It would be great to see a couple of retractions/I was wrong statements. There was lots of speculation and opinion either way, only applies to OA or its for all visa/extension.

3-4 posters were adamant that it was for all visa's and all extensions, and were pushing that narrative. a lot of scaremongering and angst for nothing, they appear to be very quiet now.

4 hours ago, dcnx said:

No logic. They just haven’t got

to the others yet. It will be rolled out to everyone eventually. 

I would have agreed with that before the 100 baht insurance /each visitor. Don't think it's coincidental both this and OA clarification are simultaneous .

7 hours ago, the guest said:

That's ridiculous, it should apply to all long-term visas.

It does now, OX and OA are the long stay visa's

5 hours ago, madmen said:

You will know when you apply in your country.

Not guaranteed tho, he may still be knocked back by IO, even tho he has visa .IO has say over home country in every case.I would choose another airport not CM

6 minutes ago, Farrows3399 said:

I would have agreed with that before the 100 baht insurance /each visitor. Don't think it's coincidental both this and OA clarification are simultaneous .

Agree. I also find it odd that both announced schemes claim to compensate for the same (small) 300M baht loss due to foreigner hospital bills. Could it be  they were surprised at the backlash from retirees and decided to hit tourists for the amount instead? Hope springs eternal.

5 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Not guaranteed tho, he may still be knocked back by IO, even tho he has visa .IO has say over home country in every case.I would choose another airport not CM

There is no history or reports of anyone ever being refused entry with a valid OA or OX visa.

Unfortunately, once the Minister of Health realizes how much he could increase his wealth if he conspires with the insurance companies offering this coverage it will most likely be applied to all visas and extensions.  Time will tell.

What would happen when they realize that nobody is getting O-A anymore due insurance and everybody is getting extension inside Thailand? Getting extension  inside Thailand is cheaper and easier but you have to keep your money or bring 65K every month. Getting O-A outside is more burdensome but you're free to do what ever you want with your money (same as using an agent). It will be more prudent to use agents and get an extension, rather than getting an O-A.

6 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

There is no history or reports of anyone ever being refused entry with a valid OA or OX visa.

Valid is the keyword, and if IO has a list of approved insurers that the travel insurance provider is not one of, that may raise a question on arrival.I had a valid visa OA retirement some years back but still got many questions.

43 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

It would be great to see a couple of retractions/I was wrong statements. There was lots of speculation and opinion either way, only applies to OA or its for all visa/extension.

3-4 posters were adamant that it was for all visa's and all extensions, and were pushing that narrative. a lot of scaremongering and angst for nothing, they appear to be very quiet now.

Perhaps the posters who were asking a lot of questions about the requirement are the reason ThaiVisa called the Immigration officer and got the information?

9 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Valid is the keyword, and if IO has a list of approved insurers that the travel insurance provider is not one of, that may raise a question on arrival.I had a valid visa OA retirement some years back but still got many questions.

I think OA will probably operate the same as the current OX, its something like you get the visa and arrive in Thailand with no insurance then do a check-in with immigration (a one month window) to show you have taken up insurance.

2 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Perhaps the posters who were asking a lot of questions about the requirement are the reason ThaiVisa called the Immigration officer and got the information?

What would be interesting is if they called other offices such as Phuket, Chiang Mai, Pattaya, etc. and see if they got the same answer.

1 minute ago, Peterw42 said:

I think OA will probably operate the same as the current OX, its something like you get the visa and arrive in Thailand with no insurance then do a check-in with immigration (a one month window) to show you have taken up insurance.

That’s a new one on how I imagined it to operate, sounds cumbersome!

2 minutes ago, wayned said:

What would be interesting is if they called other offices such as Phuket, Chiang Mai, Pattaya, etc. and see if they got the same answer.

Why was the question not asked of the new boss,BJ would have been happy to answer I,m sure

7 minutes ago, wayned said:

What would be interesting is if they called other offices such as Phuket, Chiang Mai, Pattaya, etc. and see if they got the same answer.

No need to call immigration offices. It has absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

This is very simple. It is a requirement for O-A visas. Those are visas that are only available in your home country.

 

Consulates and Embassies are operated by the MFA.

 

The confusion has been caused solely by posters on here that either don't understand about visas, refuse to listen or are just plain scaremongering.

12 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I think OA will probably operate the same as the current OX, its something like you get the visa and arrive in Thailand with no insurance then do a check-in with immigration (a one month window) to show you have taken up insurance.

No. You need to show insurance when applying for your visa in your home country. Immigration will not be checking. It has nothing to do with them.

7 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No need to call immigration offices. It has absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

This is very simple. It is a requirement for O-A visas. Those are visas that are only available in your home country.

