TigerandDog

absolutely awesome cover of Sounds of Silence. Of all the covers out there this is the BEST and better than S & G.

I would have to say, based on the never ending childish comments posted on AN, maybe <0.5%

none of your business

you really just can't accept that you are wrong with regards to money in the bank within 3 months of arrival can you. Not only did I have a copy of the police order stating I MUST have the money in a Thai account within 3 months of arrival ( in both Thai & English), but when I collected my visa from the Thai Embassy in my home country I was given a list, IN ENGLISH, on Embassy letterhead of basic requirements once I arrived, viz. TM30, 90 reporting AND 800k in a Thai bank account within 3 months of arrival. So stop telling me I'm wrong when I had it in writing from 2 Thai sources that was the requirement, especially as the bank would not open an account for me until I showed it to them, and that was after SCB, Krungthai, and BKK Bank all initially refused, and that was in BKK not the boonies. Even when I did my first 90 day report at CW they wanted to see my bank book, which meant I had to go home & return, showing that I had opened an account with the 800k. You may have been fortunate not to encounter this, but that was my experience in 2014. So for cryin out loud, STOP telling me that what I actually experienced was not a requirement back then.

I'm with the same company and I was able to get one pre-existing conditions and all with waiting periods applied for those, and they will actually continue to insure you even if you live longer than 99. Whilst their propaganda states they will insure between age 6 months - 75, when I joined they actually told me they had extended that up to 80.

what does under 60 have to do with anything. Totally irrelevant comment by you AGAIN.

I might be the first to report about O-A's having to have the money in the bank, BUT all my foreigner friends where I'm living are also on O-A's and they also had to provide proof to their banks about the requirement for teh funds to be in teh bank within 3 months of arrival. So who's making stupid assumptions now. So all those were over the age of 85 were they? Many of the Thai stipulated health funds increased the age limit for joining up. The fund I'm with increased that age limit from 70 to 85 with a full medical examination required. So perhaps many of those people that opted out of O-A weren't as well informed as you seem to think

I'm over 70, speak Thai enough to hold a conversation and yes have several million in the bank here. I don't give a flying F if you don't believe me. The reason for saying no Thail ability is that MOST over 70 long term foreigners have none.

you really ought to get your facts right before posting such drivel. When I arrived here 9 years ago on an O-A it WAS a requirement to have the money in the bank within 3 months of arrival. No confusion whatsoever with the 3 months seasoning. I even had to show the bank a copy of the Police/Immigration rule stating that, before they would open an account for me. I didn't miss the memo about O as I am more than comfortably meet the O-A requirements So it has nothing to do with MY choice of visa or any need to change to an O. The ones that left the country to negate their O-A's most likely should never have been here in the first place as they obviously were incapable of meeting the requirements.

so you want a pat on the back do you? NOT.

even with the stipulations you state, I'd still qualify. So what problems would it solve for me? So many on here have no idea what they're on about.

You can obtain the same results by doing DDPYoga (not your mama's yoga) and following a healthy eating plan and there's no weights involved, just yoga and dynamic resistance. This is a much better alternative for older people, especially if they have flexibility issues. If the video below doesn't inspire you to start and look after yourself, nothing will.

there's a better alternative than that if the Thai Govt had any brains and it would save older expats a heap of inconvenience, viz. for expats that have had 10 consecutive extensions of stay on either O or O-A (whether marriage or retirement) and are 70 or older offer them PR with no language test. Would solve a lot of problems for everyone.

Not entirely true. O-A requires money to be in a Thai bank account within 3 months of arrival in Thailand (that was the requirement when I moved here) OR the 65k per month or the combined method. Seasoning was in place when I moved here 9 years ago, but it was only for the period prior to obtaining an extension of stay. The insurance requirements were brought in under the guise of stopping foreigners from doing runners from hospitals. Nothing to do with what you have said. Honestly, where do some of you people get this misinformation from?

the whole thing was badly thought out. Obviously no research done by Anutin and his cronies as to the various visa types available for long stay so just picked O-A retirement, ignored the O marriage & retirement visas completely.

almost correct. When applying for the O-A just had to show the 800k in home country, BUT it was mandatory to open a Thai account and have the 800k in that account within 3 months of arrival. Not sure if that part still applies but that's the way it was when I moved her 9 years ago, and the purpose of the 800k was originally to cover for any medical coverage in country. Unfortunately Anutin screwed the O-A holders when he brought in the compulsory health insurance as he blamed farangs (his words) for doing runners from hospitals, but it was tourists doing the runners, not long term expats. The thing about health insurance is this could have all been avoided if the requirement for tourists to hold travel insurance, that was made law around 2014-2015 was enforced. Tourists are NEVER, except during covid, asked to prove they have travel insurance. If a tourist arrives with no travel insurance then they should not be allowed to clear immigration until they purchase a policy at a booth/s that could be easily set up before arriving at immigration.

Learn to read and comprehend. I said going forward abolish O. No retrospectivity whatsoever.

what eats away at me is the fact that there is blatant discrimination between the 2 types of visa. The other thing that doesn't make any sense at all is why a retirement visa (regardless of whether o or O-A) requires 800k or 65k per month and a marriage visa requires half that amount. Logically it should be the other way around. However that being said I comfortably meet all the requirements for an O-A, so no need to even consider changing to an O, AND I'm not like so many lazy farangs on this forum who use agents rather than spend the time doing their extensions etc themselves. Why pay an agent when you can do 90 day reports online and make an appointment for an extension which takes 40 minutes at the most in my experience. It's all a waste of money and just participating in the corrupt practices of Immigration Officers. A sad state of affairs really.

So was O-A, but O-A was the ONLY one of the 2 changed. So you still haven't explained why the preferential treatment when teh mandatory health insurance was implemented for O-A and not O..

The O-A hasn't ruined my life, so another useless uneducated comment. Personally I fine having an O-A. I just want someone to explain why the health insurance and police checks aren't a requirement for O. ALL other long term visas require both, so I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why O doesn't require this.

you still haven't explained why O visa gets preferential treatment, viz. NO health insurance and NO police check. All other long term visas require both so why is O getting preferential treatment.

Just goes to show what I said about those that meet the requirements and who use agencies is correct. Too lazy to do it yourself. Also please show me where I said make it retrospective. Like so many others you've read something into my comments that wasn't there. I said make it mandatory going forward.

I did do my research and was was by the Thai Consulate that O was no longer available. So please cease with your useless uneducated replies.

WRONG. The Thai Embassy web site in my home country makes no mention of O as being an option or how to obtain one. The ONLY retirement visa on offer was an O-A. As for discrimination, why do those on an O not need the mandatory health insurance or a police check from their home country. That's where the discrimination lies. otherwise both are identical. So not a poor visa choice as O-A was the ONLY choice available to me in my home country for retirement purposes, and even then I would have still chosen O-A as I had health insurance anyway and just swapped it over when it became mandatory here for O-A. Most of teh other long term visas require health insurance, so please explain why O holders should receive preferential treatment.

actually I was forced to get an O-A. When I moved here O was not available in my home country, nor was there any mention of it as an alternative on the Thai Embassy web site in my home country. Perhaps if you read everything I've posted on this topic you might actually give an answer that makes sense. You have yet to explain why those on a Non O should get preferential treatment over those on an O-A, viz no mandatory health insurance for O and mandatory health insurance for O-A. and no police checks for an O as against police check in home country before O-A will be issued, and you still sound like, and please note I said sound like, someone who takes shortcuts because you can't/don't meet the requirements.