A fine old mess

[psyvolt]

14 hours ago, possum1931 said:

That could have happened quite easily if the greedy people had taken him to the first government hospital instead of a very expensive private one.

Soo I take it you have insider knowledge about what status the government hospital's were on when the OP had his accident? Maybe they were full and couldnt accept any more ICU pts. Maybe the private hospital was the closest hospital accepting trauma pts at that particular time. Or triage knew there was going to be an unacceptable delay in care, so handed over his care to a private hospital where they could give him the required care needed in the quickest possible time..

Orrrr, maybe because he has already ripped off the first hospital, they declined his treatment knowing he wouldnt pay, so passed him off to a private hospital to deal with him. Thats there duty of care done, and they know OP wont be ripping off the people of Thailand by not paying his bills.

[chrissables]

2 hours ago, bazza73 said:

The statistics are quite clear - you are about 4 times more likely to die of head injuries in a bike or motorcycle accident if not wearing a helmet, than if you are wearing one. I think it's called contributory negligence by the lawyers.

It's interesting how people who rail against compulsory helmets as infringing their personal freedoms, then expect society to bear the cost of caring for them when they become vegetables after an accident.

 

Please show me your link to back that claim up. You are making it up.

 

I actually don't give a flying <deleted> what some cleaver lawyer may call something. The fact is a helmet is not the law.

 

Helmets are not compulsory, try and keep to facts here! It is a personal freedom. If it was illegal,  not wearing a helmet is a victimless crime.

 

In Thailand where i live, nobody but me pays my bills. In fact even the bills for remedial treatment after totally incompetent surgery was performed i had to pay.

[NoshowJones]

8 hours ago, Deserted said:

I would have yes. I will with Bungrumrad if we can agree but I do think the way they handled the whole thing was profit based. I had no injuries on my neck and chest, all organs fine so why the bloody x-rays?

I can't comment about the injuries situation, but I would agree that the thing was profit based if it was the case that you were taken past government hospitals to get to Bumrungrad, but that seems to be disputed by Sheryl, and as a longtime member of Thaivisa, I know how much Sheryl has helped members in the past, and I know someone personally who Sheryl was a big help to.

But there is something I do believe, though this is only an opinion, most private hospitals, if not all, are a capitalist organisation where profits are of the utmost importance, although I won't say that they put profits before patients lives. I believe that all doctors and nurses will always put their patients first and do everything in their power to always do their best for them.

[NoshowJones]

20 minutes ago, psyvolt said:

Soo I take it you have insider knowledge about what status the government hospital's were on when the OP had his accident? Maybe they were full and couldnt accept any more ICU pts. Maybe the private hospital was the closest hospital accepting trauma pts at that particular time. Or triage knew there was going to be an unacceptable delay in care, so handed over his care to a private hospital where they could give him the required care needed in the quickest possible time..

Orrrr, maybe because he has already ripped off the first hospital, they declined his treatment knowing he wouldnt pay, so passed him off to a private hospital to deal with him. Thats there duty of care done, and they know OP wont be ripping off the people of Thailand by not paying his bills.

I was replying to what the OP said, about being taken past six government hospitals to get to a private one, although that has since being disputed.

[bazza73]

44 minutes ago, chrissables said:

So you don't actually travel around bkk and then think you are qualified to give advice on how to?  How funny!

The op stated he has been riding for years in bkk with no issues, sometimes shit happens and you just have to get up and carry on.

Your crocodile analogy is off the mark, the op needs to travel, all travel in bkk (Thailand) is risky. It's all part of the fun of living here. 

I'm pleased I can provide you with some amusement in your day. It does beat actually thinking about the issues.

I've observed traffic in Bangkok for 8 years. You may think high risk activity is fun. I wonder if you'll feel the same way if you get laid up as a paraplegic. Guess who'll be on TV asking for crowdfunding then?

Both you and the OP are irresponsible. Enough said.

