Compulsory Health insurance for 0-A visa applicants effective 31st October

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, Pib said:

What if when it comes time for your next retirement extension of stay renewal you switch to a "marriage" extension of stay because you have one-each Thai spouse.  Would since you originally started with an OA but switch to a marriage extension of stay still result in the medical insurance requirement?

This was something I considered as a possible option to avoid any Insurance requirement.

 

The amendment is only to section 2.22 (retirement), not section 2.18 (marriage).

In fact section 2.18 hasn't been affected or amended at all with recent changes.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 hours ago, Thaivisa Health Protect said:

Thai Visa Protect is able to facilitate all these plans, please feel free to email [email protected].

 

Just to be clear, are you posting as an employee/staff of Pacific Cross, or you're posting as a 3rd party agent who handles policies written by Pacific Cross?

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 hours ago, Thaivisa Health Protect said:

Hi There,

 

To be clear to all, back in May there was a very particular plan that was approved 6 insurers that could obtain the retirement visa.  Actually 400,000 baht is not sufficient coverage in almost every scenario for anything remotely serious in a private hospital.  In addition there were other plans on the market that were more affordable with better coverage.  

 

Pacific Cross's/Thai Visa Protects historic plans that provided much stronger coverage and value were not approved to obtain the OA or OX visa, this made little sense all round, to both applicants and to the insurer.  Following lobbying by the insurer the historic product suite available is now approved, meaning any plan that meets or exceeds the 400k/40k minimum can obtain the visa.  This is actually a big improvement, as the premiums for the Long Stay plan were skewed do the the age group of applicant.  Therefore one should look at the historic products not the specific Long Stay approved plans.  The Government announcement clearly hasn't addressed this clearly enough, with respect, as the post above shows.

 

For clients that have an existing policy with outpatient removed, PCHI has the option to add 40,000 THB of outpatient back into the plan, subject to underwriting terms, for 10,000 THB additional premium. 

 

Thai Visa Protect can take on new applicants up to 75yrs of age and renew through to 99 yrs.  Some of the approved companies will not take applicants over 60 and some companies terminate the policy at 70yrs of age.  Please feel free to do your own research. 

 

Each policy is fully underwritten allowing for the client to have a transparent understanding of coverage terms on an offer letter terms to purchasing the policy.

 

Thai Visa Protect is able to facilitate all these plans, please feel free to email [email protected].

 

What you've written above is REALLY good news for Pacific Cross policy holders, and you're right the government's communications have totally failed to communicate what you're saying that your regular (non-OA specific) health insurance policies will meet the government's requirement as long as their coverage amounts meet the specified limits.

 

Do you know if the same principle will apply with all the other Thai health insurers listed under the O-A program -- that their regular policies, the kind their customers may already have, will be accepted as meeting the government's requirement as long as their coverage amounts meet the specified limits?

 

[pontious]

10,000 baht for 40,000 OPD that the majority of people will not exceed or get close to.

I normally have that much in my wallet.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, pontious said:

10,000 baht for 40,000 OPD that the majority of people will not exceed or get close to.

I normally have that much in my wallet.

 

I agree the outpatient coverage requirement by the government doesn't make much common sense.

 

But, if I was an O-A visa holder who already had some appropriate Thai health insurance coverage for inpatient only, I'd sure prefer the option of spending an extra 10K just to add outpatient vs. being required to buy an entirely different O-A policy with annual premiums that probably exceed that 40K amount and pitifully low inpatient coverage.

 

[Maestro]

On 10/9/2019 at 1:36 PM, AussieBob18 said:

If you have a foreign insurance policy you have to get the insurance company to provide a certificate of insurance:

http://longstay.tgia.org/document/overseas_insurance_certificate.pdf

IMO the chances of getting an insurance company to complete this Thai document are zero.

Insurance companies will only issue their own certificate of insurance (legal reasons).

 

My insurance provider wants to see an English translation of the Cabinet Resolution, dated 2 April B.E. 2562 (2019) before they even consider to look into the possibility of issuing such certificate.

 

Where can I find this Cabinet Resolution? And where can I find the Police Order based on this Resolution?

