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

[bkkcanuck8]

^^ 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.

Here is what I have found:

What does a typical evacuation cost?

Travelex Travel Insurance recently released information about the average costs of a medical evacuation. According to their statistics, the average medical evacuation within North America costs $25,000. From Europe, the cost can reach $50,000. The average cost of a nurse escort is $11,000 within North America and $24,000 from Europe.

How much coverage is enough?

Squaremouth typically recommends travelers purchase between $50,000 and $100,000 of medical evacuation coverage.For travel to more remote locations, travelers should consider up to $250,000 of coverage.

The best way to arrange a medical evacuation while traveling is to contact the travel insurance provider using their 24 emergency assistance line. This way, they can arrange and pay for the services directly.

OK it sounds as though the insurer can book directly (which should be the best price).... A private hospital will most assuredly mark it up so they get a cut.

https://www.squaremouth.com/travel-advice/medical-evacuation-and-repatriation-how-much-coverage-do-i-need/

[MiKT]

@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.

That you are till unable to grasp (or face-up-to) the moral implications of your post is sad indeed, but not something that troubles me greatly.

But enough of this nonsense, continuing to debate with one who is unable or refuses to understand what they have said is a waste of time and contributes nothing further to the discussion as to why the Thai public or individual TV posters should not be morally blackmailed into contributing towards the costs of this poor family.

What does concern me though, is that your trouble stirring "knee jerk" posts have very probably only firmed the resolve of those who might have been inclined to contribute, but will not be coerced.

Looked at kindly, this could just be the result of the laws of unintended consequences, but in your case is more likely to be the result of an underlying agenda.

[denkiblue555]

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.

Please cleatly enlighten us then....

[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.

That you are till unable to grasp (or face-up-to) the moral implications of your post is sad indeed, but not something that troubles me greatly.

But enough of this nonsense, continuing to debate with one who is unable or refuses to understand what they have said is a waste of time and contributes nothing further to the discussion as to why the Thai public or individual TV posters should not be morally blackmailed into contributing towards the costs of this poor family.

What does concern me though, is that your trouble stirring "knee jerk" posts have very probably only firmed the resolve of those who might have been inclined to contribute, but will not be coerced.

Looked at kindly, this could just be the result of the laws of unintended consequences, but in your case is more likely to be the result of an underlying agenda.

There are no implications except those you wish to impose on what I said. I answered a question that's all. Something you seem unable to deal with. Why is beyond me.

No one is being blackmailed, again another figment of your impoverished imagination. You seem to have guilt issues about this, again beyond me why. You don't want to help then don't. I doubt anyone has decided not to contribute because of your constant and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said.

As for knee jerk, apply to your assumptions. They certainly fit the bill.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts about the NHS have been removed along with replies.

Please stay on topic.

[paulbj2]

Britain's NHS does it all the time. It an't known as the World's favourite health service for nothing.

There was a case fairly recently where a Nigerian woman having triplets (ectopic) had treatment worth £140,000 on the NHS, then swanned-off back to Lagos without paying a penny!

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" ?

Interesting; if you were the Nigerian woman and a doctor in your home country told you that you had ectopic triplets. You didn't have the money for the treatment needed to save your life, What would you do? Sit there and wait to die in unspeakable agony or borrow the money from friends and family for a ticket to London where it is well know that they treat first and ask questions later.

I know what I'd do!

Incidentally, the reason that people go to London rather than going to Paris, Brussels, Berlin of any of the other Western European capitals is not because they would be refused treatment in those other capital cities; emergency treatment is provided regardless of ability to pay in all western European countries, but because, for better of for worse, English is the most popular 2nd language in Nigeria and many other African countries and therefore at least they will be able to converse with the medical staff in a language they can understand, It's quite important that (perhaps you recall; we were their colonial masters for quite a few years). People from ex-French colonies tend to do same except of course, they go to Paris not London.

[ukrules]

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.

Not to mention that most insurance companies are not prepared to cover anyone over 50, or with any sort of preexisting health problems. Those of us in these circumstances hope for a healthy life and a swift (and cheap) death.

My 71 year old mother had no problems getting insurance for her 60 day trip to Thailand from January to March this year.

It wasn't as cheap as it used to be and the Thai government arranged policy doesn't accept people over the age of 70 so that's now become useless but she still got it with some other company and I'm sure she will get it again when she comes next year.

