Aussies a drain on Phuket hospitals

[stevenl]

As a US citizen retired in Thailand, all it would take to help would be for the Medicare system we have, to pay while you are living overseas, I draw a Social Sucerity check from the US and pay taxes on every penny, why do I have to go back to the states for Medical care when I feel like I've already paid for it in my Taxes? No thanks, I will keep seeing my Dr. in Chiang Mai and paying out of my pocket. Ofcourse if I got real sick I would have to go back to the states.

Then let's hope you're in a condition to fly. With accidents/illness that can be an issue, and it looks like you'll have to call on your friends to fund your hospital bills if you're unfit to fly.

[MaiChai]

If it wasn't for tourism there would be no hospitals in Phuket... It would just be some back water in the South. Anyhow anyone who has had treatment at a Thai hospital knows they won't do a thing until they see your money....

[Martstar]

The only financial drain on hospital budgets are those officials stealing from it... like to see how much goes missing each year... would be a bit more then $10k Aussie I suspect... and has nothing to do with providing medical services.

[CIHUAHUA]

Stop complaining Thailand and take the bitter with the sweet.

[nontabury]

"It's just not fair. I mean the retirees are blocking up the hospital," Mr Cunningham told AAP."

Its possible because of the draconian laws in Australia---Mr Cunnningham--- when leaving Oz to retire in somewhere like Thailand, if pensioner age--you are striped of your rights for free medical care in Australia, Unlike the UK & other countries where there citizens routinely return home for the medical treatment that they have paid in for all their working life----An Australian government health care card is stopped after being away form the country more then 13 weeks---even though he may have been working & contributing there for more then 50 years. Now on returning he must make a stat declaration that he is back in the country to stay----& you can not do that to many times.

And by the sound of that last statement from Bob Carr---the situation for Australians abroad will get worse.

Think your wrong regarding UK citizens returning home in order to receive FREE medical treatment, if the local doctor or hospital know you are an ex-pat, then expect to pay, I'm afraid we are in the same situation as our Aussie brothers.

[Old Croc]

Not sure if it is cheaper to fly home for free medical treatment.

I don't think it covers the cost of the air ambulance medivac.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Old Croc

[GuestHouse]

Simple solution - no insurance no Visa, like Europe

Not so simple.

What about the expats over 65 or 70 years of age, and those expats with a pre-existing condition? No insurance for them, means no visa for them, means no money into the Thai economy from them.

An idea might be that those without insurance, pay an extra levy attached to their visa. This levy, or medical fee, goes to the Thai Government to ensure older uninsured expats receive medical care, should they need it.

The presumption here is that Thailand needs money from these people.

It does not.

[Globeman]

Simple solution - no insurance no Visa, like Europe

Compulsory insurance = half as many backpackers...

...and before anyone out there decrees that "we don't need no stinkin' backpackers", I should point out that this segment spends billions of baht in Thailand each year. They are not as tightfisted as the cliches would have it, and though their daily spend is lower than average, they stay far longer than average as well, so contribute a large sum per head.

Point being, they need to do the research, crunch the numbers, and work out whether compulsory insurance will end up costing them more than the existing medical care.

Of course, more likely is that someone in a position of power will see sense in the "simple solution" and decree that it be made so, without having thought through the effects.

[monkeycountry]

Just out of curiosity, is this not a problem in all countries? If a Thai without health insurance falls ill in China, Malaysia or Australia, will the public hospitals there not have to pay the bill? In other words, yes Thailand may be paying for some foreigners without insurance, but foreign countries are equally paying for Thai travellers without insurance.

[Traveller45]

I don´t understand this. It´s shameful to come as a guest to a country like Thailand just to fall burden to welfare, as it were. Travel Health Insurance is very cheap, like USD 20,- or less per annum for a single individual (where I come from, anyway). It´s true that they only cover the first 6 weeks of a stay abroad, then you will have to come home once. A big cheers for the Thai Public hospitals. In a majority of countries abroad you will not even be admitted to hospital unless you show insurance or funds first

[monkeycountry]

Sure, Thailand can start forcing everyone to buy insurance upon arrival, but most tourists already have all kinds of insurance, so they might end up getting double insurance, which will make their trip more expensive, hence make some visitors choose a cheaper destination Than Thailand.

