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

[Torrens54]

At last !

But.... how long will it last ?

 

[rexall]

3 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?

There is no wrangle. You are correct. Many things about this still make no sense. If the purpose of mandatory insurance is to protect Thailand health care providers from smelly foreigners, then it is more imperative that those on extensions have coverage. After all the longer we stay, the older we get, and the greater the possibility (inevitability) of needing medical care becomes. And not that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth (I got me "O" + retirement extension, thank you very much), why on earth would the rule apply only to O-A???  What could that possibly be about?  Not that we will every get to know ...

[wensiensheng]

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 ?

 

I’m no expert but I have a multi entry O visa and I have to physically leave Thailand every 90 days. (So it’s hardly long term ????).

 

with an O A visa, I think you have to do 90 day reports at an IO inside Thailand. So it is truly a 1 year permit to reside within Thailand.

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

To those saying that immigration offices will start to ask for insurance. I have to ask, Why?

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.

 

It is the MFA that run and issue rules for visas issued at consulates.

 

You could probably walk into most immigration offices in Thailand and get blank stares when you mention this story.

[Bangkok Barry]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Many people, both foreigners and also immigration officials, use the term ‘retirement visa’ when what they are actually referring to is an ‘extension of stay based on retirement’.

 

Well, it certainly doesn't help when even their own officials use the wrong term. No wonder there has been confusion. Here's a suggestion to the Immigration Bureau - train your staff.

[ianezy0]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

To those saying that immigration offices will start to ask for insurance. I have to ask, Why?

 

This has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration.

 

It is the MFA that run and issue rules for visas issued at consulates.

 

You could probably walk into most immigration offices in Thailand and get blank stares when you mention this story.

I think because O-A holders have to complete a 90 day report at the IO. Having said that, I agree, surely the HI should show a 1 year coverage when initially applying for the visa.

[Searat7]

In my opinion they made the announcement 2 weeks ago to test the waters and have seen the huge backlash so have decided to make this change (insurance) in steps over time. Also the training necessary in the Immigration offices would be a big issue for them if the requirement included those on extensions of stay. I am one of those who gets a fresh O-A visa every other year (will apply in June for early July arrival ) because I spend only 7 months a year in Thailand. Once the insurance requirement affects me I will probably reduce my time there and use a METV since I already pay a good amount for USA Medicare plus supplement plan and can easily afford any medical expenses incurred in Thailand. I would be very surprised if any significant amount of the Bad Debt Expense being incurred by hospitals in Thailand is caused by those who are there on O-A visas.

[youreavinalaff]

3 minutes ago, ianezy0 said:

I think because O-A holders have to complete a 90 day report at the IO. Having said that, I agree, surely the HI should show a 1 year coverage when initially applying for the visa.

I was referring to the suggestion that immigration will want insurance for extensions of stay.

[fishtank]

39 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

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.

 

Perfectly clear. You are over thinking things.

[ianezy0]

1 minute ago, youreavinalaff said:

I was referring to the suggestion that immigration will want insurance for extensions of stay.

Ahh sorry mate. My misunderstanding. Cheers

[fishtank]

19 minutes ago, rexall said:

There is no wrangle. You are correct. Many things about this still make no sense. If the purpose of mandatory insurance is to protect Thailand health care providers from smelly foreigners, then it is more imperative that those on extensions have coverage. After all the longer we stay, the older we get, and the greater the possibility (inevitability) of needing medical care becomes. And not that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth (I got me "O" + retirement extension, thank you very much), why on earth would the rule apply only to O-A???  What could that possibly be about?  Not that we will every get to know ...

The reasoning is perfectly logical.

O-A applicants have no money in Thailand.

Extension applicants do.

 

[Mango Bob]

1 minute ago, fishtank said:

The reasoning is perfectly logical.

O-A applicants have no money in Thailand.

Extension applicants do.

 

If you are on an extension of stay using the 65,000 baht a month does not always mean you have money in the bank.  You could spend that money each month.

[AAArdvark]

10 minutes ago, fishtank said:

Perfectly clear. You are over thinking things.

It is not perfectly clear when there are conflicting statements made in this article and in the older one.  It one place it says "on" an OA and in an other place says either "applying for" or "seeking".  So which one is clearly the correct one?

[madmen]

24 minutes ago, Searat7 said:

In my opinion they made the announcement 2 weeks ago to test the waters and have seen the huge backlash so have decided to make this change (insurance) in steps over time. Also the training necessary in the Immigration offices would be a big issue for them if the requirement included those on extensions of stay. I am one of those who gets a fresh O-A visa every other year (will apply in June for early July arrival ) because I spend only 7 months a year in Thailand. Once the insurance requirement affects me I will probably reduce my time there and use a METV since I already pay a good amount for USA Medicare plus supplement plan and can easily afford any medical expenses incurred in Thailand. I would be very surprised if any significant amount of the Bad Debt Expense being incurred by hospitals in Thailand is caused by those who are there on O-A visas.

Huh? Nothing has changed from the first announcement.Except a second announcement confirming the first but the scaremongers just cant stop themselves

[Kasane]

All tourists should have travel insurance. All long term stay foreigners should have medical insurance, either through an agent or be self insured. For their own good and protection. Going about in Thailand with no med insurance when road traffic accidents (more than 6000 already dead this year on Thai roads) are likely, needing hospitalization for sickness, disease, or accidents has higher probability that in the West, and elderly expats more likely to be victims of fragile aging body and failing organs. 

