O_A Extensions 75+ Based on Retirement ONLY.

[tgeezer]

I think that it should be possible to get round the insurance issue by employing an agent to act for one in buying out of it. However the principle of compulsory insurance which provides nothing more that a ticket to remain is ingenious and the tentacles may reach outside Immigration. 

[jayceenik]

Gentlemen! May I join in?

I'm 81. I'll be 82 at my next one-year extension in November 2020.

Not one of the Thai-approved insurers will take me.

So far, so good since I've been extending from an original NonImm O visa.

And I plan to marry my old-time TGF as soon as I can.

But like a few pessimist (realist) posters have said on this thread the Thais (and the Thai insurers lobby) might discover that many O-A are switching to the presently no-insurance O and thus will get to us O sooner than later.

If that happens I'm out by force , of course. I'll not cry for all I've given to my TGF (house, car, land) because I truly like her but if I've to go back to Belgium she'll miss my monthly pension.

I'm in perfect health for my age and I don't need their scam useless health insurance. I have good money in the bank and can take care of any hospital bill.

 

 

 

 

 

[Peter Denis]

9 minutes ago, jayceenik said:

...

But like a few pessimist (realist) posters have said on this thread the Thais (and the Thai insurers lobby) might discover that many O-A are switching to the presently no-insurance O and thus will get to us O sooner than later.

...

It's just my opinion but I don't think thai authorities will also require health-insurance for Non Imm O - retirement Visas anytime soon (and even less likely for Non Imm O - marriage type Visas).  And if they do it will not be done in the incommunicado bulldozer way they mishandled the present debacle.

A couple of reasons for my optimism in this matter:

• The introduction of heatlh-insurance for Non Imm OA - retirement Visas, was a pilot-project, which implies that an evaluation will be done before they roll it out to other Visa-type categories.
• It's not an unilateral IO decision to add other Visa-type categories.  IO only enforces what has been decided at cabinet-level, so a further rollout would require a cabinet order.
• Enforcing it also on the Non Imm O - retirement category, would block the last escape-route for not-married retirees to stay in Thailand when over 75+ years.  Already now there is international diplomatic pressure on Thailand to not consider introducing legislation which makes it impossible for some of those affected to meet such new legislation.
• The Non Imm O Visa is a 90-day Visa, and imposing health-insurance on a Visa that only covers 90 days is not self-evident.  If they do want to go that road, that might open the door for a 'travel-insurance' solution or other options than the present expensive 1-year take-it-or-leave-it option.
• The impact of introducing the health-insurance requirement on the original (claimed) reason it was introduced, being the unpaid hospital bills, will be close to ZERO.  Also the naive ipresumption that all Non Imm OA - retirement Visa holders would simply pay up for the health-insurance requirement, and thus creating good revenue for the thai insurance-companies will face a rude awakening as many who are affected are switching to other Visa-types to avoid the insurance.
• Thailands image as a welcoming tourist destination has already suffered from the present debacle, but will get even bigger blows when they persevere in rolling it out further to other Visa categories, as the human interest stories of elder retirees having to leave Thailand since not being able to meet the HI requirements will be covered in local and international media.    

As mentioned, that's just my opinion.  But an evaluation of the pilot-project will for sure consider some of the above and either result in a burying of the original idea altogether, or trigger a different approach that takes into consideration consequences and side-effects when further rolling out legislation with such far-reaching impact.

 

[tgeezer]

In my opinion requiring individuals to insure third parties at disproportional expense against insignificant losses is not justified.  Neither is discriminating against individuals who are now indistinguishable from the rest of us except for the one irrelevant historical fact that at one time they had an O-A visa. 

But this is Thailand! 

[jacko45k]

20 hours ago, jayceenik said:

I have good money in the bank and can take care of any hospital bill.

This is the tragedy of the new requirements. That and the fact you are severely in a minority I believe. 

[ThaiBunny]

19 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

But an evaluation of the pilot-project will for sure consider some of the above and either result in a burying of the original idea altogether, or trigger a different approach that takes into consideration consequences and side-effects when further rolling out legislation with such far-reaching impact.

I wonder how many pilot project evaluations you've been involved in. I've done several in my time as a project manager. Logic plays almost no part in the evaluation. Pilot projects are "proof of concept" projects; anyone whose ideas are "proved" wrong (and their allies) engages in extensive a** covering, and the full-scale rollout continues on

[Olmate]

25 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

This is the tragedy of the new requirements. That and the fact you are severely in a minority I believe. 