[AUSSIE BOB]

One fact I agree with, you should not have been taken past any other hospital capable of treating your injuries. Now if you were found in a state of unconsciousness or similar the medical staff have a duty of care responsiblity. If by the time you get to a hospital, those staff if unable to communicate with you and determine your exact injuries then they too follow procedural steps to rule out serious medical situations. So in my opinion you were given probably first class treatment. Now think about it from the other side, if you went into the hospital. Told staff you fell off your bike and bumped your head. No real injury except a cut. Then you tell them you feel ok and want to leave. You go home and then collapse in your room from a blood embolism or similar medical situation and die. What way do you want this to go? get the treatment, be sure whats going on inside your body and live another day. Unfortunately I do not have any simpathy for you as you should know that Thailand roads are amoung the most dangerous in the world and yet you ride a bike. As for asking if an insurance company can backdate a claim. You are a bigger idiot than you first made out. Ask yourself the same question and place yourself as the insurance company boss, Do I need to spell out fraud to you. They are in the business of making money by limiting their risks, they are not going to accept something that involves a payout before the fact of receiving your money. That is not good business. Also garbage trucks all around the world are known for frequently stopping with or without flashing lights, Why were you travelling so close to it? Oh and maybe somebody has asked this already, were you wearing your bike helmet? Living here is all about minimizing the risks to extend your life expectancy, your case is one that goes against that trend. Now all the facts were not provided in the OP so some things I have raised might not be applicable but just in case others read my comment and something hits home and helps save a life or raise the awareness of the need for insurance then my rant has helped.

[bazza73]

1 hour ago, chrissables said:

Please show me your link to back that claim up. You are making it up.

 

I actually don't give a flying <deleted> what some cleaver lawyer may call something. The fact is a helmet is not the law.

 

Helmets are not compulsory, try and keep to facts here! It is a personal freedom. If it was illegal,  not wearing a helmet is a victimless crime.

 

In Thailand where i live, nobody but me pays my bills. In fact even the bills for remedial treatment after totally incompetent surgery was performed i had to pay.

Simply Google head injuries without helmets. There's any number of studies with varying ranges of death/injury shown for helmets vs non-users. I'm just quoting my estimate of the average. Of course, you can always go to some brain-dead website presenting alternative facts to dispute that. Knock yourself out.

 

Contributory negligence is a well-established legal principle. The fact you don't give a flying <deleted> about it won't change that.

 

I don't know what the law is regarding bicycle helmets in Thailand. Why would I, when I regard bicycles as death traps?  Don't wear one on a scooter, and it's a 500 baht fine. So it is the law for scooters.

 

Personal freedom my arse. Victimless my arse. So you are happy to burden society with the consequences of becoming a paraplegic just so you can be free? Your family, friends etc. won't become victims when that happens? You probably couldn't care less about the emergency workers who have to scrape your carcass off a bend where you were embracing your personal freedom.

 

I'll bet you were outraged when seat belts in cars became  compulsory. Try this link. A different lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chrissables]

43 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

I'm pleased I can provide you with some amusement in your day. It does beat actually thinking about the issues.

I've observed traffic in Bangkok for 8 years. You may think high risk activity is fun. I wonder if you'll feel the same way if you get laid up as a paraplegic. Guess who'll be on TV asking for crowdfunding then?

Both you and the OP are irresponsible. Enough said.

I enjoy life and risks, some don't, it is a persons choice, especially as we are discussing legal activities!

 

I self insure and would never ask for help. 

[chrissables]

11 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Simply Google head injuries without helmets. There's any number of studies with varying ranges of death/injury shown for helmets vs non-users. I'm just quoting my estimate of the average. Of course, you can always go to some brain-dead website presenting alternative facts to dispute that. Knock yourself out.

 

Contributory negligence is a well-established legal principle. The fact you don't give a flying <deleted> about it won't change that.

 

I don't know what the law is regarding bicycle helmets in Thailand. Why would I, when I regard bicycles as death traps?  Don't wear one on a scooter, and it's a 500 baht fine. So it is the law for scooters.

 

Personal freedom my arse. Victimless my arse. So you are happy to burden society with the consequences of becoming a paraplegic just so you can be free? Your family, friends etc. won't become victims when that happens? You probably couldn't care less about the emergency workers who have to scrape your carcass off a bend where you were embracing your personal freedom.

