Liverpool Lou

Never heard "the old saying" that goes, "there are always two versions of a fact". Where did you find that gem?

I have seen innumerable cases where during the term of a policy, and after making a claim, a Thai insurer decided (often on pretty flimsy grounds/big leaps of logic) that they had uncovered proof that the condition was pre-existing and therefore refused to pay Ok, that is not what you claimed in your post that I am commenting on! Discovering a pre-existing condition (and those are obviously excluded from cover by any insurer) is not "adding an exclusion to a pre-existing policy"! The pre-existing exclusion would always have been a policy condition, not an add-on to deny a claim!

There's always one keyboard hardman for us to laugh at!

Which "prosecutors" have already found him guilty? By the way, prosecutors do not issue judgements, they recommend prosecutions. Why do you suggest that there will not be a court case when there, obviously, will have to be?

You're suggesting that those two cases, only one being a murder case, are not being investigated? You're very badly informed if you are.

If someone broke into your house and held a gun to your head or your wife and kids heads. Your liberal attitude would change quickly . You would probably ask nicely to please put the gun down. You would not like the results. That is incorrect, read my comments to you again. What you suggest is not my attitude but my attitude is not what I was commenting on. My comments related to your ridiculous claim that in the US (and other countries) an off-duty police officer could kill an intruder with no questions asked. That is not the case.

That's not what was being discussed when he made his comments so why would you think that was what he meant? "being allowed to introduce exclusions after the policy was issued based on claims etc etc." You're suggesting that, after a policy has been issued and during its term, exclusions can be added by the insurer that changes the contract between the insurer and the policy holder without advising the policy holder in order to deny claims? Really? Do you have something empirical to support that assertion?

USA. If someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a firearm, You have every right to kill the MF. Yes, I know that but that is a lot different from the intruder being killed "with no questions asked"! There would be a lot of sodding questions asked! My comment was not about the legality, it was about your ridiculous claim that "there would be no questions asked". That is false.

Sand would be available on the beach I'm aware of that. I don't believe bags are, though, that was my slightly facetious point.

Yes, no commercial banks run any risk of going out of business due to decentralised finance. Have you got anything sensible/rational that would support your assertion?

His Albert Tatlock mantra!

Common sense in almost any country except this one What? You're claiming that it's "common sense" that, in almost any country, an off duty police officer killing an intruder to his premises would be processed "with no questions asked"? Could you give an example of a country where that happens, please?

Get your story right about what I actually said and try again. I have no personal experience of health insurance claims, i.e. claims of my own, that's what I said. According to your posts here, it seems that you have no personal claims experience, just a couple of "friends'" "stories". I do have many years of experience in the insurance industry, here and in the UK, including general claims and life claims so I do know, forensically, how those claims are processed and what the stats on successful claims are. That's also what I said.

Shot dead with no questions asked? What do you base that on?

"So now we can not defend our self in our own houses against armed thai robbers". Where was that stated, there is an investigation going on, isn't there?

For all we know it's just as likely that they weren't "in cahoots".

why not just get it from the beach? Nobody's using it anyway. ???? Empty bags in which to put sand are available at the beach? That's useful information.

Insurance regulations in Thailand are not the same as farangland, just complete a questionaire and read the T&Cs and you can see it You're assuming, wrongly, that my insurance experience is restricted to other countries and does not include Thailand. "Insurance regulations in Thailand are not the same as farangland" Are you saying that there are Thai insurance regulations that allow insurers to deny legitimate claims? "T&Cs" on a "questionnaire" are not the sole consideration; policy conditions detailing specific cover and exclusions on issued policies are what matters.

Drinking together is social gathering I know that it is but it is the "gathering" that is restricted right now, not the consumption of alcohol. Read what I said in my comment.

"So I ... took the wallet. Moral of the story don't be arrogant" Don't be arrogant, be a thief! To quote your words, "just bloody bizarre some of you lot".

what experience do you have with Thai health insurance company claims? None, personally, but I do have many years experience in the insurance industry and I know the percentages of claims that are paid out. I also know that if insurers tried to avoid paying legitimate claims, as so many people like to suggest, there wouldn't be an insurance industry. What personal experience do you have? Your "friends' " stories are not your personal experiences.

For legitimate claims, that's just nonsense.

You know as well as anyone we can not name and shame on forum. And you know as well as anyone that there's nothing to stop posters recounting their experience here because that happens all the time on 'Thaivisa' threads! The allegations of specific courier companies' corruption here recently are a prime example.

i have a couple recent examples, a friend had a detached retina, insurer paid for it, operation caused a cataract which they refused to pay for. A friend, Insurer cancelled insurance when they claim something was pre-existing, want money back for prior unrelated claims "i have a couple recent examples", Actually, you haven't, those are anecdotal or hearsay, but, anyway... "a friend had a detached retina, insurer paid for it, operation caused a cataract which they refused to pay for". So they paid out for a claim that was covered. Perhaps the cataract wasn't caused by the surgery or the policy didn't cover his claim for the cataract? "A friend, Insurer cancelled insurance when they claim something was pre-existing" It's perfectly normal not to be covered for pre-existing conditions!

Yeah, damn Yankees. Looks as though you think that it was my assertion that the Americans are to blame? I was just responding to another poster who used the "bizarre American custom" phrase.