Clarification of insurance and extensions since 31/10.

[Sheryl]

18 hours ago, EricTh said:

What you said is true, the O visa issued after 31 Oct might not be grandfathered. 

 

Unfortunately, O-A visa are most probably not grandfathered as well judging by some of the reports coming into this forum except for one case.

 

So the only choice left is to do an education visa which some people seem to be switching to but that seems to have perils too because most foreigners find Thai language challenging.

There is nothing to granffather for O visa as both the Cabinet resolution and police order cleatly specify O-A visa only.

[Sheryl]

37 minutes ago, gavlar said:

Getting my head round this...I understand your Non O from outside Thailand gives 90 days..you can then get an extension/permission to stay (if you meet requirements).

With your new extension based on the original Non O do you have to still leave every 90 days, or can you live 365 days of the year and simply get a re entry permit when you need to exit for whatever reason.

Thanks for replies....

Extension would be for one year. No need to leave the country. If you want to then you must get a re-entry permit.

[Sheryl]

59 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

No its not. They give you 3 months and then you get a years extension and I have had a years extension for ten years.  DYOR. It is a NON-O

What you show is indeed a 90 day stay. You cannot get stamped in for one year on a O. You can get a one year e tendion of stay on application in-country if you meet the criteria. Entirely different thing.

[Momofarang]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

I am single, no kid.

Well, things are likely to change. Either they stop issuing O's for retirement, or they'll extend the HI requirement to O's. My bets are on the former as it enables them to isolate the retiree population with no effort.

[rabas]

47 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Fine if your local immigration office is willing to process a non-O conversion. Mine (Rayong) is not.

What kind of visa were you holding when they told you that? It may make a difference. I checked my passport. You can see the process in the visa status transferred into my new passport. Note the most recent entry NON-RE refers to a RE-entry permit, not retirement, though I am currently retired.

 

 

[Peter Denis]

The discussion above has completely gone off topic.

If you presently have a Non Imm O Visa based on retirement or an extension based on an original O Visa, the health-insurance requirement is NOT APPLICABLE for you.  And so please refrain from posting.

The thread is about > Whether the health-insurance requirement is enforced on entry or for extension of stay, when having an OA Visa - retirement long stay that was issued pre Oct 31.

First-hand cases of holders of such an OA Visa based on retirement or holders of an extension based on such an OA Visa, are being solicited because it is presently not clear whether the health-insurance requirement is enforced by border-IO on entry or by inland-IO for extension of stay of such Visas.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Peter Denis

[Kadilo]

16 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The discussion above has completely gone off topic.

If you presently have a Non Imm O Visa based on retirement or an extension based on an original O Visa, the health-insurance requirement is NOT APPLICABLE for you.  And so please refrain from posting.

The thread is about > Whether the health-insurance requirement is enforced on entry or for extension of stay, when having an OA Visa - retirement long stay that was issued pre Oct 31.

First-hand cases of holders of such an OA Visa based on retirement or holders of an extension based on such an OA Visa, are being solicited because it is presently not clear whether the health-insurance requirement is enforced by border-IO on entry or by inland-IO for extension of stay of such Visas.

 

I’m back in 3 weeks so I guess I’m gonna find out soon enough. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Kadilo

[Peter Denis]

2 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

I’m back in 3 weeks so I guess I’m gonna find out soon enough. 

I planned a trip early next week, but am postponing it till I am 99,9 % sure what to expect when re-entering Thailand on my still valid OA Visa issued pre Oct 31.

[Kadilo]

4 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I planned a trip early next week, but am postponing it till I am 99,9 % sure what to expect when re-entering Thailand on my still valid OA Visa issued pre Oct 31.

I wish I knew what to expect. 
if I know I need Insurance to come back then i will make provisions as I don’t want to lose my extension And have to start again after all this time but at the moment it’s clear as mud. 

[EricTh]

4 hours ago, Sheryl said:

There is nothing to granffather for O visa as both the Cabinet resolution and police order cleatly specify O-A visa only.

This is the case for now but if you had watched the lawyer video, the insurance requirement might be extended to O based on retirement in the future as well.

 

If not, everyone could just convert their O-A visa to O visa to avoid the health insurance so nobody would want to apply for O-A based on retirement purpose in the future.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by EricTh

[scubascuba3]

26 minutes ago, EricTh said:

This is the case for now but if you had watched the lawyer video, the insurance requirement might be extended to O based on retirement in the future as well.

 

If not, everyone could just convert their O-A visa to O visa to avoid the health insurance so nobody would want to apply for O-A based on retirement purpose in the future.

 

that lawyer video is just based on guesswork, nothing to back it up

[Thaidream]

1 hour ago, EricTh said:

This is the case for now but if you had watched the lawyer video, the insurance requirement might be extended to O based on retirement in the future as well.

