OA insurance - the issues

[Tanoshi]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That was written in a Reuters news article.

My question is where did he get that number.

From the MFA or a wild guess.

[lupin]

3 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Problem is you have to provide an active Policy to obtain the Visa.

 

Even now London aren't allowing applications to proceed for the O-A without proof of the Insurance.

I'm aware of that... my reply was to a question relating to extensions unless I've got my posts mixed up... which is entirely possible since I'm well into my second shandy of the day

 

edit: nope, you're right... was about visa not extension

Edited October 15, 2019 by lupin
have another drink

[jacko45k]

9 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Read post 147.

OK, fair enough. Which means (from the answer) a subsequent (2nd) extension will not require Insurance, although the rule is not written that way. 

I see a paving of the path for a more general insurance requirement.....

Edited October 15, 2019 by jacko45k

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Even now London aren't allowing applications to proceed for the O-A without proof of the Insurance.

But it is not mentioned on e visa website yet (https://thaievisa.go.th/Home/LongStay) unless it appears during the application process.

[lupin]

29 minutes ago, TaoNow said:

This laser focus on the O-A visa holders obscures the larger inconsistency between the stated rationale and small size of the target group.  

 

In other words, it was stated that the problem was too many foreigners with unpaid medical bills.  If the introduction of the health insurance requirement only applies to O-A visa holders/extenders, that won't have any impact to speak of on future unpaid hospital bills. 

 

Thus, as others have alluded to:  The health insurance requirement only makes sense if applied to all foreigners in Thailand, including tourists.

Yep.. said something similar the other day.

If the stated goal is to have 50+ long stay visitors in Thailand covered by health insurance. Then I agree it makes no sense at all to limit this specifically and only to O A visas obtained outside the kingdom and then possibly extensions of only those OAs,  then ignore all others on other types of NON O,  and in doing so, create a clear loophole for those over 50 to skirt the stated goal.

[jacko45k]

9 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Problem is you have to provide an active Policy to obtain the Visa.

 

Even now London aren't allowing applications to proceed for the O-A without proof of the Insurance.

As policies are issued in 1 year blocks, this means that by the time a person lands in Thailand, his policy has less than a year to run, and the permission to stay stamp must be reduced down from 1 year accordingly. What a chore for the IOs.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, Max69xl said:

It's very easy to check the requirements at the local immigration office. No need for 100 posts about different interpretation from IO's. It will always differ. 

 

Try seeing how easy it is to get any factual, reliable advice from BKK CW in English apart from when you're going there with an actual extension application, and sometimes even then.

 

A lot of the officers there barely speak any English, and to the extent they do, it's often only transactional in terms of asking for or directing the rouutine things they do 100s of times per day.

 

It's not of the level that allows for a conversation about the details of Immigration policies and how they're interpreted in complicated situations.

 

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, TaoNow said:

This laser focus on the O-A visa holders obscures the larger inconsistency between the stated rationale and small size of the target group.  

 

In other words, it was stated that the problem was too many foreigners with unpaid medical bills.  If the introduction of the health insurance requirement only applies to O-A visa holders/extenders, that won't have any impact to speak of on future unpaid hospital bills. 

 

Thus, as others have alluded to:  The health insurance requirement only makes sense if applied to all foreigners in Thailand, including tourists.

The police order is quite clear it is OA but does the Minister know his visas? Maybe he meant extension based on retirement but Imm went by what he said. I would not rule out a correction/addition.

[Gweiloman]

Lets say that the stated goal is to ensure that foreigners don’t skip on any hospital bills for lack of funds.
If I’m not mistaken, O-A is applied outside of Thailand which means that the individual involved does not have funds in Thailand. Thus the need for insurance.
For those retired on Non O, there are 3 categories. Those on monthly income, insurance required as they only transfer in 65k per month which they might or might not spend completely.
2nd group, those on 800/400k. No insurance required as they have minimum 400k in a Thai bank account to cover inpatient treatment. If they draw into that, they would have to reapply for a new Non-O. If they have more than the 400k, they can use their surplus funds.
3rd category on combo method, no idea. Maybe that’s why some Imm offices are trying to phase that out.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Sheryl]

 
Same old question.  What happens to those who are over 75 and can't buy insurance?  Even when married to a Thai, will I be forced out of Thailand?  Will an additional bank deposit be accepted in lieu of the health insurance I won't be able to buy?

There is no insurance requirement for permission to stay/ extension of stay based on marriage.

For retirees on O-A visa, there is currently no provision for those who can't get insurance by virtue of age or pre-existing conditions, and based on information currently available none of the listed companies on the tgia website will insure after age 74. Indeed most won't insure past 65. And most will not continue coverage past 70. One hopes better insurance products are in the works as what is currently on offer will not enable many retirees to meet the new O-A requirements.

There are foreign policies that meet the requirements and are available over age 75. However it remains unclear if Imm will accept foreign policies. Anyone else feel like calling 1178? I'm currently out of the country.


Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[lupin]

Just now, Gweiloman said:

Lets say that the stated goal is to ensure that foreigners don’t skip on any hospital bills for lack of funds.
If I’m not mistaken, O-A is applied outside of Thailand which means that the individual involved does not have funds in Thailand. Thus the need for insurance.
For those retired on Non O, there are 3 categories. Those on monthly income, insurance required as they only transfer in 65k per month which they might or might not spend completely.
2nd group, those on 800/400k. No insurance required as they have minimum 400k in a Thai bank account to cover inpatient treatment. If they draw into that, they would have to reapply for a new Non-O. If they have more than the 400k, they can use their surplus funds.
3rd category on combo method, no idea. Maybe that’s why some Imm offices are trying to phase that out.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

yeah...but that argument of sufficient funds in a thai bank falls apart when you consider that the OX visa (obtained outside the kingdom)  requires 3 mil in thai bank and 1.4 million to remain first year  AND health insurance to the same value as the OA

 

[Max69xl]

53 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

 

This article mentioned 80,000 people "seeking long stay".

Don't forget that The Nation are very often wreckless with facts. A total of 80k with O-A,retirement O and extensions based on retirement could be correct. Then I also think that the minister doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

[mokwit]

Just now, lupin said:

yeah...but that argument of sufficient funds in a thai bank falls apart when you consider that the OX visa (obtained outside the kingdom)  requires 3 mil in thai bank and 1.4 million to remain first year  AND health insurance to the same value as the OA

 

I'm beginning to suspect that is a decoy to allow the authorities to say they don't want to push out long stay retirees and this 10yr visa we brought in is proof of this. As an aside, have they ever issued one with those [deliberately?] onerous terms, I mean just one?

[Exploring Thailand]

1 minute ago, Max69xl said:

Don't forget that The Nation are very often wreckless with facts. A total of 80k with O-A,retirement O and extensions based on retirement could be correct. Then I also think that the minister doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Yes. It's very sloppy reporting. As you say, who are they including in "seeking long stay"? He's the Deputy Minister of Health so probably does have a very detailed knowledge of the different types of visa.

[lupin]

6 minutes ago, mokwit said:

I'm beginning to suspect that is a decoy to allow the authorities to say they don't want to push out long stay retirees and this 10yr visa we brought in is proof of this. As an aside, have they ever issued one with those [deliberately?] onerous terms, I mean just one?

you've lost me... but if you're asking have they issued any OX visas? Sure, plenty of those floating around.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I sincerely hope your correct Joe, but if the Insurance requirement pertains purely to entries to the Country on a Non O-A Visa from the 31st October, then why is there any need to amend internal orders relating to the 'Criteria for Consideration of granting an aliens extension of stay in the Kingdom'.

 

I have no way of knowing which interpretation is correct, Joe's or the one received by Tanoshi...

 

But I will say, from a Thai government and unpaid medical bills perspective, it makes far more logical sense to impose an insurance requirement on Oct. 31 and onward O-A visas, and then on all future retirement extensions from those Oct. 31 onward O-As... as per the explanation Tanoshi got.

 

Than it would to impose an insurance requirement on Oct. 31 and onward issued O-A visas, but then to drop/eliminate that insurance requirement if those O-A visa holders then transition to retirement extensions at sometime after Oct. 31, which is the way I understand the interpretation Joe has.

 

[a269652]

Is this new regulation only applicable to those foreigners over 50 who apply for a new/extended retirement visa or whether it applies to all visas (e.g. non-o marriage) for foreigners in Thailand over 50? 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, jacko45k said:

It just strikes me as ridiculous that people on retirement extensions will have their insurance obligation defined by an ancient and past entry on a non Imm O-A. How is that person any different than a person on an Non-Imm-O as far as requiring health services?  Actually those on married extensions over 50 years old should be included too!

 

I believe the explanation Tanoshi has -- which is different than Joe's at this point -- goes like this.

 

--If you're already here on already-issued retirement extensions of stay based on some past O-A, whether it be two or three or 10 years back, your future retirement extensions would not require insurance as things stand now.

 

--But, if you....

a. receive a new O-A issued from Oct. 31 onward or

b. make an entry on an O-A permission to stay on any date from Oct. 31 onward, including on a previously issued O-A, then you would be required to have insurance then... And on all future retirement extensions stemming from that O-A.

 

That, I believe, is the interpretation he has...  How that will work out in real life...remains to be seen.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, CarlE said:

 

Same old question.  What happens to those who are over 75 and can't buy insurance?  Even when married to a Thai, will I be forced out of Thailand?  Will an additional bank deposit be accepted in lieu of the health insurance I won't be able to buy?

 

`1. There's no indication at this point that any of this applies to marriage based extensions of stay.

 

2. there's nothing thus far from the Thai authorities about any kind of alternate means for satisfying the insurance requirement, IF it applies to a person.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, TaoNow said:

Thus, as others have alluded to:  The health insurance requirement only makes sense if applied to all foreigners in Thailand, including tourists.

 

That isn't in the rules/orders that have just surfaced now...

 

But common sense would suggest, there's a decent chance they'll be looking to move in that direction at some point in the future, at least for all folks 50 and above....  But that's just pure speculation about possible future things that aren't on the table right now.

