Move to make health insurance mandatory for long-stay visas

[JackThompson]

4 hours ago, samran said:

does anyone know if you have worked here for a bit, as an expat, can you still contribute to thai social security once you have left employment. I understand the health coverage is pretty okay for what you pay.

Answered here:

 

3 hours ago, BestB said:

You can not just buy into Thai social, you have to be employed and then its 5% from you and another 5% from employer.

 

If you stop to work, you can continue paying it, but you have to be employed first.

Correct - and in my post, I was referring to people speaking about a brief period when a buy-in was offered to the Thai system w/o work, though quickly withdrawn and those who got it cancelled - and to others who suggested a buy-in option be permitted now. 

 

2 hours ago, keemapoot said:

If you work in a company that contributes to Thai Social Security, and you work for more than one year for them, and you are not yet 60 years old, then yes, you have this coverage, and can then continue it indefinitely, so long as you exercise the option to pay yourself 3 months after your 60th birthday, or 3 months after your leave the company. Because of this tricky and short time to exercise the option, many expats can not have this coverage. If you had a job with a qualifying employer, then left that job to move to another company that does not contribute, and you did not exercise the option to pay yourself within 90 days, you are out. 

 

So, this is a hit and miss solution for relatively few expats on this forum I would think.

Those who don't need to work here, but are employable and not wealthy, might consider working a year for a company with a qualifying employer, just to get into that system.  It would pay great dividends over the cost of private-insurance in one's later years.

 

Thanks for the clarification on the buy-in window.  This is something I am considering - would save over the private ins I have now - and save a LOT over what I would pay in premiums 10+ years down the line.

[Olmate]

15 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

If you spend your time in Nana and Soi Buakhao, you will certainly think so. 

Bit like “your a piss head..every time I go to the pub I see you there”!

[onera1961]

4 hours ago, Suradit69 said:

One wonders what they will accept as proof of foreign medical insurance. Sound like it could run into the same problem as verification of income with immigrations officers unprepared to sift through a multitude of incomprehensible foreign documents in various languages.

Embassies will not have any problem going through foreign languages because they may employ local translator. But there is no guarantee that in the near future, immigration in Thailand will also start asking for insurance. 

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, Moonlover said:

I thought the basic point of the 800k Baht was to show one had enough money to live on for the coming year!

Then why won’t they accept monthly income, most people live by the month, pay rent n most other bills monthly! Not just here , do you need 800k in your bank at home to get by on a pension paid monthly.And live on sfa don’t touch Your money for the 3 months seasoning period. Not a fair argument..they are double dipping and will soon be flogging a dead horse!   If not already!

[marqus12]

3 hours ago, jesimps said:

There're a few posters on here who think that apart from themselves, all farang are chain-smoking, womanising alcoholics. A good shrink would sort them out I'm sure.

Even if they are... Higher taxes on cigarettes and alcohol are justified

by the fact that smokers and alcoholics require higher treatment

costs in the future.
So ex pats should be exempt from these taxes because they

receive nothing in return.
 
 

[onera1961]

6 hours ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

Many ex-pats are supporting Thai wives, children and, to some extent, their families too, most of whom would have to be abandoned were the ex-pats forced to return to their own countries. 

Why they have to be abandoned? Can't they send money every month for their maintenance or take them to home land? 

[jesimps]

2 hours ago, keemapoot said:

I know a guy in his early 70s, and he is putting two kids through international schools. (No, this is not me) They are not his kids, nor those of his wife, but those of his wife's brother who has checked out on the family. So, this farang took on the responsibility to raise these kids together with his Thai wife, and he is essentially playing the role of their father. He provides a first class life for them that they could never imagine. They are receiving an international education and are perfectly bi-lingual. He provides them all sorts of extra curricular activities and a great life in a safe and prosperous home. So, yeah, there are a lot of guys out there like this.

Well done that man. Don't worry about the smug remark from that poster, there are two or three idiots on here who enjoy sitting in judgement on the rest of us. It gets them all orgasmic to see other people struggling financially after being hit by a couple of ill thought out rule changes. When you're looking for useful posts to aid you in your thinking it doesn't help to read these superior posts by those sitting on their high horses. Pillocks!