[farang63]

(before I was married to Thai citizen for 12 years, we lived in my country for 4 years, a year in Germany, then 7 years in Thailand, we divorced January 2013 - I remarried another Thai woman (my wife now) in July 2016, we lived together for almost a year.)   I have been married to a Thai citizen for almost 3 years, and my Visa and Thai Wife, I don't have to do any insurance, my wife works for the government, I have the yellow booklet, the Thai Pink identity card, the Thai driver's license, and the doctor in his family wrote to me for the Hospital,

I apologize for my ignorance and my mistakes for writing in English, I used a translator,

[userabcd]

2 hours 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 ?

 

Types of Visa from the Thai embassy London Web site where they explain the requirements for the different types of visas:

"O"  To visit Thai spouse, children, parents, voluntary job, retirement (with State Pension)

"O-A" - For applicants aged 50 and over who wish to stay in Thailand for an extended period without the intention of working. 

 

If you click on the links on their web site for O and O-A, you will see more detail on the requirement to obtain each type of visa.

[oslooskar]

31 minutes ago, fishtank said:

The reasoning is perfectly logical.

O-A applicants have no money in Thailand.

Extension applicants do.

 

That's not necessarily true. I had more than the required 800,000 Baht in my Thai bank account before submitting my application for an O-A visa.

[Peter Denis]

16 minutes ago, fishtank said:

The reasoning is perfectly logical.

O-A applicants have no money in Thailand.

Extension applicants do.

Thanks Fishtank, it took me a while to understand WHY it would only apply for those applying for an O-A visa, and NOT for those on extension of stay.

But indeed, the logic is that those applying for an O-A visa (at the Thai embassy of their home-country) need to demonstrate that they have enough funds, but the money is NOT in Thailand,

When you apply for an extension of stay (at the Immigration Office of the province you are residing) you need to demonstrate that you have sufficient funds or regular influx of money from abroad  So, in case of need, there is already some proof of money in Thailand to pay potential hospital bills.

Obviously, there will aslo be a 'twilight zone', those who did got an O-A visa before the new requirement will become official (july?).  Most probably, it will not apply for them (as that would require enforcement by IO).  And in max 2 years time all the 'twilighters' will need to go for extension of stay anyway (where they have to proof that they have sufficient funds or regular influx of money from abroad).

CONCLUSION > It does NOT apply for almost all people reacting on this topic as they already living on Thailand on an O-A visa or extension of stay.

[userabcd]

1 hour ago, justin case said:

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

32 million is obviously a mistake.

 

The rest is pure conjecture.

[jesimps]

3 hours 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.

Because we have at least 400,000 or 800,000 bond in the bank depending on whether or not you're married to a Thai, or a hefty income coming into the country.

[Parsve]

So, whenever has this country said that this rule affects all expats living in the country under this role? Whenever have they said this is not to be changed tomorrow. Whenever have they said that those new rules affect those who apply from today, not those how already is in the system or, it affects all holding an O-A? It is as usual, very uncertain because people at IO do not know what they are talking about or how to explain it In plain English.

[lamyai3]

2 hours ago, fishtank said:

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

Those on extensions do.

Those still getting embassy letters don't. 

[madmen]

Its no coincidence the 400k seasoning all year for the extension = the 400k Insurance required for The OA visa 

 

The only if is why the 65k requires no insurance . 

[hottrader77]

5 hours ago, Changoverandout said:

As has been stated oftentimes before 

O-A only!

is O-A a tourist visa then a 60 day visa ?????  not explained !

[AAArdvark]

2 minutes ago, hottrader77 said:

is O-A a tourist visa then a 60 day visa ?????  not explained !

Maybe, but more likely would be O-A then nearly a year of extension of stay by leaving and coming back near the end of the O-A and after that most likely an O based on retirement.

[rocketman777]

5 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.

Exactly - I came here 18 years ago on a Non O, which I had always thought was required prior to obtaining an 'extension of stay based on Retirement.'

I have never renewed my Non O but it remains in on my passport.

Has it expired ?

So if you do not need an Non O what type of visa 'is' required to apply for 'extension of stay based on Retirement.'

[ianezy0]

39 minutes ago, hottrader77 said:

is O-A a tourist visa then a 60 day visa ?????  not explained !

No, a Non-Immigrant O-A Visa is a long stay multi entry visa for 12 months.

All new applications or renewals of O-A Visa's at a future date will require evidence of HI.  Simple.,

[jesimps]

2 hours ago, justin case said:

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

Don't think even the big brave generals are willing to face up to the angry Thai wives of farang who'll be moving to neighbouring countries, having their allowances reduced to enable their husbands to run two households. In worst cases, being left to manage on their own.

[youreavinalaff]

5 minutes ago, rocketman777 said:

Exactly - I came here 18 years ago on a Non O, which I had always thought was required prior to obtaining an 'extension of stay based on Retirement.'

I have never renewed my Non O but it remains in on my passport.

Has it expired ?

So if you do not need an Non O what type of visa 'is' required to apply for 'extension of stay based on Retirement.'

If you had a single entry O visa then it expired the day you entered the country. A visa gives you permission to enter the country. At your port of entry you are then given permission to stay for 90 days. It is that permission that you extend. Not the visa.