New Entry Requirements.

[StevieAus]

13 hours ago, Lacessit said:

A statistical sample of one or two proves nothing.

Explain to me why insurance companies have entire departments that process claims, with the performance bonuses going to the employees that can deny the most claims.

You have evidence of that or is it what the bloke at the bar told

you ?

Never had any problems with Insurance companies either here or in Australia but then again any claims I have made are genuine.

[StevieAus]

13 hours ago, Lemsta69 said:

an accident is not a pre-existing condition ????

How is that relevant to what the original poster was claiming about insurance companies “weaseling” out of paying.

No mention about a pre- existing claim.

[Lacessit]

39 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

You have evidence of that or is it what the bloke at the bar told

you ?

Never had any problems with Insurance companies either here or in Australia but then again any claims I have made are genuine.

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/everyday-money/insurance/what-to-do-if-your-insurance-claim-is-rejected

 

https://www.dougterrylaw.com/types-damage-bad-faith-claims/

 

Insurance claims may be denied for good reason. They can also be denied because the insurer is acting in bad faith.

 

An example of bad faith was in the Black Saturday fires in Victoria of 2009. Insurance companies were refusing claims for total loss because house chimneys were still standing. The CFA fixed that by taking fire trucks to destroyed houses, and knocking the chimneys down. My son was a CFA crew member at the time.

 

I was told by an insurance executive ( not a guy at a bar ) that claims departments have incentives for employees to deny claims, I assume that meant performance bonuses. Make of that what you will.

 

Those big buildings insurance companies live in and own - they didn't get to be that big by making a loss.

 

You may be having a good run on claims because you are dealing with a reputable company. Permit me to doubt they all are.

 

 

[NanLaew]

On 8/17/2022 at 3:19 AM, Excel said:

On 8/17/2022 at 3:16 AM, proton said:

Legally if you do not have the funds you have no legal right to obtain an extension, the company he mentions will get him an extension from a province he does not live in, defiantly illegal.

100% agree with you which is why all agents arranging such services should be behind bars IMHO, however the money they hand over to immigration ensures that this corruption will continue.

Listen up the pair of you.

 

Your opinion on how other people chose to handle their immigration status is irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on what is legal or otherwise in Thailand is also irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on corruption is totally irrelevant here.

 

For information, despite having adequate funds in the bank, I still use an agent because I get to totally avoid going anywhere near these dens of corruption and pedantic bureaucracy masquerading as immigration offices. Thus my quality of life in Thailand is far better than anyone who waffles on about illegal agents while casting disparaging comments about people that they don't know. All this while themselves being happy to queue up, take a number and be treated with thinly-veiled contempt by a brusque, uniformed desk-jockey while you genuflect and bob and wai like the obsequious clowns you are.

[proton]

5 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Listen up the pair of you.

 

Your opinion on how other people chose to handle their immigration status is irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on what is legal or otherwise in Thailand is also irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on corruption is totally irrelevant here.

 

For information, despite having adequate funds in the bank, I still use an agent because I get to totally avoid going anywhere near these dens of corruption and pedantic bureaucracy masquerading as immigration offices. Thus my quality of life in Thailand is far better than anyone who waffles on about illegal agents while casting disparaging comments about people that they don't know. All this while themselves being happy to queue up, take a number and be treated with thinly-veiled contempt by a brusque, uniformed desk-jockey while you genuflect and bob and wai like the obsequious clowns you are.

I would have thought opinions were relevant on a forum about such topics. If you want to waste money on agents that's entirely up to you, if people want to voice an opinion of the legality, of such a process that's up to them. Last time I did an extension in June it took 20 minutes and was a pleasant morning out. Some find it too stressful to fill in a form and ask for a queue number and have to sit on a plastic chair for a few minutes, so it's understandable that such inadequates have to have help. How do such people ever get through an airport process? Why do you think people wai IO's? I never have.

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, proton said:

I would have thought opinions were relevant on a forum about such topics. If you want to waste money on agents that's entirely up to you, if people want to voice an opinion of the legality, of such a process that's up to them. Last time I did an extension in June it took 20 minutes and was a pleasant morning out. Some find it too stressful to fill in a form and ask for a queue number and have to sit on a plastic chair for a few minutes, so it's understandable that such inadequates have to have help. How do such people ever get through an airport process? Why do you think people wai IO's? I never have.

