Jump to content
BANGKOK
visacrack

If I interrupted my visa extensions for (let's say) 2 years of travelling abroad, could I then begin again where I left? (health insurance-related) 

Recommended Posts


As a retiree, I obtained a non-immigrant O visa, a few years back, which since then has been extended annually - no real surprise there. 

 

Since the health insurance requirement was introduced, my understanding has been that only new applicants for my/our scheme would have to comply. And I also assumed (and this could be the crucial point) that I would maintain my 'grandfathering' status by keeping renewing it every year, without any interruptions - any such interruption would mean (according to this logic) that the status were lost, and that I (in case of return) would be treated as a newbie, thus would need health insurance. 

 

Now someone who seems to be in the know told me that this is not so: According to him, I could interrupt the annual routine for travelling, then (if I wanted to) come back and start all over where I left, and at the same conditions. 

 

These two standpoints are apparently irreconcilable. Whose interpretation is right? And could you prove it - kind of  .)   ?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to square one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only extensions based upon retirement that are extensions of a one year entry from a OA visa require insurance.

The is no grandfathering you would lose at time time if you decided decided to travel for 2 years and apply for a new extension. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP wrote > 1. Since the health insurance requirement was introduced, my understanding has been that only new applicants for my/our scheme would have to comply

2. As a retiree, I obtained a non-immigrant O visa

1. The health insurance requirement is ONLY applicable for

   - new applications (in home-country) for the Non Imm O-A (long-stay) Visa;

   - 1-year extensions of stay for reason of RETIREMENT based on an original O-A Visa (no grandfathering, the O-A Visa can be of yesteryear but the extension of it will still require the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance).

2. If you are staying in Thailand on a Non Imm O - retirement Visa (or an extension based on such Visa), the health-insurance requirement is not applicable for you.

3. When you do not extend your permission to stay, you have to apply again for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa and subsequent extensions.  This has no impact on 'rights lost' as there is no grandfathering foreseen.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Thank you, most of all Peter Denis. So after the '2 years', it all would come down to hoping that the rules are largely unchanged, thus that I would obtain a new NI-O visa at the same conditions as before.  


And 'thank you' for not slamming me for thinking ahead (post-virus), so to speak - might have happened in some of the other sections  .)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have PM-ed you a comprehensive guideline containing all details/options on how to apply for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa and subsequent extensions.

But obviously in 2 years time the requirements on some of the options addressed might and probably will have changed.

To access your PM-messages just click the letter-icon next to your profile when logged in to the Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks a lot, looks like this covers all of the contingencies! And as this isn't really my cup of tea (my handle should be taken with a grain of salt), this manual should keep me busy through at least most of our present crisis...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

1-year extensions of stay for reason of RETIREMENT based on an original O-A Visa (no grandfathering, the O-A Visa can be of yesteryear but the extension of it will still require the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance).

My agent told me insurance is reqired for those extensions who have O-A obtained after October 31, 2019. Hence, no extra charge for O-A visa extension based on retirment. It's the same as Non-O extension. If the visa was obtained after October 2019, they may need health insurance and there may be an extra charge. But it is unknown now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Mulambana said:

My agent told me insurance is reqired for those extensions who have O-A obtained after October 31, 2019. Hence, no extra charge for O-A visa extension based on retirment. It's the same as Non-O extension. If the visa was obtained after October 2019, they may need health insurance and there may be an extra charge. But it is unknown now. 

Your agent is twice wrong. 

1 - There are hundreds of reports on the Forum of OA Visa holders that were told by their local IO to subscribe to a mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance policy when applying for a 1 year extension of stay of their original Non Imm OA Visa (dating from yesteryear) for reason of retirement.

2 - There has been much speculation on the Forum that that mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance would 'sometime soon' also be made mandatory for extensions of a Non Imm O - retirement Visa.  Lately these rumours/opinions don't pop up anymore.

There are many reasons why this is unlikely to happen, but that would lead too far to go into that in the current thread.

And so the proven road to avoid that scam IO thai-approved health-insurance is to convert to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa (and subsequent extensions).

Edited by Peter Denis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Your agent is twice wrong. 

1 - There are hundreds of reports on the Forum of OA Visa holders that were told by their local IO to subscribe to a mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance policy when applying for a 1 year extension of stay of their original Non Imm OA Visa (dating from yesteryear) for reason of retirement.

2 - There has been much speculation on the Forum that that mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance would 'sometime soon' also be made mandatory for extensions of a Non Imm O - retirement Visa.  Lately these rumours/opinions don't pop up anymore.

There are many reasons why this is unlikely to happen, but that would lead too far to go into that in the current thread.

And so the proven road to avoid that scam IO thai-approved health-insurance is to convert to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa (and subsequent extensions).

Well, he may be wrong but he validated his statements by action. He got me the extension (originated from an O-A obtained few years ago) for the normal charge without any extra for health insurance. I never go to immigration. My agent does every thing - 90-day report if required, TM-30 if required and ironically I have never stepped inside any Thai immigration office except to take pics for 5 min. Life is good when one can spend little amount of money. 

Edited by Mulambana

Share this post


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

Well, he may be wrong but he validated his statements by action. He got me the extension (originated from an O-A obtained few years ago) for the normal charge without any extra for health insurance.

Are you married to a thai national? In that case the thai IO-approved health-insurance is not required when extending from a Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of marriage.

If not married to a thai national, are you sure that you are extending from an O-A Visa?  If you are extending based on a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, there is also no need for the thai IO-approved health-insurance.

If the agent fixed a 1-year extension on the basis of your Non Imm O-A Visa for reason of retirement, without meeting the mandatory thai IO-approved health-insurance requirement, I would not feel very secure about that as you would not be in compliance with Visa requirements while staying in Thailand.  Switching to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa is surprisingly simply and would have the advantage of being in compliance with IO-rules.

  • Like 1

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...