 

If not, everyone could just convert their O-A visa to O visa to avoid the health insurance so nobody would want to apply for O-A based on retirement purpose in the future.

He is stating that anyone on an O Visa is grandfathered but there is no real need for grandfathering as the the only Visa targetted is the O-A.

 

He goes on to say that it will become much harder to obtain an O Visa except for married to a Thai and other categories except retirement.  This has already happened in the USA where it is impossible to obtain an O Visa based on retirment. He expects  that at some point no Thai Embassy/Consulate will give an applicant an O Visa for retirement purposes.  That will close the current loophole of letting one's O-A die and apply for the O based on retirment at Savanahkhet; Penang etc.

 

Ther will be no loophole needed if the powers that are simply grandfather anyone currently on a Non O-A issued prior to 31 October 2019 or on unbroken extensions of the original Visa.   That is the best solution and IMO the fair solution to this current chaos. Do this and the chaos stops- no problems for very elderly people not being able to find insurance- no loop holes-  no arguments.

 

Since no one can get a universally accepted answer on what the order really means and how it is supposed to be executed- we need actual first hand reports from people as follows:

 

1.  People holdng an O-A Visa dated prior to 31 Oct 19 entering  Thailand with their original entry and any subsequent entries.

 

2.  People holding the O-A Visa issued after 31 Oct 19 entering and  how they are processed.

 

3.  People holding the O-A Visa originally dated prior to 31 Oct 19 and now going to an Immigration Office for their annual extension.  Please report the original issue date, number of extensions and the office and the result.

 

 

[BobBKK]

8 hours ago, gavlar said:

Getting my head round this...I understand your Non O from outside Thailand gives 90 days..you can then get an extension/permission to stay (if you meet requirements).

With your new extension based on the original Non O do you have to still leave every 90 days, or can you live 365 days of the year and simply get a re entry permit when you need to exit for whatever reason.

Thanks for replies....

No leaving after 90 days just reporting. I got my Non-O for 90 days and applied for my retirement extension for one year and that was in 2009. Been in and out 37 times and reapplied for extension of my Non-O every year. Some on here refuse to accept that I even have a Non-O visa (bizarre) yet here I am. Good luck to all.

[BobBKK]

8 hours ago, rabas said:

You can also get a non-O inside. In 2010 I let my visa (stay) expire and CW told me to go out and return with a 30 day entry after which they gave me a new type-O. That's the one I am on now.

 

That's right "go out and return". I got a non-O for 90 days the first time I came here (from Nottingham UK) then applied for the one year Non-O extension when here. That's what I have used since 2009. I do accept it is confusing but those are the facts.

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

I planned a trip early next week, but am postponing it till I am 99,9 % sure what to expect when re-entering Thailand on my still valid OA Visa issued pre Oct 31.

Just two days ago you advised other people that it was confirmed that health insurance is not required, so they don't have to worry:

On 11/12/2019 at 6:25 PM, Peter Denis said:

As confirmed only today > your understanding is not correct and it's NOT required.

But today you say you are not sure what to expect?

[Peter Denis]

59 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Just two days ago you advised other people that it was confirmed that health insurance is not required, so they don't have to worry:

But today you say you are not sure what to expect?

Thanks for following my posts, I take that as a compliment.  And yes indeed, only 2 days ago the breaking news of the IO Big Boss Nov 7 meeting was heralded as the confirmation that pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas would not be required to show health-insurance on entering LoS. 

But - at least in my mind - the HuaHin correction upon correction upon correction case casted again some doubt on the above.

And maybe I missed them, but after Nov7 I also did not see any 'no problem' on entry/re-entry reports anymore.

Which - in theory - should be a positive sign, because OA holders being denied would look for help on their options, while those entering without problems are less likely to report.

Let's say that at present

- I am 100% sure that there will be no problems on re-entry with an expired OA Visa and a re-entry permit;

- I am 95% sure that there will be no problems on first entry with a new OA Visa; and

- I am 85% sure there will be no problems when re-entering on a still valid OA Visa.

As I planned a trip to Laos and my OA Visa is still valid, I am still somewhat ensure of what to expect.

Can you blame me, after all the reports over the last 2 weeks?

 

[Suradit69]

11 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I just get my O extension and purchase a multi-entry. I just asked for a 'retirement visa' and the O is what I got. Who would not choose an O over an O-A?  I never have to go 'in-out' as you suggest for a O-A.

Until recently the O-A was preferable to many because you could manage nearly two. Years without getting an extension or having to prove income or keeping money in the bank. 

