Jump to content
BANGKOK
Haribo

No non OA visa extensions in Hua Hin because no health Insurance.

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, lapamita said:

No O-A  need heallthinsurance hmmm

 

and NON O extension dont need hmmmm

 

THE next thing will be the cancelation of all NON O  and NON O MULTI  Visas

 

and this followed byan ADD ON ..for grandaftherd Visas ( i had a nice add on in 2003)

 

..than everybody must apply with o-a , and everybody need special thai nonsens insurance ( 400k for hosiptal haahha 2 days could cost ou this already and a more stupid OPD w 40k)

 

welcome to thailand.........

 

 

 

 

but i'm married, not retired and under 50 - where do i apply?

 

Edited by GeorgeCross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pedrogaz said:

This is doing my head in. My visa non 0 visa is about 15 years old....it's in another passport which I no longer have. It was issued abroad but I assume it was a non 0-A.

My current passport only says non 0 on all of the stamps.

You may be wrong assuming that. Your current passport should have had stamps transferred into it. One, likely on the first or second page, details that original visa type.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

..... As for insurance, I caution people that have their own foreign or home insurance policies yet then go and buy the Thai insurance policies.  Many health insurance policies expressly do not allow the person to hold multiple policies.

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Seems like another click bait thread starting with "someone told me".Then off it goes!

It's hardly just, "someone told me," when there are multiple posts showing actual notices that are posted at immigration offices in different areas of the country, and the info from the Phuket immigration volunteers, all saying essentially the same thing.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

but i'm married, not retired and under 50 - where do i apply?

 

maybe in the future with O-A or  same 0..with new requierments and only single entry , or extension  w same rule aplly to over 50

 

Non O--- is all-- married or not, over 50 and so on..all same..cat is NON 0

 

... dont wory within 12 month they cancell this visas/or new requirment............or they cancell the hole s*** , for everybody , bcs they see the stupidness

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

my insurance (AXA Germany) has the right to cancel my insurance as soon they know that I have another insuranceAxa.JPG.b491e70a21e68cb9c822e182c2f3092e.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Your correct, it wasn't on the previous page, glad you raised it, see below

 

Screenshot_title_rp_548_2562_v2.png

Screenshot_section_2_rp_548_2562_v2.png

I created those images to answer a question.

 

They don't say that the order in question only applies to visas issued before the 31st of October 2019.

 

The images you posted say that if you have already obtained a permission to stay before the effective date of October 31st 2019 your permission to stay is not invalidated by this new order. i.e you will not suddenly require insurance for your current permission to stay.

 

However, after the effective date when seeking a new permission to stay, the new order applies.

 

This is how the order reads (to me) and how it appears many immigration offices are *currently* interpreting it.

 

My interpretation of permission to stay includes an extension of stay, a re-entry permit or an entry stamp. It also includes an under consideration stamp but who knows how each immigration office would handle the subsequent granting of the extension of stay - they may consider these to be two different permissions to stay.

 

Unfortunately, from memory, the only thing in any of the orders that is stated to ONLY apply to new visas is the requirement to take out insurance when applying for a brand new O-A visa from the 31st of October 2019.

 

There are several orders from different agencies and I think that some people here are reading the orders as if they were a single order instead of a bunch of distinct orders related to O-A visa holders aimed at different parts of the state (embassies, borders and immigration offices). I think that people are also applying common sense to the situation and assuming that all the immigration officers will do the same.

 

Taking this into account it is easy to see why some don't believe that immigration will demand insurance for an 80 year old doing their tenth O-A extension or believe that someone with a current O-A visa going for a weekend trip to Singapore will be required to buy insurance on their return

 

It may be that over time common sense will prevail. We are already seeing some variance where people are being stamped in for a full year regardless of when their insurance expires i.e. immigration have so far opted not to implement the order stating that O-A visa holders should only be stamped in to the end of the insurance period (in all the reports I've seen so far). Also not everyone entering with an O-A visa or seeking an extension of one is being asked for insurance.

 


 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

 

On my BCBS webpage there is a section to add other health insurance coverage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

because they want to bill you and have first crack at over charging you and forcing you to use their hospitals, doctors, pay their rates, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jackdd said:

No insurance required, they only changed the requirements for a retirement extension if on a non-OA visa.

In some thread here was a guy who was told by his IO that insurance would be required (OA visa -> marriage extension), but imho this IO was wrong, because that's not what the police order says.

Just to clarify:- because in the Police Order it says extension to OA it doesnt mention the reason, (unless I missed it of course)

1. So despite coming in on a Non O-A 11 yrs ago and receiving annual extensions based on retirement... if I continued down this route I would need Insurance?

2. Change my extension to one of marriage to a Thai national and no insurance will be required?

Edited by Expattaff1308

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lapamita said:

No O-A  need heallthinsurance hmmm

 

and NON O extension dont need hmmmm

 

THE next thing will be the cancelation of all NON O  and NON O MULTI  Visas

 

and this followed byan ADD ON ..for grandaftherd Visas ( i had a nice add on in 2003)

 

..than everybody must apply with o-a , and everybody need special thai nonsens insurance ( 400k for hosiptal haahha 2 days could cost ou this already and a more stupid OPD w 40k)

 

welcome to thailand.........

 

 

 

Interesting thought.  I was refused my fourth Non-Imm O (to visit my Thai daughter) at an Australia consulate in March.  The consulate staff told me they would give me a Non-Imm OA or a ME Tourist Visa.  I now live in Australia but had been pretty much living full time in Thailand using the Non-Imm O. (Before the hounds arrive, yes I know that's probably not intended use of the visa).

 

Either pushing me towards an extension of stay (likely) or pushing me towards an OA knowing that a plan like this was in the works (possible as you say).  Would not be at all suprised if retirement O is retired (oh the irony) and replaced by OA only.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

Common practice in the insurance industry.  You can't insure the same risk more than once.  Try purchasing three or four car insurance policies for the same driver/vehicle.

 

And before anyone mentions it you buy life *Assurance* not *Insurance*!  The risk is based on how long you live not the probability of an event happening (or not as the case may be).

 

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...