[wprime]

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" ?

Common human decency?

It's not human decency it's moral hazard. If hospitals were to alleviate the risk associated with not having travel insurance by bailing out the few reckless individuals like the one in this article, then it would increase the roi:risk ratio of not having insurance encouraging more people to not get insurance. The end result is an overburdened and underfunded medical system where everybody suffers.

[cumgranosalum]

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" ?

Common human decency?

It's not human decency it's moral hazard. If hospitals were to alleviate the risk associated with not having travel insurance by bailing out the few reckless individuals like the one in this article, then it would increase the roi:risk ratio of not having insurance encouraging more people to not get insurance. The end result is an overburdened and underfunded medical system where everybody suffers.

life is so simple for some.....

[Bluespunk]

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" ?

Common human decency?

It's not human decency it's moral hazard. If hospitals were to alleviate the risk associated with not having travel insurance by bailing out the few reckless individuals like the one in this article, then it would increase the roi:risk ratio of not having insurance encouraging more people to not get insurance. The end result is an overburdened and underfunded medical system where everybody suffers.

No, it's human decency to help others.

[bkkcanuck8]

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" ?

Common human decency?

It's not human decency it's moral hazard. If hospitals were to alleviate the risk associated with not having travel insurance by bailing out the few reckless individuals like the one in this article, then it would increase the roi:risk ratio of not having insurance encouraging more people to not get insurance. The end result is an overburdened and underfunded medical system where everybody suffers.

No, it's human decency to help others.

"Humans" are only wired to really care about people in a select group (friends and/or family in this case) while having no deep need to help others. They might pretend differently, but for the most part that is the case. We may "sympathize" with people but that is about where it ends. Humans after all is said is done might be more intelligent than your average animal -- but we are still really a "pack animal" -- defensive of people with our "pack" but outside of our group not really. If were not we would probably go mental trying to help everyone that crosses our path or for that matter anyone that has a hard luck story.

With all the claims about it is only "human decency" over the last 3 or 4 days.... only 1 new contributor (worth 20GBP) has bother to make a pledge to help the family. So if it is only "human decency" then there are really no decent humans to speak of.

[Bluespunk]

It's not human decency it's moral hazard. If hospitals were to alleviate the risk associated with not having travel insurance by bailing out the few reckless individuals like the one in this article, then it would increase the roi:risk ratio of not having insurance encouraging more people to not get insurance. The end result is an overburdened and underfunded medical system where everybody suffers.

No, it's human decency to help others.

"Humans" are only wired to really care about people in a select group (friends and/or family in this case) while having no deep need to help others. They might pretend differently, but for the most part that is the case. We may "sympathize" with people but that is about where it ends. Humans after all is said is done might be more intelligent than your average animal -- but we are still really a "pack animal" -- defensive of people with our "pack" but outside of our group not really. If were not we would probably go mental trying to help everyone that crosses our path or for that matter anyone that has a hard luck story.

With all the claims about it is only "human decency" over the last 3 or 4 days.... only 1 new contributor (worth 20GBP) has bother to make a pledge to help the family. So if it is only "human decency" then there are really no decent humans to speak of.

Guess I'm wired differently then.

As for your selective monitoring of pledges, I happen to know more was donated in the days prior to the stats your choose to present.

[bkkcanuck8]

Guess I'm wired differently then.

As for your selective monitoring of pledges, I happen to know more was donated in the days prior to the stats your choose to present.

So you gave lots of money to the family in question? Or you just talk a good game?

[Bluespunk]

Guess I'm wired differently then.

As for your selective monitoring of pledges, I happen to know more was donated in the days prior to the stats your choose to present.

So you gave lots of money to the family in question? Or you just talk a good game?

Tell you what, I'll let you see what I did if you agree to donate an equal or greater amount.

I don't bluff or BS.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Bluespunk

[fey]

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" ?

I think you should research a little more into how travel insurance works.

It is ok for the short time tourist on holiday but it does nothing for a traveler.

Correct, it seems to be country and date specific. Probably possible to register each time you hop a border, but not worth the effort IMO.

[bkkcanuck8]

Tell you what, I'll let you see what I did if you agree to donate an equal or greater amount.

I don't bluff or BS.

