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

[alzack]

Its amazing really Thailand has not insisted on  health insurance for all visas. When  my thai wife went Europe (schengen ) and UK always part of the visa was health insurance. A lot of problems not with the old folks, but young idiots riding a moto pissed and ending up with broken bones and NO insurance, that's really costing Thailand a lot of money. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by alzack

[skatewash]

27 minutes ago, IHTE said:

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

If it's big enough you could get 12 different opinions from the same immigration office. ????

However, as others have already pointed out Immigration Offices in Thailand are unlikely to be involved with this as the insurance is likely to be checked when applying for a NON O-A Visa at a Thai Embassy or Consulate in your home country, not in Thailand.

[totally thaied up]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

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"...

I agree. They tend to forget the details.

 

I have several friends on OA visas as they thought this was the smart way not to bring in 800/65K a month because they cannot afford it. They don't have much more than 800K in the bank at home and they don't have insurance and one incident would wipe them all out. I had one friend have a bike accident, had to pay up 430K to get fixed and now cannot come back to Thailand. I think immigration is picking on these guys for such reasons I have seen. I cannot see further changes for some time to other visa classes. The guys on extensions have to have 800/65K here, they need to season it and the government knows this now. The OA guys did not need to do this. So the easy fix is if you don't want to pay insurance, get an extension, pay up 800/65K and end of story for now.

[Chongalulu]

2 hours 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?

LOGIC??! Hilarious! TIT!

[AAArdvark]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

 

I still cannot determine if this applies to me or not.  I am not applying for an O-A, I am on one, not on an O or extension of anything.  In one place the article says "on" and in another place it says "seeking".  ????????????????

Edited May 24, 2019 by AAArdvark

[StevieAus]

2 hours 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.

I think the only one muddying the waters is you.

Many people progress to a retirement extension from a O-A visa as I did many years ago however when the former is obtained the latter expires.

Perhaps you thrive on creating problems that don’t exist, try buying some worry beads.

[fishtank]

2 hours 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?

O-A Visa holders do not have any money in Thailand.

Those on extensions do.

 

[Maestro]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

This is a good and helpful clarification of the vagueness of the original MOPH announcement re required insurance for O-A visa applicants.

I don't read or understand Thai and therefore have no idea of knowing to what extent, if any the announcement on the website of the Ministry of Public Health my be vague.

 

For the same reason, I cannot express myself on the accuracy of the translation of that announcement.

 

I suspect, though, that some of the press reports based on statements made by some government officials were a bit muddled and consequently also the English translation thereof.

[Mango Bob]

To me, it means that if you are on an extension of stay you do not need the insurance.  It is only for those applying for a visa that has to have the insurance. Does it make sense?  No, it does not. But I will accept it because it benefits me.  But I am sure there will be more to come in the future.

[myjawe]

3 hours ago, dotpoom said:

Despite this very clear and precise information...what odds will you lay that possibly as soon as tomorrow there will be an OP asking ..."Who exactly has to get the new Health Insurance to stay in Thailand"?

 

It was already clear since the first time it was spoken about, so as you can see, even people like you need more details and repeated information <3

 

 

[AAArdvark]

6 minutes ago, myjawe said:

It was already clear since the first time it was spoken about

Then why does it say in one place "seeking" and in another "on"?

Edited May 24, 2019 by AAArdvark

[Lee4Life]

2 hours 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.

O-A visa holders do not necessarily have to progress to an extension after the first year, they have the option of applying for a new O-A in their home country, and if they stretch their previous O-A visa by doing a border run on the last day they can make it last two years.

You are right about it not being clear though...I can't see them letting it stand that the only difference between those who require health insurance and those who don't is whether or not you are on a visa or an extension of stay, if they worded the order wrong it is extremely likely they will correct it.

[Maestro]

2 hours 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?

Don't ask for logic. Let sleeping dogs lie.

[Lee4Life]

13 minutes ago, fishtank said:

O-A Visa holders do not have any money in Thailand.

Those on extensions do.

 

Need to be a little more clear on that, O-A Visa holders used the money they have in accounts in their home country to apply for the visa. It is likely they have money in Thailand as they live there, but they may not have the amount required by visa application requirements there.

[Lee4Life]

29 minutes ago, totally thaied up said:

I agree. They tend to forget the details.

 

I have several friends on OA visas as they thought this was the smart way not to bring in 800/65K a month because they cannot afford it. They don't have much more than 800K in the bank at home and they don't have insurance and one incident would wipe them all out. I had one friend have a bike accident, had to pay up 430K to get fixed and now cannot come back to Thailand. I think immigration is picking on these guys for such reasons I have seen. I cannot see further changes for some time to other visa classes. The guys on extensions have to have 800/65K here, they need to season it and the government knows this now. The OA guys did not need to do this. So the easy fix is if you don't want to pay insurance, get an extension, pay up 800/65K and end of story for now.

So you really think that the Government is doing all this to force people to move their money into Thailand? Why wouldn't they just make an order requiring O-A Visa applicants to show proof that they already have the money moved into Thailand? Or stop issuing O-A visas in home countries at all if it is such a big issue?

     If you have a problem such as your friend with the motorbike accident it doesn't matter where you have the money...you are not going to have enough in the banks to apply for a new visa or extension.

[ianezy0]

To understand who does and who does not require insurance, I think you need to look at the reason why it is being implemented. The reason is, as has been stated, is because many foreigners have left Thailand without paying for their medical bills.

