This post is intended for expats living in Thailand ????

 

I don't usually do polls, so my apologies if I 'screw up' this formatting...

 

We read many times about both tourists and expats ending up in hospital after a serious accident or illness, and having no medical insurance or savings to pay for the expensive treatment.  Cue 'Go Fund Me' to pay for something that (IMHO), you should have been responsible enough to preplan for, either by taking out comprehensive medical insurance, or self-insuring if you are unable to get such insurance (due to age, pre-existing conditions, self-choice etc).

 

But how many expats actually have made adequate plans?

 

Here's a poll to see what % of us have adequate insurance or savings for that unwanted scenario of serious illness or accident.  By 'adequate', I mean an insurance policy with an annual limit of at least 5 million baht, or savings of a similar amount.  (5 million baht could be the minimum amount required to cover hospital bills for a serious medical event).

 

So here's the poll.  I hope I've covered all choices.

 

 

why 5 million?  2 million is more realistic and unacceptable I would suggest. 

why 5 million?  2 million is more realistic and unacceptable I would suggest. 

 

I assume you mean 'acceptable' in your comment ????

 

The 5 million baht figure is the 'minimum' that you should have (IMHO).  That's also the opinion of our experienced forum mod - Sheryl.  An insurance policy with 2 million baht annual cover will be quickly exhausted if you have to stay in ICU.

I've voted for self insure. I'm 49 but am considering insurance, along with the self insure I'd consider going back to the UK if very serious. No poll option for going back to farangland, should have been included

It's all about risk, obviously the greatest risk is from late 60s hence the premiums go through the roof. Prior to that one could save all those premiums to be used to self insure or use later when premiums rocket

1 hour ago, simon43 said:

 

 

 

I assume you mean 'acceptable' in your comment ????

 

The 5 million baht figure is the 'minimum' that you should have (IMHO).  That's also the opinion of our experienced forum mod - Sheryl.  An insurance policy with 2 million baht annual cover will be quickly exhausted if you have to stay in ICU.

The whole point of the insurance industry is to balance cost (premium) against probability.  that is why insurance companies employ Actuaries.  Self insurance should be approached in the same way. It would be prohibitive to self insure against the worst that could happen, unless you are very wealthy of course, or a very pessimistic person, who always fears the worst. Two million Bhat equates to around £42,000 at today's exchange rate. Unless you have existing conditions (or a family history of certain conditions materialising)  that make it more likely,  2 million is just about the right level of self insurance, especially if it is accompanied with an inexpensive accident insurance. 

 

Yes i did mean acceptable; finger trouble I'm afraid. 

Quote

 

No poll option for going back to farangland, should have been included
 

 

 

Too late for me to add that - it can be covered by commenting after checking the no insurance/no savings option.

 

In any case, not all home countries offer free medical treatment.  We British citizens are fortunate in that respect.

5 minutes ago, simon43 said:

 

Too late for me to add that - it can be covered by commenting after checking the no insurance/no savings option.

 

In any case, not all home countries offer free medical treatment.  We British citizens are fortunate in that respect.

Healthcare for Brits is not "free". Over £123Billion of taxpayers money funds the NHS

2 minutes ago, KarlS said:

Healthcare for Brits is not "free". Over £123Billion of taxpayers money funds the NHS

and it's only accessible to permanent expats if you qualify.  I believe that after 2 years out of the UK you have to requalify by residency or you on your own. 

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

why 5 million?  2 million is more realistic and unacceptable I would suggest. 

 

If using government hospitals yes, but not for private hospitals. A single hospitalization can top 3 million easily if prolonged ICU care and specialized surgery involved.

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

It's all about risk, obviously the greatest risk is from late 60s hence the premiums go through the roof. Prior to that one could save all those premiums to be used to self insure or use later when premiums rocket

 

The problem with that plan is that you are quite likely to have developed pre-existing conditions by then.

