

Some dissidents said they were holding out hope that a lawsuit filed recently in San Francisco Superior Court would result in a new election. The suit alleges that Sierra Club leaders violated state laws governing nonprofits by using club funds to promote candidates they had endorsed.

Club officials called the claims groundless. A similar suit by Lamm was withdrawn when Pope and other club officials threatened a countersuit.

“The Sierra Club just elected the best new directors money can buy — but with a lawsuit pending over unfair election practices, justice and truth may yet prevail,” said a losing candidate, Karyn Strickler.

Strickler, who said she did not advocate curbing immigration and was running as an independent reformer, said all candidates who collected petitions to be on the ballot were damaged by an “urgent election notice” to Sierra Club members that accompanied the ballot and warned of “outside groups” seeking to influence the club’s agenda. Under Sierra Club bylaws, some candidates are automatically placed on the ballot by current leaders; others can collect signatures to run.

The ballot notice referred to racist and anti-immigrant websites that had posted stories urging their visitors to vote for immigration-control candidates in the Sierra Club elections, and made similar links to animal rights groups and hemp proponents. As a result of the notice, critics argued that voters were pressured to stick with the candidates endorsed by the current leadership.

During the dawn of the modern environmental movement four decades ago, conservationists widely embraced the goal of global population control. Books such as “The Population Bomb” by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich painted a dire portrait of a planet straining under man’s increasingly wide footprint.

Yet although many environmentalists still call for worldwide curbs on population, they are increasingly divided over the less-abstract issue of restricting the flood of newcomers to America. According to the U.S. census, the U.S. population, now more than 292 million, could surge by 50% over the next 50 years, largely because of immigrants and their children.

Former Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, one of the founders of Earth Day, sided with immigration control advocates, supporting Cornell University professor David Pimentel.

The two had been active in the Carrying Capacity Network, a population control organization that advocates strict curbs on immigration.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, lent his name to the election campaign to defeat Pimentel and the other insurgents. Actor Robert Redford and MoveOn.Org, the liberal activist network known for helping propel former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean to prominence, also opposed the anti-immigration candidates.

“I think the agenda of those looking to bring immigration to our organization was soundly defeated,” said Sierra Club President Larry Fahn. “We should now focus on reuniting the membership and getting back to our core mission: to protect the planet. And this year, we should focus on the mission most of us consider most important this year: defeating President Bush and his horrendous environmental policies.”

Yet Fahn conceded that anti-immigration candidates were unlikely to give up their fight.

“The debate will continue,” he said. “Many of them feel so passionate that they will continue agitating and never be pacified.”

Swiss voters reject a proposed population cap that would cap the country’s population at 10 million. The plan, championed by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party, was supported by 45% of voters.

City have long been admirers of Newcastle academy graduate Anderson. The player is currently preparing for the tournament in the US, Canada and Mexico, but club-to-club talks can continue to take place.

Captain Bernardo Silva’s exit means City are looking to bolster their midfield and Anderson tops the list of potential targets.

Newcastle midfielder Sandro Tonali is another player understood to be highly rated by City, with reports, external suggesting the Italy international has been monitored as a long-term target.

Nico Gonzalez, who missed out on a place in the Spain squad for the World Cup and also fell out of favour under Pep Guardiola last season, may depart if the right offer comes in.

Sources indicate City are also looking to sign a right-back to supplement Matheus Nunes, 28, who excelled in the position this season after being converted from midfield.

City are eyeing the profile of a young full-back and one who is a natural in that position that can grow into the role in the future.