I used an agent for a few years, until I understood I was assembling the paperwork for them, all they were doing was speeding up the process at Chiang Mai Immigration. Which could be a real bunfight back in the day. I dispensed with the agent's services, which saved me 7000 baht. Waiting 3 hours instead of 1 hour, my time was worth 3500 baht/hr, at least that's the way I thought about it.

When I moved to Chiang Rai, the time spent in attending Immigration shrank significantly - I am usually finished inside an hour.

IMO the poster you are responding to misses the point - it does not matter whether one is employing an agent or not, AFAIK all foreigners have to attend Immigration to apply for their annual extension.

I put said poster on ignore quite some time ago.

[Makoshark]

Mine was pre-existing.  I have 22 stitches in my back with a Spinal Cord Stimulator implanted into my body next month.  Since no one will insure me below my waist, its better for me to pay out-of-pocket.  

 

That being said I will still buy 500,000 bht insurance for emergencies.

[norbra]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:12 AM, norbra said:

14k is certainly cheaper than 1900 hundred = 19k

We all make mistakes at times

[Lemsta69]

12 hours ago, StevieAus said:

You have evidence of that or is it what the bloke at the bar told

you ?

Never had any problems with Insurance companies either here or in Australia but then again any claims I have made are genuine.

I guess you never heard about the Royal Commission into the dodgy practices of the big insurers that provide life, TPD and income protection cover for superannuation funds. 

 

the insurer owned by "which bank" fared the worst. some of the stuff that came to light was absolutely shocking.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Lemsta69 said:

I guess you never heard about the Royal Commission into the dodgy practices of the big insurers that provide life, TPD and income protection cover for superannuation funds. 

 

the insurer owned by "which bank" fared the worst. some of the stuff that came to light was absolutely shocking.

I must admit I had forgotten about the Royal Commission. But then, there's so many of them it's hard to keep track.

Fat chance of that kind of inquiry getting any traction in Thailand.

[Lemsta69]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

I must admit I had forgotten about the Royal Commission. But then, there's so many of them it's hard to keep track.

Fat chance of that kind of inquiry getting any traction in Thailand.

I worked for one of the insurers that copped it the hardest from the RC. one of the most incompetent places I've ever seen which is why I can't get in board with the Thailand bad, Western good whingefest. 

 

I didn't work in claims and I'm not a lawyer so I never had any reason to read a policy document. I always asked a manager or a sales rep to answer tricky questions about the T&C's. they weren't happy about that but the pol docs were gibberish and not something you should let an untrained, unqualified high school graduate interpret.

 

the Sydney Morning Herald did a massive hatchet job on the insurer. I think the journo had an axe to grind with Which Bank?. they laid all the blame at their feet. at no time did they point out that ultimately it was the Trustees of the super fund that signed off on the policy document. the Trustees also went along with the claims assessments that were made by the insurer even though it's their responsibility to act in the best interests of their members.

 

one of the big issues was the 30-year old definition of a heart attack. you're telling me that the super fund's lawyers didn't pick that up? gimme a break. yet no malpractice suits ensued, they just dumped all the blame on the bank and went on their merry way. 

 

obviously that doesn't excuse the insurer and thank God I was able to retire early from that godforsaken place and eventually move to Thailand. but at the end of the day I'm not sure what the RC really achieved. my old company still went on its merry way of wasting gobs of money by being totally inefficient before eventually being sold to China. 

 

nobody got arrested, nobody went to gaol, nothing really changed except that they lost a half bil per annum revenue (no lie) after the complicit Trustees dropped them like a hot potato ????

 

that's why I can't really get worked up about the "endemic corruption" in Thailand. same same but different.

[sometimewoodworker]

On 8/17/2022 at 9:37 AM, KannikaP said:

By 'self insure' I take it you mean you will pay for any medical/health incidents yourself. What if the costs are more than you have?

It seems that you find the the concept of self insurance a little difficult. 
Add the premiums you pay to a fund, pay for costs from that fund. If your costs are less than the premiums you would have paid it was a wise investment, if not then not so much.

 

I quickly found the cost of travel insurance to be far more than the value of it, over the years I have saved a couple of million baht in premiums I haven’t payed, so good choice.

