Brit dies in Bangkok hospital after being stranded for 2 month while family struggled to pay bill

[stevenl]

Condolences to the family, it must be a difficult time.

But this whole insurance discussion is funny, I mean there is no 'magic insurance' that will manage any situation a person could get themselves into.

I think at least one poster has pointed out that it seems there is no mention in the article of the fact that the patient did not have insurance....... we just don't know.

So, as much as everyone wants to bang on about having insurance, from what I have learnt it's barely worth the paper it is written on:

1. Most travel insurance companies are a rort and their default first action is to 'decline' a claim, any claim that is

2. Most travel insurance companies cover very little when a person has consumed alcohol - I can only assume riding on vehicles which are not fit for the road/ocean etc., would also be similar

3. Insurance companies are there to make $$$$$ not help people in their time of need - don't buy into all that marketing rubbish.

Insurance sounds great in principal, but in reality for the nominal charge they usually involve, I would be very surprised if they would ever cover such a large cost as in the OP. I would always recommend having travel insurance, but I would never be relying on it to get me out of trouble.....it's just an extra sort of tax i guess.

You cleatly don't know this case and you clearly don't know insurance. But still you feel the need to post about them both.

[MiKT]

Now you are mixing common human decency to help the family, possibly by TV members which is optional (but being presented by you in an indefensible blackmailing way) and by the hospital which as a mater of principal is neither practical nor decent to the majority of Thai's.

You are looking to eat your cake.

I don't eat cake.

If however you are saying that to help this family whether as a private individual or as a state institution are different things, then I disagree with you. I don't see any difference between the two.

I am not blackmailing anyone [emotionally or otherwise] and don't see where that BS comes from. As for helping the family being indecent...more BS.

Someone asked why the hospital should help this family and I gave an answer, you don't like that answer? Well that's your problem, not mine.

The point is this is an unfortunate incident and common human decency says to help the family involved.

I would have thought that you at least would know the considerable difference between "not decent" and "indecent".

I have over the years helped many people in many ways, including paying their medical bills, but it IS almost indecent to suggest that TV readers or Thai hospitals lack human decency because they elect not to, or can't help this particular family.

Indeed, most hospitals are not charities and to expect them to bear the medical costs of every visitor to Thailand who gets sick or has an accident is patently ridiculous. (Unless the government introduces compulsory medical insurance for all visitors as I suggested earlier).

I have no doubt that much as they would appreciate help, this family would actually agree with me that this is not practical for any country. It certainly does not happen in the UK as a matter of principle.

We can feel for their loss; and some of us would like to help all the sick and all accident victims if we could, but that does not mean that we or the Thai (or UK) public should be held responsible for their hospital bills, neither morally nor practically. If this was the case they would have soon raised the money they need to pay the hospital bills.

The way you have expressed your answer to the question as to why this family should be helped is indeed emotional blackmail, even if you can't "see" that. But hearing it so stated is obviously starting to make you squirm since you have resorted to invective and clearly don't like your emotional blackmail being returned to you.

I never said it was indecent not to help the family. I said human decency suggests we should help them.

There is no emotional blackmail by me. I would suggest you examine your own conscience if you are feeling this.

I never said the Thai hospital or anyone else is responsible for this families plight and it is wrong for you to say i have.

I wish you would stop implying or stating things I have said that I have not.

You want to see indecent...read post 294. That is a perfect example of how low and indecent posters can get.

I believe I made it clear that my conscience and that of many but (as you have pointed out) certainly not all TV posters would like us to help everybody in this kind of trouble. But I and I also believe I speak for the majority of TV posters, if not most people, do not like having our conscience thrust down our throats by your blank assertions that it is common human decency to help them, thus implying that those who don't help are less than decent human beings, ie emotional blackmail.

Squirm all you will, but also, before you condemn me for imputing things you did not say, try following the complete thread of my posts and you may be amazed to find that I did not do what you have claimed.

