Wouldn't surprise me if the Agents got some tricks for this as well.

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So you say, but that lawyer at Integrity Legal is still convinced that this has already been decided to include all applicants applying for extensions (O and O-A) effective October 31.

 

That would be a very far reach beyond any rules/orders language Immigration has laid on the table thus far.

 

What might be lurking in the background for the future and as yet un-announced, who knows...

 

3 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Have you even read the official police report?  It was issued in April. It clearly states that the insurance is only for new O-A Visa holders,starting October 31 2019. 

I've read a lot of things and I'm not going to get into this back and forth with you. I think we need to WAIT and see what happens starting next month to get some better clues about how this actually is going to be enforced. 

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That would be a very far reach beyond any rules/orders language Immigration has laid on the table thus far.

 

What might be lurking in the background for the future and as yet un-announced, who knows...

 

I'm glad you're confident. I'm not and I think it's folly for ANYONE to be at this point. 

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I don't agree with you there. He's broadcasting his read. The party line here is being broadcast with different reads. The only unethical thing I see at this point is ANYONE saying this is totally clear and certain about any reading, Objectively no matter how confident some people are talking -- IT IS NOT.

Oh come on man.. he's not your average Joe who just happens to have an opinion. He's someone who others will sit up and take notice of and someone who makes money on people sitting up and taking notice. Its irresponsible at best. That video will drum up so much business for him/them as a direct result of the fearmongering and confusion in his vid. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the ethics of it.

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm glad you're confident. I'm not and I think it's folly for ANYONE to be at this point. 

 

I'm not confident about anything.... I'm just reading what's in the actual documents that have surfaced, and struggling to understand what they're likely to mean.

 

All I know is, thus far, none of those documents reference regular O visas at all or anything about marriage extensions of stay.

 

That doesn't mean, however, that the authorities might not have some additional plans in the works...and some farang folks here happen to have heard or otherwise encountered details of what that might involve.  Or...maybe they're just speculating without any specific knowledge. Who knows....

 

 

 

 

Just now, lupin said:

Oh come on man.. he's not your average Joe who just happens to have an opinion. He's someone who others will sit up and take notice of and someone who makes money on people sitting up and taking notice. Its irresponsible at best. That video will drum up so much business for him/them as a direct result of the fearmongering and confusion in his vid. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the ethics of it.

So it's a conspiracy thing then, huh? I'm not saying he's right but I'm not as cynical as you are about his videos. I think he tries to sincerely give good information just as some of our experts here do. I can understand people hating on him because they don't LIKE his interpretations. I don't LIKE his interpretations. But even without his videos, I would find it unethical to broadcast total CERTAINTY about what these already done changes actually will mean until enough time passes so that we can SEE in real life what has changed.

On 10/14/2019 at 8:41 AM, oznomad said:

OA visa holders often already have insurance that more than covers the requirements of 400k / 40k

You may be right but I will disagree with this based on my interaction.

In fact, of the people I have asked who are here in their 60's and 70's, I do not know personally of one other person who has insurance.  I do at a hefty Aetna premium.

 

To add, some are under the wrong impression Medicare will cover them here. 

 

400,000 is not a lot but some research I did shows it covers more then people may think depending on the hospital they choose.

 

18 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Wouldn't surprise me if the Agents got some tricks for this as well.

Of course they do.

And, the price just went up another 5,000 b.

5 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I spoke to the Immigration advice line on 1178 this morning.

I've just return from my local IO (around the corner) in Roi Et.

 

Both gave the identical answer to my questions, which were;

Q. If I have a current valid O-A Visa, or a last 1 year entry from an O-A Visa, that has now expired, is medical Insurance required to obtain an extension based on retirement.

A. If your applying for your very first extension after 31st October, (from a previous entry of an O-A Visa) then yes, proof of medical Insurance is required.

 

Q. If I previously held an O-A Visa, but have already been granted an extension based on retirement, is proof of medical Insurance required.

A. No, if any permission to stay from an O-A Visa entry has previously expired and you've already extended your permission to stay based on retirement, then medical Insurance is not required.

 

That now makes sense why it was included in internal Immigrations orders pertaining to criteria for extensions of stay.

