No Travel Insurance Proves Costly For British Tourist

[JLCrab]

I realize the topic here is about travel insurance but this incident has spurred several posts above from those who might now differently consider health insurance to cover them while they remain long-term in Thailand.

[jacko45k]

I do wonder what cover other young Brits who live long term in Thailand without working here have and how much it costs?

I wonder that because I should probably get it too...

Maybe 25,000 baht per annum with BUPA offering 2,000,000 baht cover.

[endure]

You guys that live here can't go comparing travel insurance rates with health insurance. Travel insurance is only for travelers. It's not a long term solution for those of us living here.

And I'll admit that in all my years of traveling, I never once bothered to get travel insurance. Sounds like something much more common in the UK than in the US.

I was supposed to be travelling to Thailand in November for 8 weeks but I had a bit of a medical problem and was unable to go. I paid £100 for travel (which was quite expensive as I have pre-exising conditions) insurance and successfully reclaimed £700. If I'd managed to get to Thailand before my problem occurred I suspect I'd have been reclaiming thousand rather than hundreds. Travel insurance is always worthwhile.

[GOLDBUGGY]

I'm 50 & as far as I can see I can't get insurance for the big things at all, ie. over 200000 bhts of problems without having to get a policy that includes all the small things & then they hit you for 5500 bhts a month at least, which is outrageous, dunno what the solution to this is, but as a reasonably healthy 50 year old without a lot of financial backing I can't afford to get insured... If anyone knows of a sensible policy that would cover me only for the big risks I'd be delighted to see it....

It's only the big risks I'm interested in insuring. I prefer to pay for everything else myself. In any case, companies like BUPA don't cover the costs of many things I prefer, so would be a waste of time. I prefer natural therapies, whereas many insurance companies want you straight on pharm drugs.

You say you only want insurance for the big risks, but yet you go on talking about drug coverage, which is confusing. With In-Patient Visits, Drugs, and Dental Coverage, you are going to pay through the nose no matter where you go. Perhaps why you have not found anyone yet. But do you need this when things like this are cheap in Thailand, or do you really need coverage for the Big Risks?

An Out-Patient BUPA Platinum 2 for example, is reasonable in price but only covers you for emergency or hospital stays. So if you go to visit your doctor for a check-up, and need drugs, you pay for this out of your own pocket. I think the maximum benefit is 2,000,000 Baht and covers your Emergency Services to get you their, Private Hospital Room, Nursing Care, Doctor Visits, Surgery, and all treatment while in the hospital. In other words, it covers you for the Big Risks, including accidents. What more do you need?

[endure]

The topic is travel insurance not health insurance...

[GOLDBUGGY]

I'm 50 & as far as I can see I can't get insurance for the big things at all, ie. over 200000 bhts of problems without having to get a policy that includes all the small things & then they hit you for 5500 bhts a month at least, which is outrageous, dunno what the solution to this is, but as a reasonably healthy 50 year old without a lot of financial backing I can't afford to get insured... If anyone knows of a sensible policy that would cover me only for the big risks I'd be delighted to see it....

It's only the big risks I'm interested in insuring. I prefer to pay for everything else myself. In any case, companies like BUPA don't cover the costs of many things I prefer, so would be a waste of time. I prefer natural therapies, whereas many insurance companies want you straight on pharm drugs.

You say you only want insurance for the big risks, but yet you go on talking about drug coverage, which is confusing. With In-Patient Visits, Drugs, and Dental Coverage, you are going to pay through the nose no matter where you go. Perhaps why you have not found anyone yet. But do you need this when things like this are cheap in Thailand, or do you really need coverage for the Big Risks?

An Out-Patient BUPA Platinum 2 for example, is reasonable in price but only covers you for emergency or hospital stays. So if you go to visit your doctor for a check-up, and need drugs, you pay for this out of your own pocket. I think the maximum benefit is 2,000,000 Baht and covers your Emergency Services to get you their, Private Hospital Room, Nursing Care, Doctor Visits, Surgery, and all treatment while in the hospital. In other words, it covers you for the Big Risks, including accidents. What more do you need?

