.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
TerraplaneGuy
-
Posts
673 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by TerraplaneGuy
-
-
6 minutes ago, rhodie said:
Use an agent. That is what they want us to do. ????
20 minutes ago, Martyp said:I wish the same. Even if different offices have different requirements a clear up-to-date website would work wonders. It doesn't even have to be an Immigration website. It could be a 3rd party website that has close contacts with a particular Immigration office. A good project for some enterprising Thai web developers.
In my view it would have to be by the Immigration Bureau itself because any daylight between them and a third party would give them the excuse to depart from what is posted. It has to be official. What I think is needed is a concerted effort by expats to pressure Immigration, using formal letters but also newspaper and FB publicity, to do the right thing.
-
Back to the main point here, it is clear that Immigration imposes irrational requirements that are outside the law. What I wish is that at least they would publicize those requirements so we don’t have to go through the agonizing ritual of guessing each year and getting rejected. Why can’t they simply post on the website a clear list of documents for each visa class so, absurd or not, we will know what to obtain and bring? I’d like to see an expat movement pressing for that.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Vascoda said:
Are not all policies when for e.g. it says 12th Feb it means it starts when 12th Feb starts. That is 00:00 hour of 12 the february. Never heard of a policy starting at 4:30PM. Does it mean if you have an emergency before 4:30PM, e..g 10Am you cant go to the hospital and have to wait till 4:30PM?
See my earlier post. Aetna says by law all insurance policies of any kind in Thailand start and end at 4:30 pm. Others confirm that. So yes I expect you would not be covered prior to that time on the first day.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
16 minutes ago, Thaidream said:The absurdity of this is beyond comprehension. First of all the OP is on a valid extension and did not need insurance for the current extension stamped in his passport. He is merely applying early for his NEXT extension and clearly meets the requirements.
IMO this is a complete lack of understanding the police order by the Immigration Department. I hope the OP writes a letter to his Embassy outlining the absurdity of this situation with an Info copy to the Head of Immigration at Soi Suan Plu as well as the Ministry of Health.
While I do think their overeall plan is to stop issuing any O Visas for retirement or conversions of O for retirement purposes and force anyone who wants to continue on retirement to get an O-A their actions will end Thailand as a retirement spot. Any thinking person will never fall for the scam of having to buy a worthless policy at inflated prices to retire in Thiland.
The only way to stop this nonsense is to be proactive and write to our Embassies in the hopes they can push the Thai Government to at least rethink any further discrimination against foreigners.
IMO- the change in the law/policy is illegal and a violation of the Thai Constitution by making a law expost facto - applying it to anyone currently on an O-A date prior to 31 October 2019. The law change/policy never existed prior to 31 October 2019 and should not be applicable.
I agree totally and might write a letter once the dust settles. Apparently the Immigration people do not feel confined to the letter of the law (and even the letter of the law, they misread). When I kept pointing to the English translation of the regulation, which THEY handed to me, to show them that the requirement was for the upcoming extension not the present, they would barely look at it. They would just recite their fictional requirements. When I asked "where did you get that from?" they said they had had "big meetings" with various government departments. In other words, they seem comfortable imposing requirements cooked up in meetings that simply aren't in the law. This is the familiar problem in Thailand, weak rule of law. What they are doing here is even worse than making a law apply ex post facto (which of course is wrong), because their improvised requirements are not even law. Presumably the Police Orders are law because the police are authorized by legislation to proclaim them. But additional "rules" devised in smoke-filled rooms, unpublished and with no formal authorization, are not law.
-
5
-
54 minutes ago, rwill said:
...
(I just extended in Ratchaburi yesterday. I had my insurance date the same as the extension date. Worked fine there.)
Did you go in on the extension date or in advance? And if in advance, did you already have insurance at the required levels?
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 minutes ago, Caldera said:This is really as dumb as it gets. Not only didn't they grandfather in people who applied for a Non-OA years ago, now based on this report and a previous one they also effectively expect them to have insurance for the remainder of an extension that was already granted and is about to expire. The mind boggles.
.
What is particularly irrational is that they seem to think you need to have the insurance for the stub period (because without it you cannot apply for an extension) and yet they don't in any other sense require you to have that insurance; i. e. nobody says "you better get insured immediately, regardless of this extension stuff, because you have to have it now." The reason, I suppose, is that even these dimwits know it's not a legal requirement if you're holding an existing extension/visa that was granted before the new regulation took effect. So they were quite happy to watch me walk out, having rejected my application, knowing I did not have the insurance coverage. Yet somehow they have no trouble imposing this fictional "requirement", applicable right now, when you ask them for an extension.