Tanoshi,

 

   Great info....thanks.  However, after reading your post above and then the ensuring posts between you and ubonjoe I'm not sure I fully understand how the guidance you were given would apply to my situation.  So, let me pose my situation & question to you for your answer based on the info you received from immigration.

 

Situation:  I originally entered Thailand in Oct 2008 on an O-A Visa.  In Sep 2009 I went and got an retirement extension of stay.  That was my first retirement extension of stay and I'm now on my 11th retirement extension of stay that originally started off with my O-A visa back in 2008 as mentioned.  My current retirement extension of stay is good till early Oct 2020. 

 

So, based on my situation come Sep 2020 when I apply to renew my retirement extension of stay will insurance be a requirement for me since I originally started off with an OA visa back in 2008?   

 

My understanding from your post above is the answer is No....I would not require insurance.  But as mentioned as I read the ensuring posts from you and ubonjoe I'm no longer sure I'm correctly understanding what you described above.   Thanks. 

2 hours ago, lupin said:

ep.. said something similar the other day.

If the stated goal is to have 50+ long stay visitors in Thailand covered by health insurance. Then I agree it makes no sense at all to limit this specifically and only to O A visas obtained outside the kingdom and then possibly extensions of only those OAs,  then ignore all others on other types of NON O,  and in doing so, create a clear loophole for those over 50 to skirt the stated goal.

It has been labelled a 'pilot project' a term used by one of the authorities quoted in the media.

 

IMO- they want to see how many people will continue to get an O-A Visa and purchase the insurance and what effect if any there is on non paid hospital expenses.  

 

They must realize the failure of the O-X to attract hardly any interest.  They will soon find out that the O-A will be in the same boat and that unpaid hospital bills will increase, simply because  those on retirement Visas or extensions are not the problem. 

 

Even if one believed there were 80,000 people on a retirement O-A (which I don't believe) there are almost 40 million 'tourists' that arrive.  The law of averages would mean that  many more of the tourist arrivals will  fall; get run over; or injured in some way and this group is the one most likely to do a 'runner' on a hospital bill.  The long term expat has a firm address in Thailand; visits Immigration 4 times a year to confirm their address and would be easily found to be presented with hospital bill

 

The whole issue is a smoke and mirrors exercise fueled by doctors/adminstrators in the Ministry of Health who want to force insurance on expats at a high cost with little coverage.  If today- I purchased  the Thai policy- at 400K/40K coverage and then got really  sick with a catastrophic illlness- and was presented with a one million baht bill- I would still be short the difference. I would have to pay and I wouldn't be running away because as most expats-Thailand is our home.

 

If the powers that be truly wanted to make insurance mandatory due to non paid bills- they would come up with a variety of affordable coverages for everyone- not forcing a separate pool for people 50  - and over.   This is pure incompetence and  IMO solves nothing except generating income for a select group.

He's making a BIG jump when his only rationale for it was that the OA is a subcat of NON O... therefore all NON O may be subject to the requirement. I think such a claim in a 10 min video when things ARE NOT CLEAR is extremely irresponsible and a hell of a reach.

Agreed.

If he were to say that the Cabinet Resolution could apply to all Cat O then yes, has a point....which only means the legal framework exists to do so. But the pilice order clearly doecifies only O-A.



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

Time will tell... in the next few months, we should start seeing actual first-hand reports on whether it's only for new Non O-A visas or whether it applies to those who are applying for an extension who had (pre-Oct 31) O-A visas or whether it will also be applied to those who are applying for extensions (retirement) who previously had Non-O visas. Will hope for the best for everyone's sake...

16 minutes ago, Pib said:

So, based on my situation come Sep 2020 when I apply to renew my retirement extension of stay will insurance be a requirement for me since I originally started off with an OA visa back in 2008? 

No Insurance required.

You've already extended your permission of stay from a 1 year entry of an O-A Visa.

 

1 minute ago, Tanoshi said:

No Insurance required.

You've already extended your permission of stay from a 1 year entry of an O-A Visa.

 

I would however suggest you ask your local IO ahead of time just to be sure as there have been reports that some places say differently.  And post here what they say.

They should have high deductible health insurance like 250K BHT. Put the money in the bank and then buy a meaningful insurance with at least twovmillion coverage. Coverage does not begin untill you have used up your deductible.

