Mandatory health insurance due for long stay tourists

[Lacrimas]

56 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

What type of visa are you on? If it's a marriage visa,then it doesn't concern you. 

I really hope so but from the look of things it will apply to all extensions soon. See the more recent news.

[bronzedude]

I hope all the foreigners with diplomatic passports are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. I'm sure they are considered long stay non-immigrants. Maybe then foreign governments may see the inequality and thoughtlessness of these Thai get rich ministerial schemes.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

27 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

If you're on an O-A extension,then when your extension expires, leave the country and go to let's say Laos and apply for a 90 days Non-Immigrant O based on retirement.  After 60 days you can apply for the 1 year extension. If you're married to a thai, you can go for an extension based on marriage. That's cheaper than an extension based on retirement.

 

That's pretty much what the Chiang Mai visa consulting firm guy quoted above was recommending for people on retirement extensions based on prior O-A visas who may well get caught up in this mess.

 

[RedPill]

12 minutes ago, Lacrimas said:

I really hope so but from the look of things it will apply to all extensions soon. See the more recent news.

Especially since there is even less money deposited in the bank account, 400k vs. 800k.

 

So letting the retirement extensions (whether coming from O or O-A) off the hook just because they have 800k, and not applying it to marriage extensions with less deposit, wouldn't make any sense. 

 

Also, the 400k deposit in the bank doesn't cover up the required min. of the new health insurance inpatients amount,.

 

 

[Sheryl]

 

However, Sheryl, there's also the parallel issue of people like you and I who already have private insurance that's valid in Thailand -- mine thru a Thai insurer on the TGIA list, and yours if I recall thru an international insurer.

 

Both are high limit policies and both insure us in Thailand. Except, neither of them are the O-A specific low-coverage policies listed on the TGIA O-A website. 

 

In my case, it's not clear that my Thai insurer policy would be accepted as valid under the new rule, since it's not one of the O-A specific policies, even though my coverage is thru one of the O-A Thai insurance providers.

 

In your case, I believe your insurer is not among the O-A insurance providers, and your insurer/policy is based outside of Thailand. And according to the O-A insurance guidelines posted on the TGIA website, foreign insurer coverage is only going to be acceptable for the first year, and not thereafter.

 

Correct.

 

I'm on an extension of stay from an original O visa (not O-A) so per the police order should not be affected but naturally I am worried about what may come next.

 

I'm mulling over options. Don't like any of them.

 

The one thing I will certainly NOT do is jettison my excellent, reliable policy for one on the list.

 

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

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The one thing I will certainly NOT do is jettison my excellent, reliable policy fir one on the list.

 

I also do NOT have any past O-A visas in my history. And I also would not surrender my current high coverage policy for the crappy low coverage ones listed as part of the O-A program.

 

But if worse came to worse and they, for example, started to apply the current insurance requirement against all retirement extensions regardless of visa history or against everyone age 50 and above, then I'd probably face a choice between keeping and paying for the two different policies, or simply leaving Thailand.

[The Preacher]

10 hours ago, Knocker33 said:

Thailand insurance companies had joined the project. Now there's a surprise 

It should say: "Thailand insurance companies pioneered the project."

[Bogbrush]

3 hours ago, Russell17au said:

First off, this is not the official police order, so you are reading the wrong document. If you go back to my previous posts you will find the official police order there and then read the bottom paragraph.

Yes, I read the last paragraph; it says those people who have been granted an OA prior to 31st October and have been permitted to stay in the Kingdom before the effective date will be “continually able to stay in the Kingdom for a granted length of stay.”

 

The granted length of stay for an OA is one year. I see nothing here that would cause anyone to think that they have no obligation to obtain insurance upon expiry..but it’s imprecise wording whatever it’s trying to be communicated.

[Exploring Thailand]

 

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

In my case, it's not clear that my Thai insurer policy would be accepted as valid under the new rule, since it's not one of the O-A specific policies, even though my coverage is thru one of the O-A Thai insurance providers.

 

There is no longer a requirement to use one of the O-A-specific policies. Those policy should be retired. The long stay website should not link to them. You can use any policy that meets the requirements. See the post below from Pacific Cross.

 

7 hours ago, Thaivisa Health Protect said:

...the historic product suite available is now approved, meaning any plan that meets or exceeds the 400k/40k minimum can obtain the visa. 

[Carolina Reaper]

11 hours ago, verticalift said:

For those looking for coverage from insurance providers with offices in T’land, make sure that you read the fine print first. I was looking into this several months ago and found that they will only cover you up to age 70yrs. After 70, they will not cover you. Not very good for those of us in our 60’s. I recently switched from BUPA Global (UK), over to CIGNA in Dubai for my global coverage.