Woops! Got In-Patient and Out-Patient Backwards here. Probably used the wrong "Patient" here as well. I just Love English!

[qdinthailand]

He is a lightweight next to an american.

But still a Muppet for no insurance

Excuse me but there are thinnies and fattys from every country sir.

I bought some 'travel insurance' upon departing the U.S. for a multi-year motorcycle trip - from North America to South America, Africa, Middle East, Europe. No pre-existing conditions. But when I truthfully answered about family history (a grandmother with diabetes, father had cancer) and truthfully stated that I was 240 lbs, the price then quoted wasn't the 'promotional rate' as shown online, but 50% higher in the email received back after submitting my application. The quoted price went from something like $1400 to $2200 for the annual policy with limits of $100,000 per incident , 1/2 million lifetime with a $500 annual deductible.

Trying again, I lied the 2nd time and took out an annual policy, renewed 2 more times, for the roughly $1400 price, which rose to nearly $1700 by the 3rd year. But...I never was quite sure if it would cover me in a motorbike accident. I was traveling by motorbike, same as you would travel by car - not going to foreign countries and renting a motorbike like you would do for 'fun'.

And as I realized, if I ever did file a claim for serious damages, they may have found out that I had lied about my actual weight to get the lower premium and denied all claims, not to mention what would happen should the claim be the result of a motorbike crash.

As it turned out, in the 4+ years of travel, I never had bills in any year totaling more than the $500 deductible - just some malaria and deworming in Guatemala, some dental work in Colombia, a checkup in South Africa for 'loss of appetite' issue, flu in Tanzania, not malaria!

Anyway - don't go by what the 'teaser' rates are online. In reality, when you submit your details for an actual quote, the price is likely to come back much higher - especially if you tell the truth about age, pre-existing conditions, your weight, your family history (who doesn't have diabetes or cancer in their family history back to their grandparents?).

[chiang mai]

Re Post #56: So now you are age 62 with no insurance except what might be available to you in a few years via Medicare which will require that either you travel back to USA for treatment or, if in a Medicare Advantage plan that covers foreign travel, have an emergency within your first 60 days each stint in Thailand.

Traveling back to one's home country for medical treatment also assumes that one is in a condition that allows for such travel. Your doctor here in Thailand may say that you are barely in condition to travel to Bangkok let alone an extensive journey to your local hospital back home and then any wait for treatment .

Even the $100,000 or so you have saved on your premiums isn't such a big amount (assuming you still had it intact) for medical treatment for the rest of your life.

That all makes little sense to me.

Every time you espouse the virtues of buying health insurance and attack the savings made by those who don't buy it, your other wise excellent math seems to develop a fault - $315 per month at an average 6% interest, compounded over 28 years is slightly more than 100k, try in the order of 300k. Simply, the money that was not used to pay premiums was invested and generated a return and this has to be added to the cost of avoided premiums.

Edited January 30, 2013 by chiang mai

[watcharacters]

He is a lightweight next to an american.

But still a Muppet for no insurance

Brilliant, indeed.

[JLCrab]

I really don't care whether it is 100K or 300K or 500K -- that all assumes that in those 28 years he never had any medical malady. If he didn't that is his good fortune; if had had the misfortune of being in the (I'll presume) single digit percent of the population which has a major medical event, he would have been screwed no matter how much he saved.

He even says that he spent the 100K anyway. While you continue to espouse the virtues of no-insurance, you are at a point today where you couldn't buy insurance even if you wanted to with your past history and all the medications it seems that you currently take. I have never told anybody what road they should take; but nobody ever seems to brag about buying insurance but the opposite seems to hold for the iconoclastic crowd or the iconoclast-wanna-bees.

Besides, if he had the lump sum $100K to invest at the beginning of those 28 years and never touched it that would be another story; he didin't

Edited January 30, 2013 by JLCrab

[SouthernMan3]

He is a lightweight next to an american.

But still a Muppet for no insurance

Excuse me but there are thinnies and fattys from every country sir.