Distinguishing between those who already have insurance and those who do not upon arrival is not logistically possible, especially as there are thousands of different types of insurance, and most of them not in Thai.

Thailand can make all tourists apply for a visa before they go, but this will require alot of staff to approve all those applications, and the expenses related to that are probably more than the combined hospital bills. The tourists could of course be required to pay a visa fee, but again, that will make their trip more expensive, and therefore some will choose to go elsewhere and their holiday budget will then be lost to Thailand. Furthermore, the hassle involved with getting a visa alone, will make a number of tourists simply go elsewhere.

All in all, the revenue Thailand will lose if forcing everyone to apply for a visa before travelling and thereby losing a number of tourists to other destinations, is most likely a lot higher than the loss involved with treating sick foreigners without insurance, so the cheapest and easiest solution is for the government to simply reimburse the public hospitals.

Yes, the EU is asking Thais and others for a visa before travelling, but this has nothing to do with hospital bills. Many EU countries pay some sort of welfare to people (including foreigners) who for one reason or another cannot make it on their own, or simply will not or cannot leave the country for any reason. Therefore the EU wants to make sure that visitors are leaving again (and have the intention and the means to leave) once their planned visit is over. Thailand does not pay any form of welfare to any foreigners, so financially it does not matter much to Thailand if a poor foreigner stays in Thailand or not (Unlike the EU, noone travels to Thailand with the intention to exploit the non-existing welfare system)

Edited August 9, 2013 by monkeycountry

[Cantankerous]

Simple solution - no insurance no Visa, like Europe

Concur with this, if u can't afford insurance you shouldn't be here or anywhere else for that matter. Better to head back home & be a burden on your parent country, should anything happen. This is not a troll post & I make no apology if I have offended anyone. Insurance should be one of the first considerations prior to a move or holiday overseas, unfortunately too many think whith the small head rather than the large one...

[stevenl]

<snip>Yes, the EU is asking Thais and others for a visa before travelling, but this has nothing to do with hospital bills. <snip>

Except that a requirement for that visa is health insurance for the duration of the stay.

[MickGC]

I would not call this a drain on the local hospital system. Going by the figures in the news article, over a 12 month period there are 360,000 Aussie visitors to Phuket. The total drain on the hospitals over one year is 4m baht. So even if it was only Aussies needing medical attention, that only equates to 110 baht per person. Include all the other foreign visitors http://www.phuketland.com/phuket_links/touristinfo.htm - 2.5 million in 2005 and we are looking at about 15 baht per person. Add a 20 baht levy onto every visa and the problem is solved with a tidy profit to the hospitals.

By the way, if each of those tourists only used the ATM once while on holiday the return to Thailand would be around 375 million baht. Go figure ...

Does it cost more than baht 1000 to use an ATM now?

When I went to school 375m / 2.5m = 150. By the way, that figure of 2.5m foreign visitors was very conservative and was more of an average over the 10 years prior to the Tsunami. Probably double that by now.

[evadgib]

Well Oz and Brit people are really so unfit, so its not big a surprise is it. But it links up with another story about Tourists being charged health insurance at entry point! It will happen.

Pray enlighten us as to your age, nationality, gender & physical prowess? My guess would be under 30, male, nationality reserved (i'm not going to alienate a nation based on the inaugural post of a trolling newbie), & yet to encounter any of the ailments that befall humanity as they pass their prime...

[Time Traveller]

"It's just not fair. I mean the retirees are blocking up the hospital," Mr Cunningham told AAP."

Maybe the "honorary" Mr Cunningham is saying sick and injured retirees should just go away and die out of sight. Or was he just misquoted?

