Foreign tourists to Thailand should be made to have insurance: poll

[The manic]

Why would the Thai authorities care about delayed flights or lost luggage? They don't. So travel insurance is irrelevant. However, medical insurance has some merits. Only inexperienced travellers confuse the two.

[David Walden]

29 minutes ago, scorecard said:

I don't agree, my insurance guy here in Chiang Mai alerted me to the fact many people take travel insurance not realizing:

 

- They have cover for delayed flights, cancelled flights, lost luggage etc. But no medical cover.

 

    or:

 

 - Cover for cancelled flights, lost baggage etc, death pay out, but no hospital / medical cover.

 

   etc.

 

It pays to check this very carefully.

 

 

I may be pedantic but in my younger days for some years I worked in general insurance claims for a large insurance company which included personal accident and sickness policies (we used call these "all risks" insurance then) .  Also travel insurance claims.   It never ceased  to amaze me just how many people bought Insurance,  when they made a claim they had no idea what the conditions where...60 or 70 pages of fine print, read them or don't complain. I just about know them all off pat.  At my age 76y/o I just don't buy travel insurance.  The ratio of premiums collected to claims paid is very small and the commissions to brokers and agents is very high.  Claims are very few in relation to premiums collected.

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, The manic said:

I have private medical insurance. I do not have travel insurance. They are two quite diffent issues.  Ignorant people are conflating the two

 

Yes you do seem to understand.  In Australia everyone is covered with free Govt hospital cover and medical this is called Medicare.  You can elect to have additional private cover by paying an extra premium with a private insurer.  If you elect to have the extra private cover you can select you own hospital doctor and and receive treatment at a time convenient to you and basically jump the que.  If you have private cover part of your premium and claims will still be paid by Medicare  The big problem is when you leave Australia all of your domestic cover stops both Medicare and private top up cover, so by law whilst you are out of the country you have no medical cover whatsoever.  Subject to many conditions if you can get back to Aus your cover will be reinstated and you will be treated in Aus.  Medical treatment will not be paid by the Govt or private medical insurers when you are out of the country.  You have to return for this to happen at your own expense.  If you have to have Medi-vac air ambulance well that could be be $50/100,000 (fairly rare).   You have to get private medical and travel cover against all sorts of things when travelling overseas..  Just about all travel insurance sold in Australia includes Medical cover but omits to cove policy holders for natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes going off, airlines going broke, travel agents going broke, pre-existing medical matters and a host of other things you thought you were covered for and are not covered at all.  Yes read the fine print.

   A good trick by Airline companies in Bail when the volcano went off a few years ago was to refund the discounted air fares to customers who bought tickets months earlier ex-gratia.  When services were restored a week or 2 later they then made these same customers pay the full undiscounted fare as they were all desperate to get home at about 3 times or more the no frills discounted cost, thousands of them and no compensation from the insurers.  My god how the money rolled in.  All's fare in love, war and insurance.

[MrPatrickThai]

Strange, the majority of foreigners voting yes to this. Surely it's up to the individual. I have it as I worked here most of my life and when retired kept the "bpakan sang kom" insurance.

[pattayadgw]

Stop talking and get on with it... the LOS is the most dangerous place in the world (+/_) to travel by road and if you come here for a holiday you will be on the road so make it policy!

[scorecard]

42 minutes ago, MrPatrickThai said:

Strange, the majority of foreigners voting yes to this. Surely it's up to the individual. I have it as I worked here most of my life and when retired kept the "bpakan sang kom" insurance.

True, but there's another point - the financial burden on Thailand when visitors can't pay the other very large bill.

[VBF]

2 hours ago, David Walden said:

I may be pedantic but in my younger days for some years I worked in general insurance claims for a large insurance company which included personal accident and sickness policies (we used call these "all risks" insurance then) .  Also travel insurance claims.   It never ceased  to amaze me just how many people bought Insurance,  when they made a claim they had no idea what the conditions where...60 or 70 pages of fine print, read them or don't complain. I just about know them all off pat.  At my age 76y/o I just don't buy travel insurance.  The ratio of premiums collected to claims paid is very small and the commissions to brokers and agents is very high.  Claims are very few in relation to premiums collected.

At 63 I'm sure I shall come up against that problem fairly soon, but last trip to Thailand, I got ear infections, had them seen to at a clinic in Pattaya, got receipts and claimed.

They paid out - total claim £42, annual insurance premium £84...but if I'd had a more serious problem it would have been more cost-effective.