 

I'll bet you were outraged when seat belts in cars became  compulsory. Try this link. A different lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

YOU stated a fact, show me it or retract it. 

 

Contributory negligence is a well-established legal principle. The fact you don't give a flying <deleted> about it won't change that.

If i am within the law i certainly don't give a <deleted>. 

 

So you are discussing bike helmet law in Thailand and then state, "I don't know what the law is regarding bicycle helmets in Thailand" 555555555555555555 Funny as <deleted>, seriously!

 

I am sorry if you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the concept of a victimless crime. I will try to simplify it.  If it was the law to ride a bike you must wear a helmet, it is not. I have committed a crime. Who is the victim? Nobody! If a car runs me over when i am not wearing, or in fact wearing a helmet, who is the victim? Me! 

 

Emergency workers thought are not my concern, although if some <deleted> knocks me off my bike i would hope they would be disgusted by the <deleted> who did it.

[bazza73]

1 minute ago, chrissables said:

YOU stated a fact, show me it or retract it. 

 

Contributory negligence is a well-established legal principle. The fact you don't give a flying <deleted> about it won't change that.

If i am within the law i certainly don't give a <deleted>. 

 

So you are discussing bike helmet law in Thailand and then state, "I don't know what the law is regarding bicycle helmets in Thailand" 555555555555555555 Funny as <deleted>, seriously!

 

I am sorry if you don't have the mental capacity to comprehend the concept of a victimless crime. I will try to simplify it.  If it was the law to ride a bike you must wear a helmet, it is not. I have committed a crime. Who is the victim? Nobody! If a car runs me over when i am not wearing, or in fact wearing a helmet, who is the victim? Me! 

 

Emergency workers thought are not my concern, although if some <deleted> knocks me off my bike i would hope they would be disgusted by the <deleted> who did it.

It's pretty obvious it is pointless trying to point out the flaws in your thinking.

 

"Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%)"

 

Source: Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute.

 

If a truck brakes in front of you, and you can't avoid it, is the truck to blame? No. And if you are not wearing a helmet, which results in

greater  injury, are you not contributing to the severity of your injury?

 

Even in a backwater like Chiang Mai, I never cease to be amazed by cyclists ( mostly falangs ) who seem to think common sense in negotiating traffic is an unnecessary attribute.

 

That failed procedure you referred to earlier - it wasn't brain surgery, was it?

[CMBob]

9 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

So you're saying if this had happened to an ordinary Thai person, they would have been taken to Bumrungrad, given the same procedures and hit with the same size bill - because medical protocol requires it? I don't think so.

Oh, come on, what level of medical care (appropriate or inappropriate) is given to an average citizen here is irrelevant to the issue (but, on the other hand, I've seen action at Thai government hospitals here and it all seemed appropriate and thorough enough to me).  If the OP had been presented with the same condition to any hospital in London, Los Angeles, Chiangmai, Moscow or wherever, what the hospital doctors did to try to determine the extent of injuries to an unconscious man involved in a bike/car accident was merited.  If for some reason you're aware a different protocol is merited under these circumstances, let's hear about it.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

I was replying to what the OP said, about being taken past six government hospitals to get to a private one, although that has since being disputed.

It also works the other way round. About 18 months ago a friend of mine and his Thai family were down from the north for the weekend in Pattaya. The father in law had an accident, the ambulance was called and he was taken to the government hospital in Naklua. They were not equipped to deal with the case so he was sent to the government hospital in Mueang Chonburi where he died shortly after arrival.

[chrissables]

24 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

It's pretty obvious it is pointless trying to point out the flaws in your thinking.

 

"Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury. Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet. Helmet use among those bicyclists with serious injuries was low (13%), but it was even lower among bicyclists killed (3%)"

 

Source: Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute.

 

If a truck brakes in front of you, and you can't avoid it, is the truck to blame? No. And if you are not wearing a helmet, which results in

greater  injury, are you not contributing to the severity of your injury?

 

Even in a backwater like Chiang Mai, I never cease to be amazed by cyclists ( mostly falangs ) who seem to think common sense in negotiating traffic is an unnecessary attribute.

