rexall

8 hours ago, donnacha said:

Do you seriously not understand, after all these posts, that they were paying for special residential care for Alzheimer's?

That does not cover you for ANY of the hundreds of other things that can go wrong in a septuagenarian body. If you have a heart attack, the hospital does not give you a free surgeon on the basis that you are already paying for bed and board somewhere else.

<snip>

 

So, in the event of a medical emergency, the family stops paying the care facility and starts paying the hospital the B85K monthly. What's the big woof???   

However, you are partially correct, and it is a sad irony, even B800K is probably not going to be enough to pay for a catastrophic incident that requires lengthy treatment.  And any of the health plans you can get in Thailand will be insufficient unless you opt for a gov hospital.

8 hours ago, donnacha said:

"Force" was her choice of word. It figures prominently in her statements. The impression is clearly intended. The whole thrust of her publicity drive is that the entire family is being compelled, against their wishes, to leave Thailand due to unreasonable retirement requirements.

She was clearly aware that the expat community in Thailand would be highly receptive to this characterization. She is quite clever but, apart from expressing her anger, I do not see that she have much to gain from this. If anything, her anger endangers her and her husband's own retirement visas.
 

I suppose we would have to ask her what she meant by "forced." However, I can't imagine anyone being so rigid in their thinking that they would take it literally when--as you yourself point out--it is obviously not the case. It is a common figure of speech that people use all the time as shorthand to avoid the lengthier: We ran out of options. There were no easy solutions. We didn't have any good choices, etc.

6 minutes ago, donnacha said:

"Force" was her choice of word. It figures prominently in her statements. The impression is clearly intended. The whole thrust of her publicity drive is that the entire family is being compelled, against their wishes, to leave Thailand due to unreasonable retirement requirements.

She was clearly aware that the expat community in Thailand would be highly receptive to this characterization. She is quite clever but, apart from expressing her anger, I do not see that she have much to gain from this. If anything, her anger endangers her and her husband's own retirement visas.
 

Who needs a "case" you have got "face."  Not that I understand face very well, not nearly at gut level as does any 10 year old Thai child. Compassion sometimes springs from one's one internal values, and sometimes it is imposed on the outside by shame, particularly in Asia. But it is tricky. Which produces more loss of face, appearing to knuckle under to the demands of the greasy infidels or appearing to kick out a 77 year old Alzheimer's patient?  That is a tough one. I guess it depends upon how far the story spreads outside of ThaiVisa.

5 minutes ago, donnacha said:

That is clearly the hope here, that public opinion can be whipped up into a frenzy against the government, but it simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

Their problem here is the cost of Alzheimer's care, which is being privately purchased. It has nothing to do with the government.

The government have given her entry to their country on a retirement visa. She is welcome to stay, she merely has to meet the standard requirement to have a reasonable amount of money set aside for emergencies. Given her age and condition, she is actually more likely to need that emergency fund than most other retirees.

There is zero chance that this attempt to spark a social media backlash will gain momentum. They simply don't have a case that stands up. 

Dude, if you were an I/O with discretionary authority, would you refuse an exception or some kind of accommodation?

12 minutes ago, donnacha said:

A. I have sympathy for their situation.

B. I understand the financial decision to leave her mother in Manila.

C. I have no patience for the blatant dishonesty of pretending that the decision was forced upon her by a fairly standard retirement requirement.

All these things can be true at once. They are not at all opposites, as contradiction would require.

"Forced on her" is just a figure of speech.  Her meaning is pretty clear, I think.  

16 minutes ago, donnacha said:

I believe all my posts have expressed a sympathy I genuinely feel for both mother and daughter, but we should all reject a blatant attempt to manipulate public opinion, even if only intended to give her a sense of justification for her decision to move her mother to Manila.

You can be simultaneously sympathetic and reject attempts to distort the discourse.

I am genuinely worried that we are entering a dangerous world in which feelings trump reality, and people are too scared to point out hokem when they see it. More and more people now shroud all they do in high drama, creating a context in which any criticism or, even, gentle questioning of what they are doing is considered a vicious attack.

What happened to this family is tragic, but it is patent bullshit to scapegoat a fairly mundane retirement requirement simply because you have failed to make proper provision for your sick mother.

Your concluding paragraph contradicts your previous professions of sympathy, et al. Rules can be made, rules can be changed, rules can be bent, rules can be overlooked, exceptions can be made, it happens all the time. Ultimately, the optics of a situation may be more important than the raw facts. Imm cannot win the optics game of appearing to kick out a 77 year old Alzheimer's sufferer!   Which is ironic considering the over-concern with "face" in Thai and other Asian cultures, doncha think?

