Chiller

Have to say I agree with the suggestion Ubonjoe made which is to apply for your Non Immigrant O Visa at The Thai Embassy In Vientiane. You have everything you need, you enjoyed spending a few days in Laos before and the actual Visa will only cost you 2000 baht. You can then extend of course after 60 days. You just need to make an appointment to attend the Consulate Office to submit your application and then you return 2 days later to collect your Visa.

Yes my question is asking for thoughts on this subject.

I’m sure the original intention for insurance was only to cover all entries to Thailand under the duration of the actual O-A visa, ie, up to 2 years of stay if timed accordingly. The reason being there was no requirement to show money in a Thai bank account, therefore the authorities introduced this rule as an alternative ‘safety net.’ However as we all know in order to extend the period of permission to stay under the “retirement category” we also need to show either the required funding in the bank, or the monthly transfers, exactly the same as those who are extending their stay based on a Non-O visa. The only difference being is they are not required to show any insurance. This clearly does not make any sense at all?! It seems obvious to me that the original idea for insurance has been completely misinterpreted by the authorities, as what did make some sense in terms of the real reason for this has also been allowed to drift into a negligent, pointless and inequitable requirement, creating two distinct groups of “retirees” who are now treated quite differently without any justified reason. With the insurance requirement for O-A extensions set to dramatically increase later next year what are the thoughts of launching a legal challenge against this nonsensical discrimination?!’