Etaoin Shrdlu

This website contains instructions on how to obtain Por Ror Bor for motorcycles via the LINE app: https://www.rvp.co.th/underwritingQA_en.php Not sure if this is what you're looking for.

I had nine years of employment and tax payments when I applied. I think my application probably went in the year after yours. The Thai language interview was perfunctory. In fact it was very informal and lasted all of about ten minutes.

Employment and payment of income taxes for three consecutive years is a requirement for PR regardless of age or marital status.

My understanding is that regardless of the circumstances upon which a PR application may be based, such as married to a Thai national, investment, etc. the requirements include being employed and paying Thai income taxes for three years. I suspect that females married to a Thai may meet this requirement on the basis of the Thai husband's employment and tax payments.

This is correct. The limit is 100 per country. The limit is reached for a number of Asian countries (probably India, China and Japan where dual nationality may not be allowed and there is therefore more demand), but not for Western countries. The reference to non-quota immigrant visa pertains to the re-entry visa that a PR holder obtains in order to leave and return while maintaining PR. There is no quota or limit applicable to the number of PR holders who may obtain such re-entry immigrant visas.

The penalty for not enrolling in Part B is 10% of the base premium for every 12 months that one does not participate. If one enrolled after ten years' non-participation, the base premium plus penalty would come to $340 per month. The break-even point would be ten years after the late enrollment. Assuming one starts Medicare Part A at 65, enrolls in Part B at age 75, the break even point is at age 85 if one only pays the base premium. This may be a deal-breaker for some or perhaps most. The calculations are different for those whose income levels attract a surcharge for Part B. For those who have other taxable income, perhaps a business, investments, IRA withdrawals, rental income, etc. the surcharges are significant. An income of $200,000 would attract a monthly surcharge of 362.60. After ten years' non-participation, the premium savings would be $63,912 (170+362.60x120). The total amount of the penalty that would need to be paid the next ten years after the ten-year delayed enrollment in Part B would be $20,400 (170x120). The non-participant is far ahead. The cross-over point at which the total penalty exceeds the total premiums saved is more than 30 years out from enrollment in Part B at age 75 and forty years out from age 65. In other words, one would have to live to 105 to reach the cross-over point. This is all due to the fact that the penalty is only calculated on the base premium and not the income surcharge. Quite compelling for those who incur a surcharge and who may not need to use Medicare for a while. The above ignores time value of money and any possible changes in Part B premiums in the future.

Not all foreigners are subject to reporting under Section 38 of the immigration act of 1979. An actual translation of the Immigration Act can be found here: http://www.samutprakanimmigration.go.th/downloads/Immigration_Act.pdf and it states that the reporting applies to foreigners on temporary permission of stay. Permanent residents are not on temporary permission to stay and are therefore exempt from reporting under Section 38.

Looks like a phishing attempt. If the message contains a link, it is likely an attempt to steal your login credentials or for you to download malware.

Apparently there's an issue doing that. Not sure what it is, but I think it may have something to do with her address not being on file on the pre-paid account.

Accession to NATO requires that there be no territorial disputes involving the applicant. This would mean that not only would the war with Russia have to end, but any claims by Russia over the Donbas or Crimea would have to be withdrawn or a negotiated settlement reached. I don't see this happening any time soon even if hostilities end.

Puet did it.

No, she's unable to receive any 2FA messages. She had no issues prior to coming to Thailand in May. Upon returning to the US, she has been unable to receive any OTP/2FA messages from BoA or other accounts such as social media and the like. Normal SMS messages aren't a problem. While she was here, she used wifi calling and later a Thai SIM. She has turned off wifi calling and put the AT&T SIM back in her phone, but still no verification SMS messages can be received. She's been to an AT&T store in the US and has also subsequently been to an Apple store after AT&T suggested it might be a hardware issue. Apple did a hardware analysis and did not find anything amiss. Neither Apple nor AT&T can figure this one out. BofA claims that the OTPs are being sent, but I'm not sure if the BofA people would be able to determine if security software had blocked the message at a later stage in the transmission process. I'm not an expert in this area, so I really don't know. She tried calling the AT&T fraud department, but they won't help her because she has a pre-paid account with no address on file. She's now going to change over to a post-paid account and then port her number to Mint. I'm not sure whether this will fix the issue or just add a couple more layers of complexity. She's in the midst of getting set up in a new job in New York City and getting an apartment and all the things associated with being a new graduate just starting out, so this is an aggravation that she really does not need.