[keemapoot]

Just now, onera1961 said:

Why they have to be abandoned? Can't they send money every month for their maintenance? 

Paying for a living in two places would be undoable for most people. So, you are asking if they can rebuild a life and support themselves overseas and at the same time support a remote Thai family? Do you really need to ask this question?

[AsiaCheese]

8 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Immigration has nothing to do with that.

It's about the OA-Visa, a visa that you only get in your own country. So I think it's not a big problem for your local Thai Embassy to check an insurance of your country. 

 

For all who haven't gotten the idea together yet: Non-Immigrant O/A is the "foundation" visa one gets at a Thai embassy or consulate, and it's good for 3 months. After that, there are yearly extentions for those, and you get them in Thailand at Immigration. Thus: oh yeah, Immigration has a lot to do with it if (which would be logical) insurance cover has to be verified yearly... 

[jesimps]

3 hours ago, totally thaied up said:

A lot of us cannot move somewhere else without really affecting life. I have a Thai wife - sure I could get her PR back in Australia but she is happy here in Thailand and so am I (up to a point - it is these things like this that put a damper on living here). I mean, at least in Australia my wife has a path for PR were as here, it is almost impossible to gain. I mean, if your at least married and looking after a Thai National, you would think they would have some form of an SS scheme for us. I mean it does not have to be perfect (just very basic lifesaving coverage) that we would pay into. 

 

If this is going to have a trickle-down effect on the Retirement and marriage section, on both sides of the equation, there will be problems. I have health coverage now but I am only 49. When I get older, it will be very expensive to keep such cover going but for me to stay, I just have to pay. This year I spent close to 300K in hospital care (Gall Bladder and pneumonia) but insurance paid. 

I also have a Thai wife and stepdaughter, but I still may have to move. At 74 I just can't afford to pay several hundred thousand baht annual premium. There're going to be a few of us in the same boat.

 

[JackThompson]

12 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Why they have to be abandoned? Can't they send money every month for their maintenance or take them to home land? 

If returning to one's "home-land" - many of us would have far less to spend to support our Thai families than we have living here.

 

If taking them to our home-land (assuming they wanted to go), a significant cash-outlay may be needed to get them legal, plus support in the mean-time. 

Though, as an American - thanks to the courts and some state and local governments there - I could skip the whole "legal" routine.  Just drop them off in Canada or Mexico, pick them up along the border, then live in a sanctuary-jurisdiction.  There, they could get free health-care (though I can't), a drivers-license, open a bank-account, and take a job using ~$100 in fake federal documents (no prosecutions for this if you are illegal, but I'd go to prison if I did it).  And if we have trouble making ends meet, my wife can take to a life of crime, since the judges will lower any felony-charges short of "Murder 1" to misdemeanors, so they don't have to report her to Immigration and subject her to "cruel" deportation. 

[Mister Fixit]

And what about people who can't get medical cover because of a pre-existing condition(s), but who have the money to pay for their treatment?

 

Yet again, another proposal that hasn't been thought through before going off at half-cock.  

[JackThompson]

20 minutes ago, AsiaCheese said:

For all who haven't gotten the idea together yet: Non-Immigrant O/A is the "foundation" visa one gets at a Thai embassy or consulate, and it's good for 3 months. After that, there are yearly extentions for those, and you get them in Thailand at Immigration. Thus: oh yeah, Immigration has a lot to do with it if (which would be logical) insurance cover has to be verified yearly... 

That is a "Non-O" (without the "A"). 

 

A "Non OA" is good for a 1-year stamp each time it is used and with an "enter before" date a year after issuance.  If an "out/in" is done just before the "enter before" date, you can get almost 2 years out of it.  This is the Visa where the ins is mentioned.

 

One can use either as the "foundation" for a retirement-extension - applying during the last 30-days of the stay given.

[Mister Fixit]

34 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Why they have to be abandoned? Can't they send money every month for their maintenance or take them to home land? 

And just how would they do that if their homeland pension was only enough to support them there?  They'd have no excess money to send back to their families in Thailand.   