 

I'd like to add links to them in the pinned topic "Laws, regulations, Police Orders, etc. related to visas, immigration matters, and work permits"

 

P.S. I think I have found the Police Order, starting at page 5 of this PDF file:

Police Order 548-2562 Health insurance requirement.pdf

 

[Maestro]

In the pinned topic "Laws, regulations, Police Orders, etc. related to visas, immigration matters, and work permits", I have added the following four links to documents in English relating to the insurance requirements taking effect on 31 October 2019:

• Health insurance: Police Order 548/2562 Criteria - en
• Health insurance: Immigration Bureau Order 300/2562 Documents - en
• Health insurance: Immigration Bureau guideline - en
• Health insurance: Foreign Overseas Insurance Certificate - en

I plan to extract and upload the various documents in Thai language soon.

[jacko45k]

13 hours ago, Exploring Thailand said:

The passport holder's A-O visa will be valid until the insurance expires (or the visa expires). 

 

A Visa cannot be rendered invalid. An immigration officer can deny entry though if there is no evidence of required insurance. 

[AussieBob18]

22 hours ago, BertM said:

I wouldn't worry to much about hearsay. You never know who the pool guy talked to at IM or whether the person understood the question or even understands the new police order. I will believe it (mandatory medical coverage for retirement & marriage extensions) when a police order is issued. I don't find it worthwhile to waste time worrying about something that hasn't happened or may never happen. I'm on a marriage extension anyway, not retirement, which is what the pool guy asked about. I also have an employer provided international medical policy, so I have coverage. I also have a backup plan because I wasn't planning to live here the rest of my life. I didn't buy a house or car, so me & the wife can leave whenever. I know that's not the case for everyone. Let's just hope for the best for everyone's sake...

I hear you.  We also have a back up plan. Live in the Phillipines and visit Thailand on tourist Visa. Hope it doesnt come to that - but the research was done a while ago, and it seems an even better alternative now.  Philippines offers many benefits compared to being a retirement Expat in Thailand - like Residency and being able to work or start a business - they all speak English - tax and duty excemptions and incentives - the medical system is good i the major centres - there are a lot of Expats already there and therefore most of the services and facilities Expats want - and once you have received residency, you can stay in the Philippines for as long you like (your retiree visa does not expire), and you can leave and return without reapplying for residency.  And the air is a lot cleaner overall.  While I would prefer to live with my Thai wife in Thailand - it is only 3 hours away to visit the family - it is IMO the most viable Plan B.  

 

[AussieBob18]

21 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

No you don't Bob.

It's not a n extension, it's a 1 year entry from a valid Non O-A Visa.

 

A multi entry Non Imm O-A Visa. (Long stay). Valid 1 year. Can be issued to those who are over 50 who intend to remain in Thailand for long periods. This Visa allows unlimited 1 year entries before the ‘enter before’ date of the Visa, at which point this Visa is ‘used’.

If you leave and re-enter just before the ‘enter before’ date of this Visa type you are granted another 1 year permission to stay. You will however require a re-entry permit if you intend to leave and re-enter Thailand during this 2nd year permission to stay period.

This is because when the Visa expires on the ‘enter before’ date, so does the ME facility which is only valid for the duration of the Visas validity (1 year)

If used correctly, you can stay in Thailand for almost 24 months with this Visa type.

 

Visa validity is the period during which a visa can be used to enter Thailand.

The period of stay is granted by an immigration officer upon arrival at the port of entry and in accordance with the type of visa.

It was a rhetorical question Tanoshi.  I did that when we lived in Thailand - twice.  And it was my plan going forward when I get the pension here.  Some people call it a Visa extension - but all it is is an extension of your permission to stay.  You leave again and you have to get a new Visa to re-enter.  Semantics really - the nomenclature is often wrong.

 

[AussieBob18]

13 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

My insurance provider wants to see an English translation of the Cabinet Resolution, dated 2 April B.E. 2562 (2019) before they even consider to look into the possibility of issuing such certificate.

 

Where can I find this Cabinet Resolution? And where can I find the Police Order based on this Resolution?

 

I'd like to add links to them in the pinned topic "Laws, regulations, Police Orders, etc. related to visas, immigration matters, and work permits"

 

P.S. I think I have found the Police Order, starting at page 5 of this PDF file:

Police Order 548-2562 Health insurance requirement.pdf 4.27 MB · 4 downloads

 

Mate - good luck getting that - and dont waste your money getting it translated.  There is no effin way any western insurance company is going to sign/provide an insurance certificate that states that their insurance complies with any Thailand Goverment issued decree or law - or a Police directive to Immigration Officers.  And to get it actually signed by that insurance company's Directors - as much chance as a snowflake in Hell.

