I agree with a lot of James the First's comments. I am sure few if any readers of this forum have much clue about Thai logic. Even after decades of visiting and 17 of living here, I certainly haven't. In fact, I only know one foreigner who does - but he and his father were both born here and he runs a major Thai company.James the First wrote:To wrap one's mind around the unfairness of how a kid on a one year teaching visa in a Thai school "is here legally" being paid 30,000 baht a month verses ourselves will only give a headache, but never a logical answer. So, I have learned to throw logic out the window and concentrate on the simplest path to what they want
Another fair point. I think many of us knew or read about a regular contributor to the various Thai chat forums who for whatever reason was not insured, got a particular type of cancer, was thrilled when he was "cured" when in fact he was only in remission. That treatment had more or less wiped out his savings. When the cancer returned he had no funds for further hospital treatment. He died in the home of friends who looked after him. (Apologies to his friends if I have that slightly wrong). He did one major favour to readers, however, in informing them that Bangkok's Chulalongkorn Hospital, being a teaching hospital, is a lot cheaper than most others.James the First wrote:Having 800K in a bank account, $25,000, is a sane and prudent thing when you might be rushed off to hospital for any emergency. If you die with an unpaid medical bill and no assets you are a drain on the health care system everyone else pays for. Your nonpayment makes it harder on the next farang who is admitted for an emergency. Friends who work in hospitals are amazed that so many Europeans, even on vacation, arrive at a hospital emergency without any means to pay for treatment. I do not blame the Thais for this.
But I am surprised that James The First assumes the Bt. 800K is partly to cover hospitalisation - or is that merely an example?. I have never heard it before. I also find it somewhat hard to believe given that medical inflation has been rising very significantly over the last. say. ten years but the Bt. 800K requirement has not changed. Anyone requiring open heart surgery, treatment for a cerebral haemorrhage or a major form of cancer - all illnesses more likely to hit those over 50 - is unlikely now to come about of hospital without a bill for less than Bt. 800K I'd have thought.
As he says, anyone over 65 is unlikely to be eligible for any type of insurance - although I know of one farang who obtained reasonable cover from a Thai Insurance Company when he was 67. Rather than looking to continue any scheme which is supposed to include a certain medical insurance element, surely it would be better (more logical???) to reduce the annual payment but insist that in future retirees are covered - as I assume most presently are - by a recognised medical insurance plan? Of course, if the insurance is from a Thai company Immigration officials can read it. If from an overseas insurer, I suppose we're back to the income letter shambles again - who can prove it is genuine?
In general, though, I fail to understand how anyone can get away with travelling to any country without a degree of medical insurance - even just on holiday. I am surprised international bodies like IATA and the International Union of Travel Organisations do not mandate this. Members of most EU countries travelling within the EU are OK because they have reciprocal heath benefits. I expect a great many Brit retired expats presently living in cheaper and more pleasant retirement countries like Spain and Portugal are likely to be in deep financial trouble once Brexit takes effect. They depend on free local healthcare and cheap flights back to the UK if they require longer term care. Many will be over 65 and I doubt if most bothered with health insurance. If not, I assume the property markets in parts of those countries will soon crash with a mass exodus. Might the market in Pattaya slump even more in the near future?