Jump to content
BANGKOK 16 June 2019 03:32
webfact

Mandatory health insurance for foreigners aged over 50 in Thailand - why it may not affect you

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, mercman24 said:

update on my post 296, just been in talks with a close friend, he had skin cancer on his arm, a few years ago,  two biopsy operations, and his total outlay was 6,500 baht so i ask once again, who concocted this this rediculous figure of 40,000 baht for out patient care. they havent got a bloody clue.  

Thats their problem. get a policy from your own country and forget about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, mercman24 said:

update on my post 296, just been in talks with a close friend, he had skin cancer on his arm, a few years ago,  two biopsy operations, and his total outlay was 6,500 baht so i ask once again, who concocted this this rediculous figure of 40,000 baht for out patient care. they havent got a bloody clue.  

That's for a private hospital I imagine. Not everyone wants to use a Thai public hospital when the waiting times can be horrendous, especially if you have an emergency, as I did with chronic gallbladder pain. That cost me 220,000 baht in a private hospital.

Edited by giddyup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last month. Private hospital. Two retina scans. Work up. Opthalmalogist exam. 710 baht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The topic seems to be based on the distinction between a visa and an extension which has been necessary to make only on the Immigration forum in order to discuss problems. Thai considers an extension of stay to be an extension of your visa so in all likelihood the requirement applies to all retirees. 

That the government feels itself responsible for trading losses of private companies is interesting, unofficially it has been going on at the local level for some time, jet skis for example.  A You Tube video quoted some official who, when asked about existing medical conditions, suggested that a larger qualifying sum held in the bank might be required.  This suggests that if you have the Bt.800,000 in the bank then you are effectively self insured because the insurance cover required is less than this amount.  

The cabinet seems to have introduced insurance in order to facilitate granting of extensions through agents where the bank deposit does not exist. The solution to this problem would be to require people using agents to have the insurance but then, that doesn’t stop an agent from providing proof of insurance where none exists.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did think you can exit just before the O-A expires and come back in to get a second year, but after the second year you cannot do again, and must get another O-A from your own country again.

my opinion, others might clarify

Yes you can get a second year ( permission to stay, using re entry permit to travel outside ) after your ME OA visa has expired ( 1 year after issue ).

Then after the second year you just extend for 1 year ( your permission to stay ) but of course have to show the Thai financial requirements. Yearly extensions then onwards.

An option ( which I was considering ) is to go back “ home “ to get another OA avoiding the money in Thai bank , of course this Health insurance malarkey has given me second thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But you are. Unless you provide accurate facts and sources to back up your comments, what you have written in your post is just pure gossip, plain and simple.
Wait and see what comes along come July of this year.
I do not talk b/s.
Remember this..expats were given only a few weeks re the money in Thai banks.
Announced think it was late January..came into effect 1st March.
Thailand is slowly catching up with many other countries re foreigners having to pay their way..and not being a financial burden to the Thai Govt.
My country of Origin and many other countries do not " hand ou " free healthcare to foreigners..AND QUITE RIGHTLY
Have a nice day

Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taken from this article:

https://news.thaivisa.com/article/35306/mandatory-health-insurance-for-retirement-visa-holders-likely-to-take-effect-in-july

 

 
 
 
Quote

 

Approved by the Cabinet last month, the new regulation will require expats on the long-stay non-immigrant O-A visa to have health insurance that offers Bt40,000 coverage for outpatient treatment and Bt400,000 for inpatient. 

 

The requirement was introduced because foreign expats have piled up unpaid medical bills of more than Bt300 million since 2016. 

 

Once the rule is implemented, applicants for the non-immigrant O-A visa, which is valid for one year from the date of issue, would be required to buy health insurance. 

 

Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal

 

So, once implemented, will only apply to new applicants applying for an O-A visa, who will also have to show current health insurance when applying a for visa renewal. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sumrit said:

Taken from this article:

https://news.thaivisa.com/article/35306/mandatory-health-insurance-for-retirement-visa-holders-likely-to-take-effect-in-july

 

So, once implemented, will only apply to new applicants applying for an O-A visa, who will also have to show current health insurance when applying a for visa renewal. 