Sadly I am beginning to loose faith in your ability to follow a logical thread, but I won't be offering to pay for your Alzheimer's treatment for sure and you may rest assured that my conscience will not be very perturbed by this blatant lack of human compassion.

[sambum]

I think that one of the problems here is that the private hospitals have realised over the years that when they are treating patients who are insured, they almost have "carte blanche" to charge as much as they want for their services. I have yet to hear of an Insurance Company taking a hospital to task over the charges for their services.

Usually one of the first questions you are asked at a private hospital is "Do you have insurance?", and I do know from personal experience that the bill for any treatment is increased substantially when an insurance claim is involved.

Unfortunately, private hospitals are now becoming more aware of the fact that private treatment here is/was cheaper than many Western countries, and are now increasing their prices accordingly. I can think of one private hospital that has almost doubled its prices over 10 years or so, and often the patient has to "haggle" with various hospitals to get the better price.

So, yes, once again, another instance of the LOS trying to fleece the tourists of as much cash as they can, and they are in the business of making money, so medical treatment has to be paid for. The only solution for non urgent treatment is to shop around. As an example, I see a local doctor who charges about 300 baht for an appointment, and the cost of medication/treatment on top. I know of another doctor a little way out of town who charges 200 baht, and another doctor in the middle of town who charges 500 baht (10 years ago it was 200 baht!) If you go to the most expensive local hospital, they will charge you 4000 baht for a doctor's consultation before any treatment. The ironic thing is that at least one of the aforementioned doctors also works at a local hospital, where the prices for an appointment are about 5 times what you would pay at his surgery!

Agree with this uptil the point you want to single out Thailand !

Look at any travel policy , and then the 'add-on' for the USA , Canada , and Japan.

They arent the Most expensive countries in the world , but they are the ones who charge WAY more on non-citizens AND by huge percentages.

I can go and see a specialist at Phuket International at 1,000 baht a consultation !

There is no comparison.

My last visit to a Dr in Australia 3 years ago , yes , just a GP , had a gap ( so not covered by Aus Medicare ) of 300 baht , the same amount you are complaining about WITHOUT the major part of the fee ( about 2,00 baht ) being paid for by the government.

'Fleece the tourists' is IMO overstated and misleading at best.

As the headline is about someone dying in a Bangkok hospital, of course I "singled out" Thailand as an example, but I certainly did not say that the same thing is not happening in other parts of the world! And I agree with your point about the "add ons" for the USA, Canada, and Japan.

However, if you read my post properly, I was not complaining about being charged 300 baht, and I do not dispute the fact that you can see a specialist in Phuket International for 1,000 baht a consultation.

Sorry to have to repeat myself, but I was complaining about the disparity between the between the local doctors' consultation fees (200 - 500 baht) and the prices charged by the local private hospitals who employ the services of some of these same doctors, but charge about 5 times more for a consultation. Also, that at the most expensive local hospital they charge 4,000 baht for a consultation, which in my opinion is "fleecing the tourists" - not "overstated or misleading at best", as you state.

[nontabury]

As I understand it, so long as one can prove 3 months of residency (utility bill etc), former Brit expats can use the service on their return.

Expats from UK, who paid in N.I. for years, who return home for a holiday, are liable for all medical costs, I believe ?

So medical insurance would have to be purchased by them, despite the thousands paid in over their working lives.

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

[jak2002003]

R.I.P. sad loss for her family.

Another case of someone coming to Thailand without insurance.

Crazy for anyone not to have adequate cover.

As already stated do not blame Thailand or the hospital

As already mentioned, some people can't get cover, or will not be covered for existing problems. I don't know if that is the case with this lady. But it's wrong to presume full cover is easily available for everyone.

If someone can't get cover, or won't be covered for existing problem, they have to take responsibility for deciding to travel to a country or not. They know the risks.

Its sad she died, but the Thai hospital should not have to pay the bill!

[nontabury]

Expats from UK, who paid in N.I. for years, who return home for a holiday, are liable for all medical costs, I believe ?