Int’l health care providers with offices outside T’land, unlike their Thai counterparts, will not kick you out at age 70.

Cigna Global is excellent. It's not cheap, but at least it's real insurance and, as mentioned, you can keep renewing without fear of being dropped (assuming pre-existing conditions weren't misrepresented on initial application). But the outpatient coverage isn't a good deal, especially in Thailand -- and especially if most of the outpatient visits and medications would likely relate to over-60 care (hypertension, arthritis, etc.). The Gold plan's total coverage limit per plan year for inpatient/daypatient/cancer/kidney dialysis is approximately 150x the 400,000 baht limit of the Thai plans (that 400K limit might be per incident not per year but still...). If you need an organ transplant under the Thai plans, you might as well instead look for the repatriation of human remains coverage (and I don't think there is any, btw.) The Thai long stay plans are a complete ripoff. For age 61-65, USD 4000/yr (or less) for real insurance vs. 3000/yr for wimpy pseudo-insurance... hmmm, you make the call. If you choose a nonzero copay, higher deductible, and a Silver Plan, Cigna cost can be quite reasonable. They also have a new plan that isn't worldwide but just "home" country + residence country and that one is even cheaper still (but with limits even lower than Silver in many cases). If healthcare coverage eventually becomes a requirement for extensions of stay, and my Cigna policy isn't accepted as-is without outpatient coverage, I will just get back to back ME non-imm O visas and do border runs every 90 days. Until that becomes no longer acceptable by TI. Then maybe I'll just have to jump ship and learn to eat Portuguese food. 

[Samuel Smith]

10 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

 

 

There is no longer a requirement to use one of the O-A-specific policies. Those policy should be retired. The long stay website should not link to them. You can use any policy that meets the requirements. See the post below from Pacific Cross.

 

They still need to drop the 40k out patient coverage.  Just isn't needed!

[Lacrimas]

If you start paying at 30 years of age and nothing happens (touch wood), the premium will stay the same your whole life? (around 20.000 baht for me at the moment).

[Carolina Reaper]

5 minutes ago, Lacrimas said:

If you start paying at 30 years of age and nothing happens (touch wood), the premium will stay the same your whole life? (around 20.000 baht for me at the moment).

Uhhh, no. That could only happen in one's dreams. 

[Samuel Smith]

9 minutes ago, Lacrimas said:

If you start paying at 30 years of age and nothing happens (touch wood), the premium will stay the same your whole life? (around 20.000 baht for me at the moment).

And after 30 years of paying, you make a claim & they drop you ????

[davemos]

You couldnt make this up If your over 70 Sell your investments get property another place Condos will drop Thailand for the Thais  .Great when the Baht is high !Carpe diem

[Max69xl]

1 hour ago, Samuel Smith said:

And after 30 years of paying, you make a claim & they drop you ????

When young and healthy and with a bit luck, an accident insurance could work for years. 

[Doowat]

7 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

You're right. He's wrong. The order pertains to the date someone attempts to enter the country using the visa, not the date of issue of the visa.

 

I don't think that can be right. You have 3months to activate an O/A visa from the date it's issued by the embassy, so if you apply and are given the visa by the Thai Embassy on say 15 October, you would not have had to satisfy the health insurance rules. It follows that you can enter Thailand up to 3 months after the issue date ie 15 January 2020 without a problem - or at least common sense would dictate. Also going back to the police order we're looking at, para 2 talks about the 'remaining period of health insurance not exceeding 1 year'. If your original entry on an O/A is outside the scope of the post 31/10/19 rules, surely there can't be a 'remaining period' because there was never one (a health insurance period) to begin with.

[DUNROAMIN]

Wow, does this mean we are not farangs anymore, we are now all called tourists.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, Exploring Thailand said:

 

There is no longer a requirement to use one of the O-A-specific policies. Those policy should be retired. The long stay website should not link to them. You can use any policy that meets the requirements. See the post below from Pacific Cross.

 

 

Thanks for linking to that post by someone who is either a Pacific Cross rep or an agent representing them. (Not sure which....)  I hadn't caught that post previously amid the torrent of postings on this topic.

 

It's only common sense that any regular Thai health insurance policy that meets the newly required coverage amounts ought to be accepted as meeting the government's new requirement -- regardless of whether or not it was one of the original O-A specific offerings.

 

However, exhibiting common sense has never been a particular strong point in government decision making here. Fortunately, it sounds like the insurers went to bat on behalf of their existing policy holders and got the government to agree to accept the general mass market policies in addition.

 

[Tanoshi]

31 minutes ago, Doowat said:

I don't think that can be right. You have 3months to activate an O/A visa from the date it's issued by the embassy,

An O-A is valid for entry for 1 year.