Edited August 9, 2013 by Time Traveller

[LUSHGOAT]

The hospital charges are a rip off not only in Thailand but everywhere especially if its an accident because they think straight away its a big insurance claim my nephew had an accident he was hit by a car his own fault I might add he was in hospital for two nights the bill was nearly €2000 my brother had an argument with administrators there reply was what are worried about the insurance company will pay for it, he told them there will be no claim the bill was reduced to €500 so there you go. Some of these high rated hospitals in Thailand over charge because many rich people attend them if a government hospital charges are cheaper why cant these private ones charge the same. The government there should sort that out.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

It's a simple maths.

There is a monetary figure where the scheme pays for itself. If a fee/levy of 10,000 baht every visa renewal doesn't cover it, then next year it is raised to 20,000 baht, or whatever figure does cover the running of the scheme.

The "pool" and compulsory payment ensures it can not lose. What they lose this year, they make up the next year with a fee/levy rise and the possibility of not many getting sick. Remember, it's also coupled with an "excess" to stop minor claims.

Yes, simply monetary figure, which is why insurance companies don't cover this. It would cost them money, and it would be the same for the government. And no, 'pool' and compulsory payment' don't ensure it can not lose. To ensure it can not lose the premiums have to increase, to the level of the private insurance companies (that is why they are asking these premiums).

Just for your benefit, how about we call it a medical "tax" attached to your visa. This may help you understand the concept little better. :)

That is, requiring EVERYONE to cover ANYONE who suffers serious injury and illness who is over a certain age and unable to gain insurance.

What you are suggesting is that EVERY expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, every year, thus making the scheme go bust.

We are talking about millions of retirees here, not just a few thousand.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

It's a simple maths.

There is a monetary figure where the scheme pays for itself. If a fee/levy of 10,000 baht every visa renewal doesn't cover it, then next year it is raised to 20,000 baht, or whatever figure does cover the running of the scheme.

The "pool" and compulsory payment ensures it can not lose. What they lose this year, they make up the next year with a fee/levy rise and the possibility of not many getting sick. Remember, it's also coupled with an "excess" to stop minor claims.

Yes, simply monetary figure, which is why insurance companies don't cover this. It would cost them money, and it would be the same for the government. And no, 'pool' and compulsory payment' don't ensure it can not lose. To ensure it can not lose the premiums have to increase, to the level of the private insurance companies (that is why they are asking these premiums).

Just for your benefit, how about we call it a medical "tax" attached to your visa. This may help you understand the concept little better. :)

That is, requiring/forcing EVERYONE to cover ANYONE who suffers serious injury and illness who is over a certain age and unable to gain insurance.

What you are suggesting is that EVERY expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, every year, thus making the scheme go bust.

We are talking about millions of retirees here, not just a few thousand.

[stevenl]

The hospital charges are a rip off not only in Thailand but everywhere especially if its an accident because they think straight away its a big insurance claim my nephew had an accident he was hit by a car his own fault I might add he was in hospital for two nights the bill was nearly €2000 my brother had an argument with administrators there reply was what are worried about the insurance company will pay for it, he told them there will be no claim the bill was reduced to €500 so there you go. Some of these high rated hospitals in Thailand over charge because many rich people attend them if a government hospital charges are cheaper why cant these private ones charge the same. The government there should sort that out.

Different rates for private persons and insurance companies is very common, e.g. in the USA.

The hospital mentioned in the article is a government hospital BTW, and has very, very low rates (at least I think they are very low and more than reasonable).

[Time Traveller]

Simple solution - no insurance no Visa, like Europe

Concur with this, if u can't afford insurance you shouldn't be here or anywhere else for that matter. Better to head back home & be a burden on your parent country, should anything happen. This is not a troll post & I make no apology if I have offended anyone. Insurance should be one of the first considerations prior to a move or holiday overseas, unfortunately too many think whith the small head rather than the large one...

We all know that ain't going to happen. When has Thailand ever implemented a scheme without involving widespread corruption, loopholes and scams?

But to take the other side of your argument, in America, medical expenses for insured people cost more than the same medical expenses in Thailand without any insurance. I'm quite happy for my family to travel to Thailand without insurance because I both have the money to pay for any expenses and secondly because I know it's much cheaper than having the same thing covered under insurance in Western countries.

