Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,506 Excellent

About steve73

  • Rank
    Super Member

Previous Fields

  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

6,798 profile views
  1. I'm sure the agents will be able to provide "evidence of" suitable insurance for those requiring it... ;-)) Sorry about the formatting..
  2. I don't know whether this point has been made yet as I've not read through all 18 pages so far. But anyone staying here on a retirement extension, using the money in the bank has to keep a minimum of 400k all year round, which in a medical emergency would be available, and unlike the proposed insurance there would be no "denied claims for pre-conditions", and it would be available to everyone regardless of age. As such it would certainly be preferable to being forced to waste perhaps 15-40% of this every year to take what could be totally worthless mandatory insurance. I do realise that once used it would probably result in your next extension being denied, and you would need to start-over again. It just seems a little coincidental that the level of cover being mandated for the O-A (as for the O-X already) is the same as the minimum balance we must keep. I realise also that 400k is probably not enough cover for many illnesses, especially if wanting to use private hospitals, but if this considered critical, then surely a higher figure should be mandated for the insurance. I could foresee such insurance being mandated for those on extensions using the monthly income method, where they may not have access to ANY funds in the event of hospitalisation.
  3. Perhaps need to clarify also, only for citizens of those countries whose embassies have refused to certify their monthly income, i.e US, UK, & Oz. (edit: & possibly Denmark, although I read somewhere that they've backtracked and are now providing certified income letters again.)
  • Create New...