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

[Maestro]

21 hours 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

Forget what the news articles said. Instead, be guided by the original text of the announcement on the website of the Ministry of Public Health. There are enormous differences between the two, very similar to the game of "Chinese whispers"

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

I emailed the US embassy // 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.

The best answer they could give  ... 

and a good example for all those who discuss on nothing  .

There has been no announcement from the MFA on this subject yet

(and announcement from Health Department worth nothing; just propositions)

so better to wait for MFA rather than to make crazy or stupid speculations

as we see them for one week on this forum... 

[Maestro]

21 hours ago, rexall said:

...If the purpose of mandatory insurance is...

All speculation is futile. We must accept the facts and live with them.

 

An excellent summary of the facts was posted here:

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1102516-mandatory-health-insurance-for-over-50s-in-thailand-only-affects-those-on-non-immigrant-visa-o-a/?do=findComment&comment=14174942

 

I suggest that this link be reposted every time somebody is confused or somebody engages in idle speculation.

[tingtongtourist]

18 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Forget what the news articles said. Instead, be guided by the original text of the announcement on the website of the Ministry of Public Health. There are enormous differences between the two, very similar to the game of "Chinese whispers"

Exactly. I have to giggle when posters will be arguing about wordings (like what does "on" mean in this context) 

 

Are people to dense to realise what the minister said was tranlated from 

Thai?

 

this is what makes clickbait so easy to do here

[lamyai3]

41 minutes ago, albertik said:

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

This thread is a minnow in the company of some of the others recently. The discussion on 800k post extension seasoning a few months ago ran to 191 pages... 

[BigBadGeordie]

1 hour ago, jimn said:

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.

Whatever.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Mark Twain (or perhaps not).

 

[youreavinalaff]

5 hours ago, Olmate said:

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

But the IO has no right to ask to see insurance. Their job is to check the validity of the visa. If they refused entry to someone with a valid visa there would be a big onus on them and, because of that, they would be unlikely to do such a thing.

 

I am yet to hear of a visa holder being refused entry without good reason. Usually too many tourist visa or cannot prove they have 20k.

 

The MFA can refuse to issue a visa if the applicant does not have insurance. I would say it is most definitely them with the upper hand, in this case.

 

 

[spambot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

But the IO has no right to ask to see insurance. Their job is to check the validity of the visa. If they refused entry to someone with a valid visa there would be a big onus on them and, because of that, they would be unlikely to do such a thing.

 

I am yet to hear of a visa holder being refused entry without good reason. Usually too many tourist visa or cannot prove they have 20k.

 

The MFA can refuse to issue a visa if the applicant does not have insurance. I would say it is most definitely them with the upper hand, in this case.

 

 

Good Info - Thanks - If this is right then the following should be correct?

 

Since the new medical insurance, seems to be needed only for an O-A application and assuming that you can apply for the O-A Visa before July 2019 - This should give the holder the use of the O-A visa for two years without the need for medical insurance if leaving and re-entering a day before the ” Enter Before” date (that was provided for the visa by the Embassy on application) - Is this correct?

 

This should be the conclusion since there is no application for a new Visa at port of re-entry to Thailand (nor is an extension to the 'permission to stay' being applied for) - The Visa is simply being stamped with an “Admitted until “ date because that's what an O-A Visa is designed to do.

 

[Olmate]

4 minutes ago, spambot said:

Good Info - Thanks - If this is right then the following should be correct?

 

Since the new medical insurance, seems to be needed only for an O-A application and assuming that you can apply for the O-A Visa before July 2019 - This should give the holder the use of the O-A visa for two years without the need for medical insurance if leaving and re-entering a day before the ” Enter Before” date (that was provided for the visa by the Embassy on application) - Is this correct?

 

This should be the conclusion since there is no application for a new Visa at port of re-entry to Thailand (nor is an extension to the 'permission to stay' being applied for) - The Visa is simply being stamped with an “Admitted until “ date because that's what an O-A Visa is designed to do.

 

If this is right then the following should be correct ? Damn that’s good enough for me !! 

[spambot]

If the Insurance is only required for 1 year (length of the Visa itself) - But if then the O-A Visa is managed successfully so the O-A Visa provides 2 years of stay - What happens on the 2nd year to check that you still have some Medical Insurance cover?  

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

But the IO has no right to ask to see insurance. Their job is to check the validity of the visa. If they refused entry to someone with a valid visa there would be a big onus on them and, because of that, they would be unlikely to do such a thing.

 

I am yet to hear of a visa holder being refused entry without good reason. Usually too many tourist visa or cannot prove they have 20k.

 

The MFA can refuse to issue a visa if the applicant does not have insurance. I would say it is most definitely them with the upper hand, in this case.

 

 

You are so wrong in that IO has no right to see insurance or ask for any other info to check the validity of the visa,whether it’s common practice or not is irrelevant.

