BUPA Thailand - Warning

[brewsterbudgen]

Wow i just tried Cigna for a quote and their cheapest was 70,000 baht. Is that the normal price for a 44 year old uk expat in thailand? Seems excessive

Yes, it's expensive. I've gone with Regency as they are a UK company with a Bangkok office. $1m cover, no deductible. Healthcare International are also worth looking at (UK company).

[coops]

On 04/08/2017 at 2:20 PM, Mover1 said:

Wow i just tried Cigna for a quote and their cheapest was 70,000 baht. Is that the normal price for a 44 year old uk expat in thailand? Seems excessive

You don't specify what level of coverage - but it is not way off if it's for maximum 2 million USD coverage in Thailand/Asia with NO deductbiles at all for drugs/hospital etc ( this does NOT apply in the US for obvious rip-off reasons).

 

I'm lucky to have Cigna global through work, covers both me and my wife and i can only guess on the total coverage cost ( as part is covered by Company) but 70k bhat may be about right for a high level of (almost unlimited) coverage with no deductible.

 

You should be able to get a range of quotes depending on any deductible you may choose to take on and total limit etc.

 

 

ps I forgot to add I've had to make numerous claims - and all are/were dealt with immediately with no need to pay then claim back or any of that malarkey.

Edited August 10, 2017 by coops

[tonray]

9 minutes ago, coops said:

You don't specify what level of coverage - but it is not way off if it's for maximum 2 million USD coverage in Thailand/Asia with NO deductbiles at all for drugs/hospital etc ( this does NOT apply in the US for obvious rip-off reasons).

 

I'm lucky to have Cigna global through work, covers both me and my wife and i can only guess on the total coverage cost ( as part is covered by Company) but 70k bhat may be about right for a high level of (almost unlimited) coverage with no deductible.

 

You should be able to get a range of quotes depending on any deductible you may choose to take on and total limit etc.

 

 

ps I forgot to add I've had to make numerous claims - and all are/were dealt with immediately with no need to pay then claim back or any of that malarkey.

I think coming from the UK Vs the USA as I do colors thinking on what's expensive as far as health insurance. 

[coops]

 

3 minutes ago, tonray said:

I think coming from the UK Vs the USA as I do colors thinking on what's expensive as far as health insurance. 

You should see the difference between my coverage inside the US and ANYWHERE outside... basically 100% covered outside the US but mostly deductibles and 80% in the US...(not that I spend any time there)

"

Physician Office Visit

Outside U.S. - 100% covered; Inside U.S. - 80% after deductible is met

 

Specialist Office Visit

Outside U.S. - 100% covered; Inside U.S. - 80% after deductible is met

"

and Lord only knows what a 'physician office visit' will run you in the US....

[Pilotman]

6 minutes ago, tonray said:

I think coming from the UK Vs the USA as I do colors thinking on what's expensive as far as health insurance. 

I agree.  Its a bit of a culture shock to see the quotes for someone my age (69).  It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

[tonray]

5 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

I agree.  Its a bit of a culture shock to see the quotes for someone my age (69).  It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

when I was in the US self employed I payed anywhere from $400 to $700 per month for coverage. It really is ridiculous ! So even getting a quote from China Global which I just did the other day at $280 per month does not strike me as particularly expensive. That's about 111,500 baht annually for a 59 year old. 

 

I think the key for a relatively healthy person is to use a high deductible and copay to make this a catastrophic coverage policy that Won't Leave you destitute should something big happen and stay away from doctors as much as possible 

Edited August 10, 2017 by tonray

[scubascuba3]

I agree.  Its a bit of a culture shock to see the quotes for someone my age (69).  It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

And usually premiums keep increasing if you claim

[lopburi3]

As for not seeing doctors - even the insurance firms paying do not agree after years of data mining - much cheaper to pay for doctor's visits/tests than to treat advanced conditions even if they are paying the bills.  And they know the costs.  Agree using high deductible may make sense for most people but do allow funds to take care of yourself for doctor visits and tests when needed.

 

It is a very confusing subject because we have different experiences - much of the world has at least basic free healthcare so insurance is not even a thought.  But when we travel outside of those areas it can become a serious issue (I am from USA so perhaps more likely to have, or at least understand insurance).  

[Sheryl]

9 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

12 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I agree.  Its a bit of a culture shock to see the quotes for someone my age (69).  It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

And usually premiums keep increasing if you claim

Premiums will increase as you age and there may also be across the board inflationary increases, but most western-based insurers will not increase your premium based on claim history, the insurance regulators in their countries would not allow this. Thai insurers can and will, however.

[impulse]

On 8/11/2017 at 8:53 AM, Sheryl said:

Premiums will increase as you age and there may also be across the board inflationary increases, but most western-based insurers will not increase your premium based on claim history, the insurance regulators in their countries would not allow this. Thai insurers can and will, however.

 

In the past, the common insurance company trick was to raise the rates of the entire group, then offer the healthy people another plan at a lower rate.  The next year, they could demonstrate to the regulators costs that would allow them to raise the rates again on the remaining group.  Eventually, the group would have no healthy people left and the rates would be so high nobody could afford them.