I bought some 'travel insurance' upon departing the U.S. for a multi-year motorcycle trip - from North America to South America, Africa, Middle East, Europe. No pre-existing conditions. But when I truthfully answered about family history (a grandmother with diabetes, father had cancer) and truthfully stated that I was 240 lbs, the price then quoted wasn't the 'promotional rate' as shown online, but 50% higher in the email received back after submitting my application. The quoted price went from something like $1400 to $2200 for the annual policy with limits of $100,000 per incident , 1/2 million lifetime with a $500 annual deductible.

Trying again, I lied the 2nd time and took out an annual policy, renewed 2 more times, for the roughly $1400 price, which rose to nearly $1700 by the 3rd year. But...I never was quite sure if it would cover me in a motorbike accident. I was traveling by motorbike, same as you would travel by car - not going to foreign countries and renting a motorbike like you would do for 'fun'.

And as I realized, if I ever did file a claim for serious damages, they may have found out that I had lied about my actual weight to get the lower premium and denied all claims, not to mention what would happen should the claim be the result of a motorbike crash.

As it turned out, in the 4+ years of travel, I never had bills in any year totaling more than the $500 deductible - just some malaria and deworming in Guatemala, some dental work in Colombia, a checkup in South Africa for 'loss of appetite' issue, flu in Tanzania, not malaria!

Anyway - don't go by what the 'teaser' rates are online. In reality, when you submit your details for an actual quote, the price is likely to come back much higher - especially if you tell the truth about age, pre-existing conditions, your weight, your family history (who doesn't have diabetes or cancer in their family history back to their grandparents?).

Look up Nomad travel insurance.

[fisherd3]

His friend decided to move him to a private hospital.

Nice friend!

Having an heart attack and then shunted around hospitals

And then moaning about the high bills?

The state hospital might have been cheaper, a lot, for the same care.

What is it that so many farang think the private hospitals are better?

Do remember those institutes are there to charge you through the nose.

And half the time the specialist Doctors come from the public Hospitals to deal with the private patients so you paying the big money have to wait for the specialist.

[chiang mai]

I really don't care whether it is 100K or 300K or 500K -- that all assumes that in those 28 years he never had any medical malady. If he didn't that is his good fortune; if had had the misfortune of being in the (I'll presume) single digit percent of the population which has a major medical event, he would have been screwed no matter how much he saved.

He even says that he spent the 100K anyway. While you continue to espouse the virtues of no-insurance, you are at a point today where you couldn't buy insurance even if you wanted to with your past history and all the medications it seems that you currently take. I have never told anybody what road they should take; but nobody ever seems to brag about buying insurance but the opposite seems to hold for the iconoclastic crowd or the iconoclast-wanna-bees.

Besides, if he had the lump sum $100K to invest at the beginning of those 28 years and never touched it that would be another story; he didin't

http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/finance/calculators/compoundinterestcalculator.php#results

[fiddlehead]

The topic is travel insurance not health insurance...

Sorry, you are right, I have misread these insurance terms.

like I said, I'm not into insurance and only use the minimum required by law as I see firsthand how much these guys make.

I have a lot of American friends who travel. I don't know any anymore who buy travel insurance for each trip.

One of the reasons is a typical situation that happened to my mother about 6 years ago.

She went on a trip to Europe and got the travel insurance as she is a prudent person.

Her first flight got delayed and she missed the bus for the group tour of pipe organs in Europe and could only rejoin the tour after missing the first 3 days. (it was a 4 day tour)

She fought the insurance companies for over a year on this and finally gave up.

They won. They have great lawyers and great answers to all your problems.

She paid them money, got nothing in return.

Maybe it's different in Europe and these kind of companies are a little more honest. I wouldn't know.

But enough stories like this non-payment of something she thought she was buying insurance for, have turned most against travel insurance.

To another poster who guessed that maybe I didn't have any need for insurance in the past 28 years, well I did.

I had two incidences. One 1989: I was bitten by a brown recluse spider and had to go to the hospital for a shot. Cost: $384 (yes it's probably triple that fee now in the states, but I probably could've gotten the same shot in Thailand for less than 1989 prices)

Then I had an emergency operation here in Phuket about 7 years ago; Cost $3,060

So, yes I had times when I could've used some insurance.

And yes, I'm getting older and starting to think about it.