[DUNROAMIN]

If your over 70 guys, pack your bags your going home, Thailand can't afford you, or should I say don't want you here.

[Max69xl]

27 minutes ago, DUNROAMIN said:

If your over 70 guys, pack your bags your going home, Thailand can't afford you, or should I say don't want you here.

Why do you think that every old expat has an O-A visa? It's not the most common visa for retirees. 

[Exploring Thailand]

 

34 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Thanks for linking to that post by someone who is either a Pacific Cross rep or an agent representing them. (Not sure which....)  I hadn't caught that post previously amid the torrent of postings on this topic.

 

It's only common sense that any regular Thai health insurance policy that meets the newly required coverage amounts ought to be accepted as meeting the government's new requirement -- regardless of whether or not it was one of the original O-A specific offerings.

 

However, exhibiting common sense has never been a particular strong point in government decision making here. Fortunately, it sounds like the insurers went to bat on behalf of their existing policy holders and got the government to agree to accept the general mass market policies in addition.

 

 

Yes. Those O-A-specific premiums were crazy. It's good to see the back of them. 

 

I'm not quite sure how much the insurers had to do with the change, though. Note that the post from Pacific Cross says "following lobbying from [us] ", not "as a result of lobbying from [us]". If I send an e-mail to the government asking them to do something and they subsequently do it, I can report that as "Following lobbying from me..."

 

I'm sure the insurers did voice their opinions, but so did many others, not least the people who will actually have to pay for the insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurers make less on their original policies than they would have on the O-A specific ones. If that's the case, I doubt they lobbied too hard.

[bangkokbanjo]

13 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Why do you think that every old expat has an O-A visa? It's not the most common visa for retirees. 

What's the most common?  Marriage?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, Exploring Thailand said:

 

 

Yes. Those O-A-specific premiums were crazy. It's good to see the back of them. 

 

I'm not quite sure how much the insurers had to do with the change, though. Note that the post from Pacific Cross says "following lobbying from [us] ", not "as a result of lobbying from [us]". If I send an e-mail to the government asking them to do something and they subsequently do it, I can report that as "Following lobbying from me..."

 

I'm sure the insurers did voice their opinions, but so did many others, not least the people who will actually have to pay for the insurance. I wouldn't be surprised if the insurers make less on their original policies than they would have on the O-A specific ones. If that's the case, I doubt they lobbied too hard.

 

FWIW, I have a longstanding Pacific Cross policy that exceeds the government's inpatient/outpatient coverage amounts...

 

But I can tell you, I would have been one very <deleted> OFF Pacific Cross customer if the company were to have told me the 5 million THB annual max coverage policy I've been paying them for for many years isn't going to meet the government's 400K O-A requirement.

 

[Max69xl]

3 minutes ago, bangkokbanjo said:

What's the most common?  Marriage?

Based on retirement and marriage. 

[Exploring Thailand]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

FWIW, I have a longstanding Pacific Cross policy that exceeds the government's inpatient/outpatient coverage amounts...

 

But I can tell you, I would have been one very <deleted> OFF Pacific Cross customer if the company were to have told me the 5 million THB annual max coverage policy I've been paying them for for many years isn't going to meet the government's 400K O-A requirement.

 

Understandably so. And anyone who had been forced to buy one of the O-A specific polices would have been <deleted> OFF to get a tenth of your coverage for a premium hardly less than yours.

[Max69xl]

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

FWIW, I have a longstanding Pacific Cross policy that exceeds the government's inpatient/outpatient coverage amounts...

 

But I can tell you, I would have been one very <deleted> OFF Pacific Cross customer if the company were to have told me the 5 million THB annual max coverage policy I've been paying them for for many years isn't going to meet the government's 400K O-A requirement.

 

What's the need for a 5 million baht coverage insurance? 

[Bogbrush]

I think that anybody who thinks Immigration are going to accept an insurance policy that is not written in Thai is deluding themselves. It’s pretty obvious from day one that they would insist on a Thai issuer if for no other reason than to keep the business ‘in house’. I know some people will say they will accept a translation but I think that’s a stretch. This issue isn’t over by a long way; it’ll be interesting to see what happens to all the European/American OA holders who return to LoS in November for the dry season.

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, DUNROAMIN said:

Wow, does this mean we are not farangs anymore, we are now all called tourists.

Why would you want this insurance mandatory for farangs only ??

Many non-farang expats use the Non O-A visa...

 

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

Why do you think that every old expat has an O-A visa? It's not the most common visa for retirees. 

What are you talking about ?? Why do you think that ?

My very old friend, next door in my condo, is on Retirement Extension based on a Non O (not a O-A) and is certainly not the only one !