[yellowboat]

2 hours ago, David Walden said:

I may be pedantic but in my younger days for some years I worked in general insurance claims for a large insurance company which included personal accident and sickness policies (we used call these "all risks" insurance then) .  Also travel insurance claims.   It never ceased  to amaze me just how many people bought Insurance,  when they made a claim they had no idea what the conditions where...60 or 70 pages of fine print, read them or don't complain. I just about know them all off pat.  At my age 76y/o I just don't buy travel insurance.  The ratio of premiums collected to claims paid is very small and the commissions to brokers and agents is very high.  Claims are very few in relation to premiums collected.

You are referring to facts and making a sensible argument.  You are in the wrong country.   One farange dies leaving a big hospital bill, and they think it will be a trend.  It happens, but what do others countries do ?   How do they deal with the issue ?  Thailand always seems to blaze new trails into what seems to be an intellectual desert. 

 

During the hight of junta mania, I tried to get major medical insurance from one of the famous Thai hospitals.  I told them that immigration was making entering Thailand difficult for some foreigners and that i was afraid I would be refused entry into the country.  They replied by saying they could not guarantee that the government would let me into the country and there would be no recourse.   Went to Malaysia instead .  

[Puccini]

On 8/13/2018 at 10:23 AM, webfact said:

While Carter Jenkins said: “Thailand increased the arrival and departure tax for foreigners by 300 baht, this was to pay for any farang who may need medical care as the result of an accident. 600 X 32 million is a lot of revenue raised every year, what's happened to all that?”

 

I believe Carter Jenkins got that wrong. I don't remember reading anything about medical care in connection with the increase in the departure tax.

Edited August 15, 2018 by Puccini

[Puccini]

2 hours ago, MrPatrickThai said:

Strange, the majority of foreigners voting yes to this. Surely it's up to the individual. I have it as I worked here most of my life and when retired kept the "bpakan sang kom" insurance.

 

What is the bpakan sang insurance? I searched the web for I and found no answer. 

[HHTel]

Just to quote one instance (there are many more).  My friend's father came for a visit.  He had TRAVEL INSURANCE which like most policies covers medical treatment also.  He's in his 70's.  He hit his head while diving into the swimming pool.  Spent almost 3 months in hospital.  Total bill was over a million baht.  His insurance paid out on his TRAVEL INSURANCE policy without question.

 

My mother some years ago before she passed 80 spent 3 days in Petcharat.  Had to pay herself but on return to the UK her TRAVEL INSURANCE policy paid out without question.

[Chelseafan]

9 hours ago, MrMuddle said:

What idiot at TV came up with the idea of this poll ? Are you trying to give the PM ideas ? It's pretty obvious he hates farangs as it is !

How many of us on retirement visas can afford medical insurance here ? We were doing fine, when Yingluck's Government allowed us to register at local Hospitals and get treated there, but the current lot stopped that.
I can afford Private Hospital treatment if I need it, but the costs of medical insurance at my age are prohibitive.

I despair of this forum, it seems you will do anything to increase traffic on the site, with little thought to those of us who have made our lives here.

Probably the same idiots who don't read the Poll correctly ?

It's about Tourists not ex-pats.

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Chelseafan

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

Probably the same idiots who don't read the Poll correctly ?

It's about Tourists not ex-pats.

 

At what point does a person cease being a tourist and then become an expat, there is no legal definition in respect of time frame......and do you really think the Thai authorities will attempt to distinguish between the two factions!

[hottrader77]

On 8/13/2018 at 4:41 PM, racket said:

They should force the law on those who apply for Visas, since it would be impossible to enforce this for people with visa exempts, and I think most of them are already covered since it's usually a short trip of 30 days. The embassies could list this as a requirement for obtaining a VISA, just like they do when asking for bank statements, employer certificate, etc - that would be a better idea since this group of people are staying longer. 

if thailand had it easy to get it i would get it but how do you know it covers everything you might pay it only to find out your not covered for this or that and still have a big bill to pay , also british insurance is not very good as it only covers you for about 60 or 90 days after that you have to come back england and renew it and set off again because if you stay longer than this amount of time it invalidates the insurance in the clauses

[Chelseafan]

34 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

At what point does a person cease being a tourist and then become an expat, there is no legal definition in respect of time frame......and do you really think the Thai authorities will attempt to distinguish between the two factions!

A tourist doesn't make said country their residence. As for the Thai authorities, that's mere speculation*

 

 

 

* I agree with you.

