GeorgeCross

3 hours ago, johnny1966 said:

 For the OP........Savannakhet knocked you back on a multi because your documents were "scanned and printed rather than photocopied"? Wow. I find this unusual. Which documents were they?

do they not know how photocopiers actually work?

(hint: they scan and then print!)

38 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

It wasn't like the OP's case involved a single wild hair rogue officer at some distant outpost. Based on his account above, he was FIRST stopped by the regular entry processing officer at the international airport who had looked at his O-A stamp and didn't stamp him thru, and then SECOND sent to some other desk where he was told specifically by presumably a different officer that he needed to have health insurance.

 

Perhaps, Immigration does understand the instructions they've been given, and it's some folks here who don't!  Just saying, perhaps....

 

yeah i tend to agree, the idea that this has all been grandfathered in without actually having a grandfather clause is a tad presumptuous 

1 hour ago, ThaiBob said:

This sign is now at Jomtien immigration. They are telling non-OA visa holders that they must have health insurance from the Long Stay website for future annual extensions and for those that have done previous extensions. Of course, Jomtien immigration was telling people the 65k method was no good. What we need is a TV member with a history of extensions based on their non-OA visa to post their own personal experience as of Nov 1st. Just a note, Jomtien immigration extensions = retirement visa in their world. (Go to the PCEC FB page.) 

 

 

seriously how long are we going to keep believing "some immigration" officers have "misread" the order and actually accept WE misread the order and insurance is now mandatory for ALL retirement o-a extensions?

50 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

Really love your style Mate...

yeah he's an utter p rick

8 minutes ago, PETERHOF said:

letter from embassy as proof of retirement

what is this and how can a UK citizen acquire (we have no bkk embassy anymore?)

28 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

"Pacific Cross Insurance is part of Pacific Cross International, a group with operating entities in Hong Kong, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia and Cambodia."

yeah thats what i thought - kind of blows the whole "thai insurance money grab" conspiracy theory out of the water

10 minutes ago, mngmn said:

The Thai authorities don't care a hoot about a bunch of uppity 'mia falangs'.

lol of course not - all publicity is good publicity for "teflon thailand" eh?

* cough tm30 cough *

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

So where are we now in relation to Jomtien and extensions based on an original O-A permission, 2 saying insurance not required and 1 saying it is? And will I need to dig out my old passport with the original  O-Visa from 13 years ago when I apply to do my extension soon, to confirm I did not have an O-A? Or is it explicit in the transfer stamp, which says Non-Imm-O.

 

And fond memories I have of it being easily obtained from Hull, that Non-Imm-O Multi Entry, for just under 100 quid with hardly any requirements!

multiple reports on facebook thai visa advice groups now saying they have been refused extensions at jomtien on existing (pre oct31) non-oa's without insurance.

not sure allowed to link the groups here but search on facebook and you will find them

1 minute ago, gk10002000 said:

Some authorities do grasp the potential issues of this new insurance policy and what its affects may be on local marriages to expats, families, dependent children if the expat just has to leave.  It is a money grab. And at the moment, the insurance industry and its backers had the biggest hammer.  And this may be a pet project of one of the bigwigs in the government and things will just have to  run their course for a while before some other agency or office or big official rules otherwise.

i was thinking about this money grab thing yesterday and not so sure how effective it will be. surely 90%+ of all applicants will just go with pacific cross as they seem to be the only one with (good!) english speaking representatives. all the others will pick up the crumbs left over.

i used to be a broker and can tell you all 10% of 80K retirees is <deleted> all market in the insurance world, its peanuts.

or is pacific cross a 100% thai owned company?

1 hour ago, Aforek said:

Can we imagine that foreigner with thai wife visa will have to pay a Thai insurance ? 

the wives will gather and kick off for sure and the authorities cannot deport THEM.

try telling your wife housekeeping 100K baht short this year - oh my days ????

5 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Nonsense.. it's 'designed' as a long stay Visa and is almost identical to a non immigrant o. The fact it has a few more obstacles to obtain explains its 1 year entry advantage.  

non-o is a 90 day visa. how can ask for 1 YEAR insurance for 90 DAY stay?!

i mean why stop there? if over 50 may as well ask for insurance for 30 day tourist visa and VOA too 

1 year extensions may however be treated differently but if they do non-o/b/ed they will have to do elite as well because anyone who thinks they will be here more than 10 years will just buy that and sign up for real insurance (5M baht + 200K+ deductible, no out-patient) or self-insure

38 minutes ago, sathornlover said:

If I may correct that. The numbers have ranged from 100 million unpaid to 500 million unpaid.