 

[teddog]

Too true, seems one set of Bs chasing another set of Bs, private hospitals wringing everything they can from insurance companies,who in turn screw the punter for all hes worth. Never had medical insurance never will, pressured into thoughts that xyz may happen,undoubly never will, accident insured if young enough, but the govt. hospitals are not that bad for stability until plan abc can be put into place

On 8/10/2017 at 7:15 PM, Pilotman said:

I agree.  Its a bit of a culture shock to see the quotes for someone my age (69).  It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

 

[JLCrab]

According to the latest US 2015 Census data --

"The Current Population Survey shows that the percentage of people with health insurance for all or part of 2014 was 89.6 percent, higher than the rate in 2013 (86.7 percent)."

"Of the subtypes of health insurance, employment-based insurance covered the most people (55.4 percent of the population), followed by Medicaid (19.5 percent), Medicare (16.0 percent), direct-purchase (14.6 percent) and military health care (4.5 percent)."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html

So for someone, at least in the US, to say that they never had health insurance would mean they were never part of the majority of Americans who received health insurance through their employment or have not received government health insurance particularly Medicaid which is available to persons over age 65 or were part of the relatively small <15% subset which directly purchased a personal insurance policy.

Edited August 20, 2017 by JLCrab

[tonray]

59 minutes ago, JLCrab said:

According to the latest US 2015 Census data --

"The Current Population Survey shows that the percentage of people with health insurance for all or part of 2014 was 89.6 percent, higher than the rate in 2013 (86.7 percent)."

"Of the subtypes of health insurance, employment-based insurance covered the most people (55.4 percent of the population), followed by Medicaid (19.5 percent), Medicare (16.0 percent), direct-purchase (14.6 percent) and military health care (4.5 percent)."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-157.html

So for someone, at least in the US, to say that they never had health insurance would mean they were never part of the majority of Americans who received health insurance through their employment or have not received government health insurance particularly Medicaid which is available to persons over age 65 or were part of the relatively small <15% subset which directly purchased a personal insurance policy.

You have confused Medicaid with Medicare. Medicaid is essentially insurance for those who have almost no assets or income and is not based upon age. 

[JLCrab]

Thank you. I am well aware which is which. That was just a plain goof on my part.

[Sheryl]

...
Never had medical insurance never will, pressured into thoughts that xyz may happen,undoubly never will..
 

"Undoubtedly never will"???

You are somehow magically protected from accidents, heart attacks, strokes and the like?

[Sheryl]

.... It just doesn't  make economic sense to insure, unless of course you can foretell the future and see the need. 

It does not require any special future telling abilities to know that you could have a serious accident at any time. And if aged over say 55, could also have a stroke or heart attack at any time, ditto develop cancer or any of a number of other serious conditions. And pretty much certain that as you age you will develop cataracts, and sooner or later a number of other non life threatening things that if not treated, will seriously compromise your quality of life.

These are not far-fetched rare occurrences. They are what happens to the vast majorityof people with time.

There is nothing wrong with self-insuring if you really do it properly, but in my experience most people who claim to be self-insured have not.

People who can't afford insurance premiums also can't afford to self insure and certainly can't afford what a major accident or illness will cost them.

Of course can't afford is relative. There is a difference between absolutely being unable to pay for something and still eat, and being unable to pay for something without making modifications to your lifestyle that you'd rather not make.

[JLCrab]

For most people, health insurance is not a good deal in that most people will never get back in medical expense claims more than their paid in premiums or maybe just break even. The people for whom health insurance is a good deal are those that get real sick and their medical expense claims greatly exceed their paid in premiums.

So if you are planning on never getting real sick, there is no reason for you to buy health insurance as it will not be a good deal for you.

[coops]

I'm not sure if JLCrab is joking, or profoundly ignorant of what insurance means.

 

"Insurance is a means of protection from financial loss. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss."

 

And obviously, based on simple common sense, in any 'private', ie capitalist, insurance scheme the average of payouts should be less than the premiums paid in - otherwise the insurer will become bankrupt.

 

"So if you are planning on never getting real sick" - 

[JLCrab]

No problem -- I am just addressing the persons on here who for years (mostly in the Insurance Forum) have based their life-plans on never getting real sick.

[coops]

Ah, ok - i thought you must be joking or sarcastic... but on the other hand there probably are people who don't 'bother' with insurance as they 'plan' on never getting real sick 

[teddog]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

It does not require any special future telling abilities to know that you could have a serious accident at any time. And if aged over say 55, could also have a stroke or heart attack at any time, ditto develop cancer or any of a number of other serious conditions. And pretty much certain that as you age you will develop cataracts, and sooner or later a number of other non life threatening things that if not treated, will seriously compromise your quality of life.

 

2

  Of course these things happen,and a whole lot more,it all comes down to planning, what happens if accident, cancer,cataracts develop,where to go,what to do?  ..but I sure ain't paying an outright fortune on medical insurance hedging against events that can and will be dealt with at the appropriate time

[JLCrab]

They plan on never getting sick to the extent that their self-insurance (which is really a reserve) will not cover the expense which in insurance terms is called a 'naked risk' as their being self insured really just means they have no insurance.

