Mandatory health insurance for over 50s in Thailand only affects those on Non-Immigrant Visa O-A

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, sidelines said:

Clear and precise it ain't. What about people like me who have both an  O-A Visa stamp in their passport AND an Extension Of Stay based on Retirement (which is what O-A Visa holders progress to after a year)?

Originally, the word "seeking" is used - presumably meaning someone applying for an O-A Viaa at a Thai Consulate overseas - before muddying the waters by talking about Extension of Stays.

Retirees on Non-O visas and Non O-A visas alike progress onto the same Extension of Stay. 

What is not explained in the article is if the former must now have insurance while the latter is not under such a requirement. That would seem nonsensical especially as my Non O-A has long since expired (but remains in my passport) and I am living here on an Extension Of Stay (same as those people who originally had a Non O visa) but stranger things have happened in Thailand.

The  original O-A based on retirement is  void if you have progressed to an extension based on retirement.

[skatewash]

1 hour ago, sidelines said:

Clear and precise it ain't. What about people like me who have both an  O-A Visa stamp in their passport AND an Extension Of Stay based on Retirement (which is what O-A Visa holders progress to after a year)?

Originally, the word "seeking" is used - presumably meaning someone applying for an O-A Viaa at a Thai Consulate overseas - before muddying the waters by talking about Extension of Stays.

Retirees on Non-O visas and Non O-A visas alike progress onto the same Extension of Stay. 

What is not explained in the article is if the former must now have insurance while the latter is not under such a requirement. That would seem nonsensical especially as my Non O-A has long since expired (but remains in my passport) and I am living here on an Extension Of Stay (same as those people who originally had a Non O visa) but stranger things have happened in Thailand.

This policy will go into effect at some point in the future (July is rumored) and will affect people applying for an NON O-A Visa at a Thai Embassy or Consulate in their home country.  For everyone else, it won't apply.

[malibukid]

1 hour ago, cnx101 said:

Except Chiangmai 

what's wrong with CM?

[JusticeGB]

Clear as mud! Originally came here on an O-A Visa did it magically change to an O Visa 

[malt25]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

Not to wrangle over this, but when it comes to insurance, where is the logic in differentiating between retirees on a visa and those on an extension of stay?

Maybe coz retirees have to have the nominated sum deposited in a Thai bank. Ext of stay requires no financial commitment.

Maybe I'm wrong, it happened once before.

[phantomfiddler]

Makes sense to me, as us retirees have already had to prove that we have enough moolah in the bank to take care of even serious medical problems, whereas many tourists are coming over for a month with close to zilch ????

[losername]

5 minutes ago, skatewash said:

This policy will go into effect at some point in the future (July is rumored) and will affect people applying for an NON O-A Visa at a Thai Embassy or Consulate in their home country.  For everyone else, it won't apply.

This does not make sense.  If you need health insurance to come here why do you not need insurance to stay here.

[steve C]

What about those who have purchased a retirement visa via an agent.  Will they be asked to show 800k in the bank when they do their first 90 report. 

[userabcd]

25 minutes ago, HuaHinHim said:

So I have the O-A visa in my passport which was issued based on marriage to a Thai and we also have a child. So that means I need insurance or not? Clear as mud

Where did you apply for the original visa and when and what was requested when the original visa application forms were filled, requested an O or an O-A visa?

 

Perhaps the embassy/consulate erroneously issued you with an O-A visa when it should have been an O visa.

 

The health insurance will in future be required for an O-A visa which has certain other requirements.

[Tracyb]

Ok, so I think I understand.

I have an extension of stay based on retirement.  

My original visa, which has long since expired, was a Non-IMM O-A from the Thai Consulate in Los Angeles.

 

My predicate Visa is now irrelevant as it has expired.

 

I won’t be forced to buy insurance when I approach Immigration for my fifth extension of stay based on retirement later this year (after July).

 

whats the consensus?

[mahjongguy]

"What is not explained in the article is if the former must now have insurance [O-A] while the latter [O] is not under such a requirement."

 

Under the existing rules, someone who is here on an O-A entry is not required to have any money in Thailand at all. Those who are here on annual extensions have provided proof of cash in the bank or monthly transfers.

[skatewash]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

Not to wrangle over this, but when it comes to insurance, where is the logic in differentiating between retirees on a visa and those on an extension of stay?