Not an offer I am willing to take. I give plenty already, but I keep it to people that I have met personally and mostly to help out with further education. Usually those that have merit but not the means to continue education. Outside of my network, I from time to time give money to organizations focused on helping children. I feel no need or impulse to help people who are of the maturity that they should know how to take care of themselves, and have the means - but because of lack of foresight do not.

If you really did give money to this family, there are a mere 43,000+ more to help out -- this last year alone within the UK who have "gotten themselves in trouble" internationally.

Edited July 24, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Bluespunk]

Tell you what, I'll let you see what I did if you agree to donate an equal or greater amount.

I don't bluff or BS.

Not an offer I am willing to take. I give plenty already, but I keep it to people that I have met personally and mostly to help out with further education. Usually those that have merit but not the means to continue education. Outside of my network, I from time to time give money to organizations focused on helping children. I feel no need or impulse to help people who are of the maturity that they should know how to take care of themselves, and have the means - but because of lack of foresight do not.

If you really did give money to this family, there are a mere 43,000+ more to help out -- this last year alone within the UK who have "gotten themselves in trouble" internationally.

Fine, no worries there. We all do what we can and feel comfortable with.

However in future I would appreciate it if you didn't question my integrity in the manner you did.

And, now I reread your post, do so again in your final sentence.

[bkkcanuck8]

Fine, no worries there. We all do what we can and feel comfortable with.

However in future I would appreciate it if you didn't question my integrity in the manner you did.

And, now I reread your post, do so again in your final sentence.

You have been coming across as questioning everyone else. Basically saying that it is only human decency to help the family (which by inference is that if you don't -- you are not a decent human being).

I know my parents would not have given money to them, but then they have on several occasions partially sponsored refugee families (real ones) -- [at much more than the contributions made to this family on fundraising].... yet apparently it was only human decency that you help those adults who are not "challenged" but are in that situation from their own making as far as I can tell. (the cost of admission to the private hospital for the first day would have been more than any contribution of any single family member to the "fund raising campaign").

Edited July 24, 2016 by bkkcanuck8

[Bluespunk]

Fine, no worries there. We all do what we can and feel comfortable with.

However in future I would appreciate it if you didn't question my integrity in the manner you did.

And, now I reread your post, do so again in your final sentence.

You have been coming across as questioning everyone else. Basically saying that it is only human decency to help the family (which by inference is that if you don't -- you are not a decent human being).

I know my parents would not have given money to them, but then they have on several occasions partially sponsored refugee families (real ones) -- [at much more than the contributions made to this family on fundraising].... yet apparently it was only human decency that you help those adults who are not "challenged" but are in that situation from their own making as far as I can tell. (the cost of admission to the private hospital for the first day would have been more than any contribution of any single family member to the "fund raising campaign").

Your inference is incorrect.

As for your second paragraph inferring you know what I would consider a good cause or what I would call worthy, nonsense.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Bluespunk

[Missangela]

>>I have no idea where you live but I would suggest that you try using the local public hospital as it will be cheaper.<<

Sure the local Government hospitals will be far cheaper ,and they are all over Thailand .There can be long waits though just to be seen .You may have died in the mean time .It would be my only option though if i had a heart attack as i can not get cover ,due to a history of Hypertension .

Wow, a long wait.... sounds like the emergency entry at the hospital in Canada I went to (20+ years ago).... if you are not spurting blood from an artery or on deaths doorway.... you had a long wait.

Haha... just like the nhs then!!

[bkkcanuck8]

Fine, no worries there. We all do what we can and feel comfortable with.

However in future I would appreciate it if you didn't question my integrity in the manner you did.

And, now I reread your post, do so again in your final sentence.

You have been coming across as questioning everyone else. Basically saying that it is only human decency to help the family (which by inference is that if you don't -- you are not a decent human being).

I know my parents would not have given money to them, but then they have on several occasions partially sponsored refugee families (real ones) -- [at much more than the contributions made to this family on fundraising].... yet apparently it was only human decency that you help those adults who are not "challenged" but are in that situation from their own making as far as I can tell. (the cost of admission to the private hospital for the first day would have been more than any contribution of any single family member to the "fund raising campaign").

Your inference is incorrect.

As for your second paragraph inferring you know what I would consider a good cause or what I would call worthy, nonsense.

When you say over and over again that it is only "common human decency" then the corollary is that if one does not then one is not showing "common human decency". Or are you saying that not contributing to the fund is also "common human decency", which would mean that the words have little or no meaning and generally would not be said because it would add nothing to the conversation (in the same way as just stating "The ocean is blue" in the middle of this discussion).