[AAArdvark]

4 hours ago, Maestro said:

Forget what the news articles said. Instead, be guided by the original text of the announcement on the website of the Ministry of Public Health. There are enormous differences between the two, very similar to the game of "Chinese whispers"

Could you please provide a link to the original text?

[marcusarelus]

6 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Could you please provide a link to the original text?

http://hss.moph.go.th/show_topic.php?id=2808

[AAArdvark]

3 hours ago, tingtongtourist said:

Exactly. I have to giggle when posters will be arguing about wordings (like what does "on" mean in this context) 

 

Are people to dense to realise what the minister said was tranlated from 

Thai?

 

this is what makes clickbait so easy to do here

No one argued about the meaning of what "on" means.  The discussion was that near the beginning of this thread, someone posted that the news article makes it everything perfectly clear and it does not when it uses both "on" and "seeking".   The authors of the article make it clear that they interviewed someone from immigration.   It may be clear in the original text from the MOPH but not many people on here could translate the nuances needed.

[AAArdvark]

7 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

http://hss.moph.go.th/show_topic.php?id=2808

That does clear some things up.  However, there is the below quote which goes on to complicate things.  This is a Google translation.  I do not have the skills to correctly translate it and Google could be totally wrong.  Please note the part near the end of the quote:

 

"Therefore assigned the Ministry of Public Health Ministry of the Interior Ministry of Foreign Affairs And the Immigration Bureau Accelerate the improvement of relevant regulations And the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) together with related agencies to prepare the online insurance purchase channels To facilitate foreigners Non-Immigrant Visa OA Code (1 year period). Additional foreigners must have Thai health insurance coverage throughout the period of stay in Thailand."

[Peterw42]

20 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

That does clear some things up.  However, there is the below quote which goes on to complicate things.  This is a Google translation.  I do not have the skills to correctly translate it and Google could be totally wrong.  Please note the part near the end of the quote:

 

"Therefore assigned the Ministry of Public Health Ministry of the Interior Ministry of Foreign Affairs And the Immigration Bureau Accelerate the improvement of relevant regulations And the Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) together with related agencies to prepare the online insurance purchase channels To facilitate foreigners Non-Immigrant Visa OA Code (1 year period). Additional foreigners must have Thai health insurance coverage throughout the period of stay in Thailand."

Isn't the "throughout the period of stay" statement referring to the (1 year period) mentioned in the previous sentence.

[albertik]

4 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

This thread is a minnow in the company of some of the others recently. The discussion on 800k post extension seasoning a few months ago ran to 191 pages... 

Yeah I agree about the 800k thread. Somehow I weathered that storm. Maybe because the insurance thread hit a little closer to home.

[AAArdvark]

6 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Isn't the "throughout the period of stay" statement referring to the (1 year period) mentioned in the previous sentence.

I think it does.  The concern is the "Additional foreigners" part.

[Peterw42]

1 minute ago, AAArdvark said:

I think it does.  The concern is the "Additional foreigners" part.

Google translate, I would replace the word additional with the word "and", or "also"

[Andrew Dwyer]

Yeah I agree about the 800k thread. Somehow I weathered that storm. Maybe because the insurance thread hit a little closer to home.

Ironically the increased financial requirements ( 800k ) caused me to prepare for plan B , back to the UK in September for an OA .
Now, due to the latest developments it’s back to plan A !!

Ho hum , such is life ????

[Nowisee]

16 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Ironically the increased financial requirements ( 800k ) caused me to prepare for plan B , back to the UK in September for an OA .
Now, due to the latest developments it’s back to plan A !!

Ho hum , such is life ????

Is it correct that if you use a visa agent, you do not have to have money in the bank?  They arrange this for you?  This could be your plan A.1

[tingtongtourist]

1 hour ago, AAArdvark said:

No one argued about the meaning of what "on" means.  The discussion was that near the beginning of this thread, someone posted that the news article makes it everything perfectly clear and it does not when it uses both "on" and "seeking".   The authors of the article make it clear that they interviewed someone from immigration.   It may be clear in the original text from the MOPH but not many people on here could translate the nuances needed.

read it..a few posters were arguing about "on" in threads and basing everything on each wording in English,

when everything has been translated from Thai to English by someone who wants to generate clicks from their "news".

 

[marcusarelus]

1 hour ago, AAArdvark said:

No one argued about the meaning of what "on" means.  The discussion was that near the beginning of this thread, someone posted that the news article makes it everything perfectly clear and it does not when it uses both "on" and "seeking".   The authors of the article make it clear that they interviewed someone from immigration.   It may be clear in the original text from the MOPH but not many people on here could translate the nuances needed.

My wife speaks Thai and English and owns an Immigration assistance agency. 

[Andrew Dwyer]

Is it correct that if you use a visa agent, you do not have to have money in the bank?  They arrange this for you?  This could be your plan A.1

I believe that is correct but i am wary of agents tbh.

A poster on TVF, Captain Jack, had an issue doing exactly that and got into a bit of a pickle !!
So much so that he ended up trying to relocate to South America but in the end went back home to the States.

