A little logic.

[tgeezer]

Isaaanlawyers latest post shows just how much has changed for the worse and how many concessions have been made over the few years that I have been spending my winters in Thailand.   While many of us should not be troubled by much of it, there is the potential that we may be effected.   Medical insurance which many people seem keen to include as one of every retirees expenses is one thing which needs looking at. 

This is what I see. 

An O visa allowed for a ninety day stay and was to be extended for one year provided the financial conditions could be met.  There were people who were bumping along with visa runs etc, who on reaching the age of fifty but not able to extend because they lacked the finances saw this 90 day visa as another string to their bow and Immigration cooperated.  

It was recognised that there were people who wanted to travel in S/E Asia making Thailand their base, so the A-O. Visa was created, allowing for multiple entries of one year duration which rested on proof of money in their home countries. This was seen by resident visa runners on attaining the age of fifty as a brilliant visa because Immigration gave the visa an active life of twelve months allowing them to continue to live in Thailand with only one visa run toward the end of the year giving them another year, Immigration cooperated with them.   The A-O visa should have given one year on entry with multiple entries made in that year. 

I think that this A-O visa is what those who formulate the rules are referring to in demanding Health Insurance because they think that holders of this visa have no money in country.   Remember the people in charge are regularly replaced and probably have little idea of what has been going on at the coalface and those at the coalface probably don’t want to admit to what has been going on. 

Immigration have allowed A-O visa holders to extend for a year under the same terms as O visa holders. This was a screw up or a concession, what ever you want to call it.  The fact is that retirees who can meet the conditions whatever visa they used, do not need to insure for the sum of 400,000THB.  because they have it in the bank and a hospital can claim it. 

If the ridiculous situation is not sorted out then there is no reason why every retiree should not be forced to pay out for an insurance policy which pays out no more than they can pay themselves. Some Immigration officers are no more intelligent than many subscribers here and think that there is nothing wrong with being forced to pay for something one doesn’t need so it could happen and once a decision is made, however ill thought out, the military mind takes over. 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by tgeezer

[glegolo]

I really NEED to correct you in your otherwise nice post. There is nothing called A-O VISA, the name is non immigrant O-A VISA and nothing else......

 

glegolo

Edited December 28, 2019 by glegolo

[tgeezer]

2 hours ago, glegolo said:

I really NEED to correct you in your otherwise nice post. There is nothing called A-O VISA, the name is non immigrant O-A VISA and nothing else......

 

glegolo

Well done but you missed my reference to an ‘O’ visa ! 

[BigStar]

Rather, a bit more illogic.

 

To reach valid conclusions, you'll need to base your logic on valid assumptions. Alas, the false assumptions here start with “I think.” Since you don't know, you've simply created a little myth to prove you’re more logical and intelligent than immigration officers and some “subscribers” here. The whole point really is that you personally don't like the insurance idea, which you might have just stated in one other threads on the subject.

 

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

I think that this A-O visa is what those who formulate the rules are referring to in demanding Health Insurance because they think that holders of this visa have no money in country.

Occam’s razor, pal. More logical to assume they thought the holders of this visa have no insurance that will pay off in this country. And so they didn’t, actually.

 

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Remember the people in charge are regularly replaced and probably have little idea of what has been going on at the coalface and those at the coalface probably don’t want to admit to what has been going on. 

Another false assumption about IOs in coal mines. I fear that emotion is clouding your logic again.

 

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

 The fact is that retirees who can meet the conditions whatever visa they used, do not need to insure for the sum of 400,000THB.  because they have it in the bank and a hospital can claim it. 

A number of further false assumptions. Money in the bank isn’t insurance. Nor has Immigration ever said that it is or can be. Nor can a hospital necessarily “claim” it when they want to, if ever.

 

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Some Immigration officers . . . think that there is nothing wrong with being forced to pay for something one doesn’t need so it could happen and once a decision is made, however ill thought out, the military mind takes over.

Some may, some may not, most don't think but just do their jobs like most people in the world. It doesn't matter what they think, only what they require at a given time. "Wrong" is an assumption you haven't supported and also a moral judgment. And IOs do change their minds sometimes.