-
3
-
7 minutes ago, Caldera said:
...
Personally, I think changing to a Non-O visa - while tempting - will lead to a very short-lived victory for those who do it. Now that Thai immigration and insurance companies have created that nice little earner, does anyone really believe that they won't maximize the number of "customers" (victims) in the very near future? I bet it's just around the corner.
That's my concern and why I've held off on changing.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, EricTh said:
...
Is it possible for the insurance company to add a few days backwards ? or must the insurance policy be exactly one year, no less and no more?
I doubt they can do that, but I'm going to ask Aetna if they can do something similar (and along the lines of TallGuyJohninBK's thought): increase the OPD coverage on the remainder of my existing policy so I can show Immigration that I'm already covered at the required level. Since it's only 20 days (and only upping coverage from 35K to 40K) they shouldn't charge much for that.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Dumbastheycome said:
System gone mad ! How in any sense of logic, rationale or simple common sense expect people to have existing insurance on an extension which pre dates an application for renewal when on the existing extension it was not a mandatory requirement?
Any further continuation of permission to stay takes effect (if approved) on the date following the expiry of the last extension, not from the date preceding application.
I said the same thing at least 10 times to the frontline officer and the Supervisor. They both replied every time with the mantra “you don’t have insurance NOW.” As if I had overlooked that obvious defect in my analysis.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:
The extension would still be for one year but would start on the day you apply for the extension. ...
I don't think that would work because my insurance would cover me from 11 Feb 2020 - 11 Feb 2021 but my extension would be from 12 Feb 2020 (the first day I could apply given my policy starts 11 Feb at 4:30 PM) expiring 12 Feb 2021, with the result that the last day of my extension would not be covered by my policy. Aetna obviously thought this too which is why they suggested requesting an extension of 364 days which would begin on 12 Feb 2020 (covered) and end on 11 Feb 2021 (still covered). I just wonder if the CW officers will do that for me.
-
4 hours ago, OJAS said:
Not terrified but more likely a bunch of sadists ...
In fairness and to make the story even more complex, I should add that the Supervisor who jerked me around for over 4 hours in the end seemed to take pity on me (I may have been in tears at that point, can't remember exactly but I know I'd eaten my now stale-dated bank letter and bank book copies) and made this offer: If I just stick with my existing Aetna certificate and return to CW on 12 Feb (my expiry date) at around 4:00 PM, and ask for her, she would make sure my extension gets registered that day (presumably around 4:31 PM as everybody is leaving). I pointed out that, magnanimous as that was, it would mean that I would not get my re-entry visa because for sure those people would not wait around for me to get the copy of the extension, etc. She acknowledge this and suggested I get one in the airport on the way out whenever I travel next. I told her I am often too rushed at the airport to consider such a thing and then she suggested I just come back to CW another time to get the permit. I guess to her going to CW every day is just what life is about - after all, she does it. But this may in fact be the way the story ends for me since Aetna's various workarounds all seem uncertain.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:
So I'm trying to understand the practical impact of this... for folks with O-A visa extensions of stay requiring insurance (and they DO require insurance, BTW...)
AFAIK, I've heard that some of the Thai insurers are willing to write policies for that month or weeks stub period, at a prorated premium amount, and then have the full year follow-on policy that matches one's extension period...
And if someone was able to do that with their Thai insurer on the front end for the first time, then I think they'd be OK for future cycles, as their annual insurance period would match their annual extension period... and they could apply to Immigration early because they'd already have valid insurance in force each successive year.
I do think that would work. The Supervisor said if I could prove that I NOW have the requisite insurance levels as well as the certificate stating that on 12 Feb (my extension date) my new policy will kick in with the same levels, she would have gone ahead as usual and issued me my extension in advance. That's why I said in my first post that they in effect are requiring two certificates. Unfortunately Aetna didn't anticipate this problem when they adjusted my policy to match my extension dates so didn't boost coverage on the stub period and didn't of course give me a certificate for it. And I had no idea at all that I'd find myself in the Matrix.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
And it only gets funnier. I just got off the phone with Aetna. They acknowledged the problem but sadly told me they cannot change the time of their certificate, even if they reissue the policy. Why? Because under Thai insurance law, they say, all policies of any kind must have an effective time of 4:30. So nix that fix. They did suggest a couple of creative solutions. One would be to stick with my current policy and certificate, and go to CW a day late (i. e. in my case go on 13 Feb although my current extension expires 12 Feb). Pay the B500 fine for overstaying and get an extension ending 12 Feb next year. Clever, but my concern is deliberately overstaying; I've never overstayed and don't want to be on record as having done it. That kind of thing can catch up with you in other situations. Their second solution was that they would change my policy year to be 11 Feb. So then I go to CW on 12 Feb and I would have the insurance in place. They said CW would issue me an extension ending next 11 Feb, not 12 Feb, because it would match the insurance coverage dates. Apparently they got a green light on this idea from somebody in Immigration. However, I'm concerned that the CW officers may balk at extending a stay for 364 days when they're used to extending for a full year (and maybe policy even requires it). So I put it out to you all: is it common for CW to issue a retirement extension for something less than a year? @ubonjoe would probably know that.
