Clarification of insurance and extensions since 31/10.

[Peterw42]

Just trying to get clarification if there are any first hand reports of people needing insurance for an re-entry permit entry or an extension of stay.

 

Has anyone, with an previous OA visa , been asked for insurance when entering with a re-entry permit or when doing their regular extension of stay ????

 

There are mentions that its now the requirement but no actual first hand reports, 

 

Not interested in "a guy told me" or "there is a thread running" etc, interested in actual accounts where someone has presented to do their regular extension and been required to get insurance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hayduke]

 

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

I then obtained a multiple re-entry permit the same day. Again, no one mentioned insurance.

 

Both procedures were virtually identical to last year.

 

Other than the long wait...it was a painless day.

 

 

 

[Peterw42]

4 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

 

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

I then obtained a multiple re-entry permit the same day. Again, no one mentioned insurance.

 

Both procedures were virtually identical to last year.

 

Other than the long wait...it was a painless day.

 

 

 

Thanks, this is what I am talking about, people seem to have taken the default opinion that insurance is now a requirement for extensions, when people like yourself are doing extensions business as usual.

 

[tgeezer]

That is what I would expect to be the case, and what I have been trying to explain, and what many people refuse to believe.  The visa used to enter the country is irrelevant once one is in the extension process.  

I assume that those who want to believe otherwise have a history of skirting around the rules and being screwed with and can not believe that they are finally in the country legally.  

[sometimewoodworker]

3 hours ago, tgeezer said:

That is what I would expect to be the case, and what I have been trying to explain, and what many people refuse to believe.  The visa used to enter the country is irrelevant once one is in the extension process.

it seems that among the people who disbelieve it are some immigration officers. ???? 
 

There are certainly immigration offices who are even currently giving information to people asking about extending for marriage from an OA that insurance is required. So they do not agree that the original visa is irrelevant. Those offices are saying that all OA extensions require insurance

 

There are also immigration offices who are saying that extending for marriage even when the original visa was an OA does not require insurance, but extending for retirement needs it.
 

We now have a single datum from CW that it was not needed for 1 retirement extension. Until there is more data from more offices it is unwise to draw conclusions.

Edited November 10, 2019 by sometimewoodworker

[Mango Bob]

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

How did he do his extension LAST WEEK 7 NOV.   7 Nov was this past Wednesday. 

[jackdd]

19 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

How did he do his extension LAST WEEK 7 NOV.   7 Nov was this past Wednesday. 

That people say "last week" when it's weekend and they are referring to this week's Monday - Friday is quite common

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, Mango Bob said:

How did he do his extension LAST WEEK 7 NOV.   7 Nov was this past Wednesday. 

Today is the first day of a new week.

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, Mango Bob said:

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

How did he do his extension LAST WEEK 7 NOV.   7 Nov was this past Wednesday. 

Actually it was Thursday. And speaking now that was last week.

 

Of more concernto me is that a very reliable TV member asked about this at CW on Nov 6 (for the second time) and was told insurance is required.

 

So either (1) there was a change in policy at CW late on the 6th/early on the 7th, or (2) different officers there are doing different things, or (3) this report did not actually involve a retirement extension based on entry on an OA.

 

Would be worth finding out which as there are many members needing to do extensions at CW in the near future.

[SEtonal]

7 hours ago, tgeezer said:

That is what I would expect to be the case, and what I have been trying to explain, and what many people refuse to believe.  The visa used to enter the country is irrelevant once one is in the extension process.  

I assume that those who want to believe otherwise have a history of skirting around the rules and being screwed with and can not believe that they are finally in the country legally.  

It depends on the Immigration Office:

 

per PHUKET Immigration Volunteers:

 

Medical Insurance:

If the retirement extension is based on a original Non-OA visa (Issued at the Thai Embassy in your home country) then a medical insurance has to be shown and included in the extension based on retirement.
Please use the following link https://longstay.tgia.org  to get more information about the required health insurance and the accepted health insurance companies.

If the retirement extension is based on a (single entry) Non-O visa or from a conversion from Non-B or a extension based on marriage etc then the health insurance is NOT required for the extension based retirement application.

http://piv-phuket.com/long-stay-extensions/retirement/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And Chiang Mai Immigration as well, according to a post from the past couple days:

 

[Pib]

9 hours ago, Hayduke said:

 

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

I then obtained a multiple re-entry permit the same day. Again, no one mentioned insurance.

 

Both procedures were virtually identical to last year.

 

Other than the long wait...it was a painless day.

 

 

That's good news to hear.  But don't get mad at me for asking, but can you post a copy (redacted as necessary) of the "latest" Visa in your passport....hopefully the OA visa you mentioned.

 

Hopefully it is indeed an OA visa.  However, since there have already been many posts in various threads where it appeared posters were not really sure what kind of visa they had....or later came back to clarify that they really had a Non O visa vs a Non-OA visa.  

