kwilco

Therefore you had POOT - your earlier post didn't make that clear. "I arrived visa exempt. I flew from San Francisco to Bangkok. This was my third trip to Thailand this year visa exempt, and I extended last time, which is my guess why they asked me. I will be continuing on to another destination, but didn't decide when or where yet."

Clearly not the whole story - and how failing a claim would justify not having future insurance is illogical. One thing your story shows in accidents DO happen. Not getting the right cover in future is just cutting off your nose to spite your face - which already needs fixing apparently.

so you arrived with an onward proof of travel?....but not a return ticket? Did you have the POOT when you boarded the plane in San Francisco?

to be clear - were you on a visa exempt entry? where was your POOT to? Will you buy your ticket home in Thailand or are you continuing on?

Are you saying you travelled one way all of these times? Firstly why would they ask on a tourist visa? Secondly you don't know they weren't checking as they would only say something if they thought there was a problem.

I'd say tht poor risk assessment is a very common characteristic of both tourist and expats in Thailand

what does it say then? I suppose you don't have insurance and feel uncomfortable about the nomenclature

Since 1994, I've carried tissues in my pocket in Thailand - it sounds like these people were pretty unprepared for their visit to the Kingdom.

The stat is not meaningless - stats don't actually have a "meaning" - it's the way people interpret them that gives them meaning - and that is often very misleading. The media only look at one stat - deaths per 100 k of pop. - and then make outlandish sound bites based on that. It doesn't even include injuries - minor an d serious. However these are just a few ohter stats they could look at Other Statistics may include · Deaths per 1 million inhabitants o Serious Injuries per 1 million inhabitants o Minor injuries per 1 million inhabitants · Deaths per 10 billion vehicle-KM · Deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles Registered vehicles per 1000 inhabitants then categorise injuries to the two internationally recognised categories - minor and serious. Until recently Thailand didn't evn collect half these stats - without them it is impossible to address the road safety problems in the \kingdom. ...and trying to blame "bad driving" just shows they have no idea about the problem from the very start. - it isn't even "a thing'!

do you know I don't think you understand the OP.

Thai Embassy London Foreigners who enter Thailand under this Tourist Visa Exemption category may only do so for 30 days at one time with a maximum of 3 times in a 6 month period by flight and 2 times a year for overland crossing. Foreigners entering Thailand under the Tourist Visa Exemption category must show the documents below at the port of entry: o Proof of adequate finances for the duration of stay in Thailand i.e. traveller’s cheque or cash equivalent to 20,000 Baht per person and 40,000 Baht per family. o Proof of onward travel (confirmed air, train, bus or boat tickets) to leave Thailand within 30 days of the arrival date (**otherwise a tourist visa must be obtained). https://london.thaiembassy.org/en/publicservice/84256-tourist-visa?page=5d6636cd15e39c3bd00072dd&menu=5f4b6eb3f6ae4b236972c562

I expalined earlier, that it is the airlines responsibility if you land in THailand and are rejected at immigration so they can refuse to carry you.

you need to be far more explicit than that.

I'm getting the feeling that those who think they haven't been asked actually have POOT ... or a visa that doesn't require POOT. The airlines see this and wouldn't ask. It is the responsibility of the airline to fly passengers back who are rejected by Thai immigration so they are unlikely to let anyone board who they may be forced to fly home.

I was asked one time by either EVA or Thai Airways at HR - can't remember which. I was on a one way ticket - well actually the return leg of a trip from Thailand. The checkin said I didn't have a return ticket - what they hadn't seen was my B visa further on in my passport. Once they saw they they apologised. BUT I does mean that WITHOUT A RETURN and no visa, they would have refused me boarding

is that because you had an onward ticket? or a visa?

you really are making assumptions - whatever the onus on a hospital to treat, is not the point. Firstly you are assuming that Thai hospitals are universally equipped to deal with all situations - this is just not true. THe next question is HOW they decide to treat the patient - they are by no means bound by the sort of ethics you'd expect from a western hospital. Finally is they are negligent (deliberately or not) there is virtually no possibility of comeback on any of the practitioners involved. If you live in Thailand, I would suggest you seriously review you own status when it comes to healthcare because it sounds like you are making some hugely ill-advised leaps of faith.

I'm a frequent critic of Thai healthcare, it's ethics and the treatment people get without insurance. However this story just doesn't sound right - it seems to be to avoid the fact that the poor man wasn't insured, they are slagging off the hospital. I've been in government hospitals in Thailand over 20 years (as a patient and a worker) and I have never encountered anything like they describe. Thailand has universal healthcare but foreigners need to be aware they must pay their way in Thailand. Brits in particular, thanks to the NHS tend to leave home without considering they possible costs incurred for healthcare outside the UK. As for pre-existing conditions, most insurance companies will still insure you - many pre-ext=sting don't affect your premium at all and some they may just not cover you for that specific ailment. acute Leukemia is incredibly rare and one wonders if anywhere in the Thai healthcare system they are set up to deal with it effectively - it is important to include repatriation in your holiday insurance because fo things like this - the risk is very low - but the stakes are high.

I've don't the trip to the "top" many times in the past. I stopped some time before Covid because they told me they had closed the upper part of the trail. I got the impression they were going to "metal" it - they obviously haven't. I always used a customised 4x4 in this and many other national parks - of course with off-road tyres the likelihood of a flat is minimised - but I use to carry 2 spares anyway. It is my intention to revisit in Feb this year.

looks the same as when I went last some time pre covid. Are they still operating the one way waiting system?

does anyone know about access to this campsite? Is the trail open to private vehicles?

but this has nothing to do with my critism - you also have some archaic views on language acquisition. Who do you think took part in the survey?

Hear hear! Most of the self professed critics probable don't speak a word of Thaia and have no idea either about language acquisition and education or the EF people themselves.

Same thing every "EF" year using their own criteria that have no connection to real life but serve as a bit of publicity for this organisation who by anyone's standards are a banger short of a barbie

Has the Grand Seaview re-opened yet?