 

That failed procedure you referred to earlier - it wasn't brain surgery, was it?

No flaws at all, i asked where you got your facts from, you now have given them, although  the are "facts" from an institute who promotes helmet use, so not exactly unbiased! Did they state the cause of the accidents? That would put some perspective on things. Along with the fact that it is perfectly legal to ride without a dam helmet!

 

If i am too close to a vehicle and can't stop in time, yes i would be wrong. If as happens a lot in Thailand a vehicle overtakes you, slams on the brakes to stop or turn left, they would be wrong.

 

Funny <deleted>. I had cataract surgery, the surgeon detached my retina. I had 5 general anesthetic ops and a few under local anesthetic to try to rectify it. Total cost was an eye and 800,000 baht. 

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, chrissables said:

No flaws at all, i asked where you got your facts from, you now have given them, although  the are "facts" from an institute who promotes helmet use, so not exactly unbiased! Did they state the cause of the accidents? That would put some perspective on things. Along with the fact that it is perfectly legal to ride without a dam helmet!

 

If i am too close to a vehicle and can't stop in time, yes i would be wrong. If as happens a lot in Thailand a vehicle overtakes you, slams on the brakes to stop or turn left, they would be wrong.

 

Funny <deleted>. I had cataract surgery, the surgeon detached my retina. I had 5 general anesthetic ops and a few under local anesthetic to try to rectify it. Total cost was an eye and 800,000 baht. 

So now you are riding a bike one eyed which means you can't judge distances. My sister moved to Australia and became blind in one eye due to an infection,she lost her driving license as a result

[NoshowJones]

10 minutes ago, sandyf said:

It also works the other way round. About 18 months ago a friend of mine and his Thai family were down from the north for the weekend in Pattaya. The father in law had an accident, the ambulance was called and he was taken to the government hospital in Naklua. They were not equipped to deal with the case so he was sent to the government hospital in Mueang Chonburi where he died shortly after arrival.

Sorry about your father in law, but I would assume that he was a lot more injured than the OP, I do know from the experience of my wifes family and my local Farang friends that they have been sent from the local government hospital just outside my village to the big government hospital in Phichit about 50Ks away, it seems to happen most times. Some smaller hospitals are not equipped to handle certain cases.

[ddavidovsky]

28 minutes ago, CMBob said:

Oh, come on, what level of medical care (appropriate or inappropriate) is given to an average citizen here is irrelevant to the issue (but, on the other hand, I've seen action at Thai government hospitals here and it all seemed appropriate and thorough enough to me).  If the OP had been presented with the same condition to any hospital in London, Los Angeles, Chiangmai, Moscow or wherever, what the hospital doctors did to try to determine the extent of injuries to an unconscious man involved in a bike/car accident was merited.  If for some reason you're aware a different protocol is merited under these circumstances, let's hear about it.

You know full well there is standard 'medical protocol' and de luxe. In any case it depends on the precise circumstances and is subject to individual judgement. Not everyone who is concussed needs a scan although the hospital could easily argue that it's always safest 'just-in-case'.

 

You have just admitted that Thais get a different level of care which blows away the argument of standard protocol. Clearly foreigners are given 'de luxe' rather than standard care.

 

Fact is, in private hospitals nowadays there are also other issues at play besides medical protocol in determining what procedures are applied - ie. commercial.

[chrissables]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

So now you are riding a bike one eyed which means you can't judge distances. My sister moved to Australia and became blind in one eye due to an infection,she lost her driving license as a result

I ride both a bike and a motorbike. I have no issues with either.

 

I have a correct and legal driving licence for both a car and a motorbike here. To do so i must go (funnily enough) to the hospital that blinded me and take a lot of tests to make sure i am safe to drive/ride.

 

I have ridden all around Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam and a lot of Laos with no issues caused from my sight. Unlike a lot of people with two eyes.