 

There is is no need to travel in and out with an O-A, but during the first year you can go out and in without a re-entry permit. And, if you wish , you could go out and in just before the visa expires and you would get another year's permission to stay without applying for an extension.

 

unfortunately now the insurance issue has made the O-A a problem rather than the better choice for most people.

[nrasmussen]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

That's right "go out and return". I got a non-O for 90 days the first time I came here (from Nottingham UK) then applied for the one year Non-O extension when here. That's what I have used since 2009. I do accept it is confusing but those are the facts.

No offence, but the only confusion here is that you originally stated that you got stamped in for one year on a Non-O (which is impossible) and then later presented evidence that you were indeed stamped in for 90 days.

[sometimewoodworker]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

No leaving after 90 days just reporting. I got my Non-O for 90 days and applied for my retirement extension for one year and that was in 2009. Been in and out 37 times and reapplied for extension of my Non-O every year. Some on here refuse to accept that I even have a Non-O visa (bizarre) yet here I am. Good luck to all.

Every one is refusing to accept that you have a Non-O Visa simply because you do not. It has expired long ago. It is you that is calling a permission to stay a visa, it is not.

 

Thailand is AFIK unique in the way the visa system and staying in the country works.

This is probably because the the ministries involved are different and fiercely defend their prerogatives.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (of the Kingdom of Thailand) for visas

and the Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Thailand for permission to enter and stay.

 

The immigration department of the Royal Thai Police do not (except in 2 specific cases) issues visas

 

Visas can never be extended. You always have to get a new visa. (MoFA)

 

Visas suggest to the immigration officer at the border the time the IO should give you to stay in country. It is the judgment of the IO, and supervisor, to allow you to enter and the time to give you. They usually give the time the visas allow. They can shorten the time permitted or refuse entry at their discretion.

 

 

The immigration officers (RTP) issue permission to stay (it isn't a visa)

 

permission to stay given for entering with a Non immigrant visa ( O, OA, B) can be extended multiple times

 

 

[sometimewoodworker]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

That's right "go out and return". I got a non-O for 90 days the first time I came here (from Nottingham UK) then applied for the one year Non-O extension when here. That's what I have used since 2009. I do accept it is confusing but those are the facts.

The facts are not as you think/understand. You have no visa. It expired in 2009 or 2010. You have been getting extensions of your original 90 day permission to stay.

[BobBKK]

10 hours ago, nrasmussen said:

No offence, but the only confusion here is that you originally stated that you got stamped in for one year on a Non-O (which is impossible) and then later presented evidence that you were indeed stamped in for 90 days.

I said after I got the Non-O I get stamped in and out for 10 years. Others tried to suggest I did not have a Non-O.

[BobBKK]

9 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

The facts are not as you think/understand. You have no visa. It expired in 2009 or 2010. You have been getting extensions of your original 90 day permission to stay.

Correct but the vernacular is 'retirement visa' but as you say technically it's an extension.

[BobBKK]

9 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

Every one is refusing to accept that you have a Non-O Visa simply because you do not. It has expired long ago. It is you that is calling a permission to stay a visa, it is not.

 

Thailand is AFIK unique in the way the visa system and staying in the country works.

This is probably because the the ministries involved are different and fiercely defend their prerogatives.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (of the Kingdom of Thailand) for visas

and the Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Thailand for permission to enter and stay.

 

The immigration department of the Royal Thai Police do not (except in 2 specific cases) issues visas

 

Visas can never be extended. You always have to get a new visa. (MoFA)

 

Visas suggest to the immigration officer at the border the time the IO should give you to stay in country. It is the judgment of the IO, and supervisor, to allow you to enter and the time to give you. They usually give the time the visas allow. They can shorten the time permitted or refuse entry at their discretion.

 

 

The immigration officers (RTP) issue permission to stay (it isn't a visa)

 

permission to stay given for entering with a Non immigrant visa ( O, OA, B) can be extended multiple times

 

 

Semantics most people refer to it as a 'retirement visa' although technically it is an extension. If you really want the pedantic long term - I have a Non-O extension not a O-A as was suggested. Everyone I know calls it 'a retirement visa' but this is deflection. It was suggested I could not get one as I was not married to a Thai or have a Thai kid. 

Back on topic - my EXTENSION does not need insurance O-A does. Last time I comment on this as it's boring and deflects from the topic.

 

We know the facts - Non-O no insurance for now,  O-A has to obtain it. Good luck to all and hope no one gets caught out at the airport but I think some will which is a great shame. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by BobBKK

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, Thaidream said:

He is stating that anyone on an O Visa is grandfathered but there is no real need for grandfathering as the the only Visa targetted is the O-A.

I think one needs to appreciate that he is expressing his opinion or expectations and he doesn't really know things for a fact. At the moment people are able to get their Non-Imm-Os and Extensions, so getting around any O-A obligations appears straightforward.