Yeah, there is something "fishy" in this story, it doesn't all add up. But that is precisely what makes it interesting, and allows this thread to continue for 8 pages so far.

1 hour ago, Pedrogaz said:

Sorry, but why should Thailand be a dumping ground for the world's Alzheimer's patients? All over the first world with people living longer the Alzheimer's population is exploding....why should Thailand take in any of these people....try taking her to Australia or UK and asking for free care? Or offering $1000 US per month? The daughter has taken responsibility for this woman who sadly didn't plan for her retirement very effectively....but spare us the heartbreak story, please.

I believe the family has been paying B85K monthly to the care facility in CM,  so your argument about "free care" doesn't make any sense in context.  As to why Thailand "should" take in any of these people, it is hardly a mystery. For the $$$, of course! Health care tourism is a sub-set of the tourist industry, maybe an important sub-set.  There is a lot of money in it for the providers, and the recipients, benefit from reduced costs and possibly better care, or at least more attention. I am sure that the care facility in CM is not pleased to lose a paying patient, and hardly feels protected by the actions of Imm.

Why "should" any country be the "dumping ground" for any demographic from another country?  Why should the U.S. be the "dumping ground" for nurses from the Philippines who cannot obtain employment in their home country? 

17 hours ago, Isaanbiker said:

The family has said that Thai financial requirements - notably having to have 800,000 baht kept in the bank for their mother - had forced them to seek care in Manila. 

 

   No Thai requirement whatsoever had forced them to seek care in Manila. Nobody has forced them to do so. 

It's just a figure of speech.  Come on!

3 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

What I meant is that Thailand does not run by religious rule, but by civil law, same as the USA, UK and so on. It is the Thai people and government's prerogative to decide who can visit Thailand, who can stay in Thailand, and the conditions under which they can. 

Whether you (or any other non Thai) accept or agree to these facts, whether you accept and respect the Thai culture or not - it is not up to you.

If I wanted to visit or move to live in the USA / NZ / Canada / India / Pakistan or any other country which I am not a citizen of, I would have to fulfill all the requirements for the permit to stay or visit there, and it makes no difference if I like it, I am comfortable with it or not. If I am up to THEIR standards - I can go. If I am not, then I can't go. And in most places you can't really contest the decisions made about you. So why should it be any different here?

200 words devoted to stating the obvious!  Sorry. I don't see anything you have written here which precludes gov and imm officials from behaving compassionately. Nor do I see anything you have written which precludes people from discussing, criticizing, and expressing an opinion, even if those opinions are expressed by greasy, slimy foreigners.  It would be interesting to see how well your faux Stoicism would hold up when they come looking for you.

3 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

Thailand is not a Buddhist country. It is a sovereign country in which about 95% of the citizens are Buddhist by religious definition. And as in most countries, when a loophole is a law is found, there is an attempt to fix it . Duh! Sigh!

I think Thailand is a Buddhist country. However, be that as it may, taking your pont, I guess the 5% who are not Buddhists must run the gov.

55 minutes ago, RandolphGB said:

Why should the rules be changed for one family? Where does it stop? Who gets concessions to the rules?

 

If they allow one person to stay, the next lawyer will use it as historical precedent and then the person after that. Soon the law becomes so blurred it's meaningless. 

Should???  Should-shmuld!  You want to play the should game? Why shouldn't Imm behave compassionately on a case-by-case basis?  After all, Thailand takes pride in being a Buddhist country, compassion being a hallmark of Buddhist teachings!

1 hour ago, LukKrueng said:

I feel for this family, I really do. But what most people are not willing to accept is that Thailand is not (and not interested to be) an immigrant country like USA, Australia, NZ and other countries. Thailand is allowing foreigners to stay here long term providing it benefits Thailand according to the Thai government's definition, and NOT by the self definition of those who want to stay here.

So there are different types of visas by which people who fit the conditions of those visas can come and stay here. However, as we all know, many people "trick" the system and stay here even though they don't really comply with the conditions of any type of visa or permit to stay (visa runs, using an agent to falsely show the 800K in the bank etc'). So obviously the more strict regulations and following of the regulations is an attempt to stop the abuse of the system and as sad as it might be in some cases, those who can't meet the demands of the visa/permit have to find another place to live in. 

 

If Thailand is a Buddhist country, above and beyond Buddhist compassion, it is unfortunate the gov seems to lack the wisdom to realize that it cannot control every aspect of reality. This results in them becoming cranky when, as the OP says, people "trick" the system. If a system can be tricked, it is going to be tricked. Duh!  Trying to repress this results in draconian over-reach, implementing policies that cannot be elegantly enforced.  Without bothering to consider the unintended consequences, it in  turn generates lack of respect  in visitors, immigrants and citizens, and a loss of face in the global community. Sigh!