 

Then you end up by creating an imaginary entity, "military mind," and purport to know what that entity does and why. Maybe read up on the problem of Platonism in metaphysics and ground yourself more in logical empiricism. ????

 

[Maestro]

7 hours ago, tgeezer said:

...Some Immigration officers are no more intelligent than many subscribers here and think that there is nothing wrong with being forced to pay for something one doesn’t need so it could happen and once a decision is made, however ill thought out, the military mind takes over. 

 

Not "some immigration officers" but the Cabinet decided to introduce this health insurance:

 

Health insurance - Cabinet resolution on 2 April 2019 - th

Health insurance - Cabinet resolution on 2 April 2019 - en

 

[tgeezer]

Thank goodness, I thought that no one was taking any notice. 

I would have hoped that there would have been more attention given to the substance of the assumptions I have made.

Since an assumption is to take something as true without proof perhaps you would care to explain what a valid assumption is. 

 

[tgeezer]

20 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

Not "some immigration officers" but the Cabinet decided to introduce this health insurance:

 

Health insurance - Cabinet resolution on 2 April 2019 - th

Health insurance - Cabinet resolution on 2 April 2019 - en

 

When I refer to stupidity I mean that IOs At the lower level should point out to someone that the rule you have linked above refers to A-O visas not extensions of stay. It clearly says that on first entry a one year stay is allowed or longer provided the insurance is still extant. Good lord can you not see that?

 Both of those links are in English. 

[Maestro]

10 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

...Both of those links are in English.

 

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I have now corrected the link to the Thai original text.

[Maestro]

11 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

When I refer to stupidity...

 

My post was not in reply to your reference to stupidity but to your apparent assumption that "some immigration officers" made the decision to introduce the health insurance. My apologies if my quoted selection from your post and the text of my reply did not make this sufficiently clear.

[Maestro]

3 hours ago, tgeezer said:

...the rule you have linked above refers to A-O visas not extensions of stay...

 

Most regrettably for all those affected by the requirement of this new health insurance requirements, the Cabinet decision does require it also for what is generally called the retirement extension but many members on this forum and also the English translation of the Cabinet decision call retirement visa.

 

Personally, I find the English translation of the first paragraph incomprehensible due to mysterious use of a colon and of a dash (mistakenly represented by a hyphen preceded and followed by blank spaces). You will need to refer to the Thai original text to figure out what the authors meant, but beware that also that text is not absolutely correct as it uses "retirement visa (การตรวจลงตรากรณีใชช้ีวติบ้นัปลาย)" to mean "extension of stay for the reason of retirement". Come to think of it, somebody with sufficient clout with the judge dealing with the case could to get the Police Order 548/2562 abolished for the reason that it does not conform to the Cabinet decision as there is no such thing as a retirement visa .

Edited December 28, 2019 by Maestro
added Thai term for "retirement visa"

[tgeezer]

Thank you very gracious of you. I also have to apologise for my tone but it is frustrating reading some of the ridiculous posts.  As you say this was discussed at cabinet level and if extended to O visas will have to be done at that level, not on the whim of some regional officer. 

[Maestro]

Paragraph 3 of the Cabinet decision instruct various government agencies, including the "Royal Thai Police (Immigration Bureau)" to collaborate with each other on the implementation of the principle of the health insurance. Immigration's part of this implementation effort was the the Police Order 548/2562, with which clause 2.22 regarding the criteria for the application for the retirement extensions were changed.

 

No other parts of the earlier Police Order stipulating the criteria for extensions of stay have so far been changed by a new Police Order, ie there is currently no insurance requirement for the application of an extension of stay for any reason other than retirement, and even for the retirement extension the Police Order 548/2562 narrows the insurance requirement down to the extension of a permission to stay obtained when entering with an O-A visa.

[tgeezer]

Thanks for that. I note your observation that the police order has narrowed the group subject to the condition A-O visas and I think it reasonable to assume holders of that visa without funds in country. The fact that regional offices come to a different conclusion is lamentable for those who at one time had an A-O visa. 

