Etaoin Shrdlu

Thailand is a noisy place and it seems to me that Thais fear quiet as much as they seem to fear being alone. I've kind of gotten used to the din, although we've found a number of places that don't have live music. We rotate among quiet and louder restaurants depending on our mood at the time. But I understand your point.

If your girlfriend has a serious job, property and money in Thailand and speaks passable English in the interview, then she may be able to get a tourist visa on her own. Having an American boyfriend (or husband for that matter) actually makes the likelihood of getting a tourist visa poorer. The concern on the part of the consular official is that you would seek to change her immigration status once there, perhaps after getting married. Any suspicion that this might happen will result in a denial. In order to remove concerns that she may not return, it becomes important to show that you have strong ties to Thailand such as a good job, own a condo, own a business, have PR or long-term residency, etc. It isn't impossible, but the rejection ratio is high.

It was a difficult time for individuals and companies that had deposits with the shuttered finance companies. Loans denominated in foreign currency became much harder to service. Lots of companies laid off staff. Many properties and luxury autos came onto the market at steeply discounted prices in the scramble to raise cash. There was a very brief period before retailers could mark up imported items when local retail prices were about half the US retail price. I think it only took a few days before this was corrected. The USD/baht exchange rate wasn't above 50 for very long, but it did then settle out in the mid-40s for a longer period. This was a good time to bring in money to buy a house or condo. But on a day-to-day basis, nothing much changed in my life. There weren't as many foreigners working in Thailand back then and I think the retirement visa had only recently become available, so the expat community was much smaller than it is today. Tourist arrivals were only about seven or eight million per year back then, too.

Yes, it is entirely possible to have an undiagnosed and un-noticed condition that existed at policy inception. Depending upon policy wording, such a condition may be cited by an insurer as a pre-existing condition and a claim denied. Some policy wording may be more favorable, so it is important to understand how a pre-existing condition is defined and covered (or not) under the policy's terms.

Possibly. Most insurers will accept whatever the proposer is able to declare on the proposal form and will issue a policy based upon this information and won't undertake a thorough underwriting exercise at that time. That leaves the insurer with a potential get-out-of-jail-free card to use if and when a large claim is submitted. While post-claim underwriting is perhaps unethical, it is legally allowed - at least up to a point. The Thai Civil and Commercial Code does have a five-year limitation on an insurers's ability to do this, provided the insurer has been on risk for that time. The onus is on the applicant to disclose all material facts that would influence an insurer's determination of coverage and price. Unfortunately, this can also include an obligation to disclose facts that the proposer may not be aware of or had forgotten, or which the proposer did not think was significant. Perhaps the only way to prevent an insurer from citing intentional non-disclosure would be to submit one's medical records for them to review when initially applying. My suggestion is to submit actual medical records going back as far as possible in order to minimize the chance that an insurer could find something that would allow them to deny cover. Depending upon policy wording, this may also not be foolproof since there may be an undiagnosed condition that hasn't manifested itself yet which the insurer could cite to deny a claim. It would also require more time and effort than the current practice of relying on an applicant's memory and understanding of medical issues. Individual commercial insurance is a poor solution for transferring the risk of significant medial expenses. Group cover through an employer is often a bit better, but the only cover that oldies can really rely upon is that which comes from the state, and even then there are gaps, deductibles and exclusions.

A doctor visit isn’t a condition, but it may be necessary to disclose if consultation is sought for symptoms. Proposal forms often stipulate such.

The doctor conjures up conditions that don’t exist and puts it in a report?

In both cases he had a pre-existing condition.

My statement was about not having a pre-existing condition at all, as was the OP's. Non-disclosure and being unaware of an existing condition are another matter entirely.

If a policyholder really does not have any pre-existing conditions according to the policy's definition of such, on what basis would an insurer exclude a claim due to a pre-existing condition?

Both AIG Thailand and AXA Thailand offer outbound travel polices. AIG offers slightly higher limits for medical expenses if I recall correctly, although the limits are fairly low: 5 million and 4 million baht respectively. I would avoid the smaller Thai companies' offerings. There are a number of insurers offering better coverage and higher limits, but they aren't based in Thailand. I think Allianz offers travel policies from Europe and there are a number of specialty insurers that do. I think you can find them if you search on the internet.

