Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 August 2019 21:55
snoop1130

Mandatory health insurance for non-immigrant O-A retirement visa holders likely to take effect in July

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

and an assumption is not the same as knowing for a fact

You are correct of course but be mindful, as I am sure you have noticed, that an assumption by many TV members become "facts" in their own minds after reading their own posts multiple times in order to reinforce their own knowledge 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am 83 have no insurance, cannot get it, my health is as good as any 60 yr old and better than most and have had only 3 hospital visits in 12 years. One private, was taken there by Samui Rescue ambulance, stayed overnight and payed the 26.000 bht bill before leaving, i have been to government hospital twice, but to outpatients and once again paid the bill before leaving. So i really am questioning all these unpaid bills with retirees.   Something is not right here, also why do some have to have health insurance and others are excused.  At the same time, tourists are excused health insurance, when these are the ones most likely to skip the country. I have two pensions and able to live comfortably.
If you are on an Extension of Stay based on retirement it won't affect you, as currently they are only talking about OA visas, and OX visas which have had the insurance requirement for some time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are on an Extension of Stay based on retirement it won't affect you, as currently they are only talking about OA visas, and OX visas which have had the insurance requirement for some time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app


Unfortunately Huckenfell gets a new OA from OZ every 2 years so without a doubt is affected by this new rule.
Of course he can get an extension by depositing or transfers to a Thai bank account, which I presume he has been avoiding, hence getting a new OA.
The loophole which the OA provided has been sussed !!

Options now are, pay the mandatory health insurance ( if possible ) or extend and deal with the financial requirements.
I don’t believe mandatory health insurance is required for extensions............yet !!
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:


Unfortunately Huckenfell gets a new OA from OZ every 2 years so without a doubt is affected by this new rule.
Of course he can get an extension by depositing or transfers to a Thai bank account, which I presume he has been avoiding, hence getting a new OA.
The loophole which the OA provided has been sussed !!

Options now are, pay the mandatory health insurance ( if possible ) or extend and deal with the financial requirements.
I don’t believe mandatory health insurance is required for extensions............yet !!

didnt the guy in phuket say it applied to "renewals"?  he may have meant extensions

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Yes, it’s still a very grey area IMO.

I know TiT but it makes no sense to insist on medical insurance to get the initial visa then drop the requirement once you're actually settled here

Edited by ThaiBunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know TiT but it makes no sense to insist on medical insurance to get the initial visa then drop the requirement once you're actually settled here

Yes, I agree, plus as 2 years can be gotten from an OA, how would they monitor the OA holder has cover for the second year.
Someone who gets repeat OA’s would have to pay on and off years !!

Makes no sense at all !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

only? you dont know that. they mentioned renewals and no one knows what that means.

 

 

I know.

 

They are talking about visas.

 

Extensions are not visas.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jip99 said:

I know.

They are talking about visas.

Extensions are not visas.

I know too. They are talking about visas and "renewals". Most Thais say renewals when technically they mean extensions (someone on TV should take them aside). So they are talking about visas and extensions

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thee problem with making it a requirement even for an O-A visa is that you'll only be covered for the first year, unless they either make the insurance requirement for 2 years, or they check when you "come back in" just before the visa expired for your 2nd entry that you have renewed your insurance.

 

So you may need to pay upfront for 2 year.. for some this would be over 200k, for just 400k of cover (probably much of which would be excluded anyway).

 

Or, the border Immigration would need to check you have renewed your insurance for the 2nd year before granting your permission to stay. (Perhaps permission to stay date should be limited to the validity of any insurance..?)  

 

How does the insurance requirement for the O-X visa work... and does anyone actually use the O-X visa? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very well for those extending their permission to stay and requiring to keep 400k minimum throughout the year to say that this "replaces" the insurance requirement (actually it FAR exceeds the insurance benefit, since it could be used for any treatment, including pre-existing conditions, that wouldn't be covered under any insurance).  If you spend your 400k on health issues, then this should not create problems for the following year's extension, providing you have topped it back up within a reasonable timeframe... (I know, in an ideal world...)

 

But what about those using income?  So you may have 65k per month coming in, but not a bean spare to pay for any hospital cost.  So perhaps those using income SHOULD need to show adequate cover.

 

Also, it would not be too onerous a task for the authorities to keep a record of anyone with outstanding hospital bills, and until any outstanding account is settled either be refused exit from the country (or black-listed from subsequent re-entry), or their next extension denied.  The only ones that would then manage to "get away without paying" would be those who leave in a box of ashes.

 

The manner in which the current proposal is being made suggests that it's simply a money grabbing exercise for no real benefit to either the hospitals or the individuals concerned, just the "insurance" companies..  Why doesn't this surprise me at all..? TIT. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, they have priced out the O-A via doing the insurance. It will be a dodo Visa now with such requirements added to it. They will force more people to go to extensions and the 800/65K route. At a later date they may force insurance onto extensions but that is at this stage, just pure speculation. Let's wait to see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, steve73 said:

All very well for those extending their permission to stay and requiring to keep 400k minimum throughout the year to say that this "replaces" the insurance requirement (actually it FAR exceeds the insurance benefit, since it could be used for any treatment, including pre-existing conditions, that wouldn't be covered under any insurance).  If you spend your 400k on health issues, then this should not create problems for the following year's extension, providing you have topped it back up within a reasonable timeframe... (I know, in an ideal world...)

Much as I hate to be pedantic, most insurance policies make the cover for a specified amount for each visit, not a specified cap for a period of time. It's entirely conceivable that someone has two or more hospital stays in a year, each costing close to 400K. I would expect the insurance to cover each visit, not the first but not the second or subsequent ones

Share this post


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

Much as I hate to be pedantic, most insurance policies make the cover for a specified amount for each visit, not a specified cap for a period of time. It's entirely conceivable that someone has two or more hospital stays in a year, each costing close to 400K. I would expect the insurance to cover each visit, not the first but not the second or subsequent ones

Good point, but in my personal experience of Thai insurance companies they didn't even pay the first time (having initially stated that I was covered), so I ended up with a 200k bill to pay before I was allowed to leave the hospital... So I would fully expect even the first 400k claim to be denied, let alone any further ones...!!!

Edited by steve73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steve73 said:

Good point, but in my personal experience of Thai insurance companies they didn't even pay the first time (having initially stated that I was covered), so I ended up with a 200k bill to pay before I was allowed to leave... So I would fully expect even the first 400k claim to be denied, let alone any further ones...!!!

I think that about all insurance; the default position is "but you're not covered for that"

  • Thanks 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...