Probably many on here that do it that way but I’d rather not take the risk, I have the money so no biggie !!

[madmen]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

I believe that is correct but i am wary of agents tbh.

A poster on TVF, Captain Jack, had an issue doing exactly that and got into a bit of a pickle !!
So much so that he ended up trying to relocate to South America but in the end went back home to the States.

Probably many on here that do it that way but I’d rather not take the risk, I have the money so no biggie !!

captain jack was a failure whilst trashing Thailand..typical loser. He left because he didn't bother to read up on health insurance before a life changing move. Went back to USA and then SA and ran back home again. He is where he needs to be and thats the USA

[AAArdvark]

11 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

My wife speaks Thai and English and owns an Immigration assistance agency. 

And can probably translate the original much better than Google.  However, my argument remains the same.  This thread started with a translated interview with immigration.  From that interview alone, people were saying that everything is now perfectly clear.  From that article alone, that is not true.  I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in the particular article in the OP.

An official translation of the statement from MOPH would go a long way in resolving the issue.

[Nowisee]

23 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

I believe that is correct but i am wary of agents tbh.

A poster on TVF, Captain Jack, had an issue doing exactly that and got into a bit of a pickle !!
So much so that he ended up trying to relocate to South America but in the end went back home to the States.

Probably many on here that do it that way but I’d rather not take the risk, I have the money so no biggie !!

 

If I tie up $25k here, I'm not able to touch it for 6 months and then only 400k of it.   

IF I put it in a MMA earning currently 2.2% = 17,000 baht.  If an agent cost 7-9000 baht, you're still ahead and don't have to deal with bringing money in AND getting it out when the time comes.  

It seems far too many people are using agents quite successfully and with the current insurance/money changes, this might become more peoples option.  

[Andrew Dwyer]

 
If I tie up $25k here, I'm not able to touch it for 6 months and then only 400k of it.   
IF I put it in a MMA earning currently 2.2% = 17,000 baht.  If an agent cost 7-9000 baht, you're still ahead and don't have to deal with bringing money in AND getting it out when the time comes.  
It seems far too many people are using agents quite successfully and with the current insurance/money changes, this might become more peoples option.  

Yes, I agree, it’s a good option, Captain Jack was probably not a good example [emoji20]

[ilms]

It is a bit clearer now for some people. I would also like to think, as some have said, that the fact that I have a significant sum of money on deposit in Thailand would make it so the Thai govt. wouldn't force me to buy insurance.

That said, I'm not going to breathe too big a sigh of relief. I think anyone on a long stay visa or extension that is nearing or over the age of 50, should prepare themselves for some kind of health insurance requirement in the future. If it never comes to pass, great. If it does, at least one may be somewhat prepared for it. 

[watgate]

I didn't feel like reading 16 pages of replies so forgive me if what I am about to say has already been posted. I attended a heavily attended expat meeting in chiang mai and there was an owner from one of the visa agencies. He is an atty and is widely respected. He said that although the mandatory health requirement is currently only for those on the OA non-immigrant visa the handwriting is on the wall. He said there are many more O visas and extensions of stay and he is of the belief that it is only a matter of time before these retirees with these visas or extensions  of stay will also be required to have mandatory health coverage. He said now that 7-8 insurance companies are circling their wagons and licking their chops over this potential new windfall it is quite apparent that all retirees will eventually be forced to have mandatory health insurance.

 

     On another note, if  ALL tourists entering Thailand will be hit with this new tourist surcharge of 100 baht the thai authorities are stating that this will go a long way to covering the shortfall Thailand is dealing with whereby uninsured tourists are obtaining health care services and are not paying the bill. If this new tourist tax is going to remedy this ongoing problem why will mandatory health insurance coverage still be required for retirees? That was the reason for the mandatory health care coverage. It sounds like a potential cash cow and I wonder in whose pockets all this new found revenue will wind up?

 

     One potential possibly good solution according to the visa agency owner was if individuals can not obtain health insurance coverage due to their age or pre-existing condition(s) a plausible scenario would be a requirement that a retiree must keep  the whole 800K in the bank as an insurance policy for future health care coverage.

 

     Lastly,  a scary scenario is one that an insurance broker talked about concerning obtaining health care coverage with pre-existing condition(s). He said it is definitely not beyond the realm of possibility that the health insurance carrier collects your very expensive premiums but when it comes time to pay out a claim uses the policy holders pre-existing condition(s) as an excuse to not pay out the claim. I wonder how many health insurance companies will play that game and write a policy for folks who have pre-existing conditions knowing full well when it comes time to pay out a claim they will deny it based on the pre-existing condition. It would actually be better to be denied  coverage, especially if the prediction about having to keep the whole 800k in the bank comes to fruition. At least this way you know you at least have these funds in case health care services are needed.

 

     To quote a famous person. These are the times that make men and women weary. Fasten your seatbelt. It's gonna be a bumpy ride I am afraid.