Jump to content

SURVEY: Health Insurance -- Are requirements fair?


SURVEY: Health Insurance -- Are requirements fair?  

288 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Do you agree with the health insurance proposal for expats?

 

As many of our readers know, the Thai government is considering requiring health insurance for those staying in Thailand with an O-A visa.   Which of the following best fits your opinion on health/accident insurance for foreigners in Thailand?

 

Feel free to leave a comment.

 

For further reading:

 

Posted

As someone who is considering an O-A visa following my current and last extension via income affidavit, I am wondering this:

 

If I apply at the Washington DC Embassy for an O-A visa with an international inpatient-only healthcare policy from a US-based insurer in the 30 million baht range per year not lifetime versus the 400K baht inpatient policy mandated, will the embassy really not grant me an O-A visa because I do not have the mandated 40,000 baht per year outpatient coverage?

  • Like 2
Posted
5 hours ago, Scott said:

the Thai government is considering requiring health insurance for those staying in Thailand with an O-A visa.

about as much 'makes-no-sense' comes out of thai lawmakers as does 'makes sense';

this new proposal will likely be pushed thru based on soft thai insurance lobbying by the thai insurance companies; guessing they will add surcharges to policies for those unwanted foreigners

  • Like 1
  • Heart-broken 3
Posted

I usually get an 0 visa but seldom stay more than three months. I used to stay six but the government back home is watching a little closer and I may loose Canadian health benefits for staying more than three months. I already have a drivers license ,a yellow house book, a pink card and a couple of bank accounts. So next year I will get a tourist visa that means $100 dollars less f.or the Thai government

  • Like 1
Posted
As someone who is considering an O-A visa following my current and last extension via income affidavit, I am wondering this:
 
If I apply at the Washington DC Embassy for an O-A visa with an international inpatient-only healthcare policy from a US-based insurer in the 30 million baht range per year not lifetime versus the 400K baht inpatient policy mandated, will the embassy really not grant me an O-A visa because I do not have the mandated 40,000 baht per year outpatient coverage?
I have no idea but will be quite interested to find out!

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Posted

To put into perspective all these statements about cost of insurance for older people being "prohibitive":

 

It is (for say 80 years and above) around 160 -200k, much less before that.

 

You are required to have an annual income of 760-800k depending on method used.

 

If you meet that requirenent you still have 600k a year left for other living expenses agter oaying for health insurance.

 

It is a significant cost, yes. It is certainly my biggest single expense and I'm still at an age where paying well under 100k. But I would not describe it as "prohibitive" and calling it such may deter people from even looking into it as they will wrongly assume it is many hundreds of thousands of baht.

 

Ability to get insured due to significant pre existing chronic conditions (diabetes, heart disease, VOPD, cancer etc) is on the contrary a real constraint for some people. In some cases they could have averted the dilemma by getting insurance while still healthy but in others they already had one or more such conditions when they moved here.

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted
10 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I have no idea but will be quite interested to find out!

Well unless this 65K baht per month FTT-type deposit extension thing has been worked out solid, I'll be heading to WashDC well before my current extension is finished -- and who knows whether that insurance req. for O-A will be in force by then.

Posted

Last month I applied for my annual extension based on retirement. I had to provide four more pieces of paper than the previous year. I mentioned to the Wife that I wonder what more will be added to the list for next years extension. She told me I was paranoid. Then 2 weeks later they mention the insurance requirement. I believe that with any Government there is no smoke without fire, and that this will be implemented. I will wait to see how much this is going to cost before making any decisions to move or not.

As a footnote, can anyone say if we will have to use a Thai insurance company. If so I see a huge con in the making here.

  • Thanks 1
Posted

I am generally in favour of mandatory insurance, though someone, somewhere will have to come up with some sort of clever policy for those who have pre-existing conditions, those who are too old to get insurance or would have to pay a very high percentage of their banked 800,000 baht to get it.

 

The suggested out-patient coverage is ridiculous. I do have out-patient cover on my own insurance but plan to cut it next year as a cost-saver as I've reached the next age band. Again, any expat showing 800,000 or 400,000 baht in the bank can afford 40,000 for out-patient treatment.

 

With these reservations I haven't registered a vote. It probably won't happen anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 hours ago, sfokevin said:

If the government would require the insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions and have no age limit at a reasonable cost I would gladly buy health insurance... :coffee1: 

Agreed. I view a Thai medical insurance coverage on the same level as the EU Schengen requirement. Past short term “travel” type insurance for “tourists”... When I first retired here, I took out a policy but it excluded all heart/circulation issues as pre-existing sine I had by-pass surgery 6 years before coming to Thailand. So, my biggest cost risk excluded, 2nd year, they raised the premium (no claims), so I cancelled the policy. Here is yet another reality. I can get “emergency care” reimbursed through Medicare, then return to US for additional Medicare coverage in the US. My guess is all these scenarios would simply have to be ignored to come up with a one size fits all policy.