Yes, she's able to send and receive SMS messages to and from other parties. It is only the bank's verification SMS messages that aren't being received. Her account is with Bank of America. She has turned off wifi calling as well. She went to an Apple store after AT&T suggested the problem was her phone. I think the issue is with AT&T and she's going to go back to one of their outlets and try again.

I think your Thai spouse would need to be traveling with you for you use the Thai lanes under such circumstances.

The undisclosed operation was a major one and would certainly have affected the insurer's pricing of the policy and may well have resulted in the application being denied. The policyholder claimed he had no subsequent treatment or took any prescription medication. If this was the case, he was neglecting a major health issue. He cited the request on the form to list any operations within the previous ten years as negating his duty to disclose any operation prior to that. There was also wording elsewhere on the application that asked that any medical condition be disclosed, but the policyholder thought he was "cured", which was at the very least extremely debatable. The insurer admitted the application form was flawed, but cited the Thai Civil and Commercial code which requires declaration of material facts without limitation. . In the end, there was a compromise, but before that there was quite a "discussion" with the insurer. The insurer went so far as to seek legal advice on the matter. If in doubt, disclose, or at least question the insurer on this point and get any response in writing.

I've seen such wording on application forms as well, including here in Thailand, but referring to medical procedures or operations undertaken within the previous ten years. This wording was probably carried over without question from the insurer's home country (it was the local operation of a foreign insurer) where there may be an absolute time bar of ten years. This is a potential trap for applicants because it contradicts the Thai Civil and Commercial Code's requirement for disclosure without time limitation. The form did not state that medical treatments prior to ten years were exempt, nor did it say that the insurer would waive the ability to cite intentional non-disclosure. I know of a case where this situation arose and I urge great caution if confronted with an application that contains this or similar wording.

No, there is no time limit under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code on how far an insurer can go back through your medical records trolling for undeclared medical conditions. The only time bar mentioned in the Code relates to the number of years that the insurer has been covering the policyholder under their policy or policies. After being continuously insured by the same insurer without interruption for at least five years, there is some protection in terms of a time bar preventing the insurer from citing non-disclosure as a reason to deny a claim or void a policy. I am not sure how absolute that time bar would be, so intentional non-disclosure, which may be insurance fraud, may not withstand the time bar.

Yes, the condition for which treatment was sought pre-dated the inception of the policy. An insurer would expect this type of condition to be declared.

I have no idea what may be motivating Pita to have so much tied up in life insurance. Estate planning comes to mind, but I suppose there may be other reasons.

It would depend upon several things. Did you declare spinal stenosis as an existing medical condition when you took out the policy? If so, did the insurer exclude all treatments of the spine, or only spinal stenosis or related conditions? Is your policy issued by a Thai insurance company or one from overseas? Depending upon the jurisdiction, there may be limits on an insurer's ability to cite non-disclosure as a means for denying a claim. Under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, an insurer can void a policy or deny a claim for material non-disclosure. There is a five year time bar for insurers to cite non-disclosure, but I'm not sure whether the time bar is absolute or pertains only to unintentional non-disclosure. Insurers in other countries may be subject to differing time bars or none at all. The time bar would apply from the date of inception of the first policy issued by the insurer, not the date of treatment.

Returns on the cash value of a whole life insurance policy may be greater than interest paid on a savings account or term deposit. If the returns are guaranteed by the insurance company, this would be a safer bet than the stock market in terms of potential downside. But returns on the cash value of life insurance policies are often secondary to estate planning issues.

Our daughter visited for a few weeks recently. While here, she was able to use her iPhone with the AT&T SIM by enabling wifi calling. She also swapped out the AT&T SIM and used a Thai SIM for a while. She did not have international roaming on her AT&T account. Upon returning to the US and putting the AT&T SIM card back into her phone she is able to use the phone normally except she is not receiving any bank verification SMS messages. She was receiving them prior to her trip to Thailand. She has gone to an AT&T shop and asked them to help, but they were not able to fix this. I know that there have been issues receiving bank verification SMS messages when in Thailand, but has anyone encountered issues receiving them in the US after a visit here?

This just received from SCB:

At Suvarnabhumi Airport. The immigration police process autochannel applications at a facility in the departure area just past where departing passengers clear immigration.

No, I haven't. Perhaps worth a try next time I fly out.