1.  There are different requirements for people applying for a visa (obtained outside of Thailand at a Thai Embassy or Consulate) and those inside Thailand applying for an extension of stay at a Thai Immigration office.  People getting a visa show money (usually not deposited in Thailand), while people getting an extension of stay show money in Thailand (lump-sum method), or money being deposited in Thailand on a monthly basis (monthly-deposit method), or (for those embassies still issuing them) embassy letters showing income.  It could be that they feel more secure about money being available to cover medical expenses while in Thailand if people can demonstrate that the money is already in Thailand, is being deposited on a monthly basis in Thailand, or they have a monthly source of income certified by their embassy, rather than money deposited in their home country.

2.  The process of issuing a visa and the process of granting an extension of stay are two different things done by two different parts (generally speaking) of the Thai government.  Visas are issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (to which Thai Embassies and Consulates report to), while extensions of stay are granted by the Immigration Bureau a part of the Royal Thai Police.

[zydeco]

2 minutes ago, mahjongguy said:

Under the existing rules, someone who is here on an O-A entry is not required to have any money in Thailand at all. Those who are here on annual extensions have provided proof of cash in the bank or monthly transfers.

Not the people using letters of income issued by any embassy but the UK, US, and Australia.

[Suradit69]

2 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

"And as we all know from previous experience this policy will be uniformly implemented at every immigration office across the Kingdom!"

 

While I understand and agree with your comment in general, I really don't think immigration officers are very enthusiastic about having to wade through insurance policies for all and sundry when dealing with extension applications. presumably it will be the embassies that will require proof of insurance when issuing O-A visas initially. 

 

Of course anything is possible, but if an IO wants to make things difficult for you, there are other ways to do it besides insisting you have insurance for your extension application to be approved.

 

One of the reasons immigrations prefers retirement extensions over marriage extensions is because they require less work for the IO. Demanding insurance documents would be shooting themselves in the foot.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Suradit69

[Thingamabob]

1 hour ago, sidelines said:

Clear and precise it ain't. What about people like me who have both an  O-A Visa stamp in their passport AND an Extension Of Stay based on Retirement (which is what O-A Visa holders progress to after a year)?

Originally, the word "seeking" is used - presumably meaning someone applying for an O-A Viaa at a Thai Consulate overseas - before muddying the waters by talking about Extension of Stays.

Retirees on Non-O visas and Non O-A visas alike progress onto the same Extension of Stay. 

What is not explained in the article is if the former must now have insurance while the latter is not under such a requirement. That would seem nonsensical especially as my Non O-A has long since expired (but remains in my passport) and I am living here on an Extension Of Stay (same as those people who originally had a Non O visa) but stranger things have happened in Thailand.

ESBR supercedes, so stop worrying and enjoy your day.

[Maestro]

2 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

And as we all know from previous experience this policy will be uniformly implemented at every immigration office across the Kingdom!

I know this may be difficult to understand, but immigration offices will be in no way at all involved in the implementation of this insurance requirement. It will be for the embassies and consulates that issue the O-A visas to ascertain that the insurance is in place before they grant the visa.

 

Visa ≠ permission to stay

Visa ≠ extension of stay

[user46546545]

Go to a dozen immigration offices and you will 12 different opinions. 

[legend49]

2 hours ago, Changoverandout said:

As has been stated oftentimes before 

O-A only!

The problem is most people do not know what an O-A visa is. This was confirmed when I spoke with ( farang insurance guy) this afternoon at my visa agents office. He has been drenched with farangs on extension stays etc for last two weeks calling him and panicking. As he says, what can you expect from a government agency that cannot be consistent on any one issue across all IO's in Thailand.

[Dogmatix]

I suspect it won’t be long before someone decides that people only needing insurance for the first year but not for unlimited extensions is a loophole that will need to be closed.

[lensta]

2 hours ago, anchadian said:

From day one this applied only to non-immigrant visa O-A.

 

Too much speculation.

Correct, but my 2 questions are:

1. Why only O-A and not O/ extensions based on retirement?

2. How long before all people on all long stay visas have to have health insurance?

As stated before, an easier way would be to charge everyone 500 Baht on arrival

for health insurance, then all tourists and expats would be covered and there would

even be enough left over to recoup the money hospitals have lost because of non

paying expat and tourist patients

[marcusarelus]

8 minutes ago, IHTE said:

Go to a dozen immigration offices and you will 12 different opinions. 

Since immigration will not be involved with implementation what difference does that make?

[marcusarelus]

25 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

I suspect it won’t be long before someone decides that people only needing insurance for the first year but not for unlimited extensions is a loophole that will need to be closed.

