Jump to content

Proof of retirement - Non imm O - Brit


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Most of what you say we all know already, it's the point above that's contentious, I don't think it was unintentional at all

If by that you mean that the long-term aim of the powers-that-be here in Thailand is to close off all avenues leading to retirement by foreigners here, then I agree. Existing retirees who have not been deterred by the plethora of recent rule changes will eventually pop their clogs, and, in practice, are only likely to be replaced by foreigners of retirement age who have other reasons deemed acceptable by the powers-that-be for wanting to settle long-term in Thailand (e.g. marriage to a Thai national).

Edited by OJAS
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, john terry1001 said:

I do agree with you Peter, both with the intention of guiding towards non O-A's and the lack of quality regarding the overpriced health insurance on offer. But, in my opinion, it's the non O visa that has become increasingly difficult to obtain in your home country over recent years unless you are married to a Thai national or have Thai national dependants (children). When I first started coming to Thailand in 1994 literally anybody who wanted to stay for more than a month were offered a non O visa as a first option. But open abuse in the UK (especially Hull) put a stop to that and, at least the consulate in Birmingham, were instructed to 'push' the non O-A visa. I believe an O-A visa in your home country is still just as available as long as you abide by the similar rules. Yes the rules are more strictly enforced now and the health insurance requirements are an added burden, but that applies wherever you obtain an O-A visa from. By contrast, the non O visa is now much more difficult/restricted from your home country so I don't hold your argument that the authorities have chased applicants away from (easier to obtain) non O-A's towards (the more difficult) non O's in your home country.

 

I believe (some) people are doing at the moment are using loopholes in the present system to try and obtain a non O locally (Savannakhet, HCMC, etc) purely because they can't/won't/refuse to pay the health insurance. In my opinion this increased change in visa status these people are looking to achieve will (eventually) encourage Immigration to close those loopholes and (unfortunately) at the same time it will make it increasingly more difficult for applicants to apply for non O's they are genuinely entitled to.

 

I do think we should pay the total cost of our health care and Thailand should not have to pick up our medical bills. The restrictions in place at the moment though are only going to increase scams so I agree with your argument you've highlighted in other threads about superior foreign policies, plus the excessive cost of Thai policies for the over 70's, is a sound one and should be pursued to try and bring about a change............... but encouraging people to cross borders to change from non O-A's to non O's purely to get out of having health insurance weakens that argument greatly and, in my opinion, should not be encouraged.  

I follow - and partly agree - with your reasoning, but not with your conclusion.

For sure it's a good idea to ensure that long-stayers are covered by health-insurance.

And most long-stayers are well-covered and are also well-aware of the necessity because as you get older, it's almost certain that you will need it one day.

But now insurance has been made mandatory for one specific type of Visa (the OA and its extension for reason of retirement).  While the health-risks are same for retirees on an O type Visa, be it for retirement or for marriage.

Of course the present situation - health-insurance only for OA Visa - is a 'project' to see how it works out.  And the longer-run intent is (or was) to also roll it out in a later stage to these other Visa-categories.

However that experimental 'project' has gone horribly wrong, both in the design and implementation stages.

OA Visa holders that are already well-covered and have far superior coverage than what the thai-approved policies provide, are forced to subscribe to the thai ones solely to allow them to apply for their OA-retirement extension.  And OA Visa holders over 70 years of age (or with pre-existing conditions) are not even able to subscribe to those thai policies, as the thai insurers do not accept them.

On top of that those thai policies are exorbitantly expensive for the ridiculous low coverage they provide.  So instead of ensuring that OA Visa holders are well covered, they provide a false sense of security (as any serious accident/illness will often be way above the max coverage these bogus policies provide).

Under those circumstances, it is both sensible and legit to inform the retiree population that there are easy 'escape routes' from the thai-approved health-insurance scam.  

The thai authorities already successfully 'killed' OA Visa applications by adding a non well-thought out and almost impossible to achieve health-insurance requirement to the requirements.   

And they will now also discover that extensions by existing OA Visa-holders are dropping significantly due to the expensive and basically worthless health-insurance insurance they impose on that OA Visa, and that those OA Visa-holders are switching to other legit ways to ensure their long-stay in Thailand.

For sure they will now think twice before continuing with this March of Fully.

The overall retiree policy will not object to a sensible approach to ensure that long-stayers are well covered for health-risks, but the present approach is counter-productive in as good as every aspect and needs to be completely re-thought considering the needs and situation of all parties involved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, OJAS said:

If by that you mean that the long-term aim of the powers-that-be here in Thailand is to close off all avenues leading to retirement by foreigners here, then I agree.

I don't think so, just pushing people to the non imm O retirement where it's more lucrative. If they brought in health insurance for O it would be the kiss of death so unlikely to happen. I bet you 10 baht it won't happen

Link to comment
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...