 

In mid Oct 2019 I went to CW to ask the insurance question since I originally entered Thailand on a OA-Visa in 2008 and now on my 11th Retirement Extension of Stay from that OA.....haven't left the country since 2008.  I did get to talk to two CW immigration officers in mid Oct....face to face....one on one...both spoke good English.  Both officers reviewed my passport....saw all the retirement extensions of stay but kept flipping back thru the passport pages looking for the foundation visa....once they say the OA Visa from 2008 they both gave me the bad news that insurance would be required for the next extension in late 2020. 

 

And one officer I talked to for over 10 minutes....asking the insurance question in various ways....stressing my 2008 OA visa was long expired....etc....etc....etc.  We had a very cordial conversation.  The the answer was the same....since my latest visa from Christmas past was the OA Visa I would require insurance next time.

 

Yeap, if you could post a copy of your latest visa showing it was indeed an OA Visa that would be great....make me feel a ton better also.  Below is my OA visa (redacted a little) from 2008 which I have got 11 retirement extensions of stay from.   Big thanks.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, Pib said:

That's good news to hear.  But don't get mad at me for asking, but can you post a copy (redacted as necessary) of the "latest" Visa in your passport....hopefully the OA visa you mentioned.

 

I believe the same request was made previously of this same poster in another thread, and it was rather indignantly refused.... 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, Pib said:

The the answer was the same....since my latest visa from Christmas past was the OA Visa I would require insurance next time.

 

Pib, didn't you also have two different separate phone call conversations with the Immigration hotline on the subject of O-A based extensions of stay needing or not needing insurance.

 

And as best as I recall, in one call they told you yes, and then in the other call they told you no???

 

[Pib]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Actually it was Thursday. And speaking now that was last week.

 

Of more concernto me is that a very reliable TV member asked about this at CW on Nov 6 (for the second time) and was told insurance is required.

 

So either (1) there was a change in policy at CW late on the 6th/early on the 7th, or (2) different officers there are doing different things, or (3) this report did not actually involve a retirement extension based on entry on an OA.

 

Would be worth finding out which as there are many members needing to do extensions at CW in the near future.

Sheryl,

  That may had been me you are referring to....I did "not" get to talk to the CW immigration officers again on 6 Nov when I was there....I had wanted to but the place was packed with customers....I had never seen it some packed in the 11 years I've been going to CW....no free immigration officer to talk to. 

 

   But I did get to talk to two immigration officers in "mid Oct" regarding the insurance issue and both were very clear that due to my OA Visa from 2008 which I've got 11 retirement extensions of stay from (now on my 11th) that I "would" require insurance when I apply for my next retirement extension of stay in late 2020.  Both reviewed my passport...when they saw that old OA visa they delivered the bad news. Both said I would need to get a Non-O to avoid the insurance requirement.

 

Pib

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Quote

Clarification of insurance and extensions since 31/10.

 

Suffice to say, right now, you're rather unlikely to find any meaningful clarification on the point of O-A based extensions of stay needing or not needing insurance -- short of checking directly with your local Immigration office supervisor.

 

The answers right now are yes and no depending on the Immigration Office being asked, who's answering, who's asking, what day of the week it is, etc etc.

[Pib]

29 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Pib, didn't you also have two different separate phone call conversations with the Immigration hotline on the subject of O-A based extensions of stay needing or not needing insurance.

 

And as best as I recall, in one call they told you yes, and then in the other call they told you no???

 

Yea, I called the Immigration Hotline around 10 days ago....got a rep that spoke great English....clearly understood my question....the Hotline rep said in my situation insurance would "not" be required.  But when I told the rep that's the reverse of what two CW immigration officers told me several weeks earlier in face to face conversations I was put on hold while the Hotline rep asked for further guidance from a supervisor....a few minutes later came back online and said it's best if I talk directly to CW.   The rep gave me two phones numbers to call...neither worked...would get an immediate hang-up when dialing. 

 

Summary: I put close to zero confidence in what the Hotline rep told me that day.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Pib

[Suradit69]

9 hours ago, tgeezer said:

That is what I would expect to be the case, and what I have been trying to explain, and what many people refuse to believe.  The visa used to enter the country is irrelevant once one is in the extension process.  

I assume that those who want to believe otherwise have a history of skirting around the rules and being screwed with and can not believe that they are finally in the country legally.  

Yes, after a week from the 31 Oct deadline for obtaining an O-A visa only with insurance, one would have expected someone posting that he had been refused an extension if that requirement applied to extensions.

 

I still think embassies have been tasked with checking insurance for the relatively few O-A visas they issue. To have immigrations deal with this for the far greater number of extension applications they process daily would be a  very time-consuming, impossible assignment. 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

I still think embassies have been tasked with checking insurance for the relatively few O-A visas they issue. To have immigrations deal with this for the far greater number of extension applications they process daily would be a  very time-consuming, impossible assignment. 

 

Not really.... (and without pre-judging whether insurance really is or isn't a requirement for O-A based extensions of stay).

 

If it IS a requirement, Immigration will want to see an O-A insurance certificate issued by one of the approved Thailand insurers showing insurance for the period being requested in the extension of stay.

 

--Have the O-A insurance certificate, pass to go.

--Don't have the O-A insurance certificate, who knows....

 

But either way, not particularly hard or time-consuming for Immigration to handle, any more than checking bank passbooks or TM30 receipts or maps to your house, etc etc.