So medical insurance would have to be purchased by them, despite the thousands paid in over their working lives.

I believe there is an exception for Brits who receive a UK state pension but I could be wrong about that. Thankfully, it won't affect me as I am covered by Luxembourg state healthcare scheme and that will pay the bill whether or not the EU reciprocal arrangements cease when we leave the EU.

My brother is a doctor who has worked for the NHS all his life and is now retired. Due to a serious long term medical condition that nearly killed him, he cannot get any kind of private medical insurance so he is now confined holidaying in countries with which the UK has reciprocal medical arrangements (the EU countries and a few others)

The idea was put forward that British pensioners would be exempt,however I think the government went back on their word.

[bkkcanuck8]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

Edited July 21, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[sambum]

It was very unfortunate. But there is something called travel insurance that everyone should have when travelling. It is also a shame for British government for not to take care of their citizen in such an emergency. They could loan the money to them.

Suggest you read the thread for other posts regarding your comments on travel insurance, and also the way that the British Government treat their "ex pats".

Edited July 21, 2016 by sambum

[nontabury]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

I thought I had mentioned, that even those who had paid N.I (maybe for 40yrs) for the NHS could be refused treatment. Possibly you are unaware of how the system operates in the UK, with you being a Canadian. Likewise I would not wish to show my ignorance of the Candian system,as I have no knowledge or experiance of it.

Edited July 21, 2016 by nontabury

[bkkcanuck8]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

I thought I had mentioned, that even those who had paid N.I (maybe for 40yrs) for the NHS could be refused treatment. Possibly you are unaware of how the system operates in the UK, with you being a Canadian. Likewise I would not wish to show my ignorance of the Candian system,as I have no knowledge or experiance of it.

What are the conditions for refusal? Refusal because they individual left and left there insurance lapse - and thus were no longer covered? Or like many public systems where you have limited supply and it gets rationed as part of a set policy of what gets covered and what does not get covered (which may be dependent on age range)?

[sambum]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

"Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer."

I think that you may have misunderstood the main point that nontabury is making. That is, for all your working life, part of your wages are taken as National Health Contributions. For someone who has worked all their life until they retire, that is more than 40 years of contributions totalling thousands of pounds, and that should entitle you to free healthcare for life. However, if you opt to live abroad when you retire, although you have paid thousands of pounds into the NHS (National Health Service) dependent on which country you opt to retire to, when you return to the UK, you may be charged for your NHS treatment, plus an extra 50%! Your "nanny state" comments should be reserved for those people that have NOT contributed to the system, but on entry to the UK, IMMEDIATELY get free NHS treatment e.g. Legal and illegal Immigrants, their families that follow behind them, and mothers to be from all corners of the globe!

And as for your last sentence, if you put money into a bank, and left the country, when you returned, would you expect the bank to confiscate/keep your money because you are/were no longer a customer?

Edited July 21, 2016 by sambum

[Bluespunk]

@MiKT

More personal abuse? Deary deary me, how sad.

Yes you have claimed I have said things throughout your posts that I did not. Why you choose to this is no doubt similar to your resorting to personal abuse, trying to derail the discussion.

The question was asked, why should the hospital help this family. I answered it.

You don't like my answer: tough.

As for your further whining about having your conscience questioned? No one has but I do wonder why you harp on about this.

Troubled indeed.

[osiboy]

never leave home without it.

INSURANCE FOR TRAVEL

we often ignore insurance thinking it will not happen to us.

yet it does when least expected.

good advice if they can be trusted , ...keep away from ALPHA insurance , beaten up by thugs , hit by a motorbike , needed hospital and dental treatment and a broken iphone , i could'nt get a penny out of them , these "so called" insurance company's should be regulated , look out for the small print, they are all robbing bast***s !

