Jump to content
BANGKOK
KhunBENQ

Getting rid of Non O-A (specific case)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

A person could change to a marriage extension too. 

Unfortunately not possible for him.

Wife lives and works in Bangkok.

Just visit from time to time as time allows.

He could not give the necessary evidence of being married defacto.

But visa based on marriage seems possible.

Edited by KhunBENQ

Share this post


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

Since Oct 31, 2019 when applying for a new OA Visa in your home-country, you need to meet the health-insurance requirement.

Entering/re-entering Thailand with a pre Oct 31 issued OA Visa of which the Visa validity date has not expired yet, will not require health-insurance.

Entering/re-entering Thailand with a re-entry permit for a non-expired permission to stay based on a pre Oct 31 issued OA Visa will not require health-insurance.

Applying for an extension of stay for reason of RETIREMENT based on an OA - retirement Visa (irrespective when issued) will require health-insurance.

Note: The required health-insurance should be thai-approved to be proved by a Certificate (issued by the insurance company) that it complies with the IO requirements.

If covered by Thai wife's teachers medical insurance, is that accepted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why go thru all of this hassle?  That attorney on Integrity Legal (You tube) seems to imply that this new health insurance requirement is eventually going to apply  to ALL retirement visas, Non O and OA. I tend to agree. Why would there be such an easy loophole to obfuscate the insurance requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deerculler said:

If covered by Thai wife's teachers medical insurance, is that accepted?

 

NO. Nor if covered by SS from having previously worked.

 

Nor if covered by a foreign policy.

 

(If the insurance requirement pertains, that is -- but anyone married could get an O and extension based on marriage and thus avoid this).

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, siddv said:

Why go thru all of this hassle?  That attorney on Integrity Legal (You tube) seems to imply that this new health insurance requirement is eventually going to apply  to ALL retirement visas, Non O and OA. I tend to agree. Why would there be such an easy loophole to obfuscate the insurance requirement.

 

I would not put excess faith in what that attorney said.

 

A Non-O, unlike an O-A, is not specifically a retirement visa.

 

The Cabinet Resolution that created the legal framework for this Imm requirement specified OA. It would take an additional Cabinet Resolution (or change to the Immigration Law) to allow for it to be applied to other visa classes. Could be done but not quickly.

 

the resolution did talk about investigating possible future solutions for other visa types (including tourist). Which raises the possibility that if and when something is done affecting other visa types it might be differently designed than this *&^%* mess was.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

...

The Cabinet Resolution that created the legal framework for this Imm requirement specified OA. It would take an additional Cabinet Resolution (or change to the Immigration Law) to allow for it to be applied to other visa classes. Could be done but not quickly.

the resolution did talk about investigating possible future solutions for other visa types (including tourist). Which raises the possibility that if and when something is done affecting other visa types it might be differently designed than this *&^%* mess was.

Fully agree with Sheryl.

A re-post from another thread >

I am not so sure that in near future Non Imm O - retirement Visas will also be required to meet the health-insurance requirements.  At least not in the form as it has now been enforced.

A couple of reasons:

  • The present debacle was a 'pilot' project, so that presumes an evaluation-moment before rolling it out further to other Visa categories;
  • The bad publicity caused by the chaos on entry at Airports, before they back-tracked and declared that it was not required for pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas;
  • The present confusion and outrage of OA - retirement Visa holders when applying for extension of stay that seemingly now requires health-insurance - not as visible as the Airport chaos, but with far bigger consequences;
  • The outrage that other forms for ensuring that hospital-bills will be paid, have been ruled out in favor of expensive and almost worthless thai health-insurance policies;
  • The diplomatic behind-the-scenes going-ons of embassies that see their older retiree-nationals above 75 years of age not being able to meet the health-insurance requirement for the OA dedicated Visa category;
  • The human-interest stories currently being published, confronting higher levels of thai government with the results of the amateurish implementation of the initial idea;
  • The fact that it will have ZERO impact on the official reason that it was implemented in the first place (based on the faulty assumption that the bulk of the non-paid hospital bills are being caused by retirees on a Non Imm Visa).

At least at this moment, there is a still an escape-route for older retirees on an OA Visa, and IO is actually lucky that that loophole is there, as that allows them to 'sell' their blundering as 'a streamlining of Visa categories' to get people on the right Visa for their stay in Thailand.

But IF they decide to also plug that 'loophole' it is reasonable to expect that at least some of the lessons-learned of the present debacle will be taken into account.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Unfortunately not possible for him.

Wife lives and works in Bangkok.

Just visit from time to time as time allows.

Any chance that he could stay in Bangkok long enough to do the extension based upon marriage?

He would need proof he is living in Bangkok to change his address to there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

A person could change to a marriage extension too. 

Has that question been asked of jomtien immigration ?

OA entry then switch to marriage extension insurance not required ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Has that question been asked of jomtien immigration ?

OA entry then switch to marriage extension insurance not required ?

 

Don't know ... but of course insurance not required for marriage extension. Whether they are prepared to switch a Non-OA  from Retirement Ext to Marriage Ext is the important question. Usually possible on regular 'O'. Is it worth getting married for?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Any chance that he could stay in Bangkok long enough to do the extension based upon marriage?

I will ask him to consider (again).

Temporarily maybe but no way he would move to Bangkok permanently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ubonjoe please, give me some assurance pos or neg. Now I've read too many stories.

If one already had multiple extensions of stay based on retirement and initially entered on an O-A visa, is a health insurance with OPD required or not. First there was talk about only needed for first entry on O-A. Sorry, confused. Bit off topic, but don't want to start a new one.

Cheers

Edited by hugocnx

Share this post


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

Ubonjoe please, give me some assurance pos or neg. Now I've read too many stories.

If one already had multiple extensions of stay based on retirement and initially entered on an O-A visa, is a health insurance with OPD required or not. First there was talk about only needed for first entry on O-A. Sorry, confused. Bit off topic, but don't want to start a new one.

I don't think insurance is required for for extensions of stay. But there some immigration offices that are saying it rs required. 

We are still waiting for there to be a official clarification from the immigration bureau.

It has been clarified it is only required when entering the country with OA visa issued after on or after October 361st. 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't think insurance is required for for extensions of stay. But there some immigration offices that are saying it rs required. 

We are still waiting for there to be a official clarification from the immigration bureau.

It has been clarified it is only required when entering the country with OA visa issued after on or after October 361st. 

 

Thank you Joe,

That was my understanding too.

 

Share this post


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

Thank you Joe,

That was my understanding too.

 

If the Immigration office refuses to make a retirement extension as the original Visa is an O-A and no insurance is presented, then practically it IS required. The notices posted in Jomtien clearly state it is required. One person has posted that I recall, of being refused, (here). I expect they are pursuing alternatives, rather than testing the waters. 

The requirement was posted early October, so over two months later, we have yet to see some 'clarification' if needed. Many people have been inconvenienced if it was simply a misunderstanding.  

Edited by jacko45k

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...