 

In the UK, although I am married here, I don't get a married man's pension, only a single persons.  That is enough to live on out here for two people (maybe with a couple of kids) but not enough if they went back to live in the UK.

 

Apart from that, to bring a wife back there for permanent residence I would have to have an income of £18,600 pounds a year just for my wife, and another £2,000 or so (I forget the exact figure)  for each child.  That would be impossible for many oldsters like me and so I'd either have to stay here in penury or visa-less because I could not afford health insurance, or leave my wife and any children here while I go to live alone in a freezing bed-sit in the UK.  

 

You obviously know nothing about the subject so why post?

[totally thaied up]

37 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Why they have to be abandoned? Can't they send money every month for their maintenance or take them to home land? 

 

34 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Paying for a living in two places would be undoable for most people. So, you are asking if they can rebuild a life and support themselves overseas and at the same time support a remote Thai family? Do you really need to ask this question?

I could for some time be able to pay between two places but after a year, no, it would be hard and many people I do know, don't have the money or infrastructure to make it work. I would need to rebuild my life first in Australia, buy a home, wait for two years to get her PR to come over. It would be difficult but doable but then, would she fit in? How our life is now, we are doing just fine. The only problem I (we most) have is this Insurance and Hospital hassle every year on finding money for payments and hoping that I don't get sick and they suddenly then pull on me that I have a pre-existing condition and <deleted> me right up. If I make it over 70, I will be surprised.

 

No, this could cause all sorts of troubles if implemented. 

[zydeco]

2 hours ago, Prince77 said:

It is irresponsible not having an insurance - for oneself, for the relatives, for the public and for hospitals.

Just who do you NOT think we Westerners should pay for?  Thai relatives? The Thai public? And their hospitals? This is the nuttiest thing I've seen on here today--and that's saying a lot.

[balo]

Another brilliant idea that will never see the light. 

[jesimps]

2 hours ago, Prince77 said:

I fully agree to that proposal as it would set an end to the burden left on Thai Hospital when they treat foreigners and those can't pay their bills. It is irresponsible not having an insurance - for oneself, for the relatives, for the public and for hospitals.

 

There is no valid argument for me to object this proposal.

I'll give you an argument, I have sufficient funds to cover any eventuality and during my 12 years here, I've paid right away for the couple of visits I've made for minor ailments. Why should I waste megabahts on insurance scams when I'm in a position to self insure? How's that irresponsible???

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, onera1961 said:

If you spend your time in Nana and Soi Buakhao, you will certainly think so. 

But I don't, neither do most of the farang expats I should imagine. There's also nothing wrong with spending your time in Nana and Soi Buakhao if that floats your boat.

[JackThompson]

5 minutes ago, jesimps said:

I'll give you an argument, I have sufficient funds to cover any eventuality and during my 12 years here, I've paid right away for the couple of visits I've made for minor ailments. Why should I waste megabahts on insurance scams when I'm in a position to self insure? How's that irresponsible???

A "health savings account" should be an alternate option for any proposed scheme.

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, onera1961 said:

Embassies will not have any problem going through foreign languages because they may employ local translator. But there is no guarantee that in the near future, immigration in Thailand will also start asking for insurance. 

This afternoon, the wife of a German mate of mine phoned a close friend of hers who's an immigration officer in Pattaya and was told "Not to worry, this is only for 5 year visas (?) it won't apply to one year (retirement) extensions". Make of it what you will, I'm still keeping an open mind.

[Moonlover]

29 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

28 minutes ago, AsiaCheese said:

For all who haven't gotten the idea together yet: Non-Immigrant O/A is the "foundation" visa one gets at a Thai embassy or consulate, and it's good for 3 months. After that, there are yearly extentions for those, and you get them in Thailand at Immigration. Thus: oh yeah, Immigration has a lot to do with it if (which would be logical) insurance cover has to be verified yearly... 

 

29 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

That is a "Non-O" (without the "A"). 

 

A "Non OA" is good for a 1-year stamp each time it is used and with an "enter before" date a year after issuance.  If an "out/in" is done just before the "enter before" date, you can get almost 2 years out of it.  This is the Visa where the ins is mentioned.