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Chelseafan

[The manic]

8 hours ago, David Walden said:

Yes you do seem to understand.  In Australia everyone is covered with free Govt hospital cover and medical this is called Medicare.  You can elect to have additional private cover by paying an extra premium with a private insurer.  If you elect to have the extra private cover you can select you own hospital doctor and and receive treatment at a time convenient to you and basically jump the que.  If you have private cover part of your premium and claims will still be paid by Medicare  The big problem is when you leave Australia all of your domestic cover stops both Medicare and private top up cover, so by law whilst you are out of the country you have no medical cover whatsoever.  Subject to many conditions if you can get back to Aus your cover will be reinstated and you will be treated in Aus.  Medical treatment will not be paid by the Govt or private medical insurers when you are out of the country.  You have to return for this to happen at your own expense.  If you have to have Medi-vac air ambulance well that could be be $50/100,000 (fairly rare).   You have to get private medical and travel cover against all sorts of things when travelling overseas..  Just about all travel insurance sold in Australia includes Medical cover but omits to cove policy holders for natural disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes going off, airlines going broke, travel agents going broke, pre-existing medical matters and a host of other things you thought you were covered for and are not covered at all.  Yes read the fine print.

   A good trick by Airline companies in Bail when the volcano went off a few years ago was to refund the discounted air fares to customers who bought tickets months earlier ex-gratia.  When services were restored a week or 2 later they then made these same customers pay the full undiscounted fare as they were all desperate to get home at about 3 times or more the no frills discounted cost, thousands of them and no compensation from the insurers.  My god how the money rolled in.  All's fare in love, war and insurance.

I understand that travel insurance cover for many things other than medical insurance. We have the NHS.system, paid for via taxes and National Insurance. Obviously this does not cover for illness abroad which is why I have private medical insurance which covers me for most countries. I do not have travel insurance. I'm pretty sure this is what the Thai authorities might be mooting-not travel insurance but medical insurance.

[GinBoy2]

i know this is focused on tourists, but it would be an interesting statistic to know how many retiree's resident in Thailand have health insurance.

The 'gofundme' posts after some guy gets himself into trouble seem to come pretty quickly nowadays.

Insurance cost, whether it be travel or long term escalates exponentially after about 60, and for many becomes unaffordable.

'If' health insurance was a requirement for renewing your retirement extension became mandatory, bet you'd have a lot of weeping and wailing

[davidlkelley]

I use to think that spending the extra $100 plus US dollar over the price of the tickets was not worth it but Like any other Insurance you buy it's not good until you have an issue. When that happens you will be glad you had it. Travel Insurance does not only cover Health issues but Lost Luggage, Transportation and Hotel Stay along with some other things. No I never had to use it yet but if it does happen I will be glad I had It.  

[David Walden]

10 hours ago, VBF said:

At 63 I'm sure I shall come up against that problem fairly soon, but last trip to Thailand, I got ear infections, had them seen to at a clinic in Pattaya, got receipts and claimed.

They paid out - total claim £42, annual insurance premium £84...but if I'd had a more serious problem it would have been more cost-effective.

Yes some other countries have hospital and medical cover that extends overseas.  Unfortunately not for Australians, we have to rely on so call comprehensive private travel insurance which sometimes is incomprehensive.

[LomSak27]

This is a no brainer

The money to pay China for their dead nationals due to negligence of the Phoenix Boat owner must come form somewhere. The negligent company and the Government cannot be expected to pay this out of their own pocket so Why not hit the tourists with another fee.

Thats win win, except if you're a tourist. 

[AboutThaim]

On 8/14/2018 at 8:41 AM, lvr181 said:

That is a Government problem! They should enforce "world best practice standards" of safety on owners, captains and crews of vessels, safety equipment and seaworthiness of vessels that carry paying passengers. Then and only then will this minimise circumstances like that off Phuket in July.

 

Very little high order critical thinking among "lets blame everyone else" (thus saving face) officialdom!  

Trouble with that being that any Thai inspector that should ensure compliance with safety measures would be subjected to brown envelope persuasion to pass the vessel, etc. On refusal of the envelope he may find that accidents happen to him.  Once again it comes down to law enforcement and we all know how effective that is here.

[wotsdermatter]

One serious problem that the Thai government have not addressed is that some people, such as myself, cannot get such insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions.  Fortunately, being from Ontario, I can pay from my own pocket and have the funds reimbursed but only if the problem does not stem from a pre-existing condition.  If so, then I have to pay and take responsibility for the payment and get no repayment.

[VBF]

27 minutes ago, David Walden said:

Yes some other countries have hospital and medical cover that extends overseas.  Unfortunately not for Australians, we have to rely on so call comprehensive private travel insurance which sometimes is incomprehensive.