I understand most companies won't give it to me after I reach a certain age.

They're afraid they might not make money on me.

It's a stacked deck IMO.

Anyway, sorry for the thread drift. Just trying to answer some other poster's questions.

[stevenl]

I just got an online quote from a leading UK travel insurance company.

The cost of a worldwide policy (excluding the USA and Japan) for 2 weeks, starting tomorrow (same time as this guy's holiday - high season) for a 30 year old was 24.95GBP.

This was the budget policy, but still covered 5,000,000GBP medical expenses and 5,000,000GBP repatriation expenses.

It also covered 1,000,000GBP personal liabilty, 10,000GBP personal accident cover and 10,000GBP legal expenses.

Really, you can't say it's unaffordable.

I wish him a speedy recovery and I hope news of his experience gets out back in the UK so others will not make such an oversight.

You may find it's more than that. If you have existing health issues it costs more and even then it doesn't always cover the pre existing conditions that are likely to be the ones that need the cover. Still better to pay for it though.

I would imagine that he might have some existing problems even if it's just high blood pressure and cholesterol. Of course the stupid thing is if you go and have a check up which shows these problems and then take medication you no longer have the high blood pressure but you have to pay more for insurance. If you have these blood and cholesterol issues but don't have a check up you're not diagnosed with the problem. Therefore you don't take anything for it so you're still suffering from it but don't have to pay extra.

You're talking health insurance, NKM is talking travel insurance. Don't mix up the 2, big, big differences.

[JLCrab]

(with Apologies) Let's then just put it this way: My Private Banker in my bank's high-net worth individual department is amazed that I as an individual can buy such high coverage (for Thailand) insurance in Thailand at such a low price for the next few years before Medicare comes into the picture -- and I will probably continue my Thai based insurance even then.

Edited January 30, 2013 by JLCrab

[NamKangMan]

Coincidently, this article appeared in the Australian media today. It's slightly bizarre, as you will see.

i've posted it here because I could only imagine what his hospital bill will be, and ongoing treatment back home in the UK. His bill, without insurance, would financially ruin most people, and possibly force the sale of assets (house) by loved ones to cover the cost.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2013/01/30/12/34/injured-tourist-carries-own-skull-in-luggage

[biplanebluey]

Travel insurance for a 2 week stay is around 20 pounds for a good cover ,

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

With such a large medical problem he most likely would not get insurance anyway.If he ignored to tell them on application that is the other reason for not having cover---they can void the cover-------- Dougal the Kiwi

[chiang mai]

(with Apologies) My Private Banker in my bank's high-net worth individual department ....

[JLCrab]

His firms name begins with JP -- I'm very bad at cash management so it just goes to PIMCO

Edited January 30, 2013 by JLCrab

[chiang mai]

That may well be the case I don't know, I just wondered why you felt the need to tell everyone and/or what value it added to the discussion at hand, too funny really!

[JLCrab]

I divulged very little. Just that on ThaiVisa one reads often about someone who 'self-insures' because he has the cash reserves to invest and instead of paying those silly premiums he would come out way ahead of the game if he invested those funds and took the risk that he may not be the off-chance unlucky sucker.

All I wanted to say is that there are private bankers that do not see it that way.

Why I also might query would then someone feel the need to post something like this:

Maybe that's why I'm so relaxed about all of this, I do have substantial cash resources.

Edited January 30, 2013 by JLCrab

[chiang mai]

And bankers, private or otherwise add what valuable insight into this matter, a rehtorical question!

Insurance companies (and insurance people) don't like it when Joe Public starts acting like an insurance company, taking on risk and making a profit, whatever is the world comming to, it's bad for business and just not on!

[JLCrab]

It's really pretty simple. When a bank has been around for 150 years or so they have seen it all including those iconoclasts who felt much as you and got stung. The insurance companies I'm sure will survive even with those that feel they are ahead of the game avoiding their clutches evil or otherwise.

Lloyd's has been around for about 350 years and I'm sure in their early days they saw the odd few ship owners who didn't feel the need to spend any time in the coffee shop.

So I'm relaxed about all this as well.

