Retirement Extension Compulsory Insurance?

[doctormann]

No doubt this topic has been done to death but I'm trying to get up to date information.

 

Was it ever clarified whether the compulsory health insurance requirement - from July 2019 - was to be applied only to NEW O-A applications or would also apply to Extensions of Stay based on retirement?

 

I originally entered Thailand on an O-A, back in 2004, and have been extending my Permission to Stay, annually, ever since.  I did my last extension, at Jomtien, last month.  No mention of insurance then but I am trying to assess what is likely to happen in the future, although, as we know, things tend to change from time to time.  If insurance for renewals becomes, or has become mandatory, then I shall have to leave once my current extension expires.

 

[Martyp]

It only applies to new O-A visas and it has not yet been implemented. You are safe to get your 1 year extension. You should have insurance though but of course that is up to you.

[doctormann]

1 minute ago, Martyp said:

It only applies to new O-A visas and it has not yet been implemented. You are safe to get your 1 year extension. You should have insurance though but of course that is up to you.

Unfortunately, age and pre-existing medical conditions precludes my obtaining health insurance.

Paying my way for medical treatment is not an issue but compulsory insurance, which I could not obtain, clearly would be.

Anyway, good to know that this has not been, and may not be, implemented.

Next extension not due for a year and, of course, anything could happen before then!

[marcusarelus]

You can get the compulsory insurance.  Age doesn't matter and you don't need a physical.  It's not real insurance only a ploy to make some cash 400/40 inpatient and out patient is not going to help anyone.  Of course it hasn't been implemented yet but if the admin stays the same probably will be.  

Edited July 22, 2019 by marcusarelus

[Curt1591]

"the compulsory insurance" 

?

[doctormann]

4 minutes ago, marcusarelus said:

You can get the compulsory insurance.  Age doesn't matter and you don't need a physical.  It's not real insurance only a ploy to make some cash 400/40 inpatient and out patient is not going to help anyone.  Of course it hasn't been implemented yet but if the admin stays the same probably will be.  

In other words, just a farang tax that I would be unwilling to pay.

As you say, the actual insurance cover that's required is a complete joke!  A certain, well known hospital group would use up the out-patient fund to treat a hang-nail!

[glegolo]

And your extensions has nothing to do with your OLD expired Non Imm O-A VISA, you are NOT extending the VISA you are extending just your permission to stay nothing else. 

 

And IF there in future will be any laws about any health insurance for O-A You are NOT to be worried you are on EXTENSION OF STAY....

 

glegolo

[UKresonant]

16 minutes ago, doctormann said:

In other words, just a farang tax that I would be unwilling to pay.

As you say, the actual insurance cover that's required is a complete joke!  A certain, well known hospital group would use up the out-patient fund to treat a hang-nail!

That's the way I see it, could be zero value, as circumstances could make me in Thailand under 180 days, which could in turn make the policy worthless. Seems a problem generally with many policies here. Over and above perhaps the design imposed on the insurance companies, making it exceptionally poor value if you can get it.

I was looking at the O-A as a potential substitute (for next year) for the non-O ME they have stopped issuing in London, but it's not looking hopeful!

Since I got a quote for a drug in support of an out patient treatment in Bangkok, earlier in the year (as a convenient option), but came back as 82k baht vs what I understand the UK undiscounted price to be circa 35k baht, so your second point has certainly been substantiated to me already!

[doctormann]

31 minutes ago, glegolo said:

And your extensions has nothing to do with your OLD expired Non Imm O-A VISA, you are NOT extending the VISA you are extending just your permission to stay nothing else. 

 

And IF there in future will be any laws about any health insurance for O-A You are NOT to be worried you are on EXTENSION OF STAY....

 

glegolo

I am well aware of that - I have been on extension of stay for many years now.

 

The point of my original post was to confirm that Retirement Extensions were not affected as this has never really been made clear, as far as I am aware.  The information that was released, back in May, was confusing to say the least, with some IOs allegedly telling people that, from July, anyone applying for an extension based on retirement would definitely need insurance.

[GroveHillWanderer]

I can't help feeling that there's a lot of wishful thinking going on here. 

 

As far as I can tell, the most we can say here is that it's still unclear if, when and how this will be enforced.