[bkkcanuck8]

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

I think that you may have misunderstood the main point that nontabury is making. That is, for all your working life, part of your wages are taken as National Health Contributions. For someone who has worked all their life until they retire, that is more than 40 years of contributions totalling thousands of pounds, and that should entitle you to free healthcare for life. However, if you opt to live abroad when you retire, although you have paid thousands of pounds into the NHS (National Health Service) dependent on which country you opt to retire to, when you return to the UK, you may be charged for your NHS treatment, plus an extra 50%! Your "nanny state" comments should be reserved for those people that have NOT contributed to the system, but on entry to the UK, IMMEDIATELY get free NHS treatment e.g. Legal and illegal Immigrants, their families that follow behind them, and mothers to be from all corners of the globe!

And as for your last sentence, if you put money into a bank, and left the country, when you returned, would you expect the bank to confiscate/keep your money because you are/were no longer a customer?

No I have not. The health "insurance" program is a subsidized program. You do not make "contributions", you "pay for coverage". If you want a system where you make "contributions" to a "defined contribution" medical plan - and that would require probably closer to 20% of your salary be deducted - from which you would buy emergency medical insurance and either other medical insurance or pay directly for medical services.

The health "insurance" territorial covers the UK period. I believe it allows you to be out of the country up to 222 days of the year. If you wish continued coverage then you should stay "resident" in the UK.

From what I have read the medical insurance coverage for those that "immediately" enter the UK ... gets billed back to the insurance program of other EU country as per agreements. In other words insurance for one EU citizen is active within the EU, and is reciprocal. In Canada we have a similar system whereby Health Insurance is provincial and those that have coverage in another province under another system can get treatment in another province and that is billed back to the province of residence. If you move (for work) you can apply for and get local coverage as a "resident". If however you retire to another country in the EU - you are not covered.

If the person is a "refugee" under UK law they are legally able to stay there while it is adjudicated and the sponsor of those people is the UK government.... refugees by definition are not economic migrants....

If the person is a "resident" then the UK has granted them residence and they also are able to join the insurance program as per any resident.

Medical insurance is not a bank. It is not your money, you are buying insurance for a set period of time. If you want a system like that you will have to model it on Singapore I believe. You are legally required to contribute 20% of your income to an account (with strict investment requirements), and the employer matches that with another 13% of salary for a total of 33% of your salary for each year. From that you must by emergency medical insurance for costly medical procedures that would potentially bankrupt you. And I believe you can either pay for medical service directly or buy some comprehensive insurance from that account. Any unused money (which cannot be withdrawn) would be available for rollover to retirement - though I think there are limits on withdrawals etc.

[bkkcanuck8]

sambum, notabury:

From the NHS website.

The NHS in England is a residence-based system, unlike many other countries, which have insurance-based healthcare systems. This means that all visitors to England may have to pay for NHS healthcare, depending on their circumstances.

If you are a visitor from the European Economic Area (EEA) and you fall ill or have a medical emergency during your temporary stay in England, then you'll need a valid European Health Insurance Card (EHIC) issued by your home country. If you can't show a valid EHIC, you may be charged for your treatment.

Residence is a legal status.

[Stargeezr]

It a risky affair to travel abroad without having a good insurance coverage.

I have also experienced getting travel insurance, then try to use it and

find that they squirm out from their coverage by saying that you had the condition

and they won't cover the costs because of that. RIP to this poor lady and I

hope her family can at least get her body to cremate in Thailand, if the country or

hospital won't let her body to out of country.

For the arm chair quarter back who is saying, do not blame Thailand, who is doing that!

Maybe you are an expat that has your own butt covered, but do not be so quick to assume

that everyone is as smart as your are. Just saying!

Geezer

[stevenl]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

"Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer."

I think that you may have misunderstood the main point that nontabury is making. That is, for all your working life, part of your wages are taken as National Health Contributions. For someone who has worked all their life until they retire, that is more than 40 years of contributions totalling thousands of pounds, and that should entitle you to free healthcare for life. However, if you opt to live abroad when you retire, although you have paid thousands of pounds into the NHS (National Health Service) dependent on which country you opt to retire to, when you return to the UK, you may be charged for your NHS treatment, plus an extra 50%! Your "nanny state" comments should be reserved for those people that have NOT contributed to the system, but on entry to the UK, IMMEDIATELY get free NHS treatment e.g. Legal and illegal Immigrants, their families that follow behind them, and mothers to be from all corners of the globe!

