Proof Of Medical Insurance Proposed For 1 Year Visa

[Morden]

By offering Government based insurance the country could make it a reasonable condition to long term stays. I at least, if I were willing to pay exorbitant premiums, can obtain private insurance. Many people because of their medical history are either priced out of the market or are unable to obtain insurance at any price.

A Government scheme would ensure at least a substantial reduction in the debts owing to the Public Hospitals which are generated by people who are unable to obtain/afford private insurance.

May god save us from a Thai government medical insurance scheme.

[harrry]

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/tourists-leave-wa-hospitals-to-foot-the-bill-20120211-1sy23.html

shows how this is handled in Australia.

note also the minister's comment.

"$3million isn't a huge amount, it's 1000th of the operating costs of the public health system, but everything counts and it does buy a fair bit in the WA health system."

"Also it's important to remember, some of these travellers would have put a lot of money into the WA economy, and will go home with a good opinion of WA, so there are some upsides."

"But if it's a case of medical tourism, where people are coming here to take advantage of the health system, then that should definitely be followed up with the country of origin."

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/tourists-leave-wa-hospitals-to-foot-the-bill-20120211-1sy23.html#ixzz2SyW6B2qx

[ThaiBob]

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/tourists-leave-wa-hospitals-to-foot-the-bill-20120211-1sy23.html

shows how this is handled in Australia.

note also the minister's comment.

"$3million isn't a huge amount, it's 1000th of the operating costs of the public health system, but everything counts and it does buy a fair bit in the WA health system."

"Also it's important to remember, some of these travellers would have put a lot of money into the WA economy, and will go home with a good opinion of WA, so there are some upsides."

"But if it's a case of medical tourism, where people are coming here to take advantage of the health system, then that should definitely be followed up with the country of origin."

Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/tourists-leave-wa-hospitals-to-foot-the-bill-20120211-1sy23.html#ixzz2SyW6B2qx

Medical care in Thailand and Australia is like comparing apples and oranges. BTW, Australia does have a 10 year renewable retirement visa and guess what? .....the retiree must show and maintain comprehensive health insurance (except those handful of countries that Australia has reciprocal medical agreements).

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I would support and pay into any Government scheme which could offer reasonable cover at a reasonable cost.

I understand what your saying, but why should the Thai goverment provide reasonable cover at a reasonable cost for people who are not even nationals or PR of Thailand ?

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old, or sick.

Remember one day you might be old, or sick, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

Edited May 11, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Morden]

I would support and pay into any Government scheme which could offer reasonable cover at a reasonable cost.

I understand what your saying, but why should the Thai goverment provide reasonable cover at a reasonable cost for people who are not even nationals or PR of Thailand ?

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old.

Remember one day you might be old, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

Well, I am old and my insurance will continue for as long as I pay for it.

You may feel that supporting a Thai family is moral justification for foreigners to have State medical benefits but the fact is the Thai government doesn't see it that way. We have to accept that until there is a change of policy.

Oh, and you can get Thai citizenship if you qualify. I know an American who has exactly that and a Thai name to go with it.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I would support and pay into any Government scheme which could offer reasonable cover at a reasonable cost.

I understand what your saying, but why should the Thai goverment provide reasonable cover at a reasonable cost for people who are not even nationals or PR of Thailand ?

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old.

Remember one day you might be old, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

Well, I am old and my insurance will continue for as long as I pay for it.

You may feel that supporting a Thai family is moral justification for foreigners to have State medical benefits but the fact is the Thai government doesn't see it that way. We have to accept that until there is a change of policy.

Oh, and you can get Thai citizenship if you qualify. I know an American who has exactly that and a Thai name to go with it.

You only qualify if you are working with a WP and earn a high Thai wage within Thailand.

This excludes all the foreign teachers working in government schools, and all retired people.

Great if you are an investment banker in BK on a full expat package, nearly all other men can f. off.

Do we really have to go over this same tired old shit again and again.

