Exploring Thailand

5 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Do you really believe that he's a lawyer with a degree working on a thai visa website? 

He says that he's managing director of Integrity Legal law firm. I believe that. I guess it would be possible to look up his credentials, if anyone doubted them.

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He was largely correct about an important part of this. Don't shoot the messenger. 

Well, he started his previous video by saying that his analysis had been wrong. Also, it has to be said that, for a lawyer, his language is not the most precise. Lots of people, including myself, have talked to embassies and consulates abroad, and we've received widely differing advice. If he has access to people higher up the hierarchy than we do, then I'd agree that his opinion has more weight. If he's just making the same phone calls as everyone else, then his opinion is just one among many.

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think you are very mistaken about what he thinks. Yes he now thinks those on O based extensions won't need insurance. But he does think those on OA based extensions including existing ones will need the insurance. 

You could be right. At 2:34 he does say "not strictly speaking OA", but what he says after that does seem muddy the waters a bit.

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Obviously he's not in touch with the various Immigration offices that, rightly or wrongly, are giving exactly the opposite guidance to people with prior O-As on current extensions of stay when they go to renew those now.

 

Have to agree that I'm skeptical. On one hand, it would make sense, as Momofarang says, but I don't see how that guy would be able to get a definitive answer about the intentions of the Thai authorities when no one else has been able to. Sounds like just one more opinion -- could be right, could be wrong.

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I think it's pretty safe to assume that only Thai insurance companies are going to end up being listed as O-A certified on the TGIA website.

Yeah, I think you could well be right, but I don't see what is the legal basis for excluding foreign companies. It would be very interesting to know the process and criteria for being listed on the TGIA site. Who decides which companies appear on it, and how do they decide?

10 minutes ago, Scotcm said:

Arrived at Suvannabhumi yesterday on OA visa issued by London Embassy on 20th October. Stamped in for year in a few minutes. No questions about health insurance.

Have you written about this on Facebook?  There have been a couple of posts on here similar to yours copied from Facebook. I'm just wondering if this is a duplicate or a new report.

5 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Since the website is run by a consortiun of local companies they have zero incentive to ever do this.

 

Government needs to take back the reins. There is not a viable alternative.

 

They could easily get a list of ompanies with existing direct payment contracts with Thai hospitals. 

 

They could  also get company and policy names from lical  brokers.

 

And Embassies can supply details of government schrmes with worldwide cover e.g. Tricare.

 

From this a list of approved foreign covetage could be developed. IOs then need only check that a polucy is on the list.

Agreed that outsourcing it to the Thai Insurance industry was a terrible idea, but I'm not sure how likely they are to backtrack now that they've done it. I think best and fairest way to do would have been to have the consulates annotate passports for newly issued visas,  per the police order.  That would release the IOs from checking anything other than the passport. But if they really do intend to apply it across all OA visas, past and present, then that's not going to work.

Another way to take the pressure off (and decision-making away from) IOs would be to have a centralized database as outlined in loveThailandElite's post earlier in the thread.

Either way, there's not much we can do about it, other than urging our consulates, and the insurance companies themselves, to make the Thai authorities aware of our concerns. The fact that the current system is going to cause so many problems for so many people hopefully means that it must be amended and improved in some way.

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

There is nothing whatsoever in the Cabinet resolution or Police Order that says anything about foreign policies.

...

 

However their site content is being treated as an official rule  by default due to lack of guidance from TI and the fact that the police order contains a link to the site.

 

Which does mean that there is room to allow foreign policies if TI can be so persuaded.

That's the way I saw it. The fact that the order contains a link to the TGIA website is unfortunate in that everyone naturally takes anything on that website to be endorsed by the government, whereas I think the intention was probably just that the website would contain the list of officially approved insurers. 

I did see a comment somewhere by a Thai official that it would be impossible for them to check, and keep to track of,  every overseas policy, which is understandable. If the TGIA could become a portal whereby any insurance company could submit a policy for approval for use with Thai visas, then a lot of our current problems would disappear. How likely that is to come about is another matter.

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Yes I looked at Regency some time back, policies looked attractive. You may well want to ask whoever marketed this policy to you, but, they do not appear to be on this website.

I exchanged quite a few emails with a broker regarding Regency. They are not a Thai company, so don't appear on the website, meaning the policy will only be valid for one year. Apart from that, it looked like a good policy for anyone looking for the bare-minimum coverage. The premiums were low and there was no age-limit. Premiums increase by 7% per year after 70.