 

if you can’t afford at least double the maximum foreseeable amount then you are a bigger gambler than I am.

[StevieAus]

4 hours ago, Lemsta69 said:

I guess you never heard about the Royal Commission into the dodgy practices of the big insurers that provide life, TPD and income protection cover for superannuation funds. 

 

the insurer owned by "which bank" fared the worst. some of the stuff that came to light was absolutely shocking.

Yes I did followed it quite closely most of it was the banks

Perhaps you should have a look at the massive fraud that occurs from the consumer side

Runs into billions world wide.

Ultimately resulting in higher premiums.

[StevieAus]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/everyday-money/insurance/what-to-do-if-your-insurance-claim-is-rejected

 

https://www.dougterrylaw.com/types-damage-bad-faith-claims/

 

Insurance claims may be denied for good reason. They can also be denied because the insurer is acting in bad faith.

 

An example of bad faith was in the Black Saturday fires in Victoria of 2009. Insurance companies were refusing claims for total loss because house chimneys were still standing. The CFA fixed that by taking fire trucks to destroyed houses, and knocking the chimneys down. My son was a CFA crew member at the time.

 

I was told by an insurance executive ( not a guy at a bar ) that claims departments have incentives for employees to deny claims, I assume that meant performance bonuses. Make of that what you will.

 

Those big buildings insurance companies live in and own - they didn't get to be that big by making a loss.

 

You may be having a good run on claims because you are dealing with a reputable company. Permit me to doubt they all are.

 

 

I never said there are no bad insurers but that does not mean they are all bad.

There are bad companies in all areas one would have to be naive to say otherwise

I spent 19 years as a Employer Director of a Super Fund so have had a fair exposure.

In my experience most insurers pay out out on legit-imitate claims.

We don’t hear too much criticism on this site of the bogus claims which world wide runs into billion for which all policy holders pay.

[Lacessit]

23 minutes ago, StevieAus said:

I never said there are no bad insurers but that does not mean they are all bad.

There are bad companies in all areas one would have to be naive to say otherwise

I spent 19 years as a Employer Director of a Super Fund so have had a fair exposure.

In my experience most insurers pay out out on legit-imitate claims.

We don’t hear too much criticism on this site of the bogus claims which world wide runs into billion for which all policy holders pay.

If you want to talk about bogus claims, I suggest you start a new thread. See how many posters you attract.

 

I would not deny there are bogus claims. Having said that, your post is classic look over there.

 

You've been given the evidence of bad faith acts by insurance companies you asked for by two posters, and I fail to see how being an Employer Director of a super fund assists your understanding of the insurance industry. Perhaps it's an attempt at argument ad vericundiam.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Lemsta69 said:

 

that's why I can't really get worked up about the "endemic corruption" in Thailand. same same but different.

The corruption in Thailand does not affect me in any way, I would not know if the same in Australia does because I am not there very often.

IMO corruption in Australia is just more subtle and more difficult to detect.

No-one can tell me a Prime Minister's Department that is staffed 90% by consultants with links to coal, gas, and oil interests would be impartial, and not corrupt. The result is predictable, domestic consumers paying through the nose for electricity, while said entities make record profits.

[KannikaP]

2 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

It seems that you find the the concept of self insurance a little difficult. 
Add the premiums you pay to a fund, pay for costs from that fund. If your costs are less than the premiums you would have paid it was a wise investment, if not then not so much.

 

I quickly found the cost of travel insurance to be far more than the value of it, over the years I have saved a couple of million baht in premiums I haven’t payed, so good choice.

 

if you can’t afford at least double the maximum foreseeable amount then you are a bigger gambler than I am.

No, I find 'self insurance' easy to understand. Basically you do not have an insurance policy and pay for any treatment yourself.

The problem with your next sentence is that you never know what the costs from the fund are going to be until you are actually in hospital being treated or the fund refuses to pay or goes bust.

How can you foresee the maximum amount you could be charged?

[sometimewoodworker]

19 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

No, I find 'self insurance' easy to understand. Basically you do not have an insurance policy and pay for any treatment yourself.

Absolutely.

 

19 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

The problem with your next sentence is that you never know what the costs from the fund are going to be until you are actually in hospital being treated or the fund refuses to pay or goes bust.