 

[Max69xl]

45 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Yes. It's very sloppy reporting. As you say, who are they including in "seeking long stay"? He's the Deputy Minister of Health so probably does have a very detailed knowledge of the different types of visa.

I hope you mean "doesn't have a very detailed knowledge". He's not supposed to be a visa expert. 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That isn't in the rules/orders that have just surfaced now...

 

But common sense would suggest, there's a decent chance they'll be looking to move in that direction at some point in the future, at least for all folks 50 and above....  But that's just pure speculation about possible future things that aren't on the table right now.

 

So you say, but that lawyer at Integrity Legal is still convinced that this has already been decided to include all applicants applying for extensions (O and O-A) effective October 31. The only thing he's not so sure about seems to be the enforcement specifics starting that date. Of course I along with I imagine most everyone else hopes he's wrong, the party line here is that he's wrong, but I just don't understand how anyone can be entirely confident about what the rulings that have already happened actually mean (including him). 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jingthing

[Exploring Thailand]

3 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

I hope you mean "doesn't have a very detailed knowledge". He's not supposed to be a visa expert. 

Yes. Good catch. Thanks. I'll fix it.

[lupin]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

So you say, but that lawyer at Integrity is still convinced that this has already been decided to include all applicants applying for extensions (O and O-A) effective October 31. The only thing he's not so sure about seems to be the enforcement specifics starting that date. Of course I along with I imagine most everyone else hopes he's wrong, the party line here is that he's wrong, but I just don't understand how anyone can be entirely confident about what the rulings that have already happened actually mean (including him). 

He's making a BIG jump when his only rationale for it was that the OA is a subcat of NON O... therefore all NON O may be subject to the requirement. I think such a claim in a 10 min video when things ARE NOT CLEAR is extremely irresponsible and a hell of a reach.

[Max69xl]

2 hours ago, TaoNow said:

This laser focus on the O-A visa holders obscures the larger inconsistency between the stated rationale and small size of the target group.  

 

In other words, it was stated that the problem was too many foreigners with unpaid medical bills.  If the introduction of the health insurance requirement only applies to O-A visa holders/extenders, that won't have any impact to speak of on future unpaid hospital bills. 

 

Thus, as others have alluded to:  The health insurance requirement only makes sense if applied to all foreigners in Thailand, including tourists.

Tourists are supposed to have a travel insurance, not a health insurance. But many tourists travels without one,even when they are almost free at home. Many expats have health insurance, but they can choose how much it will cover,and even skip the OPD. That's not the most expensive part. 

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, lupin said:

He's making a BIG jump when his only rationale for it was that the OA is a subcat of NON O... therefore all NON O may be subject to the requirement. I think such a claim in a 10 min video when things ARE NOT CLEAR is extremely irresponsible and a hell of a reach.

That may be the case but I also think that proclaiming that the details of this are fully clear known and definite with any other interpretation is not particularly an ethical thing to be broadcasting either. Saying sorry it can be read different ways at this point and like so many other things with Thai immigration (such as enforcement of combo applications without embassy letters) we are just going to have to deal with WAITING perhaps for a very long time before the ACTUAL enforcement specifics become more clear. 

 

To add, I am certainly NOT putting myself in the position of saying I'm sure that he's right, but I don't think we know for certain that he's wrong either. That may be painful for many people but what else is new with immigration changes here?

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jingthing

[lupin]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

That may be the case but I also think that proclaiming that the details of this are fully clear known and definite with any other interpretation is not particularly an ethical thing to be broadcasting either. Saying sorry it can be read different ways at this point and like so many other things with Thai immigration (such as enforcement of combo applications without embassy letters) we are just going to have to deal with WAITING perhaps for a very long time before the ACTUAL enforcement specifics become more clear. 

I agree entirely... which is why they should not have made the video at all

[Max69xl]

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So you say, but that lawyer at Integrity Legal is still convinced that this has already been decided to include all applicants applying for extensions (O and O-A) effective October 31. The only thing he's not so sure about seems to be the enforcement specifics starting that date. Of course I along with I imagine most everyone else hopes he's wrong, the party line here is that he's wrong, but I just don't understand how anyone can be entirely confident about what the rulings that have already happened actually mean (including him). 

Have you even read the official police report?  It was issued in April. It clearly states that the insurance is only for new O-A Visa holders,starting October 31 2019. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

30 minutes ago, a269652 said:

Is this new regulation only applicable to those foreigners over 50 who apply for a new/extended retirement visa or whether it applies to all visas (e.g. non-o marriage) for foreigners in Thailand over 50? 

 There's no indication at this point that any of this applies to marriage-based extensions of stay, or O visas based on marriage.

 

 

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, lupin said:

I agree entirely... which is why they should not have made the video at all

I don't agree with you there. He's broadcasting his read. The party line here is being broadcast with different reads. The only unethical thing I see at this point is ANYONE saying this is totally clear and certain about any reading, Objectively no matter how confident some people are talking -- IT IS NOT even close to the point of anyone having the authority to broadcast total confidence regarding all the details from these changes that have already been done. 

Edited October 15, 2019 by Jingthing