 

In the USA. it is called catastrophic insurance. It comes with a tax deductible HSA account  with its own master card. You tax deductible money in HSA account within IRS limit. The ACA laws mandated no limit. Hopever, recently Trump has removed the no limit mandate but those insruance cant be sold in ACA exchange. 

It does not have any restirctions about US residency. But Outside USA one can only visit hospital for emergency only

 

 

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

Wouldn't surprise me if the Agents got some tricks for this as well.

There will agents for visas standing right next to agents for insurance at Immigration.

I believe this is being misinterpreted.

Q. If I previously held an O-A Visa, but have already been granted an extension based on retirement, is proof of medical Insurance required.

A. No, if any permission to stay from an O-A Visa entry has previously expired and you've already extended your permission to stay based on retirement, then medical Insurance is not required.

Current permissions of stay do not require Medical Insurance. You will not need to rush out and buy Insurance. 'You have already extended and have a 'current' permission to stay'. That is your 'Current' permission. Not future permission when you extend again.

5 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

No Insurance required.

You've already extended your permission of stay from a 1 year entry of an O-A Visa.

 

No you haven't. Only for your current extension.

Just now, Sheryl said:

I would however suggest you ask your local IO ahead of time just to be sure as there have been reports that some places say differently.  And post here what they say.

My serving immigration office is CW (Bangkok).  Since my extension of stay is good thru early Oct 2020 I'm sure my answer will come from folks applying for extension of stay at CW with an old O-A as the basis for the extensions.  That answer should become clear in Nov when the order is in full effect and we start getting reports.

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I would however suggest you ask your local IO ahead of time just to be sure as there have been reports that some places say differently.  And post here what they say.

I'd recommend anyone in this position makes their own enquiries at their respect offices and repot back to build a picture. 

1 hour ago, lupin said:

I agree entirely... which is why they should not have made the video at all

From his appearance and the haphazard nature of his presentation (reaching for words, admitting he doesn't read or speak Thai, and flipping back and forth through a bunch of loose pieces of paper) I am reluctant to put much faith in this lawyer's interpretations. 

Whatever immigration has implemented, I think they would soon find out it is not adequate and loophole exists to avoid it. Then they will start making more changes.

 

1. Assume it only applies to O-A and no extension at all.

People will start changing their visa type by leaving the country and entering on a visa exemept and then changing to Non-O/extrnsion inside Thailand. It is a no brainer. And if Thai immigration has indeed assume the law to be same as 1 above, then it will reinforce my beleif that Thais are least inteligent people on earth.

On 10/14/2019 at 12:50 PM, blackcabsaid:

 

Work permit holders that work in businesses and pay Social Fund contributions are coveredby the Thai Social Fund system, the same as Thai citizens.

 

I would imagine that work permit holders in this category world be the last tobe requiredto have insurance as the Thai government already covers them.

 

I'm not entirely sure if teachers with work permits are covered in the same way however.

I am fully covered by the Thai SS System as a Non O Retirement Visa holder.  My medical costs run in the $1,000/month range after a severe motorcycle accident in Thailand in 2013 that forced me to stop working full-time.  There is a PRIVATE SS fund you can make the SAME payments you did as a WP holder and it covers me just as it did when I was the MD of my companies.  I do not know if they will allow SS system fund coverage tobe used, but if it doesn't, looks like I am gone from LOS next June 2020.  Even my mother-in-law only has one problem at 73 years old, slightly high blood pressure.  She is Thai, and CANNOT obtain Thai healthcare coverage.  Another crazy demand from us retirees that makes No sense. Prayutdoesn't know how to create an economy, so he just increases taxes and rates on everything. 

 

I have been covered for 6+ years under SS Private fund.  I'm not going to go out and buy more insurance.  I have a Thai SS Insurance card, and it pays far more than any healthcare plan would. 

27 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

I'd recommend anyone in this position makes their own enquiries at their respect offices and repot back to build a picture. 

Check your PM's.

It’s really not that difficult.

 

1st read this - it has pictures! Check against what you have in your passport, then read it again.