 

One can use either as the "foundation" for a retirement-extension - applying during the last 30-days of the stay given.

And for those who equally have not noticed, most travel insurance companies offer long term cover for up to a year (renewable). So visitors using this type of visa should not have any difficulty getting medical cover for this new ruling, if it comes into affect.

[marqus12]

3 hours ago, Prince77 said:

I fully agree to that proposal as it would set an end to the burden left on Thai Hospital when they treat foreigners and those can't pay their bills. It is irresponsible not having an insurance - for oneself, for the relatives, for the public and for hospitals.

 

There is no valid argument for me to object this proposal.

Tourism is a business and the treatment of those few people who

will not pay should be included in the costs of doing this business.

Considering even the last £ 60k for a broken spine I can bet that

Thai hospitals love tourists even if some patients sometimes

jump out the window and run to the airport.

[moogradod]

13 minutes ago, jesimps said:

This afternoon, the wife of a German mate of mine phoned a close friend of hers who's an immigration officer in Pattaya and was told "Not to worry, this is only for 5 year visas (?) it won't apply to one year (retirement) extensions".

Do they mean a Thai Elite Visa for 5 years ? I was granted one and will hopefully get the sticker in the passport on arrival at Suvarnabhumi. "Extensions" are then done by leaving the country and reentering once a year. I cannot imagine where this new insurance requirement (once it will be a requirement - and who knows when) does fit in then.

[Moonlover]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

3 hours ago, Moonlover said:

I thought the basic point of the 800k Baht was to show one had enough money to live on for the coming year!

 

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Then why won’t they accept monthly income, most people live by the month, pay rent n most other bills monthly! Not just here , do you need 800k in your bank at home to get by on a pension paid monthly.And live on sfa don’t touch Your money for the 3 months seasoning period. Not a fair argument..they are double dipping and will soon be flogging a dead horse!   If not already!

I don't understand where you're coming from here. They DO accept monthly income. Have done so for many years, (albeit under the guise of the late lamented embassy letter)

 

And once they've got their admin act together will continue to do so in the coming years.

 

So not only is your comment 'not a fair argument' it's not even true!

[Mango Bob]

I have some information that may be helpful to some retired US military personnel here using Tricare for Life Overseas.    Go to this website https://tricare.mil/Plans/Eligibility/DEERS/milConnect/Proof  which will give you information on how to get Proof of Tricare Coverage.  Hope this helps so.  It helped me.

[Olmate]

38 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

I don't understand where you're coming from here. They DO accept monthly income. Have done so for many years, (albeit under the guise of the late lamented embassy letter)

 

And once they've got their admin act together will continue to do so in the coming years.

 

So not only is your comment 'not a fair argument' it's not even true!

Your comment is incorrect, how is income proved now..not some time in the future when someone gets their act together! No letter.no agent..no new visa from home..not what once was..Maybe I didn’t get the official note you obviously have?

[Anythingleft?]

This I fear will just open up an absolute torrent of over/dual pricing mayhem from both insurance companies and hospitals here.
Whenever anything is mandatory and unavoidable the traps are set for the vultures to swoop........

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[marcusarelus]

41 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

 

I don't understand where you're coming from here. They DO accept monthly income. Have done so for many years, (albeit under the guise of the late lamented embassy letter)

 

And once they've got their admin act together will continue to do so in the coming years.

 

So not only is your comment 'not a fair argument' it's not even true!

Good luck.

[Danthai]

11 hours ago, USMC RETIRED 2015 said:

You don't need Medicare to use Tricare here in Thailand....I use it for me and my family (2Kids)....the catch is you pay up front and you get reimbursed via direct deposit after you upload your receipts via Tricare Online. 

Check again USMC. If you have Medicare Part A, you must also have Medicare Part B to remain eligible for TRICARE, including prescription drug coverage. You don't need to sign up for Part B if you're: ... Enrolled in TRICARE Reserve Select, TRICARE Retired Reserve, TRICARE Young Adult, or the The US Family Health Plan.Dec 19, 2017.