It’s hardly a tragedy if, as you say, it only effects the minority! It’s a tragedy that the rule effects the majority, those that cannot access proper cover.

[Peter Denis]

30 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I wonder how many pilot project evaluations you've been involved in. I've done several in my time as a project manager. Logic plays almost no part in the evaluation. Pilot projects are "proof of concept" projects; anyone whose ideas are "proved" wrong (and their allies) engages in extensive a** covering, and the full-scale rollout continues on

Quite a couple actually.  In the normal world if the results of the pilot-project are not meeting the expectations or there are unwanted side-effects, this is taken into consideration and the roll-out is adapted accordingly.

The key phrase here is of course 'in the normal world'.  In a project with a heavy political or hidden financial agenda from one of the decision-makers, you will indeed get the head-in-the-sand oistrich phenomenon.  Often with disastrous results later on.

[wgdanson]

On 12/12/2019 at 6:14 AM, travelerjim said:

I have learned from Pacific Cross that they will now consider applicants to age 80.

 

For O-A compliant health insurance policies.

 

Tj

And charge an inflated premium. Considering and issuing a worthwhile policy are two completely different scenarios.

[Martyp]

20 minutes ago, wgdanson said:

And charge an inflated premium. Considering and issuing a worthwhile policy are two completely different scenarios.

I wouldn't say inflated. However, for anyone who has purchased in a private insurance market knows, buying insurance from a company gets more expensive as you get older and will require medical exams leading to exclusions. It's not gouging. That is just how insurance works anywhere in a private insurance market. Pacific Cross does offer a variety of products that have deductibles to reduce the price and share a larger risk pool. The problem is people are being forced into this market unnecessarily or at least without sufficient options to achieve the goal of being able to reasonably afford medical care when needed.

[OJAS]

On 12/12/2019 at 6:14 AM, travelerjim said:

I have learned from Pacific Cross that they will now consider applicants to age 80.

 

For O-A compliant health insurance policies.

 

Tj

 

1 hour ago, wgdanson said:

And charge an inflated premium. Considering and issuing a worthwhile policy are two completely different scenarios.

 

44 minutes ago, Martyp said:

I wouldn't say inflated. However, for anyone who has purchased in a private insurance market knows, buying insurance from a company gets more expensive as you get older and will require medical exams leading to exclusions. It's not gouging. That is just how insurance works anywhere in a private insurance market. Pacific Cross does offer a variety of products that have deductibles to reduce the price and share a larger risk pool. The problem is people are being forced into this market unnecessarily or at least without sufficient options to achieve the goal of being able to reasonably afford medical care when needed.

 

The $64,000 question, though, is whether or not Pacific Cross would entertain new applications from those in the 75-80 age bracket for a policy in their better-value (relatively speaking) Lifestyle series (as is the case for new applicants up to the age of 75), or only for one in their rip-off Long Stay Visa series. Deductibles are only possible in the case of the former, not the latter.

 

Edited December 15, 2019 by OJAS

[Martyp]

32 minutes ago, OJAS said:

 

 

 

The $64,000 question, though, is whether or not Pacific Cross would entertain new applications from those in the 75-80 age bracket for a policy in their better-value (relatively speaking) Lifestyle series (as is the case for new applicants up to the age of 75), or only for one in their rip-off Long Stay Visa series. Deductibles are only possible in the case of the former, not the latter.

 

It a new change and you really just have to talk to a PC agent

 

My impression is that they are not much interested in the Long Stay visa series. That was probably a government mandate. They would much rather get you into the lifestyle series. They worked hard to get that series accepted for the insurance requirement.

[jimn]

On 12/14/2019 at 12:51 PM, jayceenik said:

Gentlemen! May I join in?

I'm 81. I'll be 82 at my next one-year extension in November 2020.

Not one of the Thai-approved insurers will take me.

So far, so good since I've been extending from an original NonImm O visa.

And I plan to marry my old-time TGF as soon as I can.

But like a few pessimist (realist) posters have said on this thread the Thais (and the Thai insurers lobby) might discover that many O-A are switching to the presently no-insurance O and thus will get to us O sooner than later.

