Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 June 2019 22:17
Jingthing

Poll -- Record your "Long Stay" health insurance requirement predictions

Health Insurance Requirements Prediction Poll  

200 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Not that I'm aware of.

You said they are weeding other retirees out but for you the procedure only became more customer friendly at immigration?? 

Anyway the potential problem is not only so much that loads of arrived retirees will be forced relocating  but besides that new arriving orientating retirees will compare visa offers conditions BEFORE settling down with nearby countries their retiree offer and find out they get nowadays  simply better deals in Vietnam Philippines etc.

So yup definitely less new retirees coming in and some earlier retirees moving out that’s a negative trend.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

You said they are weeding other retirees out but for you the procedure only became more customer friendly at immigration?? 

Nothing contradictory about that. They are two entirely different groups.

 

3 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

nyway the potential problem is not only so much that loads of arrived retirees will be forced relocating  but besides that new arriving orientating retirees will compare visa offers conditions BEFORE settling down with nearby countries their retiree offer and find out they get nowadays  simply better deals in Vietnam Philippines etc.

I'm not sure they do get a better deal in Vietnam or the RP. They get a different deal, sure, but whether it is better or not will depend on their individuals needs and circumstances. I'm sure that people will take everything into account. Personally, looking at the bottom line, Thailand is still a better bet for me as both Vietnam and the RP would probably end up costing more if I took everything into account.


That said the climate in several parts of Vietnam is very attractive to me and I will be checking it out. Thailand is too hot and sticky.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Curmudgeon1 said:

Why would you need 400k coverage when you've got 800k in the bank or income to that effect... i'm assuming you're suggesting retirement visa ext. would be included. 

I would rather put an additional 400k in the bank and have it collect interest, than throw away 60k a year for 400k of questionable coverage...... (ins. companies always have ways out of paying...).

It's clear to me that the ins.  companies have been working behind the scenes to lobby for this huge windfall... its amazing that they've slipped this legislation in without debate or clarity or alternatives to insurance. 

 

 

 

16 hours ago, fvw53 said:

..what about me ...I am 76 years old, staying in Thailand now with a yearly retirement extension and married with a Thai lady for more than 30 years.

I cannot find any company offering me a health insurance...and I cannot blame them because they are not in the business of providing health insurance but in the business of making money

 

20 hours ago, legend49 said:

Go and Google Self Insured and learn there is more to insurance. over 70% of global companies practice this. Plan their risk and costs instead of feeding insurance pockets needlessly.

 

 

Sorry guys with so many insurance posts going on the forum I thought I had already posted my idea about your question.....But I see now it was in the Thai news section that I mentioned this...

 

In my mind I have assumed with the  type of extension that required the 800k 5 months & the 400k for the remainder those holders should be allowed to self insure.

 

The 400k that is locked in account year round is or could be considered a form of insurance matching the required 400k policy. If allowed foreigner would pay hospital bill...If bill wen unpaid as is the excuse Thailand now is using for needing insurance then Imm or hospital has your locked up 400k to draw from

Edited by mania
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 6:05 AM, RJRS1301 said:

I think there should be a requirement even for short term tourists to prove on arrival that they carry travel insurance 

There already is, but it's NEVER been enforced.  5 or 6 years ago there was a law passed stating that ALL tourist MUST have travel insurance to enter the Kingdom and that this would be checked on arrival. If travel insurance could not be proved, then there were supposed to be 2 options available:

1. Buy travel insurance at the entry point

or

2. If you did not want to buy the travel insurance at the entry point then entry would be denied.

 

This so called mandatory requirement has NEVER been enforced.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts ..... The number of people applying for OA visas will half. They will move on to 'O' Multi-entry.

 

If applied to 'O' multi-entry visas. Then the number of retirees will fall, and many others will either change to single-entry 'O' visas, tourist visas, Visa exemptions .... Immigration will have a lot more work to do.

 

If you spend 6-9 months a year in Thailand, you do not want to pay insurance for 12 months.

 

I can get travel insurance for about one-third of the price, for a year.