 

The announcement of this proposed policy was made after a cabinet meeting in Bangkok where the Ministry of Public Health gained approval for their proposal of compulsory health insurance for expatriates. 

 

Dr Natthawut Prasertsiripong, Chief of the MoPH Department of Health Service Support, making the initial announcement said the following:

 

Quote

The requirement applies to all new applicants for one-year non-immigrant O-A visas, and for those applying to “renew” their one-year permits-to-stay

 

I don't think there's much doubt that "renewing" a 1-year permit-to-stay is a reference to extensions of permission to stay.

 

Now, the same day as this news came out, an immigration official in Phuket was quoted as saying that it only applies to new applicants for O-A visas.

 

So I think it comes down to who you choose to believe.

 

What I would say is that if the policy is designed to achieve what the MoPH says it is designed to do, which is to cover for older expats who have more health issues, the longer they stay and the older they get, that would not be achieved by only applying the policy to new applicants. 

 

If they want to achieve their stated aim, it just seems to me that it would actually make more sense for them to apply it to both new applicants and people on extensions of stay (which tallies with what the MoPH spokesman said).

 

I'm not saying that this is what I would like to see happen, it's just what I think seems to be more likely, especially based on the overall direction of immigration policies recently.

[Martyp]

39 minutes ago, doctormann said:

I am well aware of that - I have been on extension of stay for many years now.

 

The point of my original post was to confirm that Retirement Extensions were not affected as this has never really been made clear, as far as I am aware.  The information that was released, back in May, was confusing to say the least, with some IOs allegedly telling people that, from July, anyone applying for an extension based on retirement would definitely need insurance.

I think some of the confusion stems from the the fact that so many people refer to an extension of stay as a visa. 

[Martyp]

20 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I can't help feeling that there's a lot of wishful thinking going on here. 

 

As far as I can tell, the most we can say here is that it's still unclear if, when and how this will be enforced.

 

The announcement of this proposed policy was made after a cabinet meeting in Bangkok where the Ministry of Public Health gained approval for their proposal of compulsory health insurance for expatriates. 

 

Dr Natthawut Prasertsiripong, Chief of the MoPH Department of Health Service Support, making the initial announcement said the following:

 

 

I don't think there's much doubt that "renewing" a 1-year permit-to-stay is a reference to extensions of permission to stay.

 

Now, the same day as this news came out, an immigration official in Phuket was quoted as saying that it only applies to new applicants for O-A visas.

 

So I think it comes down to who you choose to believe.

 

What I would say is that if the policy is designed to achieve what the MoPH says it is designed to do, which is to cover for older expats who have more health issues, the longer they stay and the older they get, that would not be achieved by only applying the policy to new applicants. 

 

If they want to achieve their stated aim, it just seems to me that it would actually make more sense for them to apply it to both new applicants and people on extensions of stay (which tallies with what the MoPH spokesman said).

 

I'm not saying that this is what I would like to see happen, it's just what I think seems to be more likely, especially based on the overall direction of immigration policies recently.

I saw an recent interview with a couple of Pacific Cross agents. It seemed pretty clear that the policy would apply to just new O-A applicants. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[uncleeagle]

given the trend towards greater and greater hostility and inconvienience towards foreigners, whether tourists or on longer stays, im assuming this mandatory insurance requirement will go ahead. im also assuming we havent seen the end of this tendency towards ever more extreme forms of monitoring, charging, fining, bureaucratic harassment and otherwise simple and malicious abuse.

 

i have ample insurance already, but i am sure only the useless but high priced local versions will be accepted and that all it is a form of tax at best, extortion at worst.

 

plan accordingly, either to pay up and put up with whatever else they decide to stuff down our falang throats (feels like its somehow directed at us) or get out.

 

you decide. 

Edited July 22, 2019 by uncleeagle

[GroveHillWanderer]

14 minutes ago, Martyp said:

I saw an recent interview with a couple of Pacific Cross agents. It seemed pretty clear that the policy would apply to just new O-A applicants. I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Well again, it comes down to who you choose to believe. But ask yourself this - who is more likely to have the more accurate information, a couple of insurance agents or the official spokesman for the organization that came up with the policy in the first place?

[Martyp]

16 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well again, it comes down to who you choose to believe. But ask yourself this - who is more likely to have the more accurate information, a couple of insurance agents or the official spokesman for the organization that came up with the policy in the first place?