-
3
-
1
-
32 minutes ago, BritTim said:
Is there a chance that immigration would then object that you do not have a policy for the whole period of your extension (you would not be covered from (09:00-23:59 on the last day)? If they want to be stupid, are there any limits?
I wondered the same since it's hard to see why they would be so worried that the first minute is not covered, if they apparently don't care about the last. I thought of raising it with the Supervisor but given the way she kept arguing in circles and ignoring the plain logic of my position made me conclude it would be a waste of time. So to answer your question, no there are none.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Shot down! Waited four hours for Inspector. He never showed but the Supervisor said he told her she was right. It became obvious they focus on the submission of application date rather than the extension date as the relevant date for insurance coverage, which flies in the face of the regulation which refers to “stay” not submission of application. And get this: They will not give an extension even on the date of the insurance if it’s before the TIME of the policy. They are terrified it seems that their system might show that they entered an extension an hour or even a minute before the coverage took effect. So guess what, my Aetna policy starts on 12 February at 4:30 pm which means CW will be closed so I won’t be able to get the extension that day. Nor the next of course because then I wouldn’t be covered for the last day of the extension. So now I have to ask Aetna to change not the date but the TIME to something like 9 AM so I’ll have a chance of getting my extension (not to mention my re-entry permit which of course requires first getting the extension). All in all, a magnificent job by Immigration In misinterpreting the law and wasting my entire day, and by Aetna in issuing a policy at a time that makes it useless!
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:Yours is the 2nd report of CW doing that which IMO is wrong.
If you had insurance that went into effect on the day you apply that is date the new extension would start instead of when your current extension ends.
I agree with you (btw still waiting for the Inspector). They showed me the English version of the new regulation which we have all seen and it clearly only requires that the insurance cover the period of the extension being applied for. It says nothing about the period before that (i. e. the stub period of the existing visa/extension). Yet somehow they’re reading that into it. It makes no sense not only because it’s just not in the law but also because if I do as they suggest and just stick with the insurance certificate I have and return on my current extension expiry date (12 February) I’ll be presenting exactly the same paperwork I have right now (except I’ll have to get an updated bank letter which is a pain but irrelevant to this issue). So what on earth would it gain them to make me come back other than deprive me of my right to apply in advance?
-
7
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
I’m at CW for retirement extension right now (non-immigrant OA). Came in advance, current extension expires 12 February. Already adjusted my Aetna policy to begin and end that date for full year coverage to match my new extension. But have been told it’s not good enough because I don’t have proof of insurance for the remaining (current) period of my existing extension. So I have to come back on 12 February. In fact I have insurance now but the OPD is only 35k not 40k as is required for a new extension. The result of their interpretation is that you must have a certificate for the current year as well as for the extension year, at the new required levels! I can’t get that since my OPD is only 35k until the new policy year (February 12) when it goes up to 40k. My choices, they say, are to again change my insurance policy dates (a major pain) and then come back on exactly the date of the policy OR sit tight with my existing insurance policy date and certificate and come back to CW on exactly that date, February 12. So in effect they’re denying me the normal ability to apply in advance for an extension by imposing a retrospective requirement for the 40k OPD during what’s left of my existing extension which I cannot get. I escalated to a supervisor who said the same and am now waiting for the pleasure of speaking to her Inspector.
Anyone else experience this madness?
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
7 hours ago, DrJack54 said:
OP, the tm30 won't be an issue at CW.
Yes take along the screenshot, most likely not even a mention of it.
You mention non O-A. Assume you have your insurance in order.
Thanks DrJack, yes I have the insurance certificate. Every year something new for us. They're so thoughtful to keep it interesting ????
