OA insurance - the issues

[ubonjoe]

17 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

With respect Joe, if the medical Insurance pertained purely to entries from an O-A Visa, then there would be no need for Immigration to include it in internal Police orders pertaining to the criteria for extensions.

Then why does it not say that. And why does it say effective on October 31st.

I have answered the question about why it is there before.

[Tanoshi]

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Then why does it not say that. And why does it say effective on October 31st.

I have answered the question about why it is there before.

Because it does pertain to extensions of stay applied for after 31st October, when the permission of stay your extending was granted from an O-A Visa entry.

[mokwit]

Likely that dates of visa and dates of insurance will have to be an exact match - so you are dependent on an insurance company adhering to a designated start date or planning visa around insurance date - so don't get sick on visa day. If this proves the case then they have not thought this through/given a t*ss about the reality of complying.

[ubonjoe]

13 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Because it does pertain to extensions of stay applied for after 31st October, when the permission of stay your extending was granted from an O-A Visa entry.

Maybe if the OA visa was issued after the new rules went into effect. But will the earliest that will happen can be in about 2 years.

Nothing to stop someone from letting their OA expire and get a non-o visa to do the extension.

[Tanoshi]

9 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Maybe if the OA visa was issued after the new rules went into effect. But will the earliest that will happen can be in about 2 years.

It appears the intention is to apply it across the board starting 31st October, for permission of stay obtained from the O-A Visa and extensions based on retirement from any remaining permission to stay from an O-A entry.

 

13 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Nothing to stop someone from letting their OA expire and get a non-o visa to do the extension.

That is exactly as I have already advised for anyone unsure how this change will/could impact there situation.

[jacko45k]

36 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Because it does pertain to extensions of stay applied for after 31st October, when the permission of stay your extending was granted from an O-A Visa entry.

Perhaps as a means of preventing someone on an O-A entry pursuing an extension immediately after entering the kingdom, and cancelling their insurance? Even if that is possible. Other than that I don't see why it is there.

[ubonjoe]

20 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

It appears the intention is to apply it across the board starting 31st October, for permission of stay obtained from the O-A Visa and extensions based on retirement from any remaining permission to stay from an O-A entry.

That would make it retroactive and that is not something that immigration has never done.

When immigration has ever done anything close to that they made anybody on extension of stay already exempt from it for a year after it went into effect.

For example this from police order 777/2551 when they eliminated a joint income for extensions based upon marriage.

 

"6. Within one year from the effective date hereof, in the case of an alien who has entered the Kingdom under Clause 2.18 (6) based on marriage to a Thai woman and has continuously been permitted temporary stay in the Kingdom prior to the enforcement of this Order, but said alien does not meet the full qualifications stipulated under the criteria herein, the Commander of the Immigration Bureau or an authorized competent officer shall consider the case based on the reasons and necessity."

 

As is turned out they allowed local offices to make the decision and most people were allowed to use a joint income.

[Exploring Thailand]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Perhaps as a means of preventing someone on an O-A entry pursuing an extension immediately after entering the kingdom, and cancelling their insurance? Even if that is possible. Other than that I don't see why it is there.

I think the idea of cancelling your insurance is a viable loophole for anyone that way inclined. Get your insurance. Apply for the O-A, during which process your passport will be annotated to confirm that you have insurance, enter the kingdom, cancel your insurance. Your passport, which is what the IOs check, will still show that you have insurance.  The authorities could require all insurance companies to notify them whenever one of their policies is cancelled, but that sound doubtful to me.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

I think the idea of cancelling your insurance is a viable loophole for anyone that way inclined. Get your insurance. Apply for the O-A, during which process your passport will be annotated to confirm that you have insurance, enter the kingdom, cancel your insurance. Your passport, which is what the IOs check, will still show that you have insurance.  The authorities could require all insurance companies to notify them whenever one of their policies is cancelled, but that sound doubtful to me.

Sounds more like probably to me after immigration reads your post. Also aren't these insurance deals typically pay the entire year in advance?

[jacko45k]

It just strikes me as ridiculous that people on retirement extensions will have their insurance obligation defined by an ancient and past entry on a non Imm O-A. How is that person any different than a person on an Non-Imm-O as far as requiring health services?  Actually those on married extensions over 50 years old should be included too!

[CarlE]

 

Same old question.  What happens to those who are over 75 and can't buy insurance?  Even when married to a Thai, will I be forced out of Thailand?  Will an additional bank deposit be accepted in lieu of the health insurance I won't be able to buy?

[Saltire]

3 hours ago, baansgr said:

I'd like to know which company offers 13mil at 50% , the Thai company's are offering basic complient at 22k....really only 11k premium for 13mil?

My policy is with HCI, covers me for up to £350k costs me £1200 per annum. I am 64 but am 65 soon so (if they give me a policy) the cheapest Thai cover is is over £2340 per annum, around 90k Baht. 

[Exploring Thailand]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds more like probably to me after immigration reads your post. Also aren't these insurance deals typically pay the entire year in advance?

Bear in mind that the insurance companies would have to report all cancellations, because they don't know whether the policy was use for an O-A or not. If Immigration have good computer systems, the checking should be straight-forward. I think most, or at least some, of the policies allow you to cancel within a certain period without penalty, providing you have claimed.

[Tanoshi]

3 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That would make it retroactive and that is not something that immigration has never done.

That appears to be exactly what they are doing though.