 

[Maestro]

8 hours ago, jacko45k said:

A Visa cannot be rendered invalid. An immigration officer can deny entry though if there is no evidence of required insurance. 

 

The immigration's plan apparently is that if the on the date of the foreigner's arrival with a non-O-A visa the validity period of the health insurance is for less than one year from that date, the immigration official will give a permission to stay (valid until... stamp) only for the remaining period of the insurance validity. A one-year permission to stay is not mandatory: the legal provision is "not exceeding one year" as per section 25, clause (3) of the Immigration Act.

[Lovethailandelite]

47 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

The immigration's plan apparently is that if the on the date of the foreigner's arrival with a non-O-A visa the validity period of the health insurance is for less than one year from that date, the immigration official will give a permission to stay (valid until... stamp) only for the remaining period of the insurance validity. A one-year permission to stay is not mandatory: the legal provision is "not exceeding one year" as per section 25, clause (3) of the Immigration Act.

That is correct. Item 4 of the order needs to be paid a close attention. That covers Immigration of you being stamped in wrongly under sections 2 and 3. You would be deemed on overstay the next time you needed to attend Immigration OR leaving the country after any period of more than the remaining 4 months insurance validity.
If for instance you had 4 months Insurance left and it wasn't noticed and you was stamped in for 12 months. You would be on overstay anything over 4 months once the stamp was reverted to the correct entry.

 

[DogNo1]

I think that Ubonjoe is right to discourage speculation that the insurance requirement will apply to anyone other than an O-A Visa holder who enters after October 31st.  Extending the requirement to others would have a lot of negative repercussions that I'm sure the authorities are aware of.  There are a lot of issues to take into account, not the least of which would be what would happen to those of us who are too old to buy any of the insurance policies on offer.  Also, there might be legal recourse available to families who are deprived of their providers. The government needs to think out carefully the implications of a blanket insurance requirement for everyone over fifty.  

[onera1961]

Can somebody explain what does section 4 mean in the above @Lovethailandelite's post? I'm lost in muta muta tandis (:))and two IB orders. 

[Maestro]

19 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Can somebody explain what does section 4 mean in the above @Lovethailandelite's post?

 

It means you have to get hold of the two cited orders of the Immigration Bureau to understand what it means. I have neither of these two orders on file.

 

From the sound of it, it seems to be about the correction of an erroneous expiration date of the permission to stay stamped into a passport by an immigration official

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

I think that Ubonjoe is right to discourage speculation that the insurance requirement will apply to anyone other than an O-A Visa holder who enters after October 31st.  Extending the requirement to others would have a lot of negative repercussions that I'm sure the authorities are aware of.  There are a lot of issues to take into account, not the least of which would be what would happen to those of us who are too old to buy any of the insurance policies on offer.  Also, there might be legal recourse available to families who are deprived of their providers. The government needs to think out carefully the implications of a blanket insurance requirement for everyone over fifty.  

 

 

I know and understand Joe's views on this...

 

At this point, absent any clear clarification from Immigration/the government, I think the main question unresolved is will the new insurance requirement also apply to prior O-A visa holders who subsequently are on retirement extensions of stay.

 

To me, the fact that Immigration has included the O-A insurance language within the requirements for retirement extensions is an indicator of that intent (along with reports from several Immigration offices in the past couple days giving that same interpretation).  Joe obviously believes that will NOT end up being true.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

I think that Ubonjoe is right to discourage speculation that the insurance requirement will apply to anyone other than an O-A Visa holder who enters after October 31st.  

 

And now we can add this into the mix....

 

 

[Lovethailandelite]

8 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

It means you have to get hold of the two cited orders of the Immigration Bureau to understand what it means. I have neither of these two orders on file.

 

From the sound of it, it seems to be about the correction of an erroneous expiration date of the permission to stay stamped into a passport by an immigration official

 

Yes. That is exactly what it means. The Onus is on the person entering to check the permission to stay stamp. If for instance you had 5 months insurance remaining, you should of only been stamped in for 5 months as in section 2 and 3 in the attachment in post 348. If you was inadvertently stamped in for 12 months and stayed, you would find yourself on 7 months overstay once your entry was corrected. You need to pay attention to the entry stamp that it runs concurrently with the insurance certificate and get the stamp corrected at entry or ASAP 

[Lovethailandelite]

24 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

I know and understand Joe's views on this...