Thailand doesn't want foreigners to become Thai citizens and will do almost anything to stop it happening, we all know it, just accept it and stop making excuses.

PS

I already have Thai citizenship, had it since birth.

PPS

Make a few claims on your insurance policy, you'll soon be out of it.

Edited May 11, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Morden]

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old.

Remember one day you might be old, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

Well, I am old and my insurance will continue for as long as I pay for it.

You may feel that supporting a Thai family is moral justification for foreigners to have State medical benefits but the fact is the Thai government doesn't see it that way. We have to accept that until there is a change of policy.

Oh, and you can get Thai citizenship if you qualify. I know an American who has exactly that and a Thai name to go with it.

You only qualify if you are working with a WP and earn a high Thai wage within Thailand.

This excludes all the foreign teachers working in government schools, and all retired people.

Great if you are an investment banker in BK on a full expat package, nearly all other men can f. off.

Do we really have to go over this same tired old shit again and again.

Thailand doesn't want foreigners to become Thai citizens and will do almost anything to stop it happening, we all know it, just accept it and stop making excuses.

PS

I already have Thai citizenship, had it since birth.

PPS

Make a few claims on your insurance policy, you'll soon be out of it.

Your last point - not true. Guaranteed renewal with no re-underwriting.

[Soutpeel]

I would support and pay into any Government scheme which could offer reasonable cover at a reasonable cost.

I understand what your saying, but why should the Thai goverment provide reasonable cover at a reasonable cost for people who are not even nationals or PR of Thailand ?

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old, or sick.

Remember one day you might be old, or sick, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

What about the ones who dont have Thai wives and children, or the ones who dont provide homes etc ?

"Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old, or sick"

I really struggle with this statement...

my parents (75+) who are as old or older that most retiree's in Thailand, (granted they dont live in Thailand) have private medical insurance, they pay for themselvers, my mother has diabetes, is on cronic medication for a whole host of things and had a hip replaced, but they havent had problems with being "un-insurable or discriminated against or had their insurance cancelled because of their ages/medical condition.

But I guess the key difference is they factored all this in before they retired..ie they planned ahead and one suspects people who are asking for goverment subsidised medical care in Thailand have come from the "nanny state" countries were the goverment provides free or subsidised medical care and expect the Thai goverment to do the the same for them even though they are non-nationals of Thailand

[Morden]

I would support and pay into any Government scheme which could offer reasonable cover at a reasonable cost.

I understand what your saying, but why should the Thai goverment provide reasonable cover at a reasonable cost for people who are not even nationals or PR of Thailand ?

Because they have wives and children who are Thai nationals.

Because they have provided homes, food and education for their Thai families.

Because it is the Thai government that refuses to provide those people with Thai citizenship, unlike almost every other country in the world.

Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old, or sick.

Remember one day you might be old, or sick, then nobody will insure you either, so out you go.

What about the ones who dont have Thai wives and children, or the ones who dont provide homes etc ?

"Why should the old be discriminated against, just because they are old, or sick"

I really struggle with this statement...

my parents (75+) who are as old or older that most retiree's in Thailand, (granted they dont live in Thailand) have private medical insurance, they pay for themselvers, my mother has diabetes, is on cronic medication for a whole host of things and had a hip replaced, but they havent had problems with being "un-insurable or discriminated against or had their insurance cancelled because of their ages/medical condition.

But I guess the key difference is they factored all this in before they retired..ie they planned ahead and one suspects people who are asking for goverment subsidised medical care in Thailand have come from the "nanny state" countries were the goverment provides free or subsidised medical care and expect the Thai goverment to do the the same for them even though they are non-nationals of Thailand

Those 'nanny states' don't provide free or subsidised health care. It's all paid for through taxes. So, as they have paid previously, whether through private or State arrangements, why should they come here and expect free treatment that either Thai tax payers or other foreigners must then fund?

Thanks for the example of how insurance works for those who are responsible enough to plan their retirement. Perhaps some will learn from it.