As a long-shot, I asked the agent whether Regency had looked into getting listed on the TGIA website, despite being a foreign company. Is there anything in the original cabinet resolution or subsequent police orders that mentions that the second-year on must be an insurance company registered in Thailand?  The TGIA site itself uses the phrase, "must buy insurance from authorized insurance companies in Thailand only". What is an authorized insurance company? Is it a company registered in Thailand or is it a company that appears on the TGIA website? Most likely it's a Thai-registered company, but I thought it at least worth a shot for a foreign company to look into the criteria for being listed on the TGIA website, especially a company like Regency who has gone to the trouble of create a policy called Thailand Long-Stay.

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Pacific Cross does do full underwriting. AETNA might, I'm not sure. I think most of the others do not. For sure the on-the-spot folks don't. Caveat emptor.

How does one tell whether a policy is medically underwritten? I guess you have some idea by the extent to which they check your medical history.  Beyond that, is there some form of words in the policy or do you simply need to ask the company?

2 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Strange that a policy with deductible should not qualify, as it offers a better protection against unpaid hospital bills, for example with THB 300,000 deductible it covers expenses up to THB 700,000. The only reason I can think of for disallowing is the lower premium for a policy with deductible and if a percentage of the premium goes into somebody's pocket this reduces that person's income.

I think it will be because they are worried that the insured won't be able to find the first 300k. They've decided that you must have a minimum of 400k coverage. They won't be happy if 300k of that is a deductible.

1 hour ago, wilkis333 said:

this link ?

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1114909-transactions-transferwise-make-it-right/

 

2 August from Mr Roger lorton regarding Fet letter from bangkok bank

That's a helpful link, but I think the one I was thinking of was a post by John Terry. See post number 14 in this thread.

I can't direct you to the post, but a few weeks ago somebody posted that they had been able to get a letter from the bank confirming that it was an international transfer, even though it was marked as internal in the bank book. There was also a recent post in which someone had had copies of the TransferWise receipt accepted as proof. Personally, I'd think the former method would be more reliable than the latter.

50 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Entry on a still valid OA generates a new  permission to stay and is in no way the same as entry on a re-entry permit, which does not generate a new permission to stay.

 

You will not be able to get a re-entry permit with a still valid multiple entry visa. You can only do that after the visa has expired (or in the case of a single entry visa been used). 

Thanks. So, if, they decide that people with an OA issued before 31st can exit and re-enter during the first year without insurance, then it follows that they will also be able to stay for the second year, using a re-entry permit granted after the OA has expired, in just the same way as people have been getting  second year in the past. Correct?

1 hour ago, lkv said:

OK let me do it.

Mate, despite your super-condescending tone, you've posted nothing there that I didn't already know, and nothing that is germane to this discussion.

1 minute ago, Mango Bob said:

Your multi entry is for the first year.  For the second year you need to purchase either a single entry or a multi entry permit.

Yes. I know that. 

This is what Sherly wrote

Quote

"Entry on a re-entry permit does nto generate a new permission to stay nor does it extend existing permission to stay. There is no way that one would be required to show insurance for the same reason you do not have to show at entry your 800k in the bank: you are not applying for an extension nor getting  a new permission to stay.".

I guess re-entry on an OA during the first  year is either generating a new permission to stay or extending the current one, and for that reason could have different requirements to re-entry on a re-entry permit which does neither of those things.

1 minute ago, lkv said:

Nope it's not.????

 

Complicated stuff, I know.

That's true! Nobody really knows, including, I think, most of the IOs.  I'm sure It will all come clear in the next few weeks (yeah right!) .

Just now, ukrules said:

She was referring to the second year where you purchase a re-entry permit.

Right. I was assuming that re-entering on a re-entry permit was the same as re-entering on a multi-entry OA.

2 minutes ago, lkv said:

Sheryl wrote what should happen when one has been granted a permission of stay, at a time when the Police order was not in force, and you keep that permission of stay alive with a re-entry permit.

Sheryl was talking about "entry on a re-entry permit". As the OA is multi-entry, I took that to be the same thing. Is that not the case?

1 minute ago, Mango Bob said:

You can get a reentry permit anytime during your extension of stay but must use it before your extension of stay expires.  Use it or it will expires.

OK. So, the OA is "multi-entry" which I take to be the same as multi-rentry-permit, meaning I have re-entry permits for the first year. I can buy a re-entry permit before the end of the first year.  Ergo, according to Sherly's analysis,  I can exit and re-enter throughout the entire two years.