So, moving forward, anyone applying to enter Thailand on a Non-Immigrant O-A Visa will require health insurance. Also, anyone who wishes to renew their O-A Visa, i.e. renew at the embassy in their country of residence, will also be required to have health insurance. Those are already in Thailand on an O-A Visa are not affected.

No funds are required to be in a Thai bank with an O-A Visa. Hence the reason for health coverage. Makes sense.

 

The other question is:- what is required of those with a Non-Immigrant O-A Visa who wish to extend their stay whilst remaining in Thailand. This is pure conjecture, but it stands to reason that the granting of an extension of stay should meet the same requirements as those already established in Thailand, i.e. have the required funds in a Thai bank A/C. (800/400k or 65k PM) This would give assurance of funding in the event of an illness or accident.

 

Don't forget that you can have up to 22/23 months on your original O-A Visa and live off your funds from you home country.

 

Whatever happens, it is always best to ensure you have adequate funds to cover any eventuality.

 

Best of luck to all.

 

 

Edited May 24, 2019 by ianezy0

[AAArdvark]

2 minutes ago, ianezy0 said:

Those are already in Thailand on an O-A Visa are not affected

It might make sense, but where does it say that?  It just says "on".

[BigBadGeordie]

2 hours ago, jimn said:

 

An uninformed comment I am afraid to say. As an OA visa is only granted outside Thailand, why on earth would it have to be implemented at every immigration office across the Kingdom. Best not to comment unless you fully understand or it makes you look silly.

And subsequent extensions????

Edited May 24, 2019 by BigBadGeordie

[ianezy0]

8 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

It might make sense, but where does it say that?  It just says "on".

It has been stated in a previous publication. Click on the link:https://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30369468

[flexomike]

1 hour ago, taxin said:

 

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 ?

 

You cannot work with an OA visa

[rabas]

6 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

It might make sense, but where does it say that?  It just says "on".

The original Thai version of the announcement in the media clearly said "those who ask for a 1 year A-0 type visa that can be extended year by year". Still, that was a media report quoting the health minister who made the announcement.

[AAArdvark]

3 minutes ago, ianezy0 said:

It has been stated in a previous publication. Click on the link:https://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30369468

That article does says that but it also says:

 Thailand on a long-stay visa will likely have to buy health insurance from July onwards

[ianezy0]

2 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

That article does says that but it also says:

 Thailand on a long-stay visa will likely have to buy health insurance from July onwards

Read the article very clearly before you post.

Quote: 

She said that once the rule is implemented, applicants for the non-immigrant O-A visa, which is valid for one year from the date of issue, would be required to buy health insurance. 

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal,” she said. 

[AAArdvark]

2 minutes ago, rabas said:

The original Thai version of the announcement in the media clearly said "those who ask for a 1 year A-0 type visa that can be extended year by year". Still, that was a media report quoting the health minister who made the announcement.

All I am saying is that for people already in Thailand and who are currently on an O-A which has not been "extended", the matter is not exactly clear.

In my case, I had not planned on any interaction with immigration for the rest of the year except online 90 reports.  So unless they mail me a dictate, I will ignore it until somebody asks.

[marcusarelus]

6 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

That article does says that but it also says:

 Thailand on a long-stay visa will likely have to buy health insurance from July onwards

What does the latest article on this thread say? As that is the subject of this thread. 

[AAArdvark]

1 minute ago, ianezy0 said:

Read the article very clearly before you post.

Quote: 

She said that once the rule is implemented, applicants for the non-immigrant O-A visa, which is valid for one year from the date of issue, would be required to buy health insurance. 

“Current holders of this visa will have to produce proof of their health insurance for visa renewal,” she said. 

It is you who need to clearly read.  I used the words "also says".  Did you not understand the word also?

[AAArdvark]

1 minute ago, marcusarelus said:

What does the latest article on this thread say? As that is the subject of this thread. 

on

[Pancho]

First, two things:

1.  The discussion of interest starts at 1 hour and 40 minutes (not 1 minute and 40 seconds).

2.  I think there might be a video editor position available at this radio station.

[/url]

https://www.facebook.com/Surf102.5/videos/1294319820719990/?t=6082

 - Immigration discussion from 1 minute 40 seconds

Since there seems to be some confusion on this point, maybe this will help:

Does this affect me?

Q:  I'm here right now on a one-year extension of stay for purpose of retirement that I obtained from my local immigration office in Thailand.  Does this affect me?

A:  No.

Q:  I'm here right now on permission to stay from using a NON 0

O-A Visa that I obtained from the Thai Embassy or Consulate in my home country.  Does this affect me?
A:  No.

Q: I'm at the Thai Embassy or Consulate in my home country about to apply for a NON O-A Visa.  Does this affect me?
A: No.

Q:  Does it currently apply to anyone?
A:  No

Q:  When it applies to someone who will that be and when.
A:  It will apply to people applying for a NON O-A visa at a Thai Embassy or Consulate in their home country, possibly as soon as sometime in July.

Q:  Wouldn't it be nice if everyone (Thai Immigration, media, people who have one, and people who want one) used extremely precise language when discussing visas and extensions of stay?
A:  Yes

Q:  Any chance of that happening?
A:  No
 

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[justin case]

so where did thai get the 32 million people with A-O from?????

 

pretty sure soon it will be everybody over 50

 

and after, all the marriage extensions...

 

just too much money to be made

Edited May 24, 2019 by justin case

[ianezy0]

11 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

It is you who need to clearly read.  I used the words "also says".  Did you not understand the word also?

Do you always react to a sensationalised headline so easily.

Read the body of the text, i.e. the extract I posted.