That is where you are reading more into my words than I wrote. Since in my suggested case I am in sole control of the fund I postulated, I cannot refuse to pay my bills from my fund. (Fund; A sum of money or other resources set aside for a specific purpose)

 

The fund certainly can be exhausted so, as I said, in that case self insurance is not a wise choice.

 

19 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

How can you foresee the maximum amount you could be charged?

I can’t, or at least I choose not to, that is why I do not self insure for medical costs at the moment. 
 

That doesn’t mean that I may not choose medical self insurance in the future. My insurance policy has limits to its coverage, once the policy cost is high enough and my funds are enough the calculation can change.

[NanLaew]

18 hours ago, Lacessit said:

On 8/18/2022 at 5:08 PM, proton said:

I would have thought opinions were relevant on a forum about such topics. If you want to waste money on agents that's entirely up to you, if people want to voice an opinion of the legality, of such a process that's up to them. Last time I did an extension in June it took 20 minutes and was a pleasant morning out. Some find it too stressful to fill in a form and ask for a queue number and have to sit on a plastic chair for a few minutes, so it's understandable that such inadequates have to have help. How do such people ever get through an airport process? Why do you think people wai IO's? I never have.

Expand  

I used an agent for a few years, until I understood I was assembling the paperwork for them, all they were doing was speeding up the process at Chiang Mai Immigration. Which could be a real bunfight back in the day. I dispensed with the agent's services, which saved me 7000 baht. Waiting 3 hours instead of 1 hour, my time was worth 3500 baht/hr, at least that's the way I thought about it.

When I moved to Chiang Rai, the time spent in attending Immigration shrank significantly - I am usually finished inside an hour.

IMO the poster you are responding to misses the point - it does not matter whether one is employing an agent or not, AFAIK all foreigners have to attend Immigration to apply for their annual extension.

I put said poster on ignore quite some time ago.

AFAIYK you mean. Plenty foreigners are squatting 100% legally in Thailand and have never seen the inside of their local immigration office.

 

When you anonymously start ignoring anonymous forum members, isn't half the thrill about knowing that the ignored member doesn't know they are being ignored? So what's the point of admitting that you're ignoring someone?

[arithai12]

On 8/18/2022 at 10:54 PM, NanLaew said:

Listen up the pair of you.

 

Your opinion on how other people chose to handle their immigration status is irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on what is legal or otherwise in Thailand is also irrelevant here.

 

Your opinion on corruption is totally irrelevant here.

 

For information, despite having adequate funds in the bank, I still use an agent because I get to totally avoid going anywhere near these dens of corruption and pedantic bureaucracy masquerading as immigration offices. Thus my quality of life in Thailand is far better than anyone who waffles on about illegal agents while casting disparaging comments about people that they don't know. All this while themselves being happy to queue up, take a number and be treated with thinly-veiled contempt by a brusque, uniformed desk-jockey while you genuflect and bob and wai like the obsequious clowns you are.

Wow, I am sorry if you had such terrible experiences with the dens of corruption. I respect your choice to use an agent (which however, in some cases though not yours, is a way of continuing the corruption). But I have to say that your dim view of Immigration offices is at odds with mine.

I deal with the CM IO since a dozen years, since a few years for retirement extensions based on fixed deposit. I have to say that -knock on wood- it's always gone rather smoothly, if I had to wait it's usually because of an agent jumping the line with several passports, or because of the marriage extension guys with an expecially talkative wife. Since two years I use the online booking system and I am in and out faster than I can check the news on my phone. Without genuflecting. A wai is a kind gesture and I do it without feeling like a clown.

So be happy with your choice, just as I can be happy without an agent.

[StevieAus]

On 8/19/2022 at 3:09 PM, Lacessit said:

If you want to talk about bogus claims, I suggest you start a new thread. See how many posters you attract.

 

I would not deny there are bogus claims. Having said that, your post is classic look over there.

 

You've been given the evidence of bad faith acts by insurance companies you asked for by two posters, and I fail to see how being an Employer Director of a super fund assists your understanding of the insurance industry. Perhaps it's an attempt at argument ad vericundiam.

 Very simple we provided Death TPD and Income Protection for our members.

Provided by Insurance Companies.

I learned a lot about Insurance Companies in nineteen years and had a Statutory responsibility to ensure that the Insurers met their obligations, which they did.