andre47

7 minutes ago, lampangguy said:

Okay, I am on an extension of stay, not an extension of visa...but in any case my visa expired in 2016, way way way before October 30 2019....I have not left the country since I came in on that visa in 2016. By the wording on that sign, insurance not required. It seems straightforward...maybe I am missing something. 

If you have a visa cat "O-A" you will need an insurance the next time when you will apply for an extension of stay.

5 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

I have no objections to having health insurance in Thailand; but the new requirements seem to make life much more difficult for many of us living peacefully in Thailand.

Yes, it is getting difficult to retire in Thailand. On one side I understand the Thai government because some naive farang come here with insufficient financial preparation. But the new regulation for the health insurance is not well planed. Many farang have already a good insurance but they cannot comply with the new regulations. The easiest way would be if we could make a fix bank deposit to ensure our expenses.

14 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

Yes, this is the fundamental question. Then we know how a particular immigration official (rank and name needed) at a particular immigration office (location needed) interpreted the applicability of the health insurance requirement to extensions of stay at that particular point in time (date and time required, moon phase optional)

 

This, regrettably, is how complicated and unpredictable the implementation of immigration policies has become.

Perhaps you are right, but what shall we do? We have to live with this and try to make the best out of it. Lamentation does not help us to answer our questions. Only talking with the officers in our immigration offices can help us to know about their rules and interpretations.

2 minutes ago, jackdd said:

It says เพื่อใช้ชีวิตในบั้นปลาย which means "retirement" in Thai immigration lingo.

Somebody with a "O-A" visa with marriage extension should ask his immigration officer. Then we will know....

40 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Lampangguy says his visa expired in 2016. And it did.

He has been on an extension of stay since then, not an extension of visa. 

When you are on an extension of stay you get a re-entry permit to re-enter the country because you no longer have a valid visa.

 

Nobody in the history of the universe has ever extended a Thai Visa, its impossible. A visa is an entry document that has an expriy date, a Visa generates a "permission to stay" in Thailand, you can extend this permission to stay long after the original visa has expired.

 

You extend a stay, not a visa.

The visa expires if you don't enter the country before the "enter before" date and if it is a single-entry-visa it expires also when you leave the country. It also expires when you exceed your granted length of stay.

The extension extends the length of stay. The visa is still valid. The extension of stay only extends your right to stay in the country. The extension of stay is not a visa and it also don't allow you to enter the country. If you have a "single-entry-visa" you need a re-entry-permit. Your extension of stay is responsible for the allowed length of stay and the re-entry-permit for the re-entry. The original visa is the base for all following permissions. Without a valid visa you will not get any of them.

This is how I understand a visa. 

8 minutes ago, lampangguy said:

That does seem clear to me...my visa expired in 2016, so not after October 30, 2019...and i have been on extensions of that visa that expired in 2016 ever since. So, insurance not required. 

Why are you confusing others?

If your stay was extended then you still have a valid visa. Nothing is expired. If your visa is cat "O-A" then you need an insurance.

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

One is simply required to have a Non-Imm Visa permission, it could be a 'B', I know of people whose Extension is based on an original Non-Imm-B. The Extension stamp says 'retirement' on it. I feel your statement above is incorrect. 

Everything is possible here :).

I suggest that one of the guys with a "marriage extension" go and ask at his immigration and then report to us.

5 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I think you would find there are many like myself who came here on an O-A years ago, retire extensions then met a girl got married then switched to marriage extensions. The recent income letter and seasoning changes would have many original O-As switching to marriage extensions.

Then you should ask your immigration officer.

1 minute ago, Peterw42 said:

Rubbish, I came here on an original OA visa and switched to a marriage extension, 3-4 friends have done the same.

You extend a stay, not a visa.

The visa grants you the stay and the extension extents the stay which the visa grants you.

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

But there is no restriction to a person on an O-A permission applying for an Extension based on marriage to a Thai, and whether it needs insurance is very relevant. 

A extension of stay is based on the original visa. It is not based on marriage or retirement.

Normally a visa for marriage is of category "O" and not "O-A". Visa and extension of stay for category "O" don't need insurance.

2 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

You are claiming an Extension of Permission to Stay based on marriage to a Thai national will require insurance (if the original Permission came from an O-A Visa)... point us to a police order stating that. The requirements for a marriage extension have not changed for many years. 

Original: https://www.immigration.go.th/read?content_id=5d9c3b074d8a8f318362a8aa&fbclid=IwAR39UI_zBxVLedZKgZeAeYnvb0yyyIsr6SHPhnq64ohzACO7VsLUU_LlGn0

When I went last week to our Jomtien immigration the only criterion for the officer was whether the visa is "O-A" or not. (marriage or retirement is not important).

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

Surely only Extensions of Stay based on retirement!

no, based on a visa category "O-A"

The word "retirement" is not important in relation to the insurance problem.

If the visa is category "O-A" then a insurance is necessary.

That means all new visa "O-A" and all new extensions of stay of existing visas "O-A" needs an health insurance. If you have an existing extension of stay of a category "O-A" visa then you will need an insurance the next time when you will apply for a new extension of stay.

9 minutes ago, Roy Baht said:

My visa

This visa has the category "O".  ==> no insurance necessary

After reading all I went to our Jomtien Immigration today and asked whether I will need an health insurance or not.

The answer was:

Non-Immigrant Visa, Category "O-A" needs insurance

Non-Immigrant Visa, Category "O" don't need insurance

Hope that helps...

Attached my visa (no need for insurance)

17 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

my insurance (AXA Germany) has the right to cancel my insurance as soon they know that I have another insurance

watch in internet (youtube or other) ????

Has anybody already asked a Immigration Office, e.g. Bangkok or Pattaya? How are they understanding the new rules?

4 minutes ago, trigpoint said:

Obviously you're not Thai, it is extremely affordable for the hiso Thai nowadays. Why do you think they are keeping the baht at such overvalued rates. 

I am not a Thai and I am not a Hiso. Most of us are not Hisos.

I don't think that Switzerland could only live from Hisos.

Btw...the Swiss Franc is also overvalued. The reason is the financial chaos in the world. It is very likely that we will see an economic crash soon. This crash will be worse than all what we have seen before.

Unfortunately Switzerland is so extremely expensive that I cannot imagine to spend holidays there. There are many other nice places on this world which are also nice and much more affordable.

19 hours ago, toofarnorth said:

I know what you are saying but look at the Burma/death railway , thousands ride that.

You cannot compare these two places. During the building of the railway thousands of men died.

The cave is just a tourist spot for sensation-seekers. Really annoying...

big business

I will never understand why people are going there. It is just a cave like 5000 others.

herd instinct

Really funny....always discussions about the number of tourists coming to Thailand. For what??