Renewal means extensions obviously. 

Applications for annual retirement extensions are exactly the same thing if you started with an O-A or started with an O.

It's really hard to believe that they don't mean ALL retirement extensions. But why they had to confuse things by saying O-A is the problem. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Renewal means extensions obviously. 

Applications for annual retirement extensions are exactly the same thing if you started with an O-A or started with an O.

It's really hard to believe that they don't mean ALL retirement extensions. But why they had to confuse things by saying O-A is the problem. 

Read again: Firstly it specifically states it applies to applicants of O-A visas then states holders of this visa will have to provide proof of health insurance.

 

Nowhere does it mention extensions or existing holders of O-A visas that have extended their permission of stay before the implementation date.

 

She said that once the rule is implemented, applicants for the non-immigrant O-A visa, which is valid for one year from the date of issue, would be required to buy health insurance. 

 

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sumrit said:

Read again: Firstly it specifically states it applies to applicants of O-A visas then states holders of this visa will have to provide proof of health insurance.

 

Nowhere does it mention extensions or existing holders of O-A visas that have extended their permission of stay before the implementation date.

 

She said that once the rule is implemented, applicants for the non-immigrant O-A visa, which is valid for one year from the date of issue, would be required to buy health insurance. 

 

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal

Seriously? You seriously thinks that clear this up?!?

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Seriously? You seriously thinks that clear this up?!?

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal

At least I'm quoting what is actually written in the report, not quoting your assumption that has never been quoted on any report.

 

Please show me any official report that states expats on extensions will be included in this health insurance change. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Thai government is hostile and without empathy for the people who have lived in Thailand for many years.

Farangs puts more money in Thailand an average of Thaier, but will not give us equal rights with the Thais for health insurance. It is crazy, hostile and completely wrong as one will treat resident prisoners.

Many families are destroyed, and many fathers lose everything they have invested over many years, and many have to go home.
If you are over 80, no one will insure your health, and a health insurance for people up to the 80 costs about 91,000 Baht a year.

It is not at all in relation to the demands for income that are set for the retirement visa or married visa, one is completely out in the hemp.

The fact that you will require insurance for those who holiday in Thailand seems to be in perfect order, but the extended measures that are underway are unstable and very hostile.

 

I am 79 years married 11 years and help two children in four year to finish university. I have never been sick and have live here 12 years. All I have here I lose that way, and have nothing to go back to.

 

WHY TO MAKE LIFE DIFFICULT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sumrit said:

At least I'm quoting what is actually written in the report, not quoting your assumption that has never been quoted on any report.

 

Please show me any official report that states expats on extensions will be included in this health insurance change. 

Dude, I'm only saying it's UNCLEAR and anyone at this point with the information that has been released at this point that says things are definite shouldn't be taken seriously. 

 

Where you're at I don't think is reasonable. You're looking this from a legalist POV when in reality the press coverage and language even in official announcements in English here is notoriously vague and flawed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a farang is married to a Thai employee who is a public employee, he can be treated in the hospitals on an equal footing with the Thai.

What an insane scheme is that only people in that category will be accommodated. As written, the resident faranger puts more money in Thailand than the average of thais.

There are more than 20 million poor Thai people who get better help than us, so what is it for a fool to present.
That one has not long since introduced compulsory health insurance for holidaymakers is foolish, and it is primarily here that Thailand has lost money I will believe.

Take, however, and protect those who have chosen a life in Thailand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Maybe it will. But that's not what is being proposed by the Cabinet. Let's see what the official Police Order says when it is published.

When the law was changed to make insurance mandatory for OX visas, many speculated that it would affect Extensions and other visas as well. It didn't. Now OA visas are being affected. Who knows what will happen down the line? It's all just speculation.

Sent from my SM-A500F using Tapatalk
 

At last a post with commonsense.

 

From what I have read so far on this and other threads is what was released to the news papers.

 

I have yet to see w2hat Ubonjoe says when he gets a good look at the officially released order from the Thai Immigration Department.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...