Hmm in that case, if you were travelling to a major city, say London, Taipei, Tokyo, do you think that travel insurance is still necessary given that the need for such evacuation would probably be reduced?
vince123123, you have raised another good point. Let me paraphrase - Basing our discussions on major medical emergencies, if I were in London and I suffer a massive heart attack, there would be good, reputable hospitals there to ward me and treat me. I may not need Air evac. However, if I were to be in Laos (no offence to any Laotian) and unfortunately suffer the same condition, I would most likely request to be evacuated back home quickly once I am stable. Based on this, yes your statement certainly holds as the need for Air evac would be lesser if I were to be in London.
Look at this from another angle. An emergency medical condition like a massive heart attack would require:
1. A number of intrinsically expensive medicine to be administered immediately.
2. Cardiac ICU 24 hours monitoring for a period.
3. A series of intensive heart scans, and tests to locate, say, the blockage and repeated blood tests followed by more tests.
4. If needed, urgent balloon stenting by the Cardiologist.
5. A further hospitalisation after ICU.
6. Medications.
Yes, I save on my Air evac costs. But my goodness, the amount that I would have incurred just to undergo all those above in a reputable London, Tokyo or Taipei hospital! The amount would be astronomical!
[In Singapore it would cost one upwards of S$20,000 in a government hospital (private rate) and more than $30,000 in a private hospital (very conservative estimate in the latter).]
I can see where you come from in terms of not buying travel insurance. But again, what I have mentioned are but just my own view on why I would always choose to adopt the more cautious approach.