As far as I can see I must assume (begging your presence Big Star) that the cabinet were unaware that retirees hold enough money to protect the Ministry of Health from loss. Immigration did know that so mandated that 400,000THB be kept on deposit instead of mandating insurance.  In violation of the cabinet decision but perfectly logical as I have argued continuously.  

Edited December 28, 2019 by tgeezer

[Maestro]

28 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

...As far as I can see I must assume...that the cabinet were unaware that retirees hold enough money to protect the Ministry of Health from loss. Immigration did know that so mandated that 400,000THB be kept on deposit instead of mandating insurance.  In violation of the cabinet decision but perfectly logical as I have argued continuously. 

 

In my opinion, health insurance or its absence was far from the minds of the people in the committee at the Royal Thai Police who came up with the financial requirements (monthly income of money in the bank or a combination of both) for the retirement extension, both when the extension rules were originally drafted decades ago and more recently when the requirement to keep at least 400k in the bank for the entire extension period if that financing method is chosen. The most plausible speculation about this is that a previous Commander of the Immigration Bureau favoured this measure in an effort to reduce corruption in immigration offices.

[Maestro]

48 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

...I note your observation that the police order has narrowed the group subject to the condition A-O visas and I think it reasonable to assume holders of that visa without funds in country. The fact that regional offices come to a different conclusion is lamentable for those who at one time had an A-O visa...

 

The way the Police Order 548/2562 stands it is, in my opinion, wrong for any immigration official or any regional immigration office to apply the insurance requirement also to a retirement extension based on an original permission to stay from entry with a non-O visa, if this is what you are alluding to.

 

I consider it possible, even likely, that the Cabinet committee that drafted the text for the resolution of 2 April 2019 meant to include all retirement extensions regardless of the type of visa on which the original extension was based. However, the Police order limits it to the retirement extension based on an original entry with an O-A and this is the only thing that counts for applicants for the retirement extension. The text of the Cabinet Resolution is irrelevant for this application.

[Maestro]

As to what the future may hold in store, this quote from the Cabinet Resolution gives food for thought (emphasis in bold is mine):

 

Quote

...urgently conduct the study on the proper procedures of mandatory health insurance to cover tourists and foreigners of all groups in order to reduce the medical expenses among Thai hospitals

 

[Maestro]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

 

In my opinion, health insurance or its absence was far from the minds of the people in the committee at the Royal Thai Police who came up with the financial requirements (monthly income or money in the bank or a combination of both) for the retirement extension, both when the extension rules were originally drafted decades ago and more recently when the requirement to keep at least 400k in the bank for the entire extension period if that financing method is chosen. The most plausible speculation about this is that a previous Commander of the Immigration Bureau favoured this measure in an effort to reduce corruption in immigration offices.

 

[tgeezer]

I can recognise that there are so many conflicting interpretations of the Cabinet Resolution that I find it very difficult to resolve them all so I will simply say what is the effect of this resolution is. 

  

1. Hospitals have a new annual income stream from Insurance Medicals.

2.  Insurance companies have a new annual income stream from policies. 

3. Individuals are tasked with the financial penalty of providing 1 and 2. 

 

I object to item 3 because I don’t need insurance cover in the sum assured of 400.000THB.  Paying for Insurance is like throwing money down the drain. 

 

 

[lamyai3]

55 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

I can recognise that there are so many conflicting interpretations of the Cabinet Resolution that I find it very difficult to resolve them all so I will simply say what is the effect of this resolution is. 

  

1. Hospitals have a new annual income stream from Insurance Medicals.

2.  Insurance companies have a new annual income stream from policies. 

3. Individuals are tasked with the financial penalty of providing 1 and 2. 

 

I object to item 3 because I don’t need insurance cover in the sum assured of 400.000THB.  Paying for Insurance is like throwing money down the drain. 

The authorities need to balance all the above against the rising negative publicity of running yet another scam.