 

Consulates and Embassies are operated by the MFA.

 

The confusion has been caused solely by posters on here that either don't understand about visas, refuse to listen or are just plain scaremongering.

So you,ve not heard of IO refusing entry to a visa holder? 

8 minutes ago, Olmate said:

So you,ve not heard of IO refusing entry to a visa holder? 

No. I have never heard of an immigration office refusing someone entry.

 

I have heard a couple of instances of immigration officers at land crossings and airports refusing entry, only few and far between, but never those with non immigrant visa. Usually the reason for refusal is "too many tourist visas". 

16 hours ago, ianezy0 said:

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.

 

 

It logical but there is a twist. If the logic is correct then why do O-X visa applicants need a) the same insurance and b) 3,000,000 in a Thai bank account (not a foreign bank account).

 

I still dont think we have seen the end of this but I do see the logic you have spelled out.

 

 

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

It would be great to see a couple of retractions/I was wrong statements. There was lots of speculation and opinion either way, only applies to OA or its for all visa/extension.

3-4 posters were adamant that it was for all visa's and all extensions, and were pushing that narrative. a lot of scaremongering and angst for nothing, they appear to be very quiet now.

So far we've had 1 announcement from a Health Minister & 1 radio interview with an immigration officer that were both inaccurate & (IMHO) inconclusive, once the position has been confirmed, I'd be happy to say that I was wrong if that is the case, but for now I'll keep believing in logic/common sense (I know...  TiT & I shouldn't expect logic/common sense, it's a bad habit I'm trying to get rid of)

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. I have never heard of an immigration office refusing someone entry.

 

I have heard a couple of instances of immigration officers at land crossings and airports refusing entry, only few and far between, but never those with non immigrant visa. Usually the reason for refusal is "too many tourist visas". 

Point taken but a visa is not a guarantee not matter what type,hence IO has the upper hand not MFA

4 hours ago, onera1961 said:

Getting extension  inside Thailand is cheaper and easier but you have to keep your money or bring 65K every month.

For the Americans, Australians, British, this is indeed the only 2 possibilities.

Luckily for all the other nationalities there is still a third possibility.

16 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

The quote I posted on, "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"

 

You are quoting out of date information in this thread instead of the article that is the topic of this thread. 

I quoted the article that I was told to read by another poster.  That poster gave a link which was supposed to clear up the "on" or "applying" issue which is still in the article that is the topic of this thread.  I did not independently go to an out of date article.  I was merely replying to that particular poster's link. 

4 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

No need to call immigration offices. It has absolutely nothing to do with them.

 

This is very simple. It is a requirement for O-A visas. Those are visas that are only available in your home country.

 

Consulates and Embassies are operated by the MFA.

 

The confusion has been caused solely by posters on here that either don't understand about visas, refuse to listen or are just plain scaremongering.

Don't forget the CEO of one of the largest insurance companies in Asia (Pacific Cross) who said mistakenly that you need insurance for extensions.  And the invaluable reporting of the Phuket News and the American embassy.

19 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

Don't forget the CEO of one of the largest insurance companies in Asia (Pacific Cross) who said mistakenly that you need insurance for extensions.  And the invaluable reporting of the Phuket News and the American embassy.

I emailed the US embassy and asked them specifically about extensions and asked them not to respond until someone fully checked it out.  They emailed back about 2 hours later and said that the insurance was under consideration for "long stay" visas and said that they would post on the website when they knew when it was going into effect. but had not gone into affect yet. They didn't say anything about extensions.  Just about as useless as they were during the income affidavit BS.

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

An O-A visa has a validity of one year and grants an unlimited number (i.e., Multi) of one-year entries.

An O visa either has a validity of three months and grants one (i.e., Single) 90-day entry, or it has a validity of one year and grants an unlimited number (i.e., Multi) of 90-day entries.

16 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

16 hours ago, EricTh said:

Sorry. What is a O-A visa used for?

 

 

 

Its main purpose is arguments on thaivisa, lol.

I believe the A stands for "anally-retentive"... 

21 hours ago, Lee4Life said:

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.

There are no O-A visa application requirements there, ie in Thailand. The only applicable O-A visa requirements are those of the embassy or consulate at which the application for the visa is made.

21 hours ago, BigBadGeordie said:

And subsequent extensions????

Then again irrelevant because the OA visa would be expired and the rules around extensions would apply. Many people never use the OA as a means to get an extension. They return to their home country every 1 or two years and get a new OA.

On ‎5‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 12:36 PM, webfact said:

he requirement for mandatory health insurance does not affect those people who stay in Thailand on a Non O extension of stay based on retirement.

Well, I for one, and I suspect many others will need mental health coverage after reading through 14 pages of this thread.????