Jump to content
BANGKOK
weegee

Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

Recommended Posts

I seen one for Hat Yai, Petchaburi, Hua Hin and some guy was stating this afternoon that some Bulletin (?) was fake and Chiang Mai said you didn't need insurance if prior to 31 Oct 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, erymax said:

Joe this refers to permission of stay after one year visa not extension of stay. IMO. The granted length of stay is the second year after visa expires.

I don't think so.

The 2nd year is covered in the last memo in the English version for those issued after the 31st. On entry to the country you must have insurance valid for the entire year of the last entry.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sheryl said:

They will definitely enforce for entries on visas issued after then,  and it is clear they will stamp people in only for the duration of their insurance so people will need to renew policies before making last entry on the visa.  Most insurers will  allow renewal a month or two before policy expiration date.

and what a mess that will be for people travelling through the year.. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded. If that's the case it would better if it said for "the" granted length of stay, meaning that your current extension based is unaffected, but if you apply for a new one, then the new rules will apply.

 

A granted length of stay can also be an extension not an entry.  That cover letter is only for the change to clause 2.18 of the existing police order.

The last memo in the English version is for the entries to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I wonder what all this would mean for a prior O-A holder who's then switched to a marriage extension along the way?

 

I'm guessing they'd say same same for marriage extension or retirement extension holder today....so long as either of them date back go an O-A visa.

 

 

And this is why its a highly illogical / non standard solution being imposed. 

 

Because annual extensions of permission of stay were always done on a 'going forward' basis.. Your initial visa, while recorded, didnt control the rules of your extension. Now it does and creates wildly different outcomes for 2 identical candidates in every other respect. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

And this is why its a highly illogical / non standard solution being imposed. 

 

Because annual extensions of permission of stay were always done on a 'going forward' basis.. Your initial visa, while recorded, didnt control the rules of your extension. Now it does and creates wildly different outcomes for 2 identical candidates in every other respect. 

 

You were expecting logic?  :cheesy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded. If that's the case it would better if it said for "the" granted length of stay, meaning that your current extension based is unaffected, but if you apply for a new one, then the new rules will apply.

The more correct translation of that last line is as you suppose:

'To stay in the Kingdom for the period permitted'

Paste into Google Translate to check:

ให้อยู่ในราชอาณาจักรต่อไปได้ตามระยะเวลาที่ได้รับอนุญาต

Share this post


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

 

You were expecting logic?  :cheesy:

lol... no.. 

 

But this one is really pushing the redline 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point out where they see on the police order that it applies to those who are on an extension of stay prior to 31 Oct 19.  I just see that it applies to those who arrive after 31 Oct 19.   Could there be another police order we don't know about stating that anyone on an extension of stay prior to 31 Oct 19 must have health insurance?  Maybe someone need to get with immigrations and not the IO but the ones who wrote this order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

My personal belief is this is on the order of "grandfathering" in the insurance regulation. Face it. Factual that persons over the age of 65/70 will find it impossible to procure insurance from the companies listed.

The policies list ages for acceptance of new members up to 80.. 

 

Someone posted that they can be extended up to 100 (not checked personally) can only imagine the costs of that tho.. Multi hundred k per annum I would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Someone posted that they can be extended up to 100 (not checked personally) can only imagine the costs of that tho.. Multi hundred k per annum I would think.

Elite would probably be cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

Can anyone point out where they see on the police order that it applies to those who are on an extension of stay prior to 31 Oct 19.  

As I and others have continued to tell you, it doesn't. People got fixated on the 31st October which is simply a start date for the legislation. The order mentions no date of when the O-A visa was obtained which lead to past and present extensions.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

What are you on about ?? I think the entire process is a bad joke.. For the billions brought in via tourism, 100 mil in unpaid fees is a drop in the bucket, hell less than the collected airport tax.. 

With 40 million arrivals its 2.5 baht per arrival !!!

 

This isnt about who 'gets away with it', its about the currently / planned implementation and likelihood of this spreading or the likely implementation and immigrations possible thinking behind the rules. Burying your head in the sand doesnt benefit anyone. 

Although I do not think that my previous post was completely off topic (sometimes I miss some compassion here on TVF, not specifically targeting you) I do absolutely acknowledge your view as well. I think (hope) that I understand quite some of the very many aspects of this all.

 

But then it comes down to the question: What can we do about it fundamentally if we were not just make the best out of the worst ? Nothing to do with head in the sand. Everything to do with benefitting everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, KeeTua said:

The more correct translation of that last line is as you suppose:

'To stay in the Kingdom for the period permitted'

Paste into Google Translate to check:

ให้อยู่ในราชอาณาจักรต่อไปได้ตามระยะเวลาที่ได้รับอนุญาต

Right, or even from my own intermediate Thai ตามระยะเวลาที่ได้รับอนุญาต = following/according to the the period of time for which {you} have received permission.

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...