[Soutpeel]

Those 'nanny states' don't provide free or subsidised health care. It's all paid for through taxes. So, as they have paid previously, whether through private or State arrangements, why should they come here and expect free treatment that either Thai tax payers or other foreigners must then fund?

Thanks for the example of how insurance works for those who are responsible enough to plan their retirement. Perhaps some will learn from it.

Yes of course in the case of the "nanny states" its paid for by peoples taxes...I guess I should have said "free" in this post...

But this raises another point in this debate, the vast majority of retirees in Thailand have never paid any income tax in Thailand, so why should they benefit from state subsidised medical care ?...so here we have "residents" who are non-nationals/non tax payers living in Thailand yet claiming they should be afforded subsidised medical insurance/care by the Thai goverment.

Isnt this exactly what the goverment in the UK is trying to stop with reference to the NHS ?

BTW referring back to my original post, incidently my parents do actually qualify for "free" medical care in one of the "nanny states" should they choose to get on a plane, by virtue of the of the point you have raised...ie they paid into that system over many years before they decided to move to another country

[Morden]

Those 'nanny states' don't provide free or subsidised health care. It's all paid for through taxes. So, as they have paid previously, whether through private or State arrangements, why should they come here and expect free treatment that either Thai tax payers or other foreigners must then fund?

Thanks for the example of how insurance works for those who are responsible enough to plan their retirement. Perhaps some will learn from it.

Yes of course in the case of the "nanny states" its paid for by peoples taxes...I guess I should have said "free" in this post...

But this raises another point in this debate, the vast majority of retirees in Thailand have never paid any income tax in Thailand, so why should they benefit from state subsidised medical care ?...so here we have "residents" who are non-nationals/non tax payers living in Thailand yet claiming they should be afforded subsidised medical insurance/care by the Thai goverment.

Isnt this exactly what the goverment in the UK is trying to stop with reference to the NHS ?

BTW referring back to my original post, incidently my parents do actually qualify for "free" medical care in one of the "nanny states" should they choose to get on a plane, by virtue of the of the point you have raised...ie they paid into that system over many years before they decided to move to another country

I'm in the same position as your parents.

I think that some expats. prefer to keep their cash free to spend on beer and whores rather than their other needs or their wives. Others see that insurance is expensive and don't stop to ask themselves the real reason. It's easier to have another beer and slag off insurance companies rather than think.

[Soutpeel]

Those 'nanny states' don't provide free or subsidised health care. It's all paid for through taxes. So, as they have paid previously, whether through private or State arrangements, why should they come here and expect free treatment that either Thai tax payers or other foreigners must then fund?

Thanks for the example of how insurance works for those who are responsible enough to plan their retirement. Perhaps some will learn from it.

Yes of course in the case of the "nanny states" its paid for by peoples taxes...I guess I should have said "free" in this post...

But this raises another point in this debate, the vast majority of retirees in Thailand have never paid any income tax in Thailand, so why should they benefit from state subsidised medical care ?...so here we have "residents" who are non-nationals/non tax payers living in Thailand yet claiming they should be afforded subsidised medical insurance/care by the Thai goverment.

Isnt this exactly what the goverment in the UK is trying to stop with reference to the NHS ?

BTW referring back to my original post, incidently my parents do actually qualify for "free" medical care in one of the "nanny states" should they choose to get on a plane, by virtue of the of the point you have raised...ie they paid into that system over many years before they decided to move to another country

I'm in the same position as your parents.

I think that some expats. prefer to keep their cash free to spend on beer and whores rather than their other needs or their wives. Others see that insurance is expensive and don't stop to ask themselves the real reason. It's easier to have another beer and slag off insurance companies rather than think.

No one like having to pay for insurance whether for a car or medical, and yes it can be expensive and yes we are not happy if the premiums increases for something we may not use....but the day you really do need to tap into it...your very glad you do have it in place

I know of people who have took the same approach as some of the posters here and they just about bankrupted themselves with medical bills because they didnt see the "need" for medical insurance, and in a matter of months all cash they had taken the years to build up in their piggy banks for "retirement" had just about been wiped out

[JAS21]

Well I don't know what to do. I'm 67 and my wife is 58. We have PPP, covers both of us. The International policy that includes travel insurance and is world wide excluding USA and Canada, have had it for years. It seems to go up 10%-15% every year. This year it was just about 7000 English pounds.