If that happens I'm out by force , of course. I'll not cry for all I've given to my TGF (house, car, land) because I truly like her but if I've to go back to Belgium she'll miss my monthly pension.

I'm in perfect health for my age and I don't need their scam useless health insurance. I have good money in the bank and can take care of any hospital bill.

 

 

 

 

 

Well done to you sir. Whilst I cannot guarantee it, I personally do not believe it will be extended to the O visa despite all the scaremongering. The reason I say this that an OA visa is classed as a long stay 1 year visa much along the lines that an OX is a long stay 10 year visa. The O visa is initially a 90 day short term visa. Yes I know it can be a multi entry for 1 year and can be used to get a 1 year extension of stay. I really do sincerely think that they will leave the O visa alone. The only change being that they will cease the multi entry and make it a single entry only.

[jimn]

On 12/14/2019 at 1:51 PM, Peter Denis said:

It's just my opinion but I don't think thai authorities will also require health-insurance for Non Imm O - retirement Visas anytime soon (and even less likely for Non Imm O - marriage type Visas).  And if they do it will not be done in the incommunicado bulldozer way they mishandled the present debacle.

A couple of reasons for my optimism in this matter:

• The introduction of heatlh-insurance for Non Imm OA - retirement Visas, was a pilot-project, which implies that an evaluation will be done before they roll it out to other Visa-type categories.
• It's not an unilateral IO decision to add other Visa-type categories.  IO only enforces what has been decided at cabinet-level, so a further rollout would require a cabinet order.
• Enforcing it also on the Non Imm O - retirement category, would block the last escape-route for not-married retirees to stay in Thailand when over 75+ years.  Already now there is international diplomatic pressure on Thailand to not consider introducing legislation which makes it impossible for some of those affected to meet such new legislation.
• The Non Imm O Visa is a 90-day Visa, and imposing health-insurance on a Visa that only covers 90 days is not self-evident.  If they do want to go that road, that might open the door for a 'travel-insurance' solution or other options than the present expensive 1-year take-it-or-leave-it option.
• The impact of introducing the health-insurance requirement on the original (claimed) reason it was introduced, being the unpaid hospital bills, will be close to ZERO.  Also the naive ipresumption that all Non Imm OA - retirement Visa holders would simply pay up for the health-insurance requirement, and thus creating good revenue for the thai insurance-companies will face a rude awakening as many who are affected are switching to other Visa-types to avoid the insurance.
• Thailands image as a welcoming tourist destination has already suffered from the present debacle, but will get even bigger blows when they persevere in rolling it out further to other Visa categories, as the human interest stories of elder retirees having to leave Thailand since not being able to meet the HI requirements will be covered in local and international media.    

As mentioned, that's just my opinion.  But an evaluation of the pilot-project will for sure consider some of the above and either result in a burying of the original idea altogether, or trigger a different approach that takes into consideration consequences and side-effects when further rolling out legislation with such far-reaching impact.

 

A very well thought out post @Peter Denis. I did add my thoughts on the roll out to O visa in a post above, before I read your post. Its always typical of people to worry, but the level of scaremongering on TV sometimes astonishes me.

[OJAS]

12 hours ago, jimn said:

Well done to you sir. Whilst I cannot guarantee it, I personally do not believe it will be extended to the O visa despite all the scaremongering. The reason I say this that an OA visa is classed as a long stay 1 year visa much along the lines that an OX is a long stay 10 year visa. The O visa is initially a 90 day short term visa. Yes I know it can be a multi entry for 1 year and can be used to get a 1 year extension of stay. I really do sincerely think that they will leave the O visa alone. The only change being that they will cease the multi entry and make it a single entry only.

I actually wonder whether it's more of an "age" thing - i.e. the non-OA & non-OX visas are specifically targeted at the over-50's, whereas there is, of course, no minimum age requirement for the non-O visa.

 

It would appear from recent reports on here that the multi-entry non-O visa is already rapidly becoming an extinct species as far as Western embassies and consulates are concerned, and it surely can't be too long before their ASEAN counterparts follow suit.

Edited December 16, 2019 by OJAS

[ubonjoe]

29 minutes ago, OJAS said:

It would appear from recent reports on here that the multi-entry non-O visa is already rapidly becoming an extinct species as far as Western embassies and consulates are concerned, and it surely can't be too long before their ASEAN counterparts follow suit.

