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

[Martyp]

35 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

What reason would an IO at an airport check for insurance covereage after 31 October when the Embassy/Consulate would be required to  verify the financials; the police report' the medical and the insurance.  The IO at the aiprot never checks the financials again- why would they check for jnsurance. Makes no sense-  

 

The intent of the police order is to have the IO at immigration in Thailand check the insurance along with the financials etc when a person applies for extension of stay.

 

I may be wrong but it is totally illogical to check the insurance at the aiprot and never check the other elements. IMO it will not be done. Howevere, if one wants to plan for the worst- get your insurance policy- have it translated to Thai speifuing the requirements are met and present it to the IO if asked,  I won't be doing it- but others may want to do it.

I think the idea is that there will be some sort of notation in your passport indicating that you have insurance valid until a certain date. That way the IO at the airport would only stamp you in until the end date of your insurance.

[rabas]

 

36 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

What reason would an IO at an airport check for insurance covereage after 31 October

This may be a good place to put a copy of page 4 of the police order document This is an addendum not the order, it discusses checks on each entry.

 

Look for Therefore ... when an O-A alien enters Thailand ....

 

[onera1961]

I still don't understand what section 4 means. I'm lost in muta mota tindis ???? . Can somebody please find out what Order of Immigration 115 (2010) and 79 (2014) say or post it here? If they don't allow entry but give a 30-day visa exempt entry, it is still OK. One can immediately pay 25K to an agent to convert the entry to a yearly extension. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, onera1961 said:

I still don't understand what section 4 means. I'm lost in muta mota tindis ???? . Can somebody please find out what Order of Immigration 115 (2010) and 79 (2014) say or post it here? If they don't allow entry but give a 30-day visa exempt entry, it is still OK. One can immediately pay 25K to an agent to convert the entry to a yearly extension. 

 It means if you want a one year entry, but only have 6 months of validity on a health insurance policy upon entering, they'll only give you a 6 month entry permission. I believe that's the basic idea.

 

[Lovethailandelite]

10 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 It means if you want a one year entry, but only have 6 months of validity on a health insurance policy upon entering, they'll only give you a 6 month entry permission. I believe that's the basic idea.

 

Basically means the stamp or entry would be reverted to what it should of been. Onus is on the person and not immigration and makes them not responsible for an oversight when your entering and YOU need 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. 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 

[Maestro]

15 hours ago, Mitkof Island said:

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

Are you more confused yet ? 

 

I am not confused, but astonished. He exposes himself as another lawyer who does not know to interpret a Police Order correctly, a lawyer who mistakenly believes that an application for a permissions to stay and an application for an extension of permission to stay are the same. Sadly, he does not allow comments on his video and therefore nobody can set him right.

[The Man Who Sold the World]

Regardless of the reasoning behind these recent changes - one thing is certain, fewer foreigners will be choose Thailand as a place to live.

[The Man Who Sold the World]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

 

I am not confused, but astonished. He exposes himself as another lawyer who does not know to interpret a Police Order correctly, a lawyer who mistakenly believes that an application for a permissions to stay and an application for an extension of permission to stay are the same. Sadly, he does not allow comments on his video and therefore nobody can set him right.

 

He's a lawyer drumming up business.

 

 

 

[saengd]

We are told the reasoning is to reduce the amount of hospital bills left unpaid by foreigners. What is confusing however is that 35 million tourists each year are not required to carry health insurance, neither is the roughly 3 million Burmese, instead the 80,000 expat retirees are. But the fact that overseas health insurance policies are disallowed is suspicious, it smacks of something not good.

[The Man Who Sold the World]

51 minutes ago, saengd said:

We are told the reasoning is to reduce the amount of hospital bills left unpaid by foreigners. What is confusing however is that 35 million tourists each year are not required to carry health insurance, neither is the roughly 3 million Burmese, instead the 80,000 expat retirees are. But the fact that overseas health insurance policies are disallowed is suspicious, it smacks of something not good.

sanengd, don't apply logic to this issue, just accept it for what it is, just picking up "the low hanging fruit". 

[UKresonant]

1 hour ago, saengd said:

But the fact that overseas health insurance policies are disallowed is suspicious, it smacks of something not good.