That's quite a big chunk and I can see in a few years it's going to be really expensive and am considering dropping it and saving the money in a separate account. The price of treatment here is rocketing. Suppose for anything serious I could try the good old NHS!

[JLCrab]

As has been commented many times elsewhere, only 1 or 2% may ever suffer from some catastrophic illness. But of that 1 or 2%, probably near 100% never thought that it might happen to them.

[Morden]

Well I don't know what to do. I'm 67 and my wife is 58. We have PPP, covers both of us. The International policy that includes travel insurance and is world wide excluding USA and Canada, have had it for years. It seems to go up 10%-15% every year. This year it was just about 7000 English pounds.

That's quite a big chunk and I can see in a few years it's going to be really expensive and am considering dropping it and saving the money in a separate account. The price of treatment here is rocketing. Suppose for anything serious I could try the good old NHS!

I understand your thinking but if something serious hits you before you have built up your fund, you would be faced with a very large bill. Treatment for a life threatening issue could easily cost THB2m or more. It's a question of whether you spend money on insurance each year or prefer to hope that you have enough to cover a bill when it comes up.

At your age, you could use the NHS free as a non-resident in the UK but you would have to be in a condition that allowed you to fly.

Your premium seems very high, even for your age. Try a quotation from LMG pacific, noting the discounts available for deductibles.

[NancyL]

Yes, that 7000 pound premium seems very high. Hubby and I have international medical insurance thru Health Care Int'l, a London company. It covers everywhere in the world, except the U.S. We pay about $3500 per year for the two of us. I'm 59, Hubby is 65. It does have a $1000 deductable PER EVENT, not per year -- so it's really a catastrophic insurance plan. We've only had one event of that magnitude and it paid no problem. We accept the large deductable in order to keep the rates low.

Incidentally, our insurance agent here in CM says that Americans are the best-informed insurance customers, because they've had to provide their own insurance while those from the so-called nanny states think that health coverage is something that should be available "for free". Yes, of course, people in those countries pay via their taxes, but they've never had to shop for insurance, plan ahead, think about what would happen if they get sick, etc.

[Morden]

Yes, that 7000 pound premium seems very high. Hubby and I have international medical insurance thru Health Care Int'l, a London company. It covers everywhere in the world, except the U.S. We pay about $3500 per year for the two of us. I'm 59, Hubby is 65. It does have a $1000 deductable PER EVENT, not per year -- so it's really a catastrophic insurance plan. We've only had one event of that magnitude and it paid no problem. We accept the large deductable in order to keep the rates low.

Incidentally, our insurance agent here in CM says that Americans are the best-informed insurance customers, because they've had to provide their own insurance while those from the so-called nanny states think that health coverage is something that should be available "for free". Yes, of course, people in those countries pay via their taxes, but they've never had to shop for insurance, plan ahead, think about what would happen if they get sick, etc.

That's true to an extent but not in my case. The NHS and State pension scheme in the UK costs a substantial sum in taxes and prescriptions, up to age 60, are subject to a fixed fee. why, then, do some UK residents expect to get medical care here without have the means to pay for it.

The UK NHS scheme is not a sign of a nanny State and it's valued by citizens despite the cost. If everyone should have cover, whats wrong with having a State scheme? Citizens are free also to buy private health insurance in the UK if they wish.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Yes, that 7000 pound premium seems very high. Hubby and I have international medical insurance thru Health Care Int'l, a London company. It covers everywhere in the world, except the U.S. We pay about $3500 per year for the two of us. I'm 59, Hubby is 65. It does have a $1000 deductable PER EVENT, not per year -- so it's really a catastrophic insurance plan. We've only had one event of that magnitude and it paid no problem. We accept the large deductable in order to keep the rates low.