 

 

[farangchuma]

I called my trusted friend Grace,, the agent of agents, and she told me no insurance required for extension. What the immigration has done is that they left it to the IOs and individual offices to determine what they would like to do. Give 15K agent fee or ever increasing yearly fee starting from 50K to get your useless insurance. The choice is yours. Or just leave the country and enter again with a tourist visa and then convert to Non-O and then extension. Just beat them in their own game. 

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by farangchuma

[Maestro]

33 minutes ago, farangchuma said:

...Give 15K agent fee or ever increasing yearly fee starting from 50K to get your useless insurance...

 

Does your trusted immigration briber do this for all of Thailand?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, farangchuma said:

What the immigration has done is that they left it to the IOs and individual offices to determine what they would like to do.

 

Hard to believe that's true and sustainable for the long run...

 

But if true, ain't that grand!!!  

Edited November 10, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Suffice to say, right now, you're rather unlikely to find any meaningful clarification on the point of O-A based extensions of stay needing or not needing insurance -- short of checking directly with your local Immigration office supervisor.

 

The answers right now are yes and no depending on the Immigration Office being asked, who's answering, who's asking, what day of the week it is, etc etc.

I would say making out this is 50/50 isnt really the reality either.. 

 

So far the vast majority of reports, state exactly as the orders read. Extensions need it, arrivals need it, current permissions of stay and a re-entry dont need it. 

[UncleMhee]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

1 hour ago, farangchuma said:

...Give 15K agent fee or ever increasing yearly fee starting from 50K to get your useless insurance...

 

Does your trusted immigration briber do this for all of Thailand?

I don't believe there's any bribing going on.....if your stuck Grace pleads individual cases to a senior IO who has the power to extend or not as the case may be; but to answer your question; yes she does. Send & receive by EMS or go to her office by appointment.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

I would say making out this is 50/50 isnt really the reality either.. 

 

So far the vast majority of reports, state exactly as the orders read. Extensions need it, arrivals need it, current permissions of stay and a re-entry dont need it. 

FWIW, from all the various supposed user reports I've been able to find and read here and elsewhere...

 

...the answers from various Immigration offices when queried about O-A based retirement extensions of stay seem to be overwhelmingly that insurance is gonna be required for applications from Oct. 31 forward. But in many cases thus far, those reports seem to have been pre-application inquiries -- not actual denials of extensions for failing to prove insurance.

 

...however at the airports, the various reports thus far from people who say they were entering on pre Oct. 31 O-As seem to be quite mixed, with more than a few saying they were stamped in for a year without any insurance required, and some reporting just the opposite and saying they were given only 30 day stamps because they couldn't prove the demanded insurance.

 

Edited November 10, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Suradit69]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

But either way, not particularly hard or time-consuming for Immigration to handle, any more than checking bank passbooks or TM30 receipts or maps to your house, etc etc.

Thanks for the laugh.  And there's never problems with the etc, etc. especially since all the extension seekers and immigrations officers have such a crystal clear, consistent understanding of all the rules. Just like the revised requirements for financial proof for extensions were quickly understood and applied by everyone without any difficulty.

 

i envy you your optimism. 

[Suradit69]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Don't have the O-A insurance certificate, who knows....

 

Precisely. And you think everyone applying for an extension without insurance proof being sent off to get something they knew nothing about ( whether they've read all the threads on TV or not) or dealing with the "who knows" you mention is going to be a seamless operation that does not make the extension process time-consuming for all concerned ?  Officers may turn away a few people, but something on this scale would probably be "overlooked " by most to avoid the ensuing chaos.

 

Refusing to issue a visa at an embassy is one thing. Turning away nearly everyone in an extension queue or demanding "who knows" is quite a different matter. 

 

Anything is possible in the fullness of time, but as it stands right now I doubt Immigrations officers will be willing or able to cope with this. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Suradit69

[EricTh]

14 hours ago, Hayduke said:

 

I entered in 2006 on an O-A and have been doing uninterrupted extensions in Bangkok since then.

 

I did my most recent retirement extension last week (7 Nov) at CW. No one asked about insurance. The extension was approved for the normal one year.

 

I then obtained a multiple re-entry permit the same day. Again, no one mentioned insurance.

 

Both procedures were virtually identical to last year.

 

Other than the long wait...it was a painless day.

 

 

 

 

According to the Chiang Mai immigration thread, somebody reported his friends were denied renewal because they didn't have insurance.

 

Your experience is contradicting his report. Can you please check again whether yours is a O or O-A visa? Both types can be extended with retirement.

Edited November 10, 2019 by EricTh

[EricTh]

4 hours ago, Pib said:

Yea, I called the Immigration Hotline around 10 days ago....got a rep that spoke great English...

 

Yes, I also got conflicting reports from immigration in the past if you ask different officers, you get different answers.

 

Welcome to Thailand.

[EricTh]

3 hours ago, farangchuma said:

 What the immigration has done is that they left it to the IOs and individual offices to determine what they would like to do. 

 

 

But wouldn't the officer be breaking the law set down by higher ups?