Hans99

OK, then if ATM withdrawals and credit card charges (drawn from an overseas bank) are likely to qualify as "remitted", then it would seem that pretty much everyone reading this forum needs to get into the habit of keeping their ATM withdrawal slips and credit card charge slips (since those numbers will be needed to fill out one's tax return lawfully). Are we all on the same page here?

Hello, I'm an American retiree on an Elite visa living most of each year in Thailand as of this year (2023) and plan to continue doing so. I have no financial accounts in Thailand or anywhere outside the US. The only money I bring into Thailand is by way of (a) ATM withdrawals on a US bank account and (b) usage of a credit card issued by a US bank. Do (a) and (b) count as "remitted" money? My only income is in the US (just interest and retirement plan payouts, and I pay income tax on that in the US and in my state). Will I have to file tax returns in Thailand and/or pay tax in Thailand? Do I need to keep all my ATM withdrawal slips and credit card charge slips? Also, what if my US-based bank account contains money earned previously and also current income (i.e., current-year interest and current-year retirement plan payouts)? Do I have to say "well, at the time of this-or-that ATM withdrawal, 90% of the dollars in the account were from prior to 2024, and 10% was paid in during 2024, so I'm declaring 10% of the ATM withdrawal to be 2024 taxable income remitted to Thailand"...?

Did you look at the whole list? I saw "Cigna", "Allianz Worldwide Care Limited", "Aetna International", "Aetna Global Benefits (USA)", etc., listed under "International (Non-Thai Subsidiary) Direct Billing Contracts" on the page you linked. I don't know what hospital I'll be going to since I'm not even in Thailand yet. And I may be splitting my time between Thailand and one or two other countries, so I'm more likely to buy a multi-country (not including US) policy, depending on what's offered. And I don't know what hospitals I might go to in those other countries. If they don't bill directly, I don't mind paying myself and then submitting a claim, as long as they're reliable. Therefore, the information and opinions I'm seeing so far (including the various responses in this thread) seem to weigh in favor of a non-Thai-based company. One other question, I've read other threads saying that not buying outpatient coverage may be more cost-effective, but then I'm wondering what happens when an outpatient physician orders a CT scan, which may be expensive.

The reasons not to use a Thai company were discussed in another thread (here). It's a US-only plan. I want to keep that plan and buy a separate non-US plan (but not from a Thai company, for reasons indicated in the above-referenced thread). The website I mentioned in the original post said there are some policies that can only be obtained before age 60, and I'm 59.5, so the clock is ticking. However, I don't know how reliable the information is on that website, considering that I've already found contradictions in their information (as I mentioned in the original post).

OK, I see that I was in the wrong section (more insurance discussion in this section). Yes, I see that AAinsure is popular, but someone posted about some serious disadvantages of going with a Thai-based insurer, and therefore Thai-based brokers as well. So that rules out AA.

Hello, I'm a single American male in my 50s, just beginning to look into health insurance. At first glance, it seems that the process of insurance shopping is very complicated. In my case, this isn't visa-related, I just want insurance that'll work in Thailand (and ideally, other countries as well, if possible, but don't need coverage in USA). So I started by looking on "The Thaiger", and right away, I'm already confused. For example: 1. On one page it says "the premium rate for 55 year old males starts at 70,000 baht a year", while on another page it shows a premium rate of 12,992 baht/year for a 55 year old. This seems to be a contradiction. I'm not sure why they'd say something that's not true. 2. The latter page says "Renewable until 90 years old", while also saying "You won't have to worry about the financial consequences of being sick or injured if you have retiree health insurance." I don't understand why they think a person won't worry at all, getting dropped from their insurance at age 90. Do they not know that some people in their 90s have a lot of health issues? I guess "The Thaiger" is an insurance broker, so the above contradictions lead me to another question: 3. Is it better to avoid brokers and go directly with an insurance company? Why use a broker? Sorry if these are dumb questions, but I'm just starting to look at this now. Thanks in advance for any info or insights.