Lovethailandelite

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

This online system should extend to many countries in a near future.

Then it becomes a real problem. You cannot apply for any visa in a country using E visa unless you are a resident or have a long term leave to remain in that country.

54 minutes ago, lupin said:

I think I need to go do 20 Sudoku puzzles to regain the IQ points I feel I've lost after watching that

He won't be toasting now ????

24 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The way I read that news report was as pertaining to the tourist insurance proposal that had been floated previously....  And that it wouldn't be considered at least until into 2020.

 

In general, I believe people should have health insurance or some other suitable replacement. But until the government here applies the insurance requirement also to the tourist population, their claims about farang unpaid bills at govt. hospitals are hollow rhetoric.

 

 

I was referring more to this bloke and others like him regarding the O-A Medical Insurance gone away.
 

2 hours ago, jimn said:

Whilst I agree with most of what you are saying it is not quite as simple as what you are saying about obtaining a non O based on retirement in ones own country. To obtain a non O based on retirement you have to satisfy the criteria below. Now as the OP is over 70 I think he will qualify but not everyone over 50 does. The following below is from the UK Thai Embassy website. As state pension age in the UK is 65 upwards not everyone over 50 qualifies.

 

• Non-Immigrant Type O (Retirement (pensioner aged 50 or above with a state pension who wants to stay in Thailand for no longer than 90 days) - single entry only)
•  

• Financial evidence e.g. A copy of pension statement if the applicant is a pensioner, or a copy of 1-month bank statement showing your income from pension, or 3-month bank statement of at least £10,000
• Confirmation of legal residence in the UK or Ireland

A 3 months of bank statements of showing a balance not going under £10,000 suffices the need to show a pension.
Notice the 'or 3-month bank statement of at least £10,000'

35 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Which apparently is unwilling at least for now to impose an insurance requirement on tourist visitors (the vastly larger population of folks coming to Thailand compared to O-A holders) out of fear doing so will curtail their precious tourist visitor numbers.

 

If the authorities were really serious about dealing with unpaid farang medical bills at government hospitals, which is their claim, there's no way in the world they could/should leave the tourist visitors without an insurance requirement.

 

But that's exactly what they're doing thus far, and it suggests the hypocrisy of their policies and their explanations for them.

 

I believe, for now they are just working on the over 50 year old High risk category starting with the O-A visa and extensions of: There is far too much money to be made from Tourists arriving in to Thailand without Travel Insurance and to be able to sell them a policy before they can enter to ignore them.
Remember that only last month it was reported all this Health Insurance suggestion had gone away and been put to bed? ???? 

2 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

OK. No worries. If you're not, you're not.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious.  I'm not a tour guide, btw, nor am I ever likely be one ????

It's OK. I was just having a laugh with you. My name is just a simple screen name. Nothing more lol

Just now, lupin said:

Had this convo couple of days ago... as far as Thailand elite/TAT says, the PE falls under the tourist visa class. But there seems to be a lot of contention over whether their claim is true or not.

It is treated as a kind of tourist visa. Tourist visas are not stamped in for a 12 month stay. The visa class is printed on the visa as 'PE'

 

Just now, rabas said:

 

Type O-A is a newer sub-category of the type O visa, which is used for purposes. If a person was on an O-A type visa then they were also on an O-type visa. 

 

Did you read the link I provided?

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1127739-compulsory-health-insurance-for-0-a-visa-applicants-effective-31st-october/?do=findComment&comment=14664271

I read it and I believe he is mistaken on what visa he had OR the extension was issued mistakenly.

5 minutes ago, lupin said:

I thought we'd already gone over this and established the PE is not a NON Immigrant visa

Correct. It is visa class of it's own but.....never say never regarding what may or may not change at some stage in the future. For now though, it isn't mentioned

2 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Are you in some way associated with Thailand Elite?

Absolutely 100% not. Are you a tour guide? ???? 

12 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Likewise, I've always understood it's no problem to transition directly from a retirement extension, once it's coming to an end, to a new marriage extension, obviously assuming you meet the marriage extension requirements.

I don't believe it is possible to go from an O-A to an extension on marriage. Only to retirement. Marriage would need to start from a simple 'O' visa. 

17 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I've asked @Lovethailandelite that question here via a post yesterday. And thus far, he hasn't offered any comment on what the new Immigration insurance requirements will or won't mean for current and future Elite Visa holders....

 

That seems particularly pertinent, especially after he posted yesterday that Immigration is planning to extend the insurance requirement to all non-immigrant visa classes sometime in the coming weeks.

I won't comment any further until there is a concrete link I can post. That would be pointless and start another argument. Suffice to say though, I am not the only one pointing to this route. I caught a cold before with this O-A visa and particularly with the E visa news. It actually happened rather later than I said it would. I am not aware of anything changing with the way Thailand Elite operates at this time.

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

The way I read the police order it is only for seeking permission to stay or Extension of Stay based on retirement under an O-A and would not apply to an Extension based on marrriage even if original visa was O-A.

But if you want to be totally sure could leave and return on an O before next extension.

Maybe wait first to see if the rule is being applied to extensions for O-As issued prior to 31 Oct in your province as insurance will be a non-issue if not. (Though personally I'd still do it if you use the lump sum method. Not only is the required amount less but you don't have the spending limitation).



Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

It isn't mentioned because as far as I can remember, it isn't possible to get an extension for being married from an O-A. It never has been. Hence, I doubt they would allow switching from a retirement extension based on an O-A to one for being married.

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Laws do not stem from Police orders. The other way around. Police orders are designed to operationalize laws. And they have considerable latitude in how to do this given the very general wording of most laws. They have chosen in this instance to focus on peopoe with O-A visas.