[sometimewoodworker]

5 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Semantics most people refer to it as a 'retirement visa' although technically it is an extension.

It’s is not just semantics or being pedantic. Because extensions in Thailand have different rules to visas, and now not all extensions for the same purpose have the same requirements
 

Just because most people call it a “retirement visa” does not make for giving answers to questions easy.
 

Regrettably immigration adds to the confusion.

[Peterw42]

5 days on and still no first hand accounts of anyone being refused their extension or needing to show insurance to get their extension.

 

There still appears to be a big discrepancy between what new rules and what is actually happening. 

 

HAS ANYONE HAD FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE OF THEIR EXTENSION DENIED OR NEEDED TO GET INSURANCE TO GET THEIR EXTENSION ????

 

Or alternatively, have you recently done an extension with no problems.

[ThaiBob]

Not clear if this is the right thread to post this as there are so many threads on this topic. One of my best friends has been doing annual extensions based on his non O-A for many years now, returned through Suvarnaphumi yesterday on his multiple re-entry permit and there were no hassles, no questions about medical insurance. This is confirmation of other posts. He applied for Pacific Cross insurance a few months ago, took the physical and his application was rejected because of too many pre-existing conditions. Today he meets with the CEO of Pacific Cross as to what can be done to help him. He just turned 75 a few weeks ago. There are many expats in similar situations that are retired living in retirement homes, too old, unable to travel, have health issues yet obviously have money to pay for their medical needs. When I went to the US Embassy outreach visit last year and got my last income affadavit, there must have been 30 expats using wheelchairs, walkers, canes accompanied by their Thai significant other, so what becomes of these folks whose only crime is they got old. This whole insurance debacle sucks big time. I am now inclined to believe this cultural thing of Thais having respect and compassion for the aged is nothing but a sham. This current military government is unhinged and doesn't know its left hand from the right. 

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, ThaiBob said:

...

One of my best friends has been doing annual extensions based on his non O-A for many years now, returned through Suvarnaphumi yesterday on his multiple re-entry permit and there were no hassles, no questions about medical insurance. This is confirmation of other posts.

...

This reconfirms that there is no problem re-entering Thailand with a re-entry permit based on an OA - retirement extension of stay.  Which is only logical as the sole purpose of the re-entry permit is to keep your granted permission to stay alive.

But the million $ question is whether an extension of stay for an original OA Visa based on retirement now requires health-insurance.

As far as I can see (and confirmed by post #176 by Peterw42) there is presently only ONE first-hand report of an OA extension of stay being approved (at CW) without the need for health-insurance.

Several second-hand (my friend / I heard that) reports of denial, as well as several quotes that health-insurance is required by Immigration officials when queried about it.

Today DAY 16 that the health-insurance requirement became effective, and still no clarity on this issue.  This is getting ridiculous! 

So if you have first-hand experience re approval/denial please post a report with details (province you applied, original OA Visa validity date, options offered when denied, etc.).

Thanks!

[vivananahuahin]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

This reconfirms that there is no problem re-entering Thailand with a re-entry permit based on an OA - retirement extension of stay.  Which is only logical as the sole purpose of the re-entry permit is to keep your granted permission to stay alive.

But the million $ question is whether an extension of stay for an original OA Visa based on retirement now requires health-insurance.

As far as I can see (and confirmed by post #176 by Peterw42) there is presently only ONE first-hand report of an OA extension of stay being approved (at CW) without the need for health-insurance.

Several second-hand (my friend / I heard that) reports of denial, as well as several quotes that health-insurance is required by Immigration officials when queried about it.

Today DAY 16 that the health-insurance requirement became effective, and still no clarity on this issue.  This is getting ridiculous! 

So if you have first-hand experience re approval/denial please post a report with details (province you applied, original OA Visa validity date, options offered when denied, etc.).

Thanks!

https://lepetitjournal.com/bangkok/visa-non-oa-et-assurance-sante-les-assurances-francaises-acceptees-268656,interesting to read something move.sorry in french language

[sometimewoodworker]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Today DAY 16 that the health-insurance requirement became effective, and still no clarity on this issue.  This is getting ridiculous! 

While many of your comments and observations are correct, this one is not. All you need to do is the math. 
 

At day 16 it is 4.8% of the available time for extensions.

There is a small subset of the people who get extensions who read Thaivisa.

Of the small subset who read ThaiVisa there is a small percentage who post.

Of the subset of people who post there is a percentage who are extending for marriage, one who are extending from a Non-O and the probably small number who are extending from a Non-OA.

 

So although you would like to know isn’t surprising that there has only been a single firsthand report.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by sometimewoodworker