I’m choosing the insurance agents because their companies are going to provide the policies, they are in conversation with the Thai government and the information in only a couple of weeks old. Certainly more believable that expat speculation.

Edited July 22, 2019 by Martyp

[ThaiBunny]

18 minutes ago, Martyp said:

I’m choosing the insurance agents because their companies are going to provide the policies, they are in conversation with the Thai government and the information in only a couple of weeks old. Certainly more believable that expat speculation.

Perish the thought that they might be talking up their potential commissions from the insurance companies

[GroveHillWanderer]

22 minutes ago, Martyp said:

I’m choosing the insurance agents because their companies are going to provide the policies, they are in conversation with the Thai government and the information in only a couple of weeks old. Certainly more believable that expat speculation.

The words of Dr Natthawut Prasertsiripong, Chief of the MoPH Department of Health Service Support, are hardly "expat speculation.' They are the official word from the organisation responsible for the adoption of the policy. 

 

He made the announcement in Bangkok on the same day the policy was given cabinet approval. I think he is much much closer to the source than any insurance agent.

Edited July 22, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The words of Dr Natthawut Prasertsiripong, Chief of the MoPH Department of Health Service Support, are hardly "expat speculation.' They are the official word from the organisation responsible for the adoption of the policy.

Do remind us how many of the "official words" of Big Joke actually came to pass

[GroveHillWanderer]

Just to be clear, I think this policy is wrong-headed, inappropriate and full of holes. For instance, it doesn't cater for the expenses run up by short-term tourists or long-term expats who came in on O visas. It ignores the situation of those people who cannot get insurance for whatever reason (age, pre-existing conditions etc). I also cannot conceive, for the life of me, why they want to include outpatient coverage. I already have more than the level of health insurance required but it doesn't include outpatient coverage and it would almost double my premiums to add it.

 

Also, if they do decide to apply it to extensions it's going to be a nightmare to administer.

 

I think it would be simpler to introduce a flat fee (100 baht, for instance) on all tourist entries - as has apparently already been proposed. This would raise way more than the shortfall they say they are trying to cover and would be easier to administer.

 

[GroveHillWanderer]

23 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Do remind us how many of the "official words" of Big Joke actually came to pass

It doesn't matter whether they come to pass or not, the question was whether his words are 'expat speculation' and clearly they are not. 

 

However, as I said in my first post, "it's still unclear if, when and how this will be enforced."

Edited July 22, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[fishtank]

57 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

Well again, it comes down to who you choose to believe. But ask yourself this - who is more likely to have the more accurate information, a couple of insurance agents or the official spokesman for the organization that came up with the policy in the first place?

Probably neither of them.

All pretty clueless.

[Martyp]

46 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The words of Dr Natthawut Prasertsiripong, Chief of the MoPH Department of Health Service Support, are hardly "expat speculation.' They are the official word from the organisation responsible for the adoption of the policy. 

 

He made the announcement in Bangkok on the same day the policy was given cabinet approval. I think he is much much closer to the source than any insurance agent.

Sorry. I wasn't including Dr. Prasertsiripong in the remark. Just the rest of us on Thaivisa.

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, Martyp said:

I’m choosing the insurance agents because their companies are going to provide the policies,

The policies you do not need to have?

[Martyp]

4 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

The policies you do not need to have?

They were discussing the policies the Thai government asked them to offer to new O-A visa applicants. They said there are 6 Thai companies being asked to supply the 40,000/400,000 policies. Nothing has been implemented yet. The Pacific Cross agents were not happy to offer these policies because they were both inadequate to the customer insurance needs and because they were too expensive because the customer pool were expats 50 years and older. For the same or less money they could offer more comprehensive policies that encompass a larger pool of customers of all ages. Basically the way insurance is supposed to work. Presumably they are trying to convince the Thai government to implement this differently by allowing any insurance policy that meets a minimum standard.

 

And of course the insurance discussion has a whole whole different meaning to American Expats than to everyone else with universal coverage already from their home countries. There is also the problem with insuring anyone over 70-75 years old.

[sumrit]

7 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

You can get the compulsory insurance.  Age doesn't matter

But the exorbitant cost charged for us older expats with added pre-existing health problems IS certainly one of the most important considerations.