I would not go so far as say it was "emotional blackmail" as another has stated but it, but I understand why he felt that way.

[Naam]

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 is probably what will happen and the will charge daily.

they might charge till doomsday but nobody will pay.

[billd766]

I do not understand. Thailand now has compulsory travel insurance. It was brought in some time ago. The price is automatically added to your air ticket. I read a thread detailing how to make a claim on it. The hospitals never tell you about it but there is an office you can go to to claim. Personally I believe the private hospitals charge you and then, without you knowing, claim in the government insurance. I have no proof on this but living in Thailand for 12 years makes me believe it is so.

It was raised as a possibility a couple of years or so ago. However, it was never implemented. There's no such insurance.

I had it for 12 months.

I still have the card, and use it for I.D. if I ever have to go to a Government hospital.

Not possible. The scheme never came anywhere close to being implemented. The card must be something else, perhaps one of the cards that were intended for migrant workers from neighbouring countries that were erroneously issued to some Occidentals.

It is/was possible. My mate who lived in the next province of Nakhon Sawan had one. I live in Khampaeng Phet province and was refused one . There was a thread on it several years ago. Some provinces allowed it and some didn't. Try looking it up.

[billd766]

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.

If the family back in the UK cannot raise the money then why would you expect the government to do so with no expectation of its return.

If the government does it for one person they will have to do it for everybody and the cost would be enormous to the taxpayer.

When I die here in Thailand I will be cremated at the local temple and my ashes will be put in an urn and placed at the spirit house in the front garden.

It will cost nothing to either the UK or the Thai government.

[billd766]

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.

Now that would be a surprise. Imagine a government going back on its word. Has it ever happened before?

[evadgib]

Recipients of war pension are exempt along with their families but that's a different thread.

[Oxx]

Not possible. The scheme never came anywhere close to being implemented. The card must be something else, perhaps one of the cards that were intended for migrant workers from neighbouring countries that were erroneously issued to some Occidentals.

It is/was possible. My mate who lived in the next province of Nakhon Sawan had one. I live in Khampaeng Phet province and was refused one . There was a thread on it several years ago. Some provinces allowed it and some didn't. Try looking it up.

You clearly aren't following the topic. The suggestion was that the government implemented an insurance scheme for tourists paid for by a levy on plane tickets. That never happened.

[billd766]

Post deleted by me.

Edited July 25, 2016 by billd766

[Bluespunk]

Fine, no worries there. We all do what we can and feel comfortable with.

However in future I would appreciate it if you didn't question my integrity in the manner you did.

And, now I reread your post, do so again in your final sentence.

You have been coming across as questioning everyone else. Basically saying that it is only human decency to help the family (which by inference is that if you don't -- you are not a decent human being).

I know my parents would not have given money to them, but then they have on several occasions partially sponsored refugee families (real ones) -- [at much more than the contributions made to this family on fundraising].... yet apparently it was only human decency that you help those adults who are not "challenged" but are in that situation from their own making as far as I can tell. (the cost of admission to the private hospital for the first day would have been more than any contribution of any single family member to the "fund raising campaign").

Your inference is incorrect.

As for your second paragraph inferring you know what I would consider a good cause or what I would call worthy, nonsense.

When you say over and over again that it is only "common human decency" then the corollary is that if one does not then one is not showing "common human decency". Or are you saying that not contributing to the fund is also "common human decency", which would mean that the words have little or no meaning and generally would not be said because it would add nothing to the conversation (in the same way as just stating "The ocean is blue" in the middle of this discussion).

I would not go so far as say it was "emotional blackmail" as another has stated but it, but I understand why he felt that way.

Again your inference is wrong.

As to the blackmail BS, well that's just BS.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Not to mention that most insurance companies are not prepared to cover anyone over 50, or with any sort of preexisting health problems. Those of us in these circumstances hope for a healthy life and a swift (and cheap) death.

My 71 year old mother had no problems getting insurance for her 60 day trip to Thailand from January to March this year.

It wasn't as cheap as it used to be and the Thai government arranged policy doesn't accept people over the age of 70 so that's now become useless but she still got it with some other company and I'm sure she will get it again when she comes next year.

What is this "government arranged policy"? First I've heard of it.