17 hours ago, OJAS said:

Agreed. My gut feeling is that whether the OP has an OA or O visa will prove a red herring, and that the crucial factor will be that he is over 50.

Your gut feeling may be right, probably is. However, for the record, one of the original threads sez:

Approved by the Cabinet last month, the new regulation will require expats on the

long-stay non-immigrant O-A visa to have health insurance that offers Bt40,000 coverage for outpatient treatment and Bt400,000 for inpatient. http://bit.ly/2HvXEVi  

40 minutes ago, connda said:

Which supports the notion that this is a gift to Thai insurance companies.

NEWS FLASH!  Hot off the press from BOOOOPA.  Unless something was lost in the translation, at present, my next renewal will cost B72K.  (Oh, joy!).  However, if I upgrade to OPD B75,000 maximum (no smaller amount available), my new premium will be B120K.  That is an additional B48K for something I don't use, don't need, and don't want. 

What is the big deal? Just open the national health care system to all. Charge evil, slimy foreigners a predatory surcharge if they want. Problem solved.

4 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Get real and have empathy realizing there needs to be a better solution to allow all to accessible affordable no strings attached health care, which is opening up the government program for many. No one wants a free ride, and most everyone would love to know that they are covered, but not under unrealistic payouts that will not allow you to use it anyway. Everyone can afford some sort of a coverage if it is realistic.

In some cases, the coverage provided by BUPA, AIA, et al may be sufficient. But if you get something really nasty--assuming you are able to travel--the best you can hope for is that they patch you up so that you can return to your home country and use your country's version of social insurance.

Of course all insurance is a little bit like gambling. But I have paid BUPA nearly B700,000 over ten years and never collected one satang from them (except for my free annual flu shot). OK. I accept that. But the unfortunate thing is that if I get really sick, my B500K coverage is not going to go very far. 

The OP is correct. "No one wants a free ride, and most everyone would love to know that they are covered, but not under unrealistic payouts that will not allow you to use it anyway. Everyone can afford some sort of a coverage if it is realistic."

12 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

Get real and have empathy realizing there needs to be a better solution to allow all to accessible affordable no strings attached health care, which is opening up the government program for many. No one wants a free ride, and most everyone would love to know that they are covered, but not under unrealistic payouts that will not allow you to use it anyway. Everyone can afford some sort of a coverage if it is realistic.

I assume that the person who brought this up to me is confused. She said that the insurance requirements only apply to OA visa, not O visa holders.
 

Quote

"foreigners aged over 50 to have mandatory health insurance when applying for a Non-Immigrant Visa OA."

I assume this means that if you have an extension for marriage, retirement or child support, the insurance requirement applies to you regardless of whether you started with an O or an OA visa.
No?

4 hours ago, SoilSpoil said:

 

4 hours ago, SoilSpoil said:

I don't. I like to have choices on life, and would never sign up for an 40k outpatient insurance. Ridiculous.

I recently read a comment from one guy, age 65, who wrote that he has inpatient but that his  carrier (AIA?) will not allow him to "upgrade" to outpatient. Of course "upgrade" is a joke. OPD is completely unnecessary, waste of money. But if he really can't upgrade, then he is screwed, at least according to these early interpretations.

I just spoke to BUPA who is difficult to talk to because they quote coverage as per incident and per service, not total value. That makes it difficult to talk intelligently about  the B400k/B40,000 specified by Imm. In any event, apparently I can upgrade (lucky me!), but that the options work out to B35K or $60K. I have been paying these people for 10 years  never had more than a few visits to hospital which I paid out of pocket, probably less than B10K total in 10 years.  Anyway, waiting excitedly to find out how much this upgrade is going to add to the already expensive premium for practically no coverage worth mentioning.  Sigh!

They specify inpatient and OUTPATIENT coverage.  If you are relatively healthy, out patient is an unnecessary, expensive ripoff!

33 minutes ago, Tropposurfer said:

Without a work permit .... No work!!

find em n deport ASAP!!!

i for one don’t want dishonest scamming thieving falangs around me in lOS. Scumbags!

An no cleaning the beaches, either.  Nasty scumbags!

1 hour ago, AJBangkok said:

The solution is to ban all foreigners from visiting Ko Samui. Then there will be no outrage.

Yeah.  And along those lines, if you run a "clip joint" like those over-priced taxis long enough, sooner or later someone is going to find a way to compete with you, legally or illegally, fairly or unfairly. There is just too much money in it. It hardly matters whether the competition is a greasy foreigner or a greasy Thai.