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1102516-mandatory-health-insurance-for-over-50s-in-thailand-only-affects-those-on-non-immigrant-visa-o-a/

 

2nd read this - But only if you are sure you are “non-immigrant visa o-a”. You can understand what, who and how are trying to make money off you. And yes, good luck obtaining that foreign insurance certificate, and having it accepted by Immigration.

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1127990-mandatory-health-insurance-due-for-long-stay-tourists/

 

@PunkRockerGuy That's a good point. Those individuals who elected to carry on paying for Thai Social Fund payments after holding a work permit should also be covered.

 

I wonder if the government will accept this.

35 minutes ago, blackcab said:

[mention=198985]PunkRockerGuy[/mention] That's a good point. Those individuals who elected to carry on paying for Thai Social Fund payments after holding a work permit should also be covered.
 
I wonder if the government will accept this.

No process for doing so at present. I doubt it even occurred to the people who developed the police order.

Now, someone could certainly try presenting proof of SS cover (a letter from SS office) instead of the mandated insurance certificate. Depending on the IO, this might or might not work. You would likely need to discuss with the senior officer (who have some discretionary powers) and it can be hard in many places to get past the gate keepers/ front office staff.

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

1 hour ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I believe this is being misinterpreted.

Q. If I previously held an O-A Visa, but have already been granted an extension based on retirement, is proof of medical Insurance required.

A. No, if any permission to stay from an O-A Visa entry has previously expired and you've already extended your permission to stay based on retirement, then medical Insurance is not required.

Current permissions of stay do not require Medical Insurance. You will not need to rush out and buy Insurance. 'You have already extended and have a 'current' permission to stay'. That is your 'Current' permission. Not future permission when you extend again.

It wasn't misinterpreted, I even wrote dated examples out.

The permission to stay for 1 year from an O-A visa and permission to stay from an extension based on retirement are different, in that they are given for different reasons.

One is subject to the conditions set by the type of valid Visa, the other is subject to the conditions set by the local Immigration rules.

 

The examples were thus.

O-A issued and entry Jan 2018, with a second entry Jan 2019 with permission to stay until Jan 2020.

In that scenario the very first extension of permission to stay based on retirement will be effective after 31st October, therefore Insurance will be requested.

O-A issued and entry Jan 2017, with a second entry Jan 2018 with permission to stay granted until Jan 2019.

In Jan 2019 you extended your permission to stay based on the requirements and criteria set out in Police orders.

In Jan 2020 no Insurance is requested because you previously extended on the basis of retirement before the amendment became effective on 31st Oct 2019.

 

Those were the examples and the answers I previously posted to the above question.

 

We will have to wait until after October 31st to see whom and under what criteria is affected for a definitive answer, but I'd guess as usual we'll have different offices with different interpretations.

 

I can still interpret it with two different meanings, even after the explanation I received.

 

 

1 hour ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I believe this is being misinterpreted.

Q. If I previously held an O-A Visa, but have already been granted an extension based on retirement, is proof of medical Insurance required.

A. No, if any permission to stay from an O-A Visa entry has previously expired and you've already extended your permission to stay based on retirement, then medical Insurance is not required.

Current permissions of stay do not require Medical Insurance. You will not need to rush out and buy Insurance. 'You have already extended and have a 'current' permission to stay'. That is your 'Current' permission. Not future permission when you extend again.

 

When we start talking like this above...I think it's critical to distinguish between the terms "permission to stay" vs. "extension of stay."

 

AFAIK in the context of this discussion...

 

--"permission to stay" is what you get upon entering Thailand based on a still valid visa like the O-A, which typically would be a one-year permission to stay.

 

--"extension of stay" is what you get from Thai Immigration upon applying based on retirement status or marriage to a Thai. Also typically one year. But not necessarily based on having a valid visa at the time of issuance. Since extensions of stay can be granted annually in succession long after an actual visa has expired.

 

So, again AFAIK, someone with a still valid visa like an O-A is getting a permission to stay when they arrive in Thailand and are given a one year period. If they enter again later on that same O-A visa, they're given another permission to stay of another year.

 

But after the validity of the visa has expired and any of those visa-based permission to stays have run their course, it's either applying for and getting a new visa that starts the process all over again. Or, switching to an "extension of stay" that cycles annually. And the two things are not the same.