Thanks for the mention of HCI, Nancy... That wasn't a name I was familiar with before, but based on your mention, I just got thru reading through all their different health insurance plan options, and then seeing how their plans quote for me.

It looks like you have their standard plan, because that quotes for me (a guy in his early 50s) at about $1500 U.S. per year -- which is in line with the rates you quoted for you and your husband combined. If I read that plan correctly, apart from the $1000 PER EVENT deductible, it also includes ZERO outpatient coverage.

BTW, just to be curious, I priced that same exact plan and coverage -- standard policy, $1000 per event deductible, no co-payment, no outpatient coverage) for a person TODAY aged 71 to 75 and the result was $5,281 per year!

But, it's nice that HCI has that online website that allows you to get instant quotes online by entering in your various choices and options to their interactive website:

http://www.healthcareinternational.com/hci/fastquoteMedical/quoteMedicalIndex.php

A couple of nice things I saw in their coverage:

--they'll write new insurance for applicants up to age 75 and will renew for life.

--they appear to not have any lifetime caps on coverage, but do have the annual maximum of $500,000 for their standard policy, which seems fine.

--apart from their required deductible and optional co-pays, they don't have a per night limit on inpatient hospital room charges.

--they say they won't cancel insurance just for someone making claims under the policy.

However, in reading their material, a few things weren't clear:

--I couldn't tell what hospitals they will or won't provide coverage for in Thailand.

--I couldn't tell what situations they'll arrange for direct pay vs. what situations you have to send in docs for reimbursement.

[NancyL]

Well, John, it may not be a good idea to turn this thread into a discussion of specific insurance plans, but it seems you've done your reading correctly. I suggest you email the company with your questions. My experience with them is limited and I'm not an insurance sales rep.

And yes, friends with the same policy do report a big jump in rates once they reach age 71. But, based on my experience in assisting expats with medical problems in CM, there's good reason why the cost of a policy would increase at that point.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just expanding a bit on the original info you posted. I think it's certainly within the theme of this thread, particularly as there's been a lot of comment here from folks who think they cannot get and/or cannot afford health insurance.

In this case, I think HCI is interesting because it seems to be one of the more affordable international (non-Thai based) expat health insurance providers I've seen.

Also, unlike a lot of the Thai providers, HCI seems willing to write new policies for those who have reached an older age (up to 75), unlike a lot of the Thai companies that cut off new policies at age 60-65 or thereabouts. And they also seem willing to write policies despite a person having some medical history, even if it means they will exclude past items from future coverage. But they'll still write the policy.

In addition, the "Emergency" policy that HCI offers seemed very attractively priced for those on a tight budget. When I quoted it for me, it worked out to less than $700 per year. The downsides were a higher $2000 per event deductible and no outpatient coverage. But for someone looking for cover just against major medical expenses, that policy seems quite a good and affordable option.

Expanding the roster of available health insurance options for folks here can only be a good thing.

Edited May 13, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[harrry]

Yes, that 7000 pound premium seems very high. Hubby and I have international medical insurance thru Health Care Int'l, a London company. It covers everywhere in the world, except the U.S. We pay about $3500 per year for the two of us. I'm 59, Hubby is 65. It does have a $1000 deductable PER EVENT, not per year -- so it's really a catastrophic insurance plan. We've only had one event of that magnitude and it paid no problem. We accept the large deductable in order to keep the rates low.

Thanks for the mention of HCI, Nancy... That wasn't a name I was familiar with before, but based on your mention, I just got thru reading through all their different health insurance plan options, and then seeing how their plans quote for me.

It looks like you have their standard plan, because that quotes for me (a guy in his early 50s) at about $1500 U.S. per year -- which is in line with the rates you quoted for you and your husband combined. If I read that plan correctly, apart from the $1000 PER EVENT deductible, it also includes ZERO outpatient coverage.

BTW, just to be curious, I priced that same exact plan and coverage -- standard policy, $1000 per event deductible, no co-payment, no outpatient coverage) for a person TODAY aged 71 to 75 and the result was $5,281 per year!