And as for your last sentence, if you put money into a bank, and left the country, when you returned, would you expect the bank to confiscate/keep your money because you are/were no longer a customer?

It is not a saving system. You pay now, you get cover now. You move away, cover stops.

Why should there be any entitlement if somebody paid his yearly/monthly premiums in the past.

[chrissables]

R.I.P. sad loss for her family.

Another case of someone coming to Thailand without insurance.

Crazy for anyone not to have adequate cover.

As already stated do not blame Thailand or the hospital

As already mentioned, some people can't get cover, or will not be covered for existing problems. I don't know if that is the case with this lady. But it's wrong to presume full cover is easily available for everyone.

If someone can't get cover, or won't be covered for existing problem, they have to take responsibility for deciding to travel to a country or not. They know the risks.

Its sad she died, but the Thai hospital should not have to pay the bill!

The international standard hospitals here make so much money charging huge amounts without any checks and balances when they do wrong.

If they would stand up and pay for mistakes they can and do make, then i would agree with you. But as an example having an operation go wrong due to complete negligence, with the doctor smiling and say pay again, i have no sympathy with the hospital's.

That happened to me, i lost 700,000 baht trying to repair damage done! I have friends in the same position.

Hospital here are money making business and their methods demonstrate this. The amount they are owed from this laded is nothing in the scale of their profits. I am suggesting it is right what happened, but sometimes shit happens.

Know the risks? Do you really think anybody goes traveling believing they will need hospital treatment?

[dick dasterdly]

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

"Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer."

I think that you may have misunderstood the main point that nontabury is making. That is, for all your working life, part of your wages are taken as National Health Contributions. For someone who has worked all their life until they retire, that is more than 40 years of contributions totalling thousands of pounds, and that should entitle you to free healthcare for life. However, if you opt to live abroad when you retire, although you have paid thousands of pounds into the NHS (National Health Service) dependent on which country you opt to retire to, when you return to the UK, you may be charged for your NHS treatment, plus an extra 50%! Your "nanny state" comments should be reserved for those people that have NOT contributed to the system, but on entry to the UK, IMMEDIATELY get free NHS treatment e.g. Legal and illegal Immigrants, their families that follow behind them, and mothers to be from all corners of the globe!

And as for your last sentence, if you put money into a bank, and left the country, when you returned, would you expect the bank to confiscate/keep your money because you are/were no longer a customer?

It is not a saving system. You pay now, you get cover now. You move away, cover stops.

Why should there be any entitlement if somebody paid his yearly/monthly premiums in the past.

Perhaps because I'm still paying UK tax (albeit not N.I.)?

I could well be wrong, but I thought NHS funding came from tax?

To be charged 50% more than the actual cost of any NHS treatment - is just adding insult to injury!

[bkkcanuck8]

Perhaps because I'm still paying UK tax (albeit not N.I.)?

I could well be wrong, but I thought NHS funding came from tax?

To be charged 50% more than the actual cost of any NHS treatment - is just adding insult to injury!

Assuming you are talking about retirement/pension income, you are paying tax on what is called deferred income technically speaking. Basically you are paying tax on income you earned (not income you are earning now) while living in the UK and the payment was deferred until after you retired.... and the tax rate is adjusted when you "withdraw" it... making the assumption that the rate you pay later will be lower and a net benefit to the person paying taxes on income you earned n years ago.

For actual "defined contribution accounts" that are allowed in many countries to save money in for retirement in the same manner -- there is actually many financial analysts that believe that this deferring of income is actually of no benefit and the retiree would be better off having it placed in an account after taxation at the time it was earned (you would have less money at that time but it would accrue without having to worry about taxes later on). I personally don't know which viewpoint is actually correct -- other that whatever the savings it should be mandatory (to protect other citizens from so many irresponsible people).