Finally, I take any comments from the Thai hospital with a grain of salt. Medical insurance providers routinely negotiate lower prices with hospitals over treatment, especially when it comes to the large bills. You can bet that the amount that the hospitals say they are losing is in fact somewhat lower than the number they said. And so a few customers don't pay, well all businesses know what that's like. Get over it.

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

It's a simple maths.

There is a monetary figure where the scheme pays for itself. If a fee/levy of 10,000 baht every visa renewal doesn't cover it, then next year it is raised to 20,000 baht, or whatever figure does cover the running of the scheme.

The "pool" and compulsory payment ensures it can not lose. What they lose this year, they make up the next year with a fee/levy rise and the possibility of not many getting sick. Remember, it's also coupled with an "excess" to stop minor claims.

Yes, simply monetary figure, which is why insurance companies don't cover this. It would cost them money, and it would be the same for the government. And no, 'pool' and compulsory payment' don't ensure it can not lose. To ensure it can not lose the premiums have to increase, to the level of the private insurance companies (that is why they are asking these premiums).

Just for your benefit, how about we call it a medical "tax" attached to your visa. This may help you understand the concept little better.

That is, requiring EVERYONE to cover ANYONE who suffers serious injury and illness who is over a certain age and unable to gain insurance.

What you are suggesting is that EVERY expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, every year, thus making the scheme go bust.

We are talking about millions of retirees here, not just a few thousand.

Does not matter how many people in the pool, the statistics are against you. That is why insurance companies stay away from this risk. And no, I am no suggesting every expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, what I am saying is the statistics say: high risk part of the population, stay away.

You may give it a different name, but the concept stays the same: compulsory insurance for a risk that is deemed too high for private insurance companies. And just because the government is carrying the risk does not mean it will suddenly become profitable.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

It's a simple maths.

There is a monetary figure where the scheme pays for itself. If a fee/levy of 10,000 baht every visa renewal doesn't cover it, then next year it is raised to 20,000 baht, or whatever figure does cover the running of the scheme.

The "pool" and compulsory payment ensures it can not lose. What they lose this year, they make up the next year with a fee/levy rise and the possibility of not many getting sick. Remember, it's also coupled with an "excess" to stop minor claims.

Yes, simply monetary figure, which is why insurance companies don't cover this. It would cost them money, and it would be the same for the government. And no, 'pool' and compulsory payment' don't ensure it can not lose. To ensure it can not lose the premiums have to increase, to the level of the private insurance companies (that is why they are asking these premiums).

Just for your benefit, how about we call it a medical "tax" attached to your visa. This may help you understand the concept little better.

That is, requiring EVERYONE to cover ANYONE who suffers serious injury and illness who is over a certain age and unable to gain insurance.

What you are suggesting is that EVERY expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, every year, thus making the scheme go bust.

We are talking about millions of retirees here, not just a few thousand.

Does not matter how many people in the pool, the statistics are against you. That is why insurance companies stay away from this risk. And no, I am no suggesting every expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, what I am saying is the statistics say: high risk part of the population, stay away.

You may give it a different name, but the concept stays the same: compulsory insurance for a risk that is deemed too high for private insurance companies. And just because the government is carrying the risk does not mean it will suddenly become profitable.

It is not supposed to be profitable, just provide medical coverage for those over a certain age that can not gain insurance, although I suspect the Thai Government would turn a profit from it.

You still don't get it.

The "pool" here is soooooooooooooo big, and it's compulsory, so it can not lose. You eally do make it sound like a big part of the pool, that's millions, suffer SERIOUS injury or illness, every year. The fact is, many just die.

You keep banging on about "insurance companies" not covering these people due to high risk.

To prove you wrong, let's just say the fee/levy/tax attached to the visa for an over 60 year old was 500,000 baht. How would/could the scheme go bust????