[NoshowJones]

5 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

So now you are riding a bike one eyed which means you can't judge distances. My sister moved to Australia and became blind in one eye due to an infection,she lost her driving license as a result

I don't see any problem with anyone driving with only one eye as long as that eye can pass the driving test sight check. In the UK, a HGV and PSV driver is not allowed to drive unless he can pass the sight test with both eyes, but to drive a car or ride a motorbike with one eye, I do not see any problem at all. Drive a car, close one eye, and providing the other eye is fine, ask yourself honestly if you really think you should not be driving. Oh, and I have two eyes.

[soalbundy]

Just now, possum1931 said:

I don't see any problem with anyone driving with only one eye as long as that eye can pass the driving test sight check. In the UK, a HGV and PSV driver is not allowed to drive unless he can pass the sight test with both eyes, but to drive a car or ride a motorbike with one eye, I do not see any problem at all. Drive a car, close one eye, and providing the other eye is fine, ask yourself honestly if you really think you should not be driving. Oh, and I have two eyes.

you can't judge distances with only one eye, not dangerous ?

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

you can't judge distances with only one eye, not dangerous ?

Of course you can judge distances. I can put a bottle of beer to my mouth and have never started pouring before it was in place. :)

 

It really is not an issue, we are talking riding a motorbike, not surgery. I have in 100,000 at a guess km of riding here had an issue due to one eye.

[NoshowJones]

13 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

you can't judge distances with only one eye, not dangerous ?

Why can't you?

[Sheryl]

11 hours ago, Deserted said:

I would have yes. I will with Bungrumrad if we can agree but I do think the way they handled the whole thing was profit based. I had no injuries on my neck and chest, all organs fine so why the bloody x-rays?

 

To make sure you had no spinal injuries, which cannot be determined based on externally apparent wounds.  If you had a spinal injury and it went undetected, normal movements could lead to severing the spinal cord leaving you paralyzed.

 

And I doubt the 2 xray films came to very much. The main big ticket item was the head CT with contrast, and the ER care.

 

There is no such thing as "just knocked out". Medically, a head injury that leaves you unconscious for several hours is not the minor, unimportant thing you believe it to be and can indicate intracranial bleeding which if not immediately treated, can lead to death or permanent brain damage.

 

Since you do not believe either me or the doctors, please research yourself what standard, minimally acceptable medical care for an unconscious trauma patient is.

 

You were not given any unnecessary care.  You were treated appropriately.

 

Your nonchalant attitude about head injuries does not bode well for your future health.  Aside from the immediate dangers, even injuries limited to concussion cause some degree of lasting damage the effects of which are cumulative.

[transam]

17 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

you can't judge distances with only one eye, not dangerous ?

So why does the UK let drivers drive with one eye...?

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

Why can't you?

stereo vision is needed for depth perception. It is the same with hearing, i hear less well with one ear than with the other consequently i have trouble knowing where a sound is coming from. 

[soalbundy]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

So why does the UK let drivers drive with one eye...?

who knows why the UK does anything, how much more insurance does a one eyed car driver have to pay

[transam]

Just now, soalbundy said:

who knows why the UK does anything, how much more insurance does a one eyed car driver have to pay

That is not the issue, if a one eyed person passes the UK requirements with one eye they are deemed safe to drive, what insurance they pay is a non issue...I am replying to your distance thingy..

[rott]

18 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Are you serious? I was told it was sixty.

Wrong. I do not know if there is a maximum age but I definitely know that it is not 60.

[NoshowJones]

Different banks and branches make up their own rules.

[ajarngreg]

1 hour ago, possum1931 said:

I don't see any problem with anyone driving with only one eye as long as that eye can pass the driving test sight check. In the UK, a HGV and PSV driver is not allowed to drive unless he can pass the sight test with both eyes, but to drive a car or ride a motorbike with one eye, I do not see any problem at all. Drive a car, close one eye, and providing the other eye is fine, ask yourself honestly if you really think you should not be driving. Oh, and I have two eyes.

Driving with one eye only was our secret way to get our cars home after a wet party when people started to see everything twice. It works.

[ajarngreg]

48 minutes ago, transam said:

So why does the UK let drivers drive with one eye...?

Why are people allowed to drive with one arm? Maybe because it should be allowed if they can proof that they can drive safe?