You may be charged 50% more for "insurance" (which is subsidized) you are still likely paying less than the cost of treatment (at least at the equivalent private hospital). In Canada, you just don't have that option.... you are not covered until you meet the residency requirements of the province and that is after 3 months from return.... which means you have to buy private insurance for the duration or pay out of pocket.

It is likely meant as a disincentive to people who have moved away and no longer resident from returning for medical holidays only. Basically covering people who failed to get the proper private coverage after moving away, and who now want to be saved from their irresponsible behavior by returning home and maybe paying some premiums - getting very expensive treatment - then after things are good they fly away permanently again.

Edited July 22, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[sirocco]

Quite agree with you, alocacoc Post No. 233,

but how come no economy, with a bank account as thin as a supermodel.

[Oxx]

It is likely meant as a disincentive to people who have moved away and no longer resident from returning for medical holidays only. Basically covering people who failed to get the proper private coverage after moving away, and who now want to be saved from their irresponsible behavior by returning home and maybe paying some premiums - getting very expensive treatment - then after things are good they fly away permanently again.

That reasoning really doesn't hold water. If the people were still living permanently in the UK they'd still need medical treatment, even if they were retired or unemployed, so not paying National Insurance.

As it is, the NHS benefits from not providing any medical treatment which is provided abroad.

[dageurreotype]

For the first three months, they will not only be required to pay the full cost,but ALSO a further 50%. Even if he'd payed onto the system for 40yrs. So he was correct in regards to to a British ( 2nd class ) citizen visiting his homeland on holiday. Do the Thais treat their citizens in such a manner?

I am not as sure about the British system but public systems that I am familiar with are insurance for healthcare that is pretty extensive and tends to cover pre-existing conditions. This is quite different than many private insurance systems. But it is still an insurance system. Typically waiting periods from when you first sign up to when you are covered (Ontario public health system is 3 months after "returning" - until then you are not covered by the public health system) - are a disincentive to game the system.... where you can stop ... but then return if you get seriously ill and require attention. If I read your post right you are covered from day 1 in the UK but it just costs more.... which I find incredibly generous compared to just not being covered -- and could easily be gamed.

Understand that insurance is for coverage while you pay, not as a cheap way to get emergency care. If you stop paying - your coverage expires. Health insurance you are paying now for assuming risk based on actuarial sciences which can take into account your current health, what pre-existing conditions -- what is covered -- what exclusions there are. Many people buying private insurance (especially travel) just look at the price without reading what is covered -- which means to compete for lowest price you have to either be very restrictive on what is covered, how much is covered and exclude any pre-existing conditions.... otherwise the price is too much. Public health insurance systems though are often subsidized especially for those that have pre-existing conditions - but unlike retirement accounts .... you are paying for what you are consuming. If you stop paying - you have accumulated nothing. If you want to pay into a "health" retirement plan of some sort the premiums would have to be much higher to cover both current risk but the risk of anything that may develop in the future -- even though you are no longer a paying customer. I know of no insurance system like that. It is not some sort of pension system... you stop paying - it expires.... and you have to re-enrole as a new "customer".

As such I find the fact that the UK only charges a premium on the first few months to be more than fair and easily gamed by people who suddenly become sick and go home after not paying premiums to cover this risk.

Your complaints (IMHO) come across as those of the modern nanny state where people seem to feel entitled to things that they have not earned. Leave the territory where the the insurance system is resident for and you are no longer a customer.

I thought I had mentioned, that even those who had paid N.I (maybe for 40yrs) for the NHS could be refused treatment. Possibly you are unaware of how the system operates in the UK, with you being a Canadian. Likewise I would not wish to show my ignorance of the Candian system,as I have no knowledge or experiance of it.

What are the conditions for refusal? Refusal because they individual left and left there insurance lapse - and thus were no longer covered? Or like many public systems where you have limited supply and it gets rationed as part of a set policy of what gets covered and what does not get covered (which may be dependent on age range)?