 

An alliance between the RTP and the Ministry of Public Health and it's insurance industry backers has never happened in the past, and I could only imagine it being harnessed to serve some higher purpose. In this case, a major motivation must have been to kick the legs out from under the excellent Non O-A visa, which had survived most of the reforms of recent years and emerged as a glaring loophole in the new order of things. While the insurance industry might be frothing at the mouth at the prospects of huge numbers of new applicants, it's certainly not in everyone's interest here, including the rank and file of immigration who have to try and implement it all. 

[Langsuan Man]

If the comments here at TV about this worthless insurance are to be believed then I don't see any gold mine opening up for the Thai insurance industry

 

This surgical strike against O-A visa holders is only going to cause massive changes in type of visa one uses to come to Thailand. So long as there are other alternatives people will go where there is less expense and more value, whether it is relocating out of Thailand or changing visa type

 

The Thai government just doesn't understand expats, those who come here to live are not, what I call, mai-pen-rai people but are independent thinkers, who will find a way around whatever obstacles they try and erect.  We will not go quietly into the night even if our overlords want us too  

 

Immigration wants to play whack-a-mole, we can play it to

[Martyp]

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

I object to item 3 because I don’t need insurance cover in the sum assured of 400.000THB.  Paying for Insurance is like throwing money down the drain. 

 

 

Hmmm. I can't tell if you object to the particular 40,000/400,000 requirement, say for being expensive and inadequate, or whether you reject insurance in principal. I suspect the latter. Reflecting on the endless commentary on TVF this year about the insurance requirement my impression that even among TVF members, they don't reject the idea of insurance but they don't like the way the insurance policy was designed and implemented. 

[lamyai3]

24 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

This surgical strike against O-A visa holders is only going to cause massive changes in type of visa one uses to come to Thailand.

Surgical strike is a good metaphor, given how this very precise attack on a specific visa class has engaged the hospital sector for justification. 

[Langsuan Man]

17 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Surgical strike is a good metaphor, given how this very precise attack on a specific visa class has engaged the hospital sector for justification. 

Unfortunately the hospital sector can't provide the justification they want, it's the tourists that are the problem, not long stayers 

[lamyai3]

15 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Unfortunately the hospital sector can't provide the justification they want, it's the tourists that are the problem, not long stayers 

The whole thing is a farce. Hospital sector losses are primarily caused (in the following order) by Thai nationals, visitors from neighbouring countries, and then short stay tourists. Other than occasional deathbed cases, it's unlikely that long stay expats are responsible for more than a fraction of the purported losses. 

[PatOngo]

23 hours ago, tgeezer said:

If the ridiculous situation is not sorted out then there is no reason why every retiree should not be forced to pay out for an insurance policy which pays out no more than they can pay themselves.

Why not write them a letter and see if they'll sort it!

[tgeezer]

7 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Why not write them a letter and see if they'll sort it!

If I am asked to pay it I will appeal in writing, I renew in January. 

[ubonjoe]

IMO there is lot of proof that immigration botched the implementation of the insurance for OA visas when offices started applying it to those that were already on extensions of permit to stay from a OA visa or were applying for the first extension of one that was issued prior to October 31st.

This from page 8 of info (in Thai and english) MOPH issued about the insurance requirements for a OA visa. MOPH guidlines for OA visas.pdf

 

I think the biggest error that immigration did was putting the OA visa insurance requirement in the police order for extensions. That is what led many officers and offices to it apply the requirement for a extension of stay of a existing OA visa entry.

[ThailandRyan]

15 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Thanks for that. I note your observation that the police order has narrowed the group subject to the condition A-O visas and I think it reasonable to assume holders of that visa without funds in country. The fact that regional offices come to a different conclusion is lamentable for those who at one time had an A-O visa. 

As far as I can see I must assume (begging your presence Big Star) that the cabinet were unaware that retirees hold enough money to protect the Ministry of Health from loss. Immigration did know that so mandated that 400,000THB be kept on deposit instead of mandating insurance.  In violation of the cabinet decision but perfectly logical as I have argued continuously.  