They got the money in the bank from some it's only the income method that is hanging in the wind. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by marcusarelus

[skatewash]

22 minutes ago, losername said:

This does not make sense.  If you need health insurance to come here why do you not need insurance to stay here.

The rationale could be that people who are here by extension of stay have either brought into Thailand a sizable amount of money (800,000 baht) which is deposited in a Thai bank (where it is a lot easy to get at than money held overseas), are currently bringing over 65,000 baht every month which is deposited in a Thai bank), or have received a certification from their embassy that they have 65,000 baht equivalent in income every month.  People who are here on a NON O-A visa have demonstrated that they have money in a country other than Thailand (where it is not easy to get at).  It may be that a bird in the hand (so to speak) is worth two in the bush.

These processes (obtaining a visa and getting an extension of stay) are done by two different parts of the Thai government.  I can see why making a change to one part could be done while leaving the other part alone.

As to whether it's logical?  I guess you could make the argument that the insurance requirement should be extended to anyone in Thailand, but I don't want to make that argument and if that argument never gets made by Thailand that would be OK with me, too. ????

[lamyai3]

46 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

Makes sense to me, as us retirees have already had to prove that we have enough moolah in the bank to take care of even serious medical problems, whereas many tourists are coming over for a month with close to zilch ????

Makes no sense at all. The three month seasoned 800k (or income) has to be shown in order to apply for the Non O/A anyway - other than the fact that it's in an overseas bank, the financial requirements to get the visa aren't much different from those needed to get an extension. The 400k or 800k for those on extensions would in no way be enough to deal with a serious medical emergency, and in any event, if this money was dipped into for medical expenses, the forthcoming year's extension would be nullified. Kind of one strike and you're out. This of course doesn't apply for the majority of nationalities that are still able to get income letters from their embassies and have so far escaped immigration's big sweep. 

 

The targetting of the Non O/A seems arbitrary and vindictive. There's no logic in singling out applicants for this visa as against any other visa class or extension of stay affecting the same demographic. It's as if immigration felt that Non O/A applicants were having too much of an easy ride under the current system and it was time to clobber them with something. Or else it's part of a longer term strategy to extend this to everyone else, and Non O/A applicants are the first in line. But one thing is clear - people are looking for logic where there is none.

Edited May 24, 2019 by lamyai3

[Pattaya46]

34 minutes ago, losername said:

This does not make sense.  If you need health insurance to come here why do you not need insurance to stay here.

Who said expats don't need one?? Probably Thailand was thinking that expats (on Extensions) were wise enough to cover themselves with an insurance, while tourists on Visa tend to forget or ignore this "detail"...

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, JamesBlond said:

Not to wrangle over this, but when it comes to insurance, where is the logic in differentiating between retirees on a visa and those on an extension of stay?

555 You are expecting logic from the Thai Government? There are expats who have been living here for 40 years who are yet to find it.

Off topic, I did my 90 day report today. 8 freaking pages of copies to be signed. The only logic I can see in that is, some very influential Thai has a lock on the importation and sale of A4 paper.

[hotchilli]

2 hours ago, Changoverandout said:

As has been stated oftentimes before 

O-A only!

But as we all know things can and possibly will change... soon it will be applied to all long term visa's

A reprieve for now.

[Mango Bob]

So I bring in 65,000 every month and I spent 64,000 every month.  It does not make sense to me at all but I am glad it seems not to affect me.  But wait for chapter 2.  To continue at a later date.

[AAArdvark]

2 hours ago, dotpoom said:

very clear and precise information

The odds are not good because it is certainly NOT clear and precise.  One place it says "applying for" and in the other it says "on".  Which is it?

[taxin]

59 minutes ago, HuaHinHim said:

So I have the O-A visa in my passport which was issued based on marriage to a Thai and we also have a child. So that means I need insurance or not? Clear as mud

 

30 minutes ago, userabcd said:

Where did you apply for the original visa and when and what was requested when the original visa application forms were filled, requested an O or an O-A visa?

 

Perhaps the embassy/consulate erroneously issued you with an O-A visa when it should have been an O visa.

 

The health insurance will in future be required for an O-A visa which has certain other requirements.

I would be interested in clarifying this, like HuaHinHim I was issued a Non Imm visa based on being married to a Thai and having a Thai child, but my visa clearly states its an O, and not an O-A. Seems one of us may have been issued with the wrong visa type, or maybe it was just a typo error on the visa ?

 

Im still yet to find out what the difference is between an O visa and O-A visa. Does anyone know ?