For the same reason they freeze the pension in some countries but not others. Because they can.

[bkkcanuck8]

It is likely meant as a disincentive to people who have moved away and no longer resident from returning for medical holidays only. Basically covering people who failed to get the proper private coverage after moving away, and who now want to be saved from their irresponsible behavior by returning home and maybe paying some premiums - getting very expensive treatment - then after things are good they fly away permanently again.

That reasoning really doesn't hold water. If the people were still living permanently in the UK they'd still need medical treatment, even if they were retired or unemployed, so not paying National Insurance.

As it is, the NHS benefits from not providing any medical treatment which is provided abroad.

As a resident they would be covered and subsidized for medical treatment as per guarantees if they were in the UK and unemployed or retired. Residency in the country gives you certain privileges. You as an individual have chosen to strike out on your own and move to another country to retire. Spending all your money in that other country, etc... but by doing so you are expected to get private insurance coverage for your expenses. If you don't like it you are free to remain and retire in the UK.

[thaibeachlovers]

RIP and condoleances to the family - as well a bitchslap back to farangistan for each <deleted> who took on this thread as an avenue to insult the deceased. Grow the <deleted> up.

I read every reply before yours and no one insulted the deceased. One pointed out quite rightly that the hospital has every right to expect payment for services delivered. They aren't a charity for farangs.

[thaibeachlovers]

It is likely meant as a disincentive to people who have moved away and no longer resident from returning for medical holidays only. Basically covering people who failed to get the proper private coverage after moving away, and who now want to be saved from their irresponsible behavior by returning home and maybe paying some premiums - getting very expensive treatment - then after things are good they fly away permanently again.

That reasoning really doesn't hold water. If the people were still living permanently in the UK they'd still need medical treatment, even if they were retired or unemployed, so not paying National Insurance.

As it is, the NHS benefits from not providing any medical treatment which is provided abroad.

As a resident they would be covered and subsidized for medical treatment as per guarantees if they were in the UK and unemployed or retired. Residency in the country gives you certain privileges. You as an individual have chosen to strike out on your own and move to another country to retire. Spending all your money in that other country, etc... but by doing so you are expected to get private insurance coverage for your expenses. If you don't like it you are free to remain and retire in the UK.

That is, of course, the case. However, it's utterly illogical and utterly unjust.

Please clarify what is illogical and unjust? Seems like you expect other countries to provide free hospital care for tourists, but I could be wrong. Would America provide free hospital care for a tourist?

[penco]

I had travel insurance and also scuba diving insurance. Spent more than a week in hospital plus a trip to a decompression chamber. Had to borrow to pay the bill because the scuba diving insurance company weren't acceptable to the hospital.

I was fortunate in that the bill very reasonable considering the time I'd been in hospital and I had a friend I was staying with and he baled me out. My credit cards were maxed out due to my hospital stay.

When I got back to UK (flight ticket arranged by diving insurance company) I submitted all my bills to the scuba diving insurance company and they settled all the bills.

Not a pleasant experience. But I mention it because even if you have bona fide insurance there's no guarantee it'll be accepted and also that the treatment I received in hospital wasn't in my opinion excessively expensive.

[Stanaris]

Maybe this be a lesson to people trying to save a few ££££'s by not having travel insurance.

Why should Thailand have to "foot this bill" ?

Don't know her situation but most insurance doesn't cover existing conditions. Many people get the shaft due to this.

The insurance companies must be informed of any known conditions before traveling. I contacting mine because I was diagnosed with a kidney problem.... They refused to insure me Thanks HSBC. I then contacted another insurance company and paid £165 to cover me for 3 weeks. Travel insurance is a must these days

[sirineou]

I wonder if the hospital will hang onto the body until the bill is paid? At least bringing the ashes home will be cheaper than an air ambulance.

That would be funny if they did it with me... I spent the last few months giving it a lot of thought....

As you get older you are confronted with the theory that you are not immortal — no matter how often you find yourself answering when people say “Oh! God!”…..