Revocation of citizenship is when the government acts unilaterally to strip a person of their citizenship. This is usually done without the citizen's consent or agreement. Renunciation (or relinquishment) is when the citizen petitions to the government to have their citizenship ended. This requires the intent of the citizen to end the citizenship and for the government to agree. The Thai constitution prevents the Thai government from acting unilaterally in revoking citizenship when acquired at birth. It does not inhibit the citizen's right to petition the government to end their citizenship as provided for in the Nationality Act. This is not something peculiar to Thailand or Thai law, but rather a basic concept within the meaning of the two terms.

Yes, this was the point of my post, but was not aware of the ability to renew a Thai ID via an embassy. Thanks.

As I stated before, revocation is an act of the state. In other words, the state cannot revoke Thai nationality of someone who acquires it at birth. A Thai citizen may renounce Thai nationality as allowed under the Nationality Act. The constitution in this instance is limiting the power of the state, not the power of the citizen.

It is necessary to be physically present while going through the process of having your name entered into the house registration book and to obtain a Thai ID, but there is no physical residency requirement that needs to be satisfied either prior to or after this process.

The constitution in clause 39 states that revocation is not permitted. Revocation is an act of the state, not an act of the citizen. I don't think this clause over-rides the Nationality Act that allows for renunciation of Thai citizenship in certain cases.

Revocation by the state is not permitted, but voluntary renunciation at age 20 by a dual national is allowed.

I'm not able to find an official Thai government translation of the 2008 amendments to the Nationality Act, but a number of law firms' websites use the same wording contained in the unofficial translation I linked to above. There are also several websites that discuss the changes to the act and state that the new law allows for, but does not require, renunciation of Thai nationality at age 20. While it is possible that so many law firms have gotten this wrong, the fact that they so consistently use wording identical to the unofficial translation and explain the context in the manner I've proposed, I think by preponderance of evidence this is the correct interpretation. I will concede that this is wrong if an official translation of the 2008 act contains unambiguous wording, as did the original 1992 act, that states that Thai nationality will be lost if no declaration of renunciation of the non-Thai parent's nationality is made at age 20.

Here it is as amended in 2008: https://www.refworld.org/themes/custom/unhcr_rw/pdf-js/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.refworld.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flegacy-pdf%2Fen%2F2008-2%2F4a54695f2.pdf It drops the part about renouncing Thai nationality if no declaration is made. I think this supports my earlier post in which I think it applies to children whose parent's country prohibits dual nationality by providing a way to renounce Thai nationality.

Yes. See my post above.

I owe an apology to MangoKorat. I've found an English version of the amendments to the Nationality Act that were implemented in 1992: https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/1167851/1504_1218184631_nationality-act-no-2-b-e-2535.pdf It does indeed require a declaration at age 20. But I think the law is either ignored or has been made ineffective by subsequent constitutions that guarantee Thai citizenship to those who acquire it at birth.

There is no provision in this clause for the loss of Thai nationality if such declaration isn't made. My understanding is that this allows someone who acquires Thai nationality at birth, or by naturalization as a minor, to renounce Thai nationality in order to keep the citizenship of the parent when the parent's country of citizenship does not allow dual nationality. Otherwise the person with dual nationality may be forced to lose the nationality of the non-Thai parent. A bit strange that the clause only applies if the parent is the father, but this is an old law.

My understanding is that the citizenship law allows a person who acquires both Thai nationality and a non-Thai nationality at birth to renounce their Thai nationality within a limited timeframe after turning twenty years old. It is not a requirement to choose one or the other, it is an option to renounce Thai nationality if the person so wishes. Once the window to renounce closes, then the person has Thai nationality for life unless revoked under the nationality law. I looked into this because I have four kids with both Thai and US citizenship.

I think your name must be in a house registration book here. No need to actually live here to get a Thai ID. Are there Thai relatives here who would agree to put him in their house registration book? Not sure what documents would be needed if no Thai birth certificate, but this could be found out without too much difficulty.

I think the DLT can issue an IDP under either the 1949 Geneva Convention or the 1968 Vienna Convention. The latter can be issued for three years. I think the UK is signatory to the Vienna Convention, so ask at the DLT and tell them you're going to the UK. You may get a three=year IDP.