Same as the UK. Whilst we remain in Europe, we have SOME basic medical cover (EHIC) if we travel to Europe. After BREXIT, nobody knows what will happen. However, that is, as I say,, basic and certainly doesn't cover Asia so for trips to Thailand as a TOURIST, rather than an Expat, a travel insurance is, IMO essential. My chosen one includes Medical (as per my earlier comment) and also other stuff, like theft, cancellation loss of documents etc. For me, it's the medical cover that really matters.

[VBF]

10 minutes ago, wotsdermatter said:

One serious problem that the Thai government have not addressed is that some people, such as myself, cannot get such insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions.  Fortunately, being from Ontario, I can pay from my own pocket and have the funds reimbursed but only if the problem does not stem from a pre-existing condition.  If so, then I have to pay and take responsibility for the payment and get no repayment.

To be fair, this, so far, is nothing to do with the Thai government - it's merely a straw poll conducted by ThaiVisa, but I can see that IF it were to happen, the Thai Government's attitude could either be to make tourists who cannot get insurance somehow (?) PROVE that they can afford to pay for a serious medical emergency, or to simply say "tough luck, you cannot come to Thailand" 

 

Let's hope it doesn't actually happen.

Edited August 16, 2018 by VBF

[lvr181]

1 hour ago, VBF said:

To be fair, this, so far, is nothing to do with the Thai government - it's merely a straw poll conducted by ThaiVisa, but I can see that IF it were to happen, the Thai Government's attitude could either be to make tourists who cannot get insurance somehow (?) PROVE that they can afford to pay for a serious medical emergency, or to simply say "tough luck, you cannot come to Thailand" 

 

Let's hope it doesn't actually happen.

Well, it has a LOT to do with the Thai Government (despite this straw poll)! They are the ones complaining about the huge costs to them for the Chinese tourists debacle and tragedy off Phuket.

 

And if the Government wants to adopt the stance of "you cannot come to Thailand" then I would guess that tourist numbers will increase in other SE Asia nations. They will be happy to take the money. As Thai girl say, "Up to you". 

[simoh1490]

8 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

A tourist doesn't make said country their residence. As for the Thai authorities, that's mere speculation*

 

 

 

* I agree with you.

 

 

 

I have homes in both the UK and in Thailand and I spend six months per months in each country, am I a tourist or an expat?

[stanleycoin]

17 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I have homes in both the UK and in Thailand and I spend six months per months in each country, am I a tourist or an expat?

What address do you put on your uk tax return.

the answer may be there.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, stanleycoin said:

What address do you put on your uk tax return.

the answer may be there.

Tax residency doesn't mean much in this issue, for a few years in the early 2000's I lived full time in Thailand but was still UK resident for tax purposes. I could, if I wanted to, stay in the UK  just a few days less each year and become once again not resident for tax purposes, none of which has any bearing on whether I'm an expat or a tourist.

[stanleycoin]

well how long do you need to be out the uk to be classed as non resident. ?

but this could be tricky if you maintain a home in the uk that is available to you.

if your resident in the uk , you are a tourist here, i would say.

Proving your resident status may well be an issue on a large insurance clam in the future if it's with an international company. ( address and all that )

they will try anything to get out of a payment.

I'm not arguing with you,  just trying to understand why you are asking what you are,  a tourist or an ex-pat ?

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by stanleycoin

[simoh1490]

3 minutes ago, stanleycoin said:

well how long do you need to be out the uk to be classed as non resident. ?

but this could be tricky if you maintain a home in the uk that is available to you.

if your resident in the uk , you are a tourist here, i would say.

Proving your resident status may well be an issue on a large insurance clam in the future if it's with an international company. ( address and all that )

they will try anything to get out of a payment.

I'm not arguing with you,  just trying to understand why you are asking what you are,  a tourist or an ex-pat ?

 

 

 

 

The thread is about tourists needing insurance and earlier somebody suggested that expats weren't included in that, I'm therefore trying to define "tourist" for the purpose of this discussion and to highlight the dilemma of trying to exclude expats from that ruling. The point I'm trying to make is that the difference is not clear-cut and I'm a good example of that. 

 

Looking exclusively at tax residency doesn't show the true picture because tax residency can be manipulated to suit circumstances and need. NHS and UK benefits rules might be a better guide where eligibility ceases unless a person spends at least 6 months in the country each year - having a home in either or both countries doesn't help answer the question because such things can be bought and sold easily without having any impact on where a person lives.

 

It's almost certain that there needs to be a series of tests in order to answer the question, just in the same way that UK tax residency rules were rewritten a few years ago a person needs to satisfy not one test but potentially several. So when it comes to Thailand trying to decide who will need to buy insurance before they visit I don't expect expats to be excluded from the ruling and treated any differently from tourists, simply, it's too complicated to distinguish between the two groups and TAT will not be able to come up with effective rules.