You are probably referring to the embassies in Paris and London along with Beijing (the first one) that are using the e visa application system. I doubt it will spread much further than those 3 after all the problems it has created already.

The ETO in Taipei were  planning on adopting it until a big stink arose over the 3 months of financial proof for tourist visas on the one size fits all e visa site requires. It's use has been delayed and may never happen.

[Thaidream]

23 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Quite a couple actually.  In the normal world if the results of the pilot-project are not meeting the expectations or there are unwanted side-effects, this is taken into consideration and the roll-out is adapted accordingly.

The key phrase here is of course 'in the normal world'.  In a project with a heavy political or hidden finTheyancial agenda from one of the decision-makers, you will indeed get the head-in-the-sand oistrich phenomenon.  Often with disastrous results later on.

They know by now that they have made a big mistake in how they implemented this farce.

 

The solution is simple- grandfather everyone with an O-A Visa/Extension before 31 October 2019 and simply state that was the intention all along and it's too bad we didn't understand.  That solution saves face. In fact, an internal .confidential memo to the  IO's will do the trick.

 

Then can let the requirement stand as far as anyone applying after 31 october 2019 and see how many actually do apply.

 

In the interim- the Mninstry of health along with the Insurance Commission needs to force the Thai Insurance industry to expand the pool to 0-100; develop reasonable policies and premiums;  allow foreigners into the Thai Social Security System and accept foreign insurance policies.

 

In addition- they can work out a reasonable plan for tourists coming to Thailand

 and use the money in this pool to help  the Thai healthcare enfironment.

 

Continuing to do nothing; letting the adverse publicity  go out on social media and  irritating the  foreign diplomatic community is pure madness and incompetence at it's worse.

 

If they play this correctly , they don't even have to admit they were wrong-  simply do the grandfathering- the chaos and bad publicity stops and then silently work on the  overall solution. 

[Martyp]

31 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

In the interim- the Mninstry of health along with the Insurance Commission needs to force the Thai Insurance industry to expand the pool to 0-100.

Pacific Cross already sells policies with a 0-100 risk pool that qualify for the Thai insurance requirement. However, I don't know if those policies are available to someone who has never lived in Thailand, such as a new applicant for an O-A visa in their home country.

 

Also, I'm not sure how they can force the insurance industry to do something that makes no economic or business sense. Thailand is not the same as a western country but it is not China either. Instead of forcing a solution it would be better to come up with a comprehensive solution to whatever the real problem is regarding unpaid hospital bills.

[Old Croc]

On 12/15/2019 at 8:58 AM, jacko45k said:

On 12/14/2019 at 12:51 PM, jayceenik said:

I have good money in the bank and can take care of any hospital bill.

This is the tragedy of the new requirements. That and the fact you are severely in a minority I believe

There are probably more of us around than you may think. Not everyone here is scratching along on a government pension.

I permanently keep over 2 mill sitting in the bank to cover my health contingencies (and 800k) and have quick access to significantly more in an emergency.  My current health issues, and age, would no doubt exclude me from one of these special (bad) policies. I have enquired with several companies, but have yet to undergo one of their required medicals. 

If I were acceptable, I could afford to buy a policy that doesn't pay out, but have strong objections to this for many obvious reasons.

My alternatives are an Elite visa, a dodgy agent, or to marry the old girl and change extension type. All have drawbacks. 

Running for home country or setting up elsewhere is not feasible for me.

I still have 6 months before my extension expires, I'm watching threads like this for a glimmer of common sense to arrive.

 

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

My alternatives are an Elite visa, a dodgy agent, or to marry the old girl and change extension type. All have drawbacks. 

Running for home country or setting up elsewhere is not feasible for me.

There is also a 4th alternative, which is actually the one most OA - retiree Visa holders are considering or embarking on.  And that is to let your Non Imm OA expire and then apply for 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa either in your home-country, neighboring country or at your local IO.  In the last month of that 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa, you then apply for a 1 year extension of stay based on that Visa at your local IO.

The requirements for that Non Imm O extension are identical with those for an Non Imm OA extension, except that there is NO health-insurance requirement. 

[Old Croc]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

There is also a 4th alternative, which is actually the one most OA - retiree Visa holders are considering or embarking on.  And that is to let your Non Imm OA expire and then apply for 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa either in your home-country, neighboring country or at your local IO.  In the last month of that 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa, you then apply for a 1 year extension of stay based on that Visa at your local IO.