-
I'm heading to Chaeng Wattana next week for my annual extension of stay (Non-immigrant OA). Any recent updates on what they require these days regarding form TM30? I returned to Thailand in October last year and filed the TM30 online successfully. Have a printed screenshot. Will I need anything else?
Thanks.
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
4 hours ago, MaxYakov said:"... --not the fact that they're slowly killing their own people bit by bit."
I agree with the vein of your post with one major exception. I would have worded the above sentence fragment as such:
... --not the fact that they're slowly killing
their own peoplethemselves bit by bit.Well put, although I'd add this: like so many things in this country, those who make the decisions can probably exempt themselves from the worst consequences. For the elite, it's not suicide. Locals who can afford proper air purifiers in their homes and offices (if they work for a living) and trips outside the city or country can - if they choose - avoid much of the health risk that the rest of the population has no choice but to bear. It's somewhat similar to the risk of death and injury from road accidents. As the NY Times wrote recently, a disproportionate part of the risk is borne by those who cannot afford cars and therefore are on motorbikes all the time, which are much more vulnerable. When powerful and affluent locals scoff at the air problem, I don't think it's always due to ignorance. Some don't care because they can insulate themselves better than others. But here we touch on matters that are beyond our control or proper concern. We should look out for our own and our families' health and leave the locals to their own devices (or lack thereof), bless them.
-
2
-
1
-
Is there any rule about when the insurance certificate (signed by 2 directors) must be dated? For example, must it be close to the day you go in to get your stay extended (like the bank letter)? Or is Immigration's only concern the date of the policy itself (which must extend for the full year of the extension of stay)?
-
39 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:
I have noticed that as well when looking at their historical charts lately. And I actually like it. I think it DOES give a more nuanced and clear look at the pollution levels -- as long as you view the charts with a clear understanding of what the different color shadings mean...
As in yes, only the DARK green color shadings reflect the under 50 AQI "Good" air state, then "Moderate" air starts out as light green, and transitions to yellow and then light orange as the AQI numbers head toward the upper end of the 100 AQI top end of the "Moderate" air category, etc etc.
But I'll agree... I didn't catch the subtlety of the difference between the daily charts color codings and the historical charts color codings on initial viewing... It took a bit of looking and attention before I finally caught on to what they were doing.
It does have advantages. But the trouble is that since BKK gets so few dark green (under 50) days and no very dark green (under 25) days at all, it makes the light green days look better than they are and easy to mistake for clean. The fact is our air is almost never better than “moderate”.
-
Here's something I just noticed. The aqicn.org historicals use a different color scheme from the daily readings. Take a look at July 2018 (underlined in the pic). The left-hand summary shows 28 green and 3 yellow days. Yet not a single day that month (see right hand detail) was really green (i. e. under 50 AQI). In the historicals, unlike the daily real-time reports, they only count days that are 75 or more as yellow. Anything less is green of some shade. If the day is under 50 they give it "bright" green (see August 2018 which has 2 of those days). So what they've done is applied a more nuanced color scheme for the historicals but it's misleading (especially if you focus on the the left-side summaries) because the basic colors actually include higher readings than the aqicn standard colors. What this shows is that in 2018, there were only 7 days in the whole year that were truly "green" (i. e. under 50). Those show as dark green. Compare with New York, where the large majority of days in 2018 were dark green and many were very dark green (under 25).
-
3 hours ago, thedemon said:
What a difference a day makes!
Yesterday (Friday 10th) at 0650
Today (Saturday 11th) at 0650
Yes it’s a relief but let’s not get excited ???? It’s already worse again than it was early this morning. I’m about ready to leave BKK. After 8 years, it’s only getting worse. I’m not going to spend the rest of my life cowering behind a mask and darting from home to safe haven to home again lol You’ve got to have a very good reason to stay here long-term.
-
2
-
Non-OA health insurance Chaeng Wattan madness
in Thai Visas, Residency, and Work Permits
Posted
I discussed this with Aetna and as you say they cannot give a certificate for the stub period coverage because the system only allows them to upload one certificate per customer to Immigration and of course we need the certificate for the extension coverage. Yet Immigration told me they would allow me to get my extension in advance if I could prove I have coverage in the stub period. The question is how could I prove that without a certificate? I didn’t get into that with them but I suspect if you brought your stub period policy and a letter from the insurer (signed original) confirming coverage they might accept that. If not they are really creating an impossible situation, demanding proof that cannot be given. I’ve asked Aetna to explore this further and I’ll post what I hear.