Jump to content

bradiston

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    5,518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by bradiston

  1. I think you could be wrong. Cataract is part of the "optical" package. And only $1000 per annum in cover, meaning not even enough to cover one eye, let alone two.
  2. No maybe about it. Can't pay? Won't pay! Cataract surgery is not covered.
  3. What about ears? Are they covered? Or is there an audio package? And an oral package? And feet? Hands? It's just ridiculous. I was on Serenity 400k. Joke. And this form is just the latest development. This company is flying by the seat of its pants.
  4. I've cancelled my WRLife policy. I'll either find another insurer (I was talking to a Thai company previously which has offices near me in Pratamnak) or revert to PAI, at a fraction of the cost. Cover minimal but at least they're not duping you into thinking you're covered when you're not.
  5. Update. They emailed me saying as I didn't have the optical package cataract surgery isn't covered. As of today I'm also looking to switch providers. Why throw good money after bad?
  6. This is WRLife. I don't think you can opt to stay in overnight. If the hospital want you in for a couple of hours, I think that's what you will do. Cataract surgery takes less than an hour. Also, eye surgery is a separate package. I've just tried to ring them. Next step cancellation I think. Their numbers all go to a call centre in Scotland. There is nobody available to answer any questions about any medical procedures. Looking increasingly like a total scam.
  7. Maybe that's because possessing alcohol isn't a crime.
  8. It's incredible that the question of the legality of possessing it has only just come to light. Not once has it been mentioned re the "Em" case. And now this!
  9. It's an out patient procedure, therefore not covered. No mention of day surgeries. But I will do as you suggest and check with them myself.
  10. Tell that to Keith and Bob! Never read such undiluted rubbish in my life. But coming via the Daily Mail, what did I expect?
  11. The hospital checked. Cataracts, not covered. Optical is an additional item, and done in 20 minutes, so no IP required. I fell over and cut myself and broke a rib. Not covered. OP only. It was precisely this eventuality I was scared of and took out the 10,400 THB per month medical insurance with them in case. Great. Self pay. So 2 cataracts, 104,000 THB. Falling over, about 15k all told. Had to cover the CT scan, X rays, meds, consultation fees etc etc, myself. I've been insured with them for 9 months. 93,600 THB. For absolutely sweet fa. Oh yeah, I know,shouldn't have fallen over. Shouldn't have developed cataracts. How do I know what's an IP procedure and what isn't? Rubbish!
  12. WRLife, and I don't want to get into the pros and cons on them, gave me a 6 month moratorium on my AF. So not as bad as a total exclusion. I got through it ok, but have no OP cover and no optical, so ended up shelling out well over 110k THB for various procedures. Seems to me OP cover is essential as so many procedures nowadays can be done in a matter of hours/minutes.
  13. Too right, but failure to maintain in a roadworthy condition, plus whatever other laws broken, would incur numerous points and fines in the UK. Any such laws here? MOT? Might kill off all these a claims of "brake failure".
  14. Excuse me, DRUNK teenager. Let's get that straight. No, he wasn't stoned, nothing to do with ganja. Every report now involving drunken misbehaviour should emphasize that fact. Sick of the one in a hundred reports blaming weed.
  15. He's released on bail with the proviso he doesn't interfere with the investigation. First stop, accompanied by BJ, is his ex-wife to persuade her to plead guilty. You couldn't make this stuff up. ????????????
  16. Agreed. You'd think you'd need some sort of licence to obtain this stuff, no?
  17. Imagine the furore had there been a crate of empties of a certain brand of beer found in his apartment. Man goes nuts after drinking 12 bottles of Duff. Said the accused "Just couldn't get enough, guv', sorry. I got angry when I found the fridge empty".
  18. True. As somebody else has pointed out, much more of a means of attacking his arch enemy Anutin and the BJT party than to do with an actual anti ganja stance.
  19. But why don't you guys just deposit it straight into Wise? $4.14 receiving fee. Then it's at your fingertips in your $ account with Wise, to transfer to a THB account or wherever, whenever. Why go through a 3rd party US account?
  20. Maybe, if they haven't already, the Thai government could ask the UK police to help locate and apprehend Boss Red Bull.
  21. You say you use Wise for $ transfers to Thailand. Why not use your Wise $ account for your SS deposits and transfers? I use them for my UK £ pensions. I also have a Wise $ account.
  22. If you read the article cited, and the media comments it quotes, it turns out that most of the negative perception of the so called legalisation of cannabis in Thailand is centered on the notion you might unknowingly eat some of it, given it could have been added to anything you order (food being the main preoccupation of Chinese tourists, presumably). Still, better than a spoonful of potassium cyanide, I guess. It admits that monitoring Chinese media content is immensely hampered by the savage censorship of all Chinese media platforms. Any mention of cannabis, let alone legalisation, will be ruthlessly excised. Big Brother approved propaganda only.
  23. Chulalongkorn should immediately withdraw its crass linkage of cannabis reform to a drop in Chinese tourism, whilst milking the weed for all it's worth, which is obviously billions of baht. Oh boy, check this out! https://www.chula.ac.th/en/highlight/47796/ Here's a link to the cited Chulalongkorn paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370038400_The_Chinese_media_narrative_of_Thailand_as_a_tourist_destination_after_the_legalisation_of_cannabis#pf1
  24. No. "... in three sachets that look like tea bags ..." There is a world of difference. The sub editors are a joke. They're writing their copy based on a photograph of the bag. Referring to it as looking like a teabag is seriously prejudicial to the accused. "Fancy a cuppa, darlin'? Oh look, here's a tea bag...". Premeditated intent.
×
×
  • Create New...