 

At this point, absent any clear clarification from Immigration/the government, I think the main question unresolved is will the new insurance requirement also apply to prior O-A visa holders who subsequently are on retirement extensions of stay.

 

To me, the fact that Immigration has included the O-A insurance language within the requirements for retirement extensions is an indicator of that intent (along with reports from several Immigration offices in the past couple days giving that same interpretation).  Joe obviously believes that will NOT end up being true.

 

I fail to see any understanding? The date of 31st October refers to no more than a start date of the new police order for new visa applications, and entry's on the new visa. The only dispute maybe anyone entering on a previous obtained O-A visa, or on a previous extension and reentry permit obtained against it. Extensions obtained on a previous O-A, no matter how long ago or new extension applications of an O-A visa after the 31st October are absolutely covered here. It makes no mention of when that previous visa or extension was obtained. What is does allow is those already in the country on or after the 31st October, to remain Insurance free until either a new extension or which is not entirely yet clear, a new entry on that previously obtained visa or extension.

 

[Mitkof Island]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfUzZXB3Aeg

Are you more confused yet ? It would be nice if those that have cheap and decent insurance plans in their home countries that cover Thailand and or better policies than the garbage plans the Thai government is offering to post the links on this page. Personally i would rather self insure than trust any of these companies to pay up when the time comes. Is there is good cheaper plan with Pacific Cross in Thailand? What i see these companies offering here is a joke. Lets help each other out that do not currently have a policy and provide links that are helpful to others

 

[patinchis]

I think that Ubonjoe is right to discourage speculation that the insurance requirement will apply to anyone other than an O-A Visa holder who enters after October 31st.  Extending the requirement to others would have a lot of negative repercussions that I'm sure the authorities are aware of.  There are a lot of issues to take into account, not the least of which would be what would happen to those of us who are too old to buy any of the insurance policies on offer.  Also, there might be legal recourse available to families who are deprived of their providers. The government needs to think out carefully the implications of a blanket insurance requirement for everyone over fifty.  

I arrived today on an O-A issued in london end August .....he chopped me in at immigration ,lucky I checked my entry stamp cos he had inadvertently put 11 November 2019(ie one month stay )....I went back luckily pointed it out and he chopped me with a year till Oct 2020......no mention of insurance at all!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

13 minutes ago, patinchis said:

I arrived today on an O-A issued in london end August .....he chopped me in at immigration ,lucky I checked my entry stamp cos he had inadvertently put 11 November 2019(ie one month stay )....I went back luckily pointed it out and he chopped me with a year till Oct 2020......no mention of insurance at all!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Would not expect there to be before 31 October. That sis when we will start finding out if IOs at border crossings and airports understand the new policy to apply only to O-A visas issued after 31 October or also to entries (1st or subsequent) under O-As issued earlier, and also if they understand it to apply to extensions of stay for people who entered under an OA.  If it is only for O-A visas issued after 31/10 we'll hear nothing until someone enters with a visa issued after that date. If otherwise, we'll start hearing from the 31st onward.

 

- OA visas issued after

[Sheryl]

On 10/12/2019 at 12:34 AM, Maestro said:

 

My insurance provider wants to see an English translation of the Cabinet Resolution, dated 2 April B.E. 2562 (2019) before they even consider to look into the possibility of issuing such certificate.

 

Where can I find this Cabinet Resolution? And where can I find the Police Order based on this Resolution?

 

I'd like to add links to them in the pinned topic "Laws, regulations, Police Orders, etc. related to visas, immigration matters, and work permits"

 

P.S. I think I have found the Police Order, starting at page 5 of this PDF file:

Police Order 548-2562 Health insurance requirement.pdf 4.27 MB · 6 downloads

 

Are you sure they need the Cabinet Resolution and not just the Police Order? The Cabinet Resolution is not going to give any specifics.

 

Try giving them just the Police Order, that is what has the actual details (though in confusing/garbled form).

[AussieBob18]

30 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I know and understand Joe's views on this...

At this point, absent any clear clarification from Immigration/the government, I think the main question unresolved is will the new insurance requirement also apply to prior O-A visa holders who subsequently are on retirement extensions of stay.

To me, the fact that Immigration has included the O-A insurance language within the requirements for retirement extensions is an indicator of that intent (along with reports from several Immigration offices in the past couple days giving that same interpretation).  Joe obviously believes that will NOT end up being true.