[chiang mai]

It's really pretty simple. When a bank has been around for 150 years or so they have seen it all including those iconoclasts who felt much as you and got stung. The insurance companies I'm sure will survive even with those that feel they are ahead of the game avoiding their clutches evil or otherwise.

Lloyd's has been around for about 350 years and I'm sure in their early days they saw the odd few ship owners who didn't feel the need to spend any time in the coffee shop.

So I'm relaxed about all this as well.

Yet despite those 350 years of experience, Lloyds still gets the gamble wrong, case in point the The Names issue of the late 1980's and early 1990's, the bets went the wrong way and many of the backers (The Names) went to the wall in a very public manner, worryingly in that context is that health insurance is a relatively new product, in industry terms.

[chiang mai]

It's really pretty simple. When a bank has been around for 150 years or so they have seen it all including those iconoclasts who felt much as you and got stung. The insurance companies I'm sure will survive even with those that feel they are ahead of the game avoiding their clutches evil or otherwise.

Lloyd's has been around for about 350 years and I'm sure in their early days they saw the odd few ship owners who didn't feel the need to spend any time in the coffee shop.

So I'm relaxed about all this as well.

Perhaps you can explain to us how health.travel Insurance companies manage to stay in business, I mean, you seem to think that everyone should buy health insurance so that must surely mean that lots of people are getting sick and claiming on these policies otherwise there would be no need to buy it in the first place? That being the case and the insurance companies are paying all these large hospital bills, surely that means the business they are in is not very profitable, no?

[allucero]

I Hope he has a full recovery. I was in Thailand and devoloped a bacteria infection in Pattaya. I was recomended by a Thai that the Thai county hospital was great however, after four days and swelling increased. I went to Bangkok Pattaya Hospital and had surgery that night I was admitted. It saved my leg. My costs were payed with my credit card and was refunded with my insurance back home. Seven days in the hospital plus surgery and follow up $7,000 = 210,000 Baht. A great deal if you live in America. In America, it would cost you $5,000= 150,000 Baht to enter emergency services. I also noticed that the medical insurance rates were getting very expensive in Thailand. Good Luck Buddy....

[stevenl]

It's really pretty simple. When a bank has been around for 150 years or so they have seen it all including those iconoclasts who felt much as you and got stung. The insurance companies I'm sure will survive even with those that feel they are ahead of the game avoiding their clutches evil or otherwise.

Lloyd's has been around for about 350 years and I'm sure in their early days they saw the odd few ship owners who didn't feel the need to spend any time in the coffee shop.

So I'm relaxed about all this as well.

Perhaps you can explain to us how health.travel Insurance companies manage to stay in business, I mean, you seem to think that everyone should buy health insurance so that must surely mean that lots of people are getting sick and claiming on these policies otherwise there would be no need to buy it in the first place? That being the case and the insurance companies are paying all these large hospital bills, surely that means the business they are in is not very profitable, no?

Health insurance is a prime example for what insurance is meant to be: small risk, but if you're unlucky enough a big financial risk. So big that most people can not carry the risk themselves. The same e.g. with house insurance: originally meant to insure against a catastrophical risk, e.g. fire that destroys the house. With travel insurance it is meant to cover expatriation or major health problems overseas, The add ons like luggage insurance are really not important, most people can carryu the risk of some lost clothes themselves. But most people don't have the finances to carry a risk like having their house destroyed, getting sick abroad and needing lengthy hospital treatment plus expatriation or a serious accident themselves, therefor need insurance.

Edited January 30, 2013 by stevenl

[krisb]

They are charging 2,300 Gbp aday to keep him in hospital <deleted>

Hes not in any position to argue.

[JLCrab]

Whether it is travel insurance or health insurance, you buy it not to swap dollars on premiums vs. claims but in case you are one of the rare persons who suffers some illness or injury while on short term travel or some high-cost catastrophic illness otherwise. The actuaries adjust the rates so that most persons will pay in more than they claim so that the large outliers can be covered (along with the investment income the insurance company earns on its reserves).

One can call the the former suckers. I would call them lucky. They just didn't get sick enough to put in more claims. Maybe their luck will change next time and they can claim more.

Edited January 30, 2013 by JLCrab