[stevenl]

Yes, simply monetary figure, which is why insurance companies don't cover this. It would cost them money, and it would be the same for the government. And no, 'pool' and compulsory payment' don't ensure it can not lose. To ensure it can not lose the premiums have to increase, to the level of the private insurance companies (that is why they are asking these premiums).

Just for your benefit, how about we call it a medical "tax" attached to your visa. This may help you understand the concept little better.

That is, requiring EVERYONE to cover ANYONE who suffers serious injury and illness who is over a certain age and unable to gain insurance.

What you are suggesting is that EVERY expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, every year, thus making the scheme go bust.

We are talking about millions of retirees here, not just a few thousand.

Does not matter how many people in the pool, the statistics are against you. That is why insurance companies stay away from this risk. And no, I am no suggesting every expat over 60 has a serious illness or injury, what I am saying is the statistics say: high risk part of the population, stay away.

You may give it a different name, but the concept stays the same: compulsory insurance for a risk that is deemed too high for private insurance companies. And just because the government is carrying the risk does not mean it will suddenly become profitable.

<snip>

You still don't get it.

The "pool" here is soooooooooooooo big, and it's compulsory, so it can not lose. <snip>

Sorry, but this must be one of the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on here. You really have no clue. I explained why this is nonsense in quite a few previous posts in this thread and will do here again: a big pool does not change the collective risk of this group.

And yes, of course, as I mentioned earlier already, raise the premiums enough and it becomes a statistical attractive risk. But @ 500.000 Baht nearly all of the expats that can't afford health insurance now will have to leave the country because they can't afford it. And remember, you came up with this scheme because asking for private health insurance was unreasonable since it is unaffordable or unobtainable for part of the expat population over 60. Your proposal may solve the unobtainable part, but not the unaffordable.

Edited August 9, 2013 by stevenl

[umbanda]

I am an American. I was traveling in Mexico when I had an accident and I was treated at local hospital. I was asked to show my ticket back to the US or to give a valid credit card for the future expense. I asked what will happens if I didn't have a credit card, they responded that they will need somebody's credit card in warranty. Makes sense to me. Later I found out that is the way many countries deals with the problem.

[Whidbeyboy]

Interesting to see the sky diver walked (or more likely wheeled) out of hospital. Luckiest guy alive. He now needs to do everything he can to pay his bills!

No kidding, the same would have cost $100,000 in the US at least.

Medical is cheap in Thailand too, so how can these people afford to fly there and not afford to pay?

I guess it's an entitlement thing.

[NamKangMan]

@ stevenl

Obviously, the 500,000 baht figure was an example.

I agree that a larger pool also carries a larger risk, but, 60 year olds will no doubt be subsidising the 80 year olds.

You didn't address the use of an excess for small injuries and illness, and the fact many paying for the scheme would actually just die, thus, not requiring to use the scheme at all.

Like I said, this idea was just off the top of my head.

Do you have an alternative?

[stevenl]

@ stevenl

Obviously, the 500,000 baht figure was an example.

I agree that a larger pool also carries a larger risk, but, 60 year olds will no doubt be subsidising the 80 year olds.

You didn't address the use of an excess for small injuries and illness, and the fact many paying for the scheme would actually just die, thus, not requiring to use the scheme at all.

Like I said, this idea was just off the top of my head.

Do you have an alternative?

Yes, as I said in my first answer: can't afford self insurance and don't have insurance: go home and let your own government take care of you in stead of the Thai government.

You can talk about excess etc., does not matter: if the risk were acceptable insurance companies would accept it with additional conditions. If a 60 year old would be an acceptable risk insurance companies would accept it, leaving you with the even worse risks.

Edited August 9, 2013 by stevenl

[harleyclarkey]

Australian man ..........spent several months in hospital ............ the cost of his hospital stay............ which

amounted to about $A10,000.???????

[dudu]

When i got Pneumonia recently,i went to three hospitals to make deals with them, McCormick in Chiang mai gave me the best quote so i took it, 5days 17000B, including medication and xrays,, the warning bells rang, get insurance!!

Edited August 9, 2013 by dudu