 

And you may even face catastrophic expenses for a  life threatening condition before then. there was a thread recently about someone burning through their savings because they had cancer at age 59 or 60 and had planned on waiting till over 60 to get insurance. This person will nto only be penniless by the time he is done, he will have zero chance of ever now getting health insurance.

 

 

BTW re the last category:

 

No expat is covered under the 30 baht scheme. 

 

SS should not be described as something one "just" has. It is arguably better than even 5 million+ of private insurance since it covers everything with no maximums. People with SS are the best insured of all of us, though their choice of hospitals is limited.

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

If using government hospitals yes, but not for private hospitals. A single hospitalization can top 3 million easily if prolonged ICU care and specialized surgery involved.

But why self insure for the most expensive option?  Yes of course ICU and expensive surgery, is, by definition, expensive, and if you are an expat from a country that does not provide free or subsidised health care provision, then maybe you need more in the bank.  UK expats are generally not in that position.   

3 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

But why self insure for the most expensive option?  Yes of course ICU and expensive surgery, is, by definition, expensive, and if you are an expat from a country that does not provide free or subsidised health care provision, then maybe you need more in the bank.  UK expats are generally not in that position.   

 

Because it is the most expensive/catastrophic options that insurance is there to protect against. That is the purpose of it. Not to pay for what you could manage to pay anyway. Having only enough in savings to pay for simple, non-catastrophiuc health care is not being self-insured. it is being uninsured.

 

if you are in need of ICU care you will not be in a position to fly back to the UK or anywhere else. Indeed, you may owe millions of baht by the time you first regain consciousness/ability to ask.

 

Plenty of frantic "GoFundMe" campaigns from Brits who found out too late that they really needed to have had health insurance in Thailand.

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

 

Because it is the most expensive/catastrophic options that insurance is there to protect against. that is the purpose of it. Not to pay for what you could manage to pay anyway.

 

if you are in need of ICU care you will nto be in a position to fly back to the UK or anywhere else. Indeed, you may owe millions of baht by the tiem you first regain consciousness/ability to ask.

 

Plenty of frantic "GoFundMe" campaigns from Brits who found out too late that they really needed to have had health insurance in Thailand.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't live my life like that, worrying myself to death (no pun intended) about what may happen. Insurance is a game of probability analysis and risk reward algorithms. It's meant to win for the insurance company, not the individual.  They do the calculations.  Thank goodness, most people never see the inside of an ICU and they trade on that. The conically ill and the older people, who may well need medical intervention,  can't get insured anyway. 

 

Most of the GoFundMe I have seen are idiot tourists who come here without any, or adequate travel insurance. Yes, I could get caught out, but it's not likely in my case, as I have sufficient funds for most eventualities. 

 

It all comes down to,  do you sit at home, in your own country and wait for something to happen, or death, just so you can get free medical attention, or do you live your life in LOS, making reasonable adequate provision for emergencies and just get on with living.  I have seen many people I know choose the former, they may as well be dead already for all the joy they seem get out of life. I choose the later.  

...and it's only accessible to permanent expats if you qualify.

 

Emergency NHS healthcare is available to all returning UK expats - immediately.  It's 'free' (ie no cost to the individual) if they state that they have returned to live permanently in the UK.

 

As Sheryl points out, if you feel the need to return to the UK for 'free' emergency treatment, it's likely that you won't be in a fit state to get on a plane anyway.

 

As to what decision you make regards self-insurance or a medical insurance policy, neither option will reduce your chances of having a serious accident or illness, (unless one includes annual health check-ups etc which might spot some illness etc).  But personally I sleep sounder at night knowing that whatever illness or accident befalls me, I don't have to pay out 1 baht to receive private hospital treatment up to 33 million baht per year (with my policy).  

 

... and that insurance cover will continue until the day I die, whether that be next week or in 40 years from now - so long as I continue to make the premium payments.

 

I don't know why people moan about paying for something that they hope they'll never have to use, and never consider the unthinkable that they might be the one to get ill or to have an accident.

