Change visa type O/A to O over 50 (retirement)

[Pattaya46]

3 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

According to an earlier post, there are 80,950. Each doing 42.2 hospital visits per year. And each leaves 8.4  hospital bills unpaid.  Can you believe that?

You should not believe everything you read on the Internet 

and even less if it's on ThaiVisa… 

[Huckenfell]

39 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Renewal means applying for a new OA visa.

What visa do you think is best for a newly married  retired ex-pat who has built a new house to live in Isaan and is comfortably off.

[ubonjoe]

Some inflammatory posts and replies to them have been removed.

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

What visa do you think is best for a newly married  retired ex-pat who has built a new house to live in Isaan and is comfortably off.

If married to a Thai an extension of stay based upon marriage is a good option.

You would need 400k baht in a Thai bank in your name only for 2 months or proof of 40k baht. 

[jacko45k]

17 hours ago, Huckenfell said:

According to an earlier post, there are 80,950 retirement visas. Each doing 42.2 hospital visits 

I was wondering whether the stats included how many of the unpaid hospital bills could be attributed to those here on Non-Imm OA visas? Perhaps the total amount is more valid, ie do OA visa holders do a runner on big bills moreso than other groups? (Despite hospitals often trying to take your passport off you). Without any data, I just felt there would be more paupers on Retirement/Marriage extensions than on OAs, and even those would be surpassed by backpacker tourists without insurance, who rented bikes they couldn't ride or danced over their balcony rail. 

All the more reason to suspect there is more to come on this. 

Edited May 19, 2019 by jacko45k

[soisanuk]

On 5/16/2019 at 1:56 PM, LivinLOS said:

Agreed.. Already immigration have stated that 'on renewal' of the 'visa' which is all incorrect terminology and leads to massive confusion.. However as the visa doesnt get renewed, only the permission of stay, then logically it is going to apply incountry. 

 

Budget for the insurance or create other future plans. 

Actually, if you read the articles, it was not an Immigration Official that made the comment. It was someone from the Ministry of Health. The article also noted that they (MofH) still needed to coordinate with the Foreign Ministry and Immigration before it could be implemented, thus the estimate that it would be July (it could be later since details may not be worked out by July, expecially the issue of what documents and how to verify non-Thai insurance policy coverage in Thailand). 

 

IMO the official from the Health Ministry is not familiar with Immigration rules and, perhaps, not aware that an O-A visa is only for entry into Thailand (albeit one year and maybe two if a person leaves and returns before the expiration - enter by date - shown on the Visa) and any continuation of stay is dependent on getting an "extension" of the permitted stay and is not a renewal of the O-A visa.  Of course, that aspect will no doubt be addressed once the 3 parties get together to work out the details.

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, soisanuk said:

It seems to me that if they really wanted to address the problem, they could impose a rule that any foreigner owing medical bills to Government hospitals and not paying them (most likely these unpaid bills are to Government rather than private hospitals, thus being the burden on the Government's finances) be reported to Immigration and that Immigration will either revoke their current permission to stay or prevent such persons renewing their permission to stay unless the outstanding bill is paid.  If the bill isn't paid and the person overstays, then they face arrest, deportation, and probable blacklisting to prevent returning to Thailand.  But, then again, this may be too logical an approach for Thailand :-). 

It is a good point, but I don't feel it is always limited to Government hospitals, private ones rack up far larger bills! They cannot legally keep your passport and seem unable to restrict a person doing a runner, or even leaving to get medical services back home. (A hospital debt is more a civil matter than criminal matter I am sure). Forcing insurance is one idea, but just to Non-Imm-OA and OX surely is the tip of the berg.

[soisanuk]

True, private hospitals charge substantially more - but, they are not subsidized by the Government.  Also, it has been my experience that private hospitals require a deposit up front to cover estimated costs and if the cost increases, more deposit required.  Otherwise, if emergency, they stabilize (or are supposed to) and if can't pay, then they send you to another hospital, which is usually a Government one.

 

IMO it is the non-payment of bills to hospitals subsidized by the Government that has led to the Ministry of Health wanting to require health insurance -- but why just retirees using O-A Visas - why not tourists?  As I recall, the Ministry of Health did propose health insurance for tourists, but it either got shot down or went by the wayside.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, soisanuk said:

...

IMO it is the non-payment of bills to hospitals subsidized by the Government that has led to the Ministry of Health wanting to require health insurance -- but why just retirees using O-A Visas - why not tourists?  As I recall, the Ministry of Health did propose health insurance for tourists, but it either got shot down or went by the wayside.

Only a system that includes those more likely to take higher risks and be intoxicated more often/intensely (tourists) would make any sense at all.  As well, "outpatient" would not be necessary, as such treatments could/would be refused w/o payment; only "emergency care" is needed, in this context. 

 

Given the new requirement is not designed to address the actual problem, I am skeptical that the "official reason" is the actual motivation for its implementation - though valid concerns may have opened the door.

[JTXR]

On 5/16/2019 at 10:12 AM, Reang said:

I initially received my first and only Non-Imm O-A visa 16 years ago.  Lived in Thailand ever since.  I have changed from retirement to support visas and back again over the years.  My current visa status is retirement, although I have a wife and child.  It is unclear at this point whether I will be required to have health insurance when I go for my visa extension later this year.  I am 72 years old.  A cursory review of Thai insurance companies show that I am above the age of insurance coverage.  Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated.

No one knows about the future, but for the moment it looks like you will not need to show insurance when you go for your extension later this year.

 

For the future, if you go here...  https://longstay.tgia.org/    you will find a list of Thai insurance companies that will insure you at your age.  It will be expensive, but it's available.