You do realize that Holders of an O-A, original Visa, do and can obtain an extension of stay for the same 1 year period as an "O" Visa holder who also extended.  The financial requirements are the same to comply and obtain this extension, and include having the money in the bank, or based upon the monthly transfer of a retirement pension from abroad of 65,000 THB or having that 800,00 in a Thai bank account.  The O-A visa is the most applicable to single people over 50, and retired.  I was on a Non Immigrant "O" Visa, with extensions for many years until my divorce.  At that time my only option was to jump through hoops to show the "O" extension could be changed for support of my daughter.  The most easily obtained way was to head back to the US for a visit and apply for the O-A Visa before the insurance requirements came into effect.  This is exactly what I did.  There are other issues regarding the insurance which make the O-A class of visa and extension virtually unobtainable, and that is the form requiring the signatures from two directors as well as the third signature.  No foreign insurance company's legal team would ever allow for there signatures and locking them into a future protracted legal issue based upon the Thailand Cabinet resolution.  Then we get to the issue of obtaining a policy from a company in Thailand when you do not reside here and the seasoning time you must be in this country before the policy actually will cover one.  Normally 30 days or longer if there are exclusions.  So lets put this into perspective, Is there any difference upon obtaining the extension of stay as far as financial requirements for either the "O" or "O-A". Fewer hoops in my book for an O-A extension, but now the need for insurance, which places older individuals in a No-Win situation.  Why should one class of extension be affected differently from another.  Many here on an O-A are married, but because of the additional hoops to jump through went the easy route and obtained the O-A Visa, then an extension of stay. Your assumption that O-A visa holders or those on an extension of stay based upon the O-A class do not have funds in country is without a solid foundation.  Think this through again very carefully and decide on an appropriate answer based upon true and articulable facts not assumptions.    

[tgeezer]

48 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

You do realize that Holders of an O-A, original Visa, do and can obtain an extension of stay for the same 1 year period as an "O" Visa holder who also extended.  The financial requirements are the same to comply and obtain this extension, and include having the money in the bank, or based upon the monthly transfer of a retirement pension from abroad of 65,000 THB or having that 800,00 in a Thai bank account. 

 

I have always known that but then tried to rationalise why the Medical Insurance was required only for O-A visas and came to the conclusion that it referred to O-A visas during the stretched almost two year stay. I have seen a police order which says that the a subsequent entry will allow for a stay only as long as the Medical Insurance coverage is extant.  

Having read the Cabinet Resolution in Thai I have come to the conclusion that the intention was that all retirees should have medical. Insurance. 

 

Quote

The O-A visa is the most applicable to single people over 50, and retired. 

This is not the case if obtaining visas from London, where the O visa is for retirees and incidentally for looking after family members. 

I comment only to illustrate how uncoordinated Immigration is even at consul level.  

 

  Why should one class of extension be affected differently from another? 

This is a question I have been asking since the subject was first raised!   

The answer is in my opinion, because the Cabinet Resolution has been misunderstood.  

 

Think this through again very carefully and decide on an appropriate answer based upon true and articulable facts not assumptions.    

Thanks for the advise.

 

 

 

[BigStar]

5 hours ago, tgeezer said:

I object to item 3 because I don’t need insurance cover in the sum assured of 400.000THB.

As I said, this is really your only point. It's been made ad nauseam on the forum already. Turns out no tourist or expat in the whole world needs it. ???? And you could have made that same point, in one sentence, in one of the numerous other threads related to the insurance without claims to superior "logic" and intelligence while denigrating Immigration.

 

I suspect, however, you still haven't given up the illogical idea that a bank deposit isn't the same as insurance. ???? (Might check the difference in the documentation: bank book vs policy, or get someone to explain it to you.) Part of the reason is that you probably still think, quite erroneously, that a hospital can automatically "claim" it. ???? In fact, it's trivial to envision a scenario, as just one example, wherein that deposit mysteriously disappears from your account the moment you're wheeled into a hospital. TIT.

 

This has been a useful thread, though, for clarifying a point or two thanks to Maestro and ubonjoe's excellent informed contributions, so we that don't have usual blind leading the blind.

Edited December 29, 2019 by BigStar