I don’t know how typical I am but the first and primary thought when searching WebMD and finding 20 or 25 things “you could die from”…. was… if I do die I don’t want to spend any money on it and I don’t want anyone else to spend money on it. Then you have to plan for your eventual demise….. First idea was based on a “thought experiment" called “Schrödinger's Cat” where it proposed that a cat could be alive and dead at the same time. If I disappeared and no one observed whether I was dead or alive then it was “theoretically possible” to be both alive and dead - in a state of limbo forever.…. The problem that I have with “Schrödinger's Cat” “thought experiment" is that it relies on a cat being left in a closed box. Now you might not be able to observe the cat, but based on prior experience…. when no one feeds the cat…. it dies….. Also although you won’t be opening up the box to observe the cat…. after a while you might be able to “sense” it in other ways…. like the sense of smell…. which you can only avoid by shrink wrapping the cat in plastic before putting it in the box…. which… also based on prior experience…. you will end up with a dead cat…. though probably different causes. So Schrödinger's "Me" is probably not the best option.

Then I decided to prefix everything with… if I don’t die I will… you know someone asks you out for a beer later and you say something like “sure I would love a beer … if I don’t die I will be there around 9pm”….. to be honest it I figured it was one way I could prepare people…. upon hearing I had died -- they would be saying things like “he was so young” (I think some people say it even if you are 150 years old)….. and another person would ask…. “are you shocked or surprised that he died so young” and the person would honestly be able to answer… “By god no!, he talked about dying all the time”….

Then I thought I really hope no one feels the need to drag me all of the world after I am dead… because that is bloody expensive…. not to mention I am a little on the heavy side and I know I will get some lazy person that will not want to exert to much effort and will probably drag me by my feet.

Then I thought even if it might be illegal, could I arrange myself to be feed to the fishes (sorry for those that are pescetarian for that thought )…. It might actually be cheaper than incinerated then canned…. not to mention I would likely end up in cold storage handed down from generation to generation until your name is forgotten and the container degrades and you are a permanent resident of a cold damp cellar (no that would NEVER happen -- not in our family... oh yes... except for the one case ).

Finally when watching a TV show it suddenly dawned on me that the perfect solution…. someone could dump my body in a “aquarium” with lots of flesh eating beetles… which will clean my bones and feed the masses of beetles. Then the person that is stuck with me can sell by bones online and maybe make a profit since a full set of bones is in demand and can be quite pricey. I would likely become useful to teach aspiring medical students …..

But alas, I am not apparently going to die yet….. but at least I have done the planning....

(as you can see I have little use for my body after I die)

" (as you can see I have little use for my body after I die) "

It seems you also have very little use for your brain while you are alive

I read your lengthy reply to see where you were going with it. What does it wave to do with the OP?

A couple of observations concerning "“Schrödinger's Cat” ". Observation is not limited to visual, any " sense" of it would be an observation , that includes smell, sound , etc etc.

Second, since you can't observe it in any way, you don't know if the cat is being fed ,or treated in any way.

Now back to the OP

RIP to the poor woman, and condolences to the family. A very sad and difficult situation to be sure.

I a couple of times a year to Thailand, some times more, I will admite that most of the time I had not bothered to buy travel medical insurance. I am sure many in this forum, dont either, not because they are cheap, but because it never occurred to them.

So this raises another concern about Thailand, and about travel in general.

Many of as have pre-existing conditions, and no insurance would cover , pre-existing conditions, but is there insurance that would cover medical evacuation to a pre-existing conditions?

If one is self insuring, how much (approximately) one needs to have set aside for medical evacuation ? I know it depends to where,and the condition of the afflicted.

I am googling this questions as we talk to see what I can find, but I would appreciate the answers of those with personal experience.

Again, very sad for the lady and her family.

[sirineou]

^^ FYY

ok one thing I found out is that one would need medical re-patriation , in addition or rather than , medical evacuation,

Medical evacuation as I called it on my reply above, pertains to , to transportation to the nearest medical facility.