 

Why not just make expats pay into the Public Thai health system, at a similar rate as Thais pay (Haha! no falang price!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, rickudon said:

My thoughts ..... The number of people applying for OA visas will half. They will move on to 'O' Multi-entry.

 

If applied to 'O' multi-entry visas. Then the number of retirees will fall, and many others will either change to single-entry 'O' visas, tourist visas, Visa exemptions .... Immigration will have a lot more work to do.

 

If you spend 6-9 months a year in Thailand, you do not want to pay insurance for 12 months.

 

I can get travel insurance for about one-third of the price, for a year.

 

Why not just make expats pay into the Public Thai health system, at a similar rate as Thais pay (Haha! no falang price!)

Unfortunately you have to be U.K. resident for 6 months prior to taking Travel Insurance out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 IMO. no big conspiracy against farang with this.

They just want to be sure people who come are not a drain on the system.

and really who can blame them that? 

 

many countries do it. Go to Australia and see how you get ripped off.

 

As always, if you have money you will be ok here.

 

BTW, This OX visa

(is it needed 3 million in bank AND insurance??)

is there any figures on how many got it?

 

Id take a guess near to Zero takers with those kind of requirement.

 (I never read any on here who got it).

 

this would tell them people wont stand to be conned into insurance scam and loosing to much by depositing huge figures in a Thai bank.

Tourism and longstayers are worth more to them than they will admit. but they know it dont worry!!

 

so my prediction: will never happen.

 

i think we have all been clickbaited and trolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Jumbo1968 said:

Unfortunately you have to be U.K. resident for 6 months prior to taking Travel Insurance out.

True, but what qualifies as 'resident for 6 months' ? Never seen a definition in an insurance document.

 

But the point is, if i can get more than adequate cover at one third of the price (and i get other insurance thrown in, like flight delay, baggage, theft), the first year that i leave, why can you not renew every year? (applying in the UK each time). The insurance company was quite happy to sell me a policy next year, even after i told them i hadn't been back for 6 months. I never got an answer as to what 'resident' meant to them.

Edited by rickudon
add more info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rickudon said:

True, but what qualifies as 'resident for 6 months' ? Never seen a definition in an insurance document.

Living at a U.K. address, the last time I got Travel Insurance my 6 months were spread over a year, a few days/months etc.

If you did make a claim I am sure the first thing the Insurance Company would do is ask for was your Passport.

As we know Insurance Companies employ people to investigate claims.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 5:23 AM, traveller101 said:

Since the fineprint of those basic "easy profit" packages exclude just about any illness that can be remotely linked to a pre-existing condition such as elevated blood pressure or cholesterol level - they're more or less worthless. And the requirement of incl. 40000 baht outpatient care is outright ludicrous.

My cost of my own policy that provides for 6+ times the coverage, but offers no outpatient care would instantly rise about 30% by meeting the requested level of outpatient cover.

Hopefully sanity prevails in offering as an alternative to contribute an additional 440000 baht to your account to be used exclusively for medical services.

Could not agree more. This 40000 OP is pure idiocy. A multitude of expats already have far better coverage from their private plans than the illusion of coverage proffered by the 400/40 scheme. This pointless out-patient requirement does nothing but jack up already steep premiums. Even your average Cheap Charlie can nickel and dime his way through outpatient circumstances in Thailand. The Thai government needs to grow a brain and get rid of the out-patient requirement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2019 at 10:12 AM, TigerandDog said:

There already is, but it's NEVER been enforced.  5 or 6 years ago there was a law passed stating that ALL tourist MUST have travel insurance to enter the Kingdom and that this would be checked on arrival. If travel insurance could not be proved, then there were supposed to be 2 options available:

1. Buy travel insurance at the entry point

or

2. If you did not want to buy the travel insurance at the entry point then entry would be denied.

 

This so called mandatory requirement has NEVER been enforced.

 

 

Link or recant please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the companies told me the new insurance was for O-A and O-X.  I asked him for a link to the law for O-A and now waiting for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people I know (mostly my age, 70+) and myself are principally not against an insurance for expats (why should we?) 

 

The problem is to pay 100000+, ( and going up by age increase) , for a cover of 400000, and no guarantee at all that even these 400000 will be paid, by the insurance, when necessary. 

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...