At best you could think the designers have an extreme lack of experience I suppose.

 

The pretending that overseas policies could be used for the first year, then indicating it would need a separate certificate, which is very very, unlikely to be obtainable, not good either.

 

Certainly no merit, from an alien point of view ????

[saengd]

2 minutes ago, UKresonant said:

At best you could think the designers have an extreme lack of experience I suppose.

 

The pretending that overseas policies could be used for the first year, then indicating it would need a separate certificate, which is very very, unlikely to be obtainable, not good either.

 

Certainly no merit, from an alien point of view ????

Consider the plight of the foreigner who is married to a government employee and is covered by government health insurance, that person would also have to buy additional coverage, just to satisfy visa requirements.

[jacko45k]

18 hours 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.

 

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

 

How does a lawyer get experienced wrt something that is brand new and not yet being applied? 

As said before, the 800k is to prove you have something to live on for the next 12 months..... but you can't touch it!

[Lovethailandelite]

32 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

How does a lawyer get experienced wrt something that is brand new and not yet being applied? 

 

That is what Lawyers do. The look at laws and interpret what that law means. As he said, the law has also been interpreted that way from Thai staff/lawyers reading from the original Thai transcript.
How and when the law is applied and in what context is another thing entirely.

[lampangguy]

I am on an extension, so the requirement won't affect me. But I carry health insurance in any case. However, my policy, which costs nearly 100K baht per year, only covers Out Patient costs in the event of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. It covers up to 32M baht per year for any Inpatient costs. The costs of having outpatient coverage, even the 40K per annum requirement would be outrageous. I don't think they thought through the outpatient requirement very carefully. Also, the idea that it is only required for the first year, and not for subsequent extensions, does not make much sense?

[UKresonant]

53 minutes ago, saengd said:

Consider the plight of the foreigner who is married to a government employee and is covered by government health insurance, that person would also have to buy additional coverage, just to satisfy visa requirements.

They have went 100% to enforce something, the design of which, suggests they are entrenched in their own silo.

 

There are many posts that, also note cover from military or other previous employment overseas, as well as the internal goverment and other provision here...which makes this implementation an unatractive offering.

 

If they want money into the system, offer something that is useful.

 

If not already covered how about a insurance account with multi year continuity, from which you are unconditionally covered for 70% of what you have accumulated from your contributions over time (which could be more proportional to time spent here) and the 30% generates a proportion of insurance cover top-up. The contiuity bit could be universal and the 30% competative. Minimum 20k premium, 14k continuity and 6k insurance top up. Also have the offering excluded from the general insurance requirement, that generates the 180 day T&C on the policies. The accumulation process, would promote a deterance to claim, and not be age related.

 

Perhaps they will also open a som tum shop in arrivals, with every dish topped with marmite, you have to have a plate before your stamped in ????

To get money into a system it normally easier to offer something useful to the customer perhaps?

The other thing that is the loss of revenue, when the tens of thousands that may have been spent in Thailand either does not get spent ( other destination selected) or is proportionally reduced due to this negative incentive.

 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Lovethailandelite said:

That is what Lawyers do. The look at laws and interpret what that law means. As he said, the law has also been interpreted that way from Thai staff/lawyers reading from the original Thai transcript.
How and when the law is applied and in what context is another thing entirely.

These are not laws though are they? They are police orders. I am afraid I don't feel lawyers here can interpret this any better than Immigration Officers, and it is their implementation that matters. 

[saengd]

1 minute ago, lampangguy said:

I am on an extension, so the requirement won't affect me. But I carry health insurance in any case. However, my policy, which costs nearly 100K baht per year, only covers Out Patient costs in the event of radiation therapy or chemotherapy. It covers up to 32M baht per year for any Inpatient costs. The costs of having outpatient coverage, even the 40K per annum requirement would be outrageous. I don't think they thought through the outpatient requirement very carefully. Also, the idea that it is only required for the first year, and not for subsequent extensions, does not make much sense?

That is incorrect, the insurance is required for extensions also. And, there is strong evidence in Chiang Mai at least that the insurance will be required when any O-A visa is extended, not just ones issued after 31 October.