The requirements for that Non Imm O extension are identical with those for an Non Imm OA extension, except that there is NO health-insurance requirement. 

Yes, thankyou. I should have mentioned that.

It is on the radar, but for someone in a wheelchair, needing medical clearance to fly, getting to, and around, a strange city or popping over borders is very difficult.  I did drive over a southern border many years ago to get my second 12 months stay on the old O-A, but now have concerns about subjecting myself to the moods and vagaries of an IO who could refuse entry on a whim.

[Peter Denis]

13 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

Yes, thankyou. I should have mentioned that.

It is on the radar, but for someone in a wheelchair, needing medical clearance to fly, getting to, and around, a strange city or popping over borders is very difficult.  I did drive over a southern border many years ago to get my second 12 months stay on the old O-A, but now have concerns about subjecting myself to the moods and vagaries of an IO who could refuse entry on a whim.

Sorry to hear that your condition makes traveling difficult.

That rules out the application in your home-country or neighboring country.

But applying at your local IO for such a Non Imm O - retirement Visa is rather straightforward.  However, it does require that you first do a hop over the border and return Visa-exempt (easiest and trouble-free option).

Having an agent doing that trip for you, might be an option to consider.

Success!

[moontang]

I noticed one of the visa run companies that leaves On Nut at 5 or 6 am...they now go to Myanmar...2000 all inclusive..return 8 hours later.  They do warn of no guarantees, though, but the warnings are for those with multiple 30s..but they do also warn about leaving on a long stay, and returning on a 30...teachers need a letter of cancellation for the old visa.

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, moontang said:

I noticed one of the visa run companies that leaves On Nut at 5 or 6 am...they now go to Myanmar...2000 all inclusive..return 8 hours later.  They do warn of no guarantees, though, but the warnings are for those with multiple 30s..but they do also warn about leaving on a long stay, and returning on a 30...teachers need a letter of cancellation for the old visa.

Sounds like a top agency????????????

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, Old Croc said:

My alternatives are an Elite visa, a dodgy agent, or to marry the old girl and change extension type. All have drawbacks. 

I do not see what is the problem getting a Non-Imm-O Permission, which does not obligate insurance for a retirement extension.  Still an alternative, is it not?

 

We mix in different circles, many I know do not have much in the way of savings, and avoid keeping it in Thailand if they do. 

[Martyp]

4 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I do not see what is the problem getting a Non-Imm-O Permission, which does not obligate insurance for a retirement extension.  Still an alternative, is it not?

 

We mix in different circles, many I know do not have much in the way of savings, and avoid keeping it in Thailand if they do. 

For him the drawback is that he is in a wheelchair and travel is difficult.

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, Martyp said:

For him the drawback is that he is in a wheelchair and travel is difficult.

OK I understand, thanks. He is most aware what he can manage.

[Methuselah]

As private hospitals discover that the elderly expatriate cash cow is being forced to buy useless health insurance policies,one would hope that they have sufficient clout to pressurise the Health Ministry to rethink.

International Health Insurance policies have been a wonderful source of income for those parasitic institutions,and their loss of income and probably increased  number of unpaid bills will hurt.

We live in hope.

 

[Old Croc]

21 hours ago, moontang said:

they do also warn about leaving on a long stay, and returning on a 30.

This is my concern about departing from a long term stay and risking refusal when coming back on a short stay visa or exempt.

[OJAS]

On 12/16/2019 at 10:05 AM, Martyp said:

Pacific Cross already sells policies with a 0-100 risk pool that qualify for the Thai insurance requirement. However, I don't know if those policies are available to someone who has never lived in Thailand, such as a new applicant for an O-A visa in their home country.

Both Lifestyle and Long Stay Visa brochures include the following remark (in small print towards the end):-

 

"The applicant must be Thai resident or reside in Thailand at least 6 months in 12 months period."

 

Assuming that all the other TGIA-approved insurers specify a similar requirement, therefore, it follows that those applying for non-OA visas in their home countries may well be faced with a Catch-22 situation in practice as regards compliance with the insurance requirement (unless, of course, they were somehow able to persuade a local insurer to sign the required certificate in their case).

 

@Sheryl - what do you think?