Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

[Jingthing 69,951]

I think I would trust the Police Order rather than some idiot Immigration Officer who has no clue.

Actually the specific enforcement policy at your office is more important.

Example combo retirement applications without embassy letter. Police order say yes. Some offices say no.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing 69,951]

Too much speculation for me, I am over it, when immigration tells me I cant renew my extension in December because I need health insurance, then I will act. I just reported for my 90 days this week, no signs up in the office and nobody informing me that when I renew my extension of stay I may be required to have health insurance. Who knows in this place, one day something new , next day changes and from office to office they change the rules that suits them.

It would be too early for there to be a sign even if there ever is a sign. I suggest you pay attention to reports after 31 October about your office.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Jingthing 69,951]

It's a bit early to let this go.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Dumbastheycome 5,698]

1 hour ago, fishtank said:

I think I would trust the Police Order rather than some idiot Immigration Officer who has no clue.

So would  you think waving  a copy of the Police Order is going to be successful in convincing a so called  idiot Immigration Officer?

[kingofthemountain 5,248]

5 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

So would  you think waving  a copy of the Police Order is going to be successful in convincing a so called  idiot Immigration Officer?

yeahhh good luck to him with that

[kingofthemountain 5,248]

44 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

It is true that different IOs have different interpretations of the same rules but none that I have heard of have said extensions of stay under O (not O-A) visa will require insurance. There was an irresponsible thread started about CM which wrongly stated this, if you review the supposed supporting documentation in that thread you will see that instead ithe IO  clearly stated O-A visa only.

 

If anyone should encounter a demand for insurance while extending stay under an O, they should pull out the police order with the reference to O-A highlighted and if necessary call the Immigration helpline then and there. As it is crystal clear that the order applies only to O-A.

 

The issues of effective date and extension of stay under an O-A are more complicated because, whatever the original intent of the order, the actual wording (in  the English translation at least)  can be taken to mean more than one thing in those regards so it is understandable that IOs may differ on it. However there is no doubt that only O-A visas are involved.

 

Keep in mind this is a new order not yet in effect,  some IOs may be speaking without having really read through/ had it explained to them   in detail yet.

You are right at the moment

but if we analyse the mindset of the rule

it's clear for them, and they do not mystery about it,  every retiree over 50 yo is ''at risk''

so why someone with a OA visa (Or his extension) is more ''at risk'' than someone with

a O visa (Or his extension) ?

For me its just a matter of time before everybody will be impacted

particularly when they are going to see all the OA (Or extension based on) holder

swift on a O visa (And extensions). 

 

[fxe1200 1,686]

49 minutes ago, wtfracing said:

And here lies the problem that no matter what the police rules or laws are it still boils down to how each immigration office or immigration officer interprets the police order and how they want to apply it. Also what happens when the insurance companies decline a claim which is  well known trade mark of insurance companies, could be some interesting times ahead.

Those who came here on a Non immigrant class B visa and live on an extension for years are not mentioned. What is the factual difference between them and an O-A, when by today both live on extensions based on retirement?

[Jingthing 69,951]

You are right at the moment

but if we analyse the mindset of the rule

it's clear for them, and they do not mystery about it,  every retiree over 50 yo is ''at risk''

so why someone with a OA visa (Or his extension) is more ''at risk'' than someone with

a O visa (Or his extension) ?

For me its just a matter of time before everybody will be impacted

particularly when they are going to see all the OA (Or extension based on) holder

swift on a O visa (And extensions). 

 

From a purely logical POV there is no reason whatsoever that people doing extensions based on OA visas and O visas should be treated differently. It's absurd actually. That has never happened before. Imagine an expat that has been here over 10 years on continuous extensions. One started over a decade ago with an OA and the other with an O. How are they any different? Answer. They aren't.

 

But of course I am only speaking about the logic. There is no rule that immigration rules need to be logical.

 

To add I am not in favor of this being enforced for any extensions. Just trying to figure out what the actual enforcement is going to turn out to be.

 

Complicated of course by the possibility that different offices may enforce very differently as is so common here.

 

In my opinion anyone that tells you this early that they know for sure should be ignored.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[alan grice 324]

Actually....YES I did...
 

Some will start a fight in an Empty Room . You are spot on. Why the topic goes on is a debate in itself.!.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[meechai 3,046]

15 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

You are right at the moment

but if we analyse the mindset of the rule

it's clear for them, and they do not mystery about it,  every retiree over 50 yo is ''at risk''

so why someone with a OA visa (Or his extension) is more ''at risk'' than someone with

a O visa (Or his extension) ?

For me its just a matter of time before everybody will be impacted

particularly when they are going to see all the OA (Or extension based on) holder

swift on a O visa (And extensions). 

 

Exactly! Because the medical risk/Liability Thailand is seeking to avoid exists equally across all visa types.

Edited October 17, 2019 by meechai

[Pedrogaz 3,961]

Seems like good news. I had decided to leave LOS because of the insurance requirement effected to enrich the hospitals and insurance industry....a sledgehammer to crack a $10-15 million problem, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the tourist industry. 

It now makes sense....if you are here on marriage or retirement, you need money in the bank or an income. If you are on a non-OA visa from abroad you need nothing in a Thai bank, and so need insurance.

[sathornlover 7]

19 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

As that states it is for entries to the country using a OA visa issued after the 31st of October.

Every time you enter the country you must have insurance valid for one year or they will do the entry to the date the insurance expires instead of one year.

To get a one year entry shortly before your visa expires you must have to have valid insurance for one year on the date you enter the country.

With all this hassle, O-A will be a dead option for me!

[possum1931 12,754]

21 hours ago, weegee said:

And the Answer to that question was...NO! not required...Non OA only....and they are only obtained OUT of Thailand...Anything applied for INSIDE Thailand is exempt.

 

Excellent post WeeGee, my wife took me to Phichit immigration, and they told her the only time you need to bother about the TM30 is when you return after leaving the country.

All well and good, but this being Thailand, and IO bosses and staff change all the time, this could change anytime.

I still say Thai immigration cannot be trusted in the long term.

[pookondee 1,483]

10 minutes ago, fxe1200 said:

Those who came here on a Non immigrant class B visa and live on an extension for years are not mentioned. What is the factual difference between them and an O-A, when by today both live on extensions based on retirement?

I am guessing, the requirement for insurance for Non O-A is an easy start,

 

since they can get the Thai consulates (in your own country) to vet and approve the

policies in your language.

 

If it comes to getting a second year from that O-A,

they will then insist you arrange the the 2nd years insurance from inside Thailand, from a Thai company...

and bingo..the thai companies then get a cut at the scam (makes sense)

 

The O retirements got from in country are obviously exempt because of the

requirement of 800k in a Thai bank

(a benefit to Thailand..again)

 

Now people will avoid Non O-A and go to METVs or ED,

 

Id say it will force many to come in on a tourist visa and then put 800k in a Thai bank, to get the retirement without insurance.

 

For sure, id sooner bบm out a loss on the bad exchange rate, and have 800k to spend myself,

instead of giving it to scam insurance companies for nothing.

 

 

 

[newatthis 3,145]

23 minutes ago, alan grice said:

Some will start a fight in an Empty Room . You are spot on. Why the topic goes on is a debate in itself.!.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Because when people really don't  know what's going on, they speculate.

When they know a little bit, then they fabricate.