The Immigration law had not been amended for years and does not mention health insurance at sll hence the need for the recent Cabinet Resolution.

I do not see the relevance of the fact that the Immigration Law does not describe O-A as a separate visa category from O to this. The Police Order, in both Englush and Thai, clearly specifies O-A visa.

If what he means is that based on the Immigration Law and wording of the Cabinet resolution TI could, if they chose, issue an order requiring insurance for retirees on O vidas then yes, I agree. But to date they have not done so.



Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yes my bad. You are correct. I should of added a lot more to my reply

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Visas cannot be extended.

Your arguing and failing to understand the order in post 449.

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Cart before the horse. Police don't make laws.

The government decide the law which is then written as a police order. Take it up with Immigration. Take it up with them regarding the extension of O-A visas needing Health Insurance. That includes those that already have an extension from a previous O-A visa. The law is there and in black and white. There is nothing to dispute

 

4 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

These are not laws though are they? They are police orders. I am afraid I don't feel lawyers here can interpret this any better than Immigration Officers, and it is their implementation that matters. 

They are immigration laws. Stemming from Police orders. Immigration are a section of the Royal Thai Police force.

2 hours ago, Trek800 said:

This time Im really a genuine tourist

And on previous visits, you wasn't a genuine tourist? Now you understand where your previous history comes into play.

32 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

How does a lawyer get experienced wrt something that is brand new and not yet being applied? 

 

That is what Lawyers do. The look at laws and interpret what that law means. As he said, the law has also been interpreted that way from Thai staff/lawyers reading from the original Thai transcript.
How and when the law is applied and in what context is another thing entirely.

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 It means if you want a one year entry, but only have 6 months of validity on a health insurance policy upon entering, they'll only give you a 6 month entry permission. I believe that's the basic idea.

 

Basically means the stamp or entry would be reverted to what it should of been. Onus is on the person and not immigration and makes them not responsible for an oversight when your entering and YOU need to check the permission to stay stamp. If for instance you had 5 months insurance remaining, you should of only been stamped in for 5 months as in section 2 and 3. If you was inadvertently stamped in for 12 months and stayed, you would find yourself on 7 months overstay once your entry was corrected. You need to pay attention to the entry stamp that it runs concurrently with the insurance certificate and get the stamp corrected at entry or ASAP 

24 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

I know and understand Joe's views on this...

 

At this point, absent any clear clarification from Immigration/the government, I think the main question unresolved is will the new insurance requirement also apply to prior O-A visa holders who subsequently are on retirement extensions of stay.

 

To me, the fact that Immigration has included the O-A insurance language within the requirements for retirement extensions is an indicator of that intent (along with reports from several Immigration offices in the past couple days giving that same interpretation).  Joe obviously believes that will NOT end up being true.

 

I fail to see any understanding? The date of 31st October refers to no more than a start date of the new police order for new visa applications, and entry's on the new visa. The only dispute maybe anyone entering on a previous obtained O-A visa, or on a previous extension and reentry permit obtained against it. Extensions obtained on a previous O-A, no matter how long ago or new extension applications of an O-A visa after the 31st October are absolutely covered here. It makes no mention of when that previous visa or extension was obtained. What is does allow is those already in the country on or after the 31st October, to remain Insurance free until either a new extension or which is not entirely yet clear, a new entry on that previously obtained visa or extension.

 

8 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

It means you have to get hold of the two cited orders of the Immigration Bureau to understand what it means. I have neither of these two orders on file.

 

From the sound of it, it seems to be about the correction of an erroneous expiration date of the permission to stay stamped into a passport by an immigration official

 

Yes. That is exactly what it means. The Onus is on the person entering to check the permission to stay stamp. If for instance you had 5 months insurance remaining, you should of only been stamped in for 5 months as in section 2 and 3 in the attachment in post 348. If you was inadvertently stamped in for 12 months and stayed, you would find yourself on 7 months overstay once your entry was corrected. You need to pay attention to the entry stamp that it runs concurrently with the insurance certificate and get the stamp corrected at entry or ASAP 

On 10/11/2019 at 8:10 PM, rabas said:

Ok, clear so far. To summarize the above: A person granted an O-A visa in his home country after 31-10-19 will be checked on each entry and the length of stay granted will never exceed the coverage period of the insurance policy. However, the alien can extend the coverage as needed before entering. And as you say this does not consider extensions of stay.

This considers extensions of an O-A visa dated 27th September 2019. It makes no mention of when the O-A visa was obtained

 

4 minutes ago, johnny1966 said:

How about those living here on multi o visas (marriage) or retirement visas?

ME Non O visas have started to become an issue to even obtain in some country's. That will solve that issue

2 hours ago, Wytchend said:

Im returning to Bangkok next month on a SETV 60 days.

 

I spend 2 months in Brisbane, then 2 months in Bangkok to see friends and enjoy myself.

I'm 56, not retired, or working, as I have no need to with a good property portfolio

I usually get 3 visas a year, and stay about 58 days. I always have more than the required funds, and a return ticket back to Australia. I'm also mindful of this 180 day limit. 

I have never stayed more than 180 days in any one year.

 

Am I also in danger of getting refused. And if I do what should I do?, request an appeal?

As I arrive on a direct Air Asia flight I've considered flying on to Vientiane in order to cross by land if I get refused.

 

I'm trying to cover all bases & always within the law. I've never had a visa extension.

Can anyone advise if my strategy is ok? or if I should do more.

 

Thank you

No. You are perfectly OK. You do what tourists do and not attempt to live here on the incorrect visa.
Enjoy your holiday