 

IMO it is clear that it will be applied after 31st October to Expats on an O-A Visa issued/arrived after 31st October who are seeking an extension of their permission stay in one years time. 

 

But does that mean it will also be applied to those who are already in Thailand and who after 31st October are seeking an extension of their permission to stay (based on retirement) after 31st October? I am not sure - maybe - maybe not.  Clear as mud.

 

 

[AussieBob18]

27 minutes ago, Mitkof Island said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfUzZXB3Aeg

Are you more confused yet ? It would be nice if those that have cheap and decent insurance plans in their home countries that cover Thailand and or better policies than the garbage plans the Thai government is offering to post the links on this page. Personally i would rather self insure than trust any of these companies to pay up when the time comes. Is there is good cheaper plan with Pacific Cross in Thailand? What i see these companies offering here is a joke. Lets help each other out that do not currently have a policy and provide links that are helpful to others

An experienced Lawyer in that video states that it applies after 31st October to both new arrivals with a Retirement Visa and those already in Thailand seeking an Extension based on Retirement.  OK - got it.

 

But I have another question?  Why does a Retiree have to have 800K Baht in a Thai Bank to apply for an Extension?

 

[Sheryl]

An experienced Lawyer in that video states that it applies after 31st October to both new arrivals with a Retirement Visa and those already in Thailand seeking an Extension based on Retirement.  OK - got it.   But I have another question?  Why does a Retiree have to have 800K Baht in a Thai Bank to apply for an Extension?

 

 

 

His basis for claiming it applies to all retirement visas not just O-A is questionable given that the Police Order repeatedly specifies only O-A. He offers no explanation of why the orders contain that language if the intent was to also include non-O visas.

 

As to your question re the 800k it was never the case that this had anything to do with health care costs. The 800k lump sum/ 65k a month requirement has been in place for years now.

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

38 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

An experienced Lawyer in that video states that it applies after 31st October to both new arrivals with a Retirement Visa and those already in Thailand seeking an Extension based on Retirement.  OK - got it.

He is certainly wrong. There is a memo with the police order that only mentions entries to the country with a OA visa.

This from that memo.

 

[cheeryble]

I double checked my passport and indeed on the first stamps it clearly says non-O.

 

So I just looked up on WIKI and found this among other types of visa 

 

 

So firstly it says retirement visa is O-A not O

Secondly where does the "non" as in non-O come into it?

 

Lastly i looked up the longstay govt website to see what the annual premium might be....doesn't seem to be available.

As the sum covered is only 400k one would presume the premium would be much less than the premium private insurance companies have been offering as they would be on the hook for very large "sums insured" and people I know who are insured tend to go to expensive hospitals. So dow we know whats being offered?

 

Thoughts?

 

EDIT:

It looks like the longstay.tgia site indeed points to private companies not some sort of govt scheme.

I personally have been self insuring, have the assets to do so, and am happy doing so. If I have to get insurance I will no longer have the option to "shop around" and make major economies on treatment and pharmaceuticals

[AussieBob18]

2 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

He is certainly wrong. There is a memo with the police order that only mentions entries to the country with a OA visa. This from that memo.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

His basis for claiming it applies to all retirement visas not just O-A is questionable given that the Police Order repeatedly specifies only O-A. 

He offers no explanation of why the orders contain that language if the intent was to also include non-O visas.

 

I accept that I might be wrong, and the Lawyer, but I must respond with why I think he is right. Below is the document where he refers to dealing with an Extension based on Retirement :- "Reason of Necessity - 2.22 In case of retirement"

 

It clearly states it is for an Extension of Stay and in Part 6 states it relates to an initial O-A Visa (Retirement). The lawyer interprets that as to mean any Extension based on Retirement after 31st October.  But is he wrong and that only means any Extension based on Retirement for an O-A Visa issued after 31st October - maybe.

 

Is there anyway this can be asked and clarified with Thai Immigration before 31st October?  It doesnt worry me as I will no longer be using the O-A Visa to stay in Thailand, but if someone rocks up on 1st November and is rejected that could cause them big problems.  I know a guy who went for his Retirement extension and because he had less than 65K into his bank in a couple of the months, but averaged well over 65K for the year, he was rejected.  He had no choice but to switch to Extension for reason of Marriage -  any attempot he made to state that the rules was not every individual month and that he was well over the annual total anyway, was rejected.  IO interpretation is the problem. If a lawyer interprets it the way I have, then I can see that an IO would too.