But, it's nice that HCI has that online website that allows you to get instant quotes online by entering in your various choices and options to their interactive website:

http://www.healthcareinternational.com/hci/fastquoteMedical/quoteMedicalIndex.php

A couple of nice things I saw in their coverage:

--they'll write new insurance for applicants up to age 75 and will renew for life.

--they appear to not have any lifetime caps on coverage, but do have the annual maximum of $500,000 for their standard policy, which seems fine.

--apart from their required deductible and optional co-pays, they don't have a per night limit on inpatient hospital room charges.

--they say they won't cancel insurance just for someone making claims under the policy.

However, in reading their material, a few things weren't clear:

--I couldn't tell what hospitals they will or won't provide coverage for in Thailand.

--I couldn't tell what situations they'll arrange for direct pay vs. what situations you have to send in docs for reimbursement.

Yes, that 7000 pound premium seems very high. Hubby and I have international medical insurance thru Health Care Int'l, a London company. It covers everywhere in the world, except the U.S. We pay about $3500 per year for the two of us. I'm 59, Hubby is 65. It does have a $1000 deductable PER EVENT, not per year -- so it's really a catastrophic insurance plan. We've only had one event of that magnitude and it paid no problem. We accept the large deductable in order to keep the rates low.

Incidentally, our insurance agent here in CM says that Americans are the best-informed insurance customers, because they've had to provide their own insurance while those from the so-called nanny states think that health coverage is something that should be available "for free". Yes, of course, people in those countries pay via their taxes, but they've never had to shop for insurance, plan ahead, think about what would happen if they get sick, etc.

Just wait till you get older when he is 70 it will cost US $10,562.96 . (plus inflation) I hope you have budgeted for this.

[Time Traveller]

Those 'nanny states' don't provide free or subsidised health care. It's all paid for through taxes. So, as they have paid previously, whether through private or State arrangements, why should they come here and expect free treatment that either Thai tax payers or other foreigners must then fund?

Thanks for the example of how insurance works for those who are responsible enough to plan their retirement. Perhaps some will learn from it.

Yes of course in the case of the "nanny states" its paid for by peoples taxes...I guess I should have said "free" in this post...

But this raises another point in this debate, the vast majority of retirees in Thailand have never paid any income tax in Thailand, so why should they benefit from state subsidised medical care ?...so here we have "residents" who are non-nationals/non tax payers living in Thailand yet claiming they should be afforded subsidised medical insurance/care by the Thai goverment.

Isnt this exactly what the goverment in the UK is trying to stop with reference to the NHS ?

BTW referring back to my original post, incidently my parents do actually qualify for "free" medical care in one of the "nanny states" should they choose to get on a plane, by virtue of the of the point you have raised...ie they paid into that system over many years before they decided to move to another country

I'm in the same position as your parents.

I think that some expats. prefer to keep their cash free to spend on beer and whores rather than their other needs or their wives. Others see that insurance is expensive and don't stop to ask themselves the real reason. It's easier to have another beer and slag off insurance companies rather than think.

No one like having to pay for insurance whether for a car or medical, and yes it can be expensive and yes we are not happy if the premiums increases for something we may not use....but the day you really do need to tap into it...your very glad you do have it in place

I know of people who have took the same approach as some of the posters here and they just about bankrupted themselves with medical bills because they didnt see the "need" for medical insurance, and in a matter of months all cash they had taken the years to build up in their piggy banks for "retirement" had just about been wiped out

So what has someone else's foolishness got to do with me? I'll pay for my own medical expenses. But I choose not to pay for an insurance salesman's commission and the insurance company's profits, as well as pay high premiums because of the chronically ill policy holders on the insurers books. Insurance companies exist because most people pay out more money to insurance premiums then they'll ever receive back in claims.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Time Traveller

[JLCrab]

When you buy insurance, you are becoming part of a pool wherein the insurer's actuaries can determine what are the probabilities that any one individual will have one or more various outcomes.