 

Perhaps the fact it was recently reported there are currently 80,000 expats in Thailand on an O-A Visa, and dare I suggest with the overpriced policies available for limited cover, I can't but suspect someone at the top levels of Immigration are on a cut, would give an answer to the reasoning behind the theory.

 

Obviously I daren't suggest that though.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Bear in mind that the insurance companies would have to report all cancellations, because they don't know whether the policy was use for an O-A or not. If Immigration have good computer systems, the checking should be straight-forward. I think most, or at least some, of the policies allow you to cancel within a certain period without penalty, providing you have claimed.

Well certainly the subset of policies that are specifically tailored to comply would be easier to track. I'm sorry I think your idea is silly. It's an obvious loophole that immigration would likely be on top off, especially because you just tipped them off.

[Tanoshi]

11 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

I think the idea of cancelling your insurance is a viable loophole for anyone that way inclined. Get your insurance. Apply for the O-A, during which process your passport will be annotated to confirm that you have insurance, enter the kingdom, cancel your insurance. Your passport, which is what the IOs check, will still show that you have insurance.  The authorities could require all insurance companies to notify them whenever one of their policies is cancelled, but that sound doubtful to me.

Keep thinking!

If you cancelled your policy you would effectively be in an overstay position.

[TaoNow]

This laser focus on the O-A visa holders obscures the larger inconsistency between the stated rationale and small size of the target group.  

 

In other words, it was stated that the problem was too many foreigners with unpaid medical bills.  If the introduction of the health insurance requirement only applies to O-A visa holders/extenders, that won't have any impact to speak of on future unpaid hospital bills. 

 

Thus, as others have alluded to:  The health insurance requirement only makes sense if applied to all foreigners in Thailand, including tourists.

[jacko45k]

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Keep thinking!

If you cancelled your policy you would effectively be in an overstay position.

Not if one got an extension first? 

(This presumes extensions are not requiring insurance, hence the #6 clause).

[Exploring Thailand]

9 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Keep thinking!

If you cancelled your policy you would effectively be in an overstay position.

Of course. I'm not suggesting that anyone do it, or that it would be legal.  They intend that you have insurance, not just that you buy it. I'm just pointing out that for those that way inclined, it looks like a loophole. I'm sure if anyone did it and got caught they would be in very hot water.

[Thaidream]

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I sincerely hope your correct Joe, but if the Insurance requirement pertains purely to entries to the Country on a Non O-A Visa from the 31st October, then why is there any need to amend internal orders relating to the 'Criteria for Consideration of granting an aliens extension of stay in the Kingdom'.

Because at some point a person with an O-A dated after 31 Oct 2019 may wish to extend their stay and thus the insurance requirement would apply to that extension . Remember, the O-A just like any other Visa has an end date but can be extended by going to Immigration.

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Perhaps the fact it was recently reported there are currently 80,000 expats in Thailand on an O-A Visa,

Not sure but I think said non immigrant visas. It don't think there are 80k people on a OA visa in the the country.

Not sure where that number came from. I don't think immigration could supply such a number.

[Tanoshi]

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Not if one got an extension first? 

(This presumes extensions are not requiring insurance, hence the #6 clause).

From a 1 year entry.

Think about it Jacko.

[Carolina Reaper]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Remember, the O-A just like any other Visa has an end date but can be extended by going to Immigration.

A visa can never be extended. A visa can never be renewed. Never. Ever. Any visa. Never.

[jacko45k]

7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

From a 1 year entry.

Think about it Jacko.

If a person wanted to cancel their medical insurance and get a refund, and not go into overstay, my thought was to get an extension or apply for some status change of the Permission to Stay. If that is even possible with nearly 12 months on an O-A Permit to stay. As I said, I don't grasp why the #6 medical insurance requirement has appeared in the retirement extension terms. (Spit-balling here, excuse me).

[Tanoshi]

6 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Not sure but I think said non immigrant visas. It don't think there are 80k people on a OA visa in the the country.

Not sure where that number came from. I don't think immigration could supply such a number.

I'll stand to be corrected Joe, but I think it was in a recent statement made by the deputy Public Health Minister.

[lupin]

1 hour ago, mokwit said:

Likely that dates of visa and dates of insurance will have to be an exact match - so you are dependent on an insurance company adhering to a designated start date or planning visa around insurance date - so don't get sick on visa day. If this proves the case then they have not thought this through/given a t*ss about the reality of complying.

Most policy providers allow for start date deferral up to 6 months

[Tanoshi]

5 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

If a person wanted to cancel their medical insurance and get a refund, and not go into overstay, my thought was to get an extension or apply for some status change of the Permission to Stay. If that is even possible with nearly 12 months on an O-A Permit to stay. As I said, I don't grasp why the #6 medical insurance requirement has appeared in the retirement extension terms. (Spit-balling here, excuse me).

Read post 147.

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, Tanoshi said:

I'll stand to be corrected Joe, but I think it was in a recent statement made by the deputy Public Health Minister.

That was written in a Reuters news article.

My question is where did he get that number.

[Exploring Thailand]

14 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Not sure but I think said non immigrant visas. It don't think there are 80k people on a OA visa in the the country.

Not sure where that number came from. I don't think immigration could supply such a number.

 

6 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

I'll stand to be corrected Joe, but I think it was in a recent statement made by the deputy Public Health Minister.

This article mentioned 80,000 people "seeking long stay".

[Tanoshi]

1 minute ago, lupin said:

Most policy providers allow for start date deferral up to 6 months

Problem is you have to provide an active Policy to obtain the Visa.

 

Even now London aren't allowing applications to proceed for the O-A without proof of the Insurance.