[jacko45k]

6 minutes ago, saengd said:

That is incorrect, the insurance is required for extensions also. And, there is strong evidence in Chiang Mai at least that the insurance will be required when any O-A visa is extended, not just ones issued after 31 October.

There is no consensus agreeing with your opinion. You do not extend Visas, you extend the Permission to Stay. What you state would require retroactive action by immigration (applying the order to people who obtained their Non-Imm-OA prior to Oct 31st). It would also discriminate between those whose permission to stay is based on an O-A or a regular O Visa. Both are applying for 12 month extensions and that would be rather strange.

[Lovethailandelite]

4 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

These are not laws though are they? They are police orders. I am afraid I don't feel lawyers here can interpret this any better than Immigration Officers, and it is their implementation that matters. 

They are immigration laws. Stemming from Police orders. Immigration are a section of the Royal Thai Police force.

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Lovethailandelite said:

They are immigration laws. Stemming from Police orders. Immigration are a section of the Royal Thai Police force.

Cart before the horse. Police don't make laws.

[saengd]

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

There is no consensus agreeing with your opinion. You do not extend Visas, you extend the Permission to Stay. What you state would require retroactive action by immigration (applying the order to people who obtained their Non-Imm-OA prior to Oct 31st). It would also discriminate between those whose permission to stay is based on an O-A or a regular O Visa. Both are applying for 12 month extensions and that would be rather strange.

I can only report what I have seen. Assist Thai Visa is a prominent and well regarded visa agent in Chiang Mai and they are telling all their customers publicly on Facebook that all O-A visa extension, regardless of when the visa was issued, will need proof of health insurance.

[Pattaya46]

4 hours ago, Maestro said:

// who mistakenly believes that an application for a permissions to stay and an application for an extension of permission to stay are the same. //

Uh?

Never heard of an "application for a permission to stay". What is that? Which form? 

 

AFAIK you ask for a Visa (Authorisation to enter) when you are abroad; you get an Authorisation of stay at the airport; and you later ask for an Extension of stay (TM7) if you want to stay longer. 

[Lovethailandelite]

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Cart before the horse. Police don't make laws.

The government decide the law which is then written as a police order. Take it up with Immigration. Take it up with them regarding the extension of O-A visas needing Health Insurance. That includes those that already have an extension from a previous O-A visa. The law is there and in black and white. There is nothing to dispute

 

[jacko45k]

4 minutes ago, saengd said:

I can only report what I have seen. Assist Thai Visa is a prominent and well regarded visa agent in Chiang Mai and they are telling all their customers publicly on Facebook and via their web site that all O-A visa extension, regardless of when the visa was issued, will need proof of health insurance.

Well thank you for the feedback. I do hope people applying for Extensions in CM can supply feedback, although this agent might well have scared off all those with  stay permits based on O-A entries from doing Extensions!

[lupin]

1 hour ago, saengd said:

Consider the plight of the foreigner who is married to a government employee and is covered by government health insurance, that person would also have to buy additional coverage, just to satisfy visa requirements.

If he is covered by government health insurance, then he is on a marriage visa/extension... which the current police order/requirement doesn't apply to

[Apiwan2]

I am now in single entry NON O visa ( multi not available in the UK now )

I have travel insurance worldwide up to 45 days with Lloyds bank UK. ( £17 per month with other stuff)

Will this be ok ?

Sent from my SM-G965F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[saengd]

1 minute ago, lupin said:

If he is covered by government health insurance, then he is on a marriage visa/extension... which the current police order/requirement doesn't apply to

It was an example.....the married person does not have to be on a marriage visa, many people retain their existing O-A visa rather than go through the hassle of changing, me for one.

[jacko45k]

4 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Then take it up with Immigration. Take it up with them regarding the extension of O-A visas needing Health Insurance

Visas cannot be extended.

[lupin]

1 minute ago, saengd said:

It was an example.....the married person does not have to be on a marriage visa, many people retain their existing O-A visa rather than go through the hassle of changing, me for one.

You missed my point... the married person WHO QUALIFIES FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FROM HIS WIFE... MUST be on marriage visa or extension based on marriage...

He aint covered if he aint on the marriage visa/extension regardless of if he is married, since the VISA/extension is what permits to have have coverage under his wife's coverage.