When you pay for your own medical expenses, there are only 2 probability numbers involved in determining the various outcomes: 0% and 100%

[Soutpeel]

When you buy insurance, you are becoming part of a pool wherein the insurer's actuaries can determine what are the probabilities that any one individual will have one or more various outcomes.

When you pay for your own medical expenses, there are only 2 probability numbers involved in determining the various outcomes: 0% and 100%

and therefore you could go from 100% of your cash in the bank down to 0% cash in your bank very quickly..

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I always thought at 60+, in the event of a serious illness, you should just bow out as gracefully as possible.

I've noticed that fellow Americans want to live forever no matter what, but worldwide that does not appear to be the majority view.

When my time comes, spend nothing on me beyond pain relief, I can pay for that out of my pocket change.

In an overpopulated world, time some of us 'old uns' became a little less selfish, stopped greedily using up the worlds' resources, and let the new generations have a chance.

Edited May 13, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Jingthing]

I always thought at 60+, in the event of a serious illness, you should just bow out as gracefully as possible.

I've noticed that fellow Americans want to live forever no matter what, but worldwide that does not appear to be the majority view.

When my time comes, spend nothing on me beyond pain relief, I can pay for that out of my pocket change.

People say that (its so macho) but actually when push comes to shove MOST people including older people when faced with serious illnesses want to still live and that can mean long periods in hospital and recovery.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I always thought at 60+, in the event of a serious illness, you should just bow out as gracefully as possible.

I've noticed that fellow Americans want to live forever no matter what, but worldwide that does not appear to be the majority view.

When my time comes, spend nothing on me beyond pain relief, I can pay for that out of my pocket change.

People say that (its so macho) but actually when push comes to shove MOST people including older people when faced with serious illnesses want to still live and that can mean long periods in hospital and recovery.

Yes, I agree, most people are selfish, time to stop them us having that choice.

[Jingthing]

I always thought at 60+, in the event of a serious illness, you should just bow out as gracefully as possible.

I've noticed that fellow Americans want to live forever no matter what, but worldwide that does not appear to be the majority view.

When my time comes, spend nothing on me beyond pain relief, I can pay for that out of my pocket change.

People say that (its so macho) but actually when push comes to shove MOST people including older people when faced with serious illnesses want to still live and that can mean long periods in hospital and recovery.

Yes, I agree, most people are selfish, time to stop them us having that choice.

It's deeper than that. I am asserting that YOU don't know how you would react to a health crisis. Nobody does until it happens to them.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I always thought at 60+, in the event of a serious illness, you should just bow out as gracefully as possible.

I've noticed that fellow Americans want to live forever no matter what, but worldwide that does not appear to be the majority view.

When my time comes, spend nothing on me beyond pain relief, I can pay for that out of my pocket change.

People say that (its so macho) but actually when push comes to shove MOST people including older people when faced with serious illnesses want to still live and that can mean long periods in hospital and recovery.

Yes, I agree, most people are selfish, time to stop them us having that choice.

It's deeper than that. I am asserting that YOU don't know how you would react to a health crisis. Nobody does until it happens to them.

I would react in a greedy and selfish way, as an American why would I be different, the world owes me everything it has.

But, what is my future worth to (any) society, I openly admit zero.

There are a few old TV members who could make a case for their continued contribution (I'm thinking farmers)

But nearly all the expats I know in CM (including me), have nothing more to contribute, they just take and use.

Are you any different, I think not?

So why should any resources be wasted on me us?

Apologies for straying off topic.

Edited May 13, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[rucus7]

Am I all that unusual. I have Blue cross Blue shield world wide coverage. From my previous employer upon retirement. $500 annual deductible prior to benefits being paid. Then I get 80 - 20 % coverage for pretty much all medical costs. WIth my out of pocket limit at $3,000 annually, it then becomes 100% coverage. Claims seem to be processed slowly however I just filled my first one. After nine years in Thailand I never reached the 500 deductible before.