Posted

The policy I have from Bangkok Bank (PA 1st VIP, Plan 2) gives me 930,000 "in patient" coverage per visit and 20,000 "out patient" per visit for 21,000 baht per year. 
If I went back to the "Plan 1" option, I'd pay 27,000 per year and the "out patient" coverage would go up to 40,000 (or more) per visit.

 

According to the bank, that plan (and the regular "PA 1st Smart" plan) go to age 65. I think the "Smart" plan is cheaper (and lower coverage limits of course). 

 

They also have a "PA 1st Senior" plan that covers ages 50-100. No idea what the coverage limits (or premiums) are like but I'll try to remember to ask the next time I'm at my local branch.

 

I also suspect that the Insurance companies will come up with (or already have) a policy that is tailor made to the requirements - which are still just a suggestion as NOTHING has been formally submitted to the Cabinet yet, let alone approved.

 

And with the upcoming election, it could be something that gets forgotten about completely, especially if the new government isn't made up of the same people currently in power. Or it could be simply set aside until a later date as the new government sets different priorities.

 

Hard to say at this point but one fact remains. I'd say that most of the expats I know are not "spring chickens" and most likely they have little - or no - medical insurance at all.
As we've seen in many stories on TV, a lot of tourists/expats are here with no coverage at all and many have the misguided idea that whatever coverage they have "back home" still covers them while here.

Misguided because in many cases, they are not covered at all (and just "assume" they are without ever actually checking).

 

Others apparently hope that "if" something happens, they'll be able to hop on a plane and fly home to be taken care of. 
If your "healthcare plan" consists of words like "I assume" and "I hope", then you are going to be in for a really bad time if something does happen.

 

Also remember - just because you may have a "pre-existing" condition does not mean you can't get healthcare coverage !! It means they won't cover you for illnesses relating to that pre-existing condition ! Most of them state that specifically - that they will not cover you for "pre-existing conditions". They do not say "if you have a pre-existing condition - piss off as we won't cover you at all".

Despite what a lot of people here seem to think (probably because they "assume" instead of actually "asking").

For example, at the bottom of the page describing the limits of my Health 1st coverage it notes:
"Note 2) This policy does not cover medical costs resulting from pre-existing conditions which are chronic diseases, illnesses or injuries that are not completely cured before the policy takes effect for the first time."

But we all know the real reason why so many don't want to have to have any healthcare coverage at all, don't we ?

 

  • Like 1
Posted

I am wondering if anyone knows about Medicare in the US. I am eligible but have not yet enrolled. My cost would be between $400 and 500 per month for Basic Medicare plus gap insurance and Part D coverage. 

I have been told that they will not cover overseas citizens....is that correct? Is there a way around it?

Posted

 

None of the above.

 

It should be compulsory to pay direct into the Thai healthcare system for those who intend their visa arrangements to extend beyond a certain time/"for the duration".

 

Those paying taxes in Thailand should be considered as already having done so.

 

A definition of "basic" treatment to be arrived at.

 

"Complex" treatments to be paid for according to what "provision" (savings or insurance) the individual has made for themselves.

 

No money?.........no treatment, basic or otherwise.

 

That seems like a reasonable "deal" for what we "get" from Thailand.

 

A deal for people who don't want to go "Full Thailand" (Citizenship).

 

 

 

 

  • Heart-broken 2
Posted
3 hours ago, nong38 said:

This seems to me all about   increasing revenues for Thai insurers who want their cut. Is it really that big a problem the health issue? How much does it cost the country? Is it a problem in other countries?

I entirely agree that people entering Thailand, as tourists or otherwise, should have health insurance, sufficient to cover health costs in Thailand. I can't say that the limits required by the suggested regulation are the right ones, as I do not know the average costs incurred by hospitals and clinics in the last few years. However, where I think the regulation is wrong is that it requires the insurance to be with a Thai insurance company. Surely, a person entering Thailand with a proof of an insurance with adequate limits by an insurance company from her/his home country (e.g. Travel insurance, or a short term health cover), valid in Thailand and other countries, should be sufficient. This is a practice valid in most countries in Europe. For Thais to get a Schengen visa, a certificate of insurance from a Thai insurer is fully acceptable. Why should Thailand insist on Thai insurers?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...