BANGKOK (Reuters) OCTOBER 9, 2019

wow, thats like 12.5 baht per tourist visitor!

totally worth risking your 48 billion baht expat market over * 

* based on 80000 retirees spending 600K per year

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I was also confused and  I finally got a handle on this, with the help of some very nice members and their replies in this threads and a couple of PMs.

It seems that this whole issue is a "tempest in a teacup"  The insurance requirement  is only fo A-0 visas and not for extensions so , simply convert to an Non IM -O visa and you are good to go

assuming of course one is fit enough to make it to the border, a consulate and back again ????

as per:

33 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

There are many falang in assisted care facilities who are not insurable

i have seen this first hand though one would hope they would be able to get some kind of medical exemption (too sick to fly or something)

29 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

By the way, just how does a resident falang "skip out" on a hospital bill anyway? They always hit me up before I'm allowed to leave the facility.

well the most obvious way is by not leaving the hospital in a state to pay the bill either through never recovering or dieing

2 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

It could very well be that they want to reduce the number of people coming to Thailand to retire but as a responsible entity- you have to  allow those who are already here and came in years ago under a different set of regulations the possiblity of remaining.  Anything less thant that is cruel and heartless and IMO illegal.  Does the Thai Government really want to be responsbile for  aging  westerners denied extensions of stay and being deported to an unknon fate.   Some of these people have no family at all in the birth country.

 

No responsible entity would enact a law or regulation that was retroactive. 

well they have a recent history of doing just so. recent example being 800K in the bank to 800K in the bank for half year and 400K for the rest. nothing retroactive there. why would adding an extra document be any different? in their eyes you either qualify or it's your choice/problem. 

also re: grandfathering in every other document it seems to have its own section and yet with this document there is none

sorry guys i think you are clutching at straws, this is not being grandfathered, IMO all OAs must have insurance upon entry or extension after tomorrow whenever they were granted

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Police order  both in English and Thai refers specifically to  the change affecting the O-A issued  after 31 October 2019.  IMO if it was being applied retroactive- it would specifically state  it was applying to anyone holding an O-A Visa or extension prior to  and after 31 October 2019.

you know i keep reading that section and to me it reads as how they will now handle extensions and entrances after 31 October 2019 NOT when it was issued.

i just can't see how you guys are reading it as such, to me it reads as "shall abide by the following practices ... effective from ..."

it says nothing about WHEN the O-A was issued

please correct me if i am wrong?

9 minutes ago, lkv said:

You forgot the other scenario.

 

"You have insurance certificate?"

 

"no"

 

"ok, today you no enter thailand and you go back home country"

yeah that too

17 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Even the Thai version  uses the term -applies only to the O-A Visa...    However, an exact translation of the Thai text may reveal some of the nuances that were missed 

 

IMO- I just can't believe that this change is going to be applied retroactively to anyone who has an O-A Visa or extension prior to 31 Oct 2019.  The utter unfairness of applying it retroactively  creates diffuclt challenges for not only the expats but the Immigration offices.

it creates no problems for immigration offices:

"you have insurance certificate?"

"no"

"cannot do extension. next!"

"but .blah.blah.. but .order.#.blah.blah."

"NEXT!!"

it will be no different than this years: "you have TM30?" 

55 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Yes. 

 

I believe the order states that all O-A visas, arriving in Thailand after Nov 1, will be stamped in to the end date of the insurance. 

 

The question of what they choose to do at that point if people arrive without insurance is very open, they could stamp people in for a short window 7 - 30 days for example, and tell them to buy the insurance and extend incountry (not needing money seasoned), they could issue a 30 day VOA, they could deny entry, etc etc. All of those options or even no enforcement could be applied. That said I think 'stamped in to the end date of the insurance' is a part of the arrival rule for ALL OA based arrivals after that date. Thats my guess. 

i don't personally see how it will be any different from denying tourist visa holders entrance if they think they are working, if anything it will be worse because in these cases they will know the retiree has no insurance.

51 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

20,000.  An interesting point of view and understandable given the nuttiness that is going on and seeming to get worse every year.  But breaking the law and risking deportation and being barred from returning is probably not the best approach. 

if you are going to leave anyway though what do you have to lose!!

its a mistake Thailand keeps repeating, they think they are so special that everyone is just clamouring to keep returning here but the truth is once the shine has worn off only family would drag one back