 

It's like fire insurance - pay the premiums, but hope that you never need to claim....

Health Insurance or Insurance in general are always a bad decision for the most people. Because only a small part of the Insured people will actually gain from the premiums they paid. But that is the work of Insurance companies.

If only people would pay premiums who really need them, then the Insurance companies could not survive.

Health Insurance or Insurance in general are always a bad decision for the most people.

 

I politely disagree with you.  Would you feel it a bad decision to insure your house against it burning down, and then moan and feel 'hard done by' because your house hasn't yet burnt down?

25 minutes ago, simon43 said:

I politely disagree with you.  Would you feel it a bad decision to insure your house against it burning down, and then moan and feel 'hard done by' because your house hasn't yet burnt down?

Maybe I write it not clear. I mean in comparision to what you become back. Most people pay in more compared to what they become back. And that is the work of the Insurance company to help the few which are less lucky.

So my statement is correct for most people it is not worth (for money purpose) but as you never can know if you one of the lucky or unlucky person.

I would recomment everybody to have an Insurance. But many like to use this statement above to tell they lived in the last 10 years without and had nothing so they won already X baht…. what happens when tomorrow something big happens? NO further comment

One option which you did not include that would have garnered a good number of votes was

 

“Uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions”

7 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I've voted for self insure. I'm 49 but am considering insurance, along with the self insure I'd consider going back to the UK if very serious. No poll option for going back to farangland, should have been included

The problem is that if your condition is very serious the option of going back to the UK may not be there. For example, serious car accident, stroke, heart failure. Travel may not be an option for some.

“Uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions”

 

Then you still have the option of self-insuring...

The problem is that if your condition is very serious the option of going back to the UK may not be there. For example, serious car accident, stroke, heart failure. Travel may not be an option for some.

Yes, self insuring certainly isn't perfect, but is getting insurance? i think I'd still worry they would decline a claim after all the premiums paid. I'm still considering insuring especially as HCI has lowish premiums for under 70 and I'd be happy with $2k excess

24 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

47 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

The problem is that if your condition is very serious the option of going back to the UK may not be there. For example, serious car accident, stroke, heart failure. Travel may not be an option for some.

Yes, self insuring certainly isn't perfect, but is getting insurance? i think I'd still worry they would decline a claim after all the premiums paid. I'm still considering insuring especially as HCI has lowish premiums for under 70 and I'd be happy with $2k excess

If you can afford it I think it makes sense. The Kev in Thailand situation puts it all in focus. The outlier is that even if you live a healthy life you can always be the victim of an accident.

One of  the big problems with self insuring (other than that most people who say they self-insure actually do not) is that once your money is spent, it is spent, and while you may have managed to put aside enough, how will you replenish it? And if - as is usually the case -- you cannot, what then will you do?

I have AIA Thai insurance and VA pays for things related to pre existing conditions in Thailand/direct bill. 

One of  the big problems with self insuring (other than that most people who say they self-insure actually do not) is that once your money is spent, it is spent, and while you may have managed to put aside enough, how will you replenish it? And if - as is usually the case -- you cannot, what then will you do?

It's a good point, its all a gamble to fund 1 big event, multiple big events would be difficult to handle, but as i and a friend discuss, at a certain age you may choose not to go on, controversial i know

I have inpatient insurance with a high annual benefit and a high deductible and very well may pay in more than I will receive back however I sleep much better at night and I can’t put a price on that.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

7 hours ago, Sheryl said:

BTW re the last category:

 

No expat is covered under the 30 baht scheme. 

 

SS should not be described as something one "just" has. It is arguably better than even 5 million+ of private insurance since it covers everything with no maximums. People with SS are the best insured of all of us, though their choice of hospitals is limited.

If a foreigner is married to a Thai government employee, isn't he/she covered?

5 hours ago, simon43 said:

I don't have to pay out 1 baht to receive private hospital treatment up to 33 million baht per year (with my policy).  

What policy is that Simon and when did you join.