[Pilotman]

3 hours ago, JLCrab said:

No problem -- I am just addressing the persons on here who for years (mostly in the Insurance Forum) have based their life-plans on never getting real sick.

I dont base my decision on never getting sick, I base it on the fact that the premiums quoted to me don't make sense in terms of the medical issues I  could statistically, more likely face.   For example, on most quotes, after only 3 years of self insuring, I could  with the same money saved , finance a triplet heart bypass at any of the Bangkok private hospitals..  Whether  anyone  other than me actually saves that money or not is another question.  My friend, having paid into a insurance scheme here, had a stroke while on holiday in the UK and sadly died  in the UK NHS system.  The only winner there was the insurance people.  Had it happened  in BKK,  his estate would still have been the poorer in terms of the premiums he had paid over the years.  

[HampiK]

4 hours ago, JLCrab said:

So if you are planning on never getting real sick, there is no reason for you to buy health insurance as it will not be a good deal for you.

 

So you are planning your sickness?

 

And btw an insurance works like that.. many people pay too much and some have a profit... it's a risk reducing. 

The Idea behind an Insurance is not that you can become back more than you paid for it. That's maybe the problem why some health insurance in the west are so expensive, because too much people think I already pay it so I should use it!!!

[teddog]

2 hours ago, Pilotman said:

I dont base my decision on never getting sick, I base it on the fact that the premiums quoted to me don't make sense in terms of the medical issues I  could statistically, more likely face.   For example, on most quotes, after only 3 years of self insuring, I could  with the same money saved , finance a triplet heart bypass at any of the Bangkok private hospitals..  Whether  anyone  other than me actually saves that money or not is another question.  My friend, having paid into a insurance scheme here, had a stroke while on holiday in the UK and sadly died  in the UK NHS system.  The only winner there was the insurance people.  Had it happened  in BKK,  his estate would still have been the poorer in terms of the premiums he had paid over the years.  

11

Yes heart by-pass, subject all too familiar   50 to75000 baht  98% success rate...India

[KittenKong]

One of my objections to insurance is that many other insured people will go to the doctor/hospital at the drop of a hat for the most minor complaints, and will expect (indeed ask) to be given loads of unnecessary tests, treatments and medicines. This pushes the cost of insurance up for people like me who dont get sick often and even when they do will not immediately start getting themselves tested for every possible problem and pumping themselves full of drugs.

Another thing that I dont like about insurance is that single men often seem to subsidise couples with children.

[JLCrab]

So with 3 years of self-insuring one might have saved about 200,000 baht and then if you have a 200,000 baht procedure you are back at zero.

People on the Insurance forum for years have said 'Well I didn't buy insurance and now I am way ahead of the game." Well OK you didn't get real sick. If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it -- to me there are benefits to having medical insurance that are not strictly 'Well what could I have saved each year on premiums and what would the procedure cost if I pay out of pocket.'

But you are not self- insured -- you just don't have any insurance.

Edited August 20, 2017 by JLCrab

[teddog]

2 hours ago, JLCrab said:

So with 3 years of self-insuring one might have saved about 200,000 baht and then if you have a 200,000 baht procedure you are back at zero.

People on the Insurance forum for years have said 'Well I didn't buy insurance and now I am way ahead of the game." Well OK you didn't get real sick. If you don't want to buy it, don't buy it -- to me there are benefits to having medical insurance that are not strictly 'Well what could I have saved each year on premiums and what would the procedure cost if I pay out of pocket.'

But you are not self- insured -- you just don't have any insurance.

5

With a 200,000 procedure, it sure would not be buying very much, .not in Thailands private hospitals,and .medical insurance would not provide the one thing that you would really need   medivac.  Its a complete nonsense insurance in thailand, scalped alive financially, by the hospital, and those hefty medical insurance instalments would be a headache too far  'peace of mind' medical cover would give you manic depression financially. cannot afford it?clear off back home,or go to India

[JLCrab]

I have read that some advise 2-3 weeks after heart surgery before travel is advised and that presumes you were able to travel in the first place. I did plenty of time in India in the 1990's and though of about a month in India well, you can have it.

There was one gent on the Insurance Forum who would say " 'Still buying that health insurance, Crab?" like there was something about it which should be subject to ridicule. Well OK.

While there are plenty of circumstances whereby one might be better off not having bought health insurance, the reverse is true as well. Up to you.

Edited August 21, 2017 by JLCrab

[tonray]

People tend to look at insurance the wrong way, you are not buying health procedure coverage, you are buying protection for your savings and assets. If you have nothing and are over 65, then perhaps not having insurance makes sense. But if you have any large assets, house, condo, savings accounts in the millions of baht....you are protecting them from complete wipeout from an illness that probability says you are likely to be felled by as you age.

 

Yeah...I would love to have an extra 6 or 7000 baht a month for wine and steaks and whatever..but then I would be risking an entire life's hard work by being careless now.