Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, Pib said:

- So, now that I have had the chance to set down with a supervisory level immigration officer at CW in the very section that processes extension application....the section that has given me 11 extensions of stay so far, I'm fully, 100% convinced the insurance requirement applies to OAs issued "before, on, or after 31 Oct 2019."   No grandfathering.   And I will need to get a Non-O before my current extension of stay expires in late 2020 in order to avoid the insurance requirement.  

 

Thanks for the extra effort and diligence, Pib!!! 

 

It's BAD news, but at least it's very good to get some confirmation from Chaengwattana, in addition to all the various similar reports that have been cropping up from the various outlying Immigration offices.

 

PS - How did you manage to get in to talk to the extensions officer and then the supervisor there, when you didn't have an extension matter for them to consider?

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, Pib said:

- She said my only option to avoid the insurance requirement was to switch to a Non-O visa.  We talk for 5 or so minutes on the two ways to do that...either at a Thai embassy outside of Thailand or going the Exempt to Non O method within Thailand.  

 

I wonder what all this would mean for a prior O-A holder who's then switched to a marriage extension along the way?

 

I'm guessing they'd say same same for marriage extension or retirement extension holder today....so long as either of them date back go an O-A visa.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Thanks for the extra effort and diligence, Pib!!! 

 

It's BAD news, but at least it's very good to get some confirmation from Chaengwattana, in addition to all the various similar reports that have been cropping up from the various outlying Immigration offices.

 

PS - How did you manage to get in to talk to the extensions officer and then the supervisor there, when you didn't have an extension matter for them to consider?

 

I simply got a queue number for the L section.  Yes, almost all people going to the L section is to apply for an extension but I went to ask questions.  And the L section officers were very accommodating on answering those questions.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, Pib said:

I simply got a queue number for the L section.  Yes, almost all people going to the L section is to apply for an extension but I went to ask questions.  And the L section officers were very accommodating on answering those questions.

 

I asked, because usually, the front desk officers who hand out the queue tickets seem to give at least a cursory look at your passport and want to see you have some version of the proper application documents.

 

[Pib]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I wonder what all this would mean for a prior O-A holder who's then switched to a marriage extension along the way?

 

I didn't ask....wish I had...seems a person always forgets to ask certain questions....that will need to be a question for another visit to CW by someone.   I will be going back in early Nov to pickup an Address Confirmation doc....I may ask then if it's not answered before by someone. 

[Pib]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I asked, because usually, the front desk officers who hand out the queue tickets seem to give at least a cursory look at your passport and want to see you have some version of the proper application documents.

Yeap...I know.  I first asked a representative at the entrance Info Desk where you ask what forms to use, get forms to fill out, etc.  The reps said she did not know the answer and I would need to talk to the L section.  I then went to the queue counter...said I need to ask questions about the new insurance requirement....the rep gave me a queue number to the L section just like if I was apply for my annual extension of stay.

 

While waiting to talk to an L section officer, I walked around all of immigration...the entrance....all the different sections with extra emphasis on the L section looking for posters or anything announcing the new requirement. Looking everywhere except in the bathrooms. Nothing seen.  

[Jingthing]

 
It's not "old news" when the quasi-official advice being dispensed from ThaiVisa continues to be that retirement extensions of stay from O-A visas won't be impacted at all.

Yes I noticed that too.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes I noticed that too.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

 

And now, based on Pib's visit to CW above, that advice re retirement extensions stemming from past O-A visas pretty clearly is turning out to be wrong.... as many here had been sensing already.

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

 
And now, based on Pib's visit to CW above, that advice re retirement extensions stemming from past O-A visas pretty clearly is turning out to be wrong.... as many here had been sensing already.
 

Yes but apparently the police order indicates differently.

Go figure!

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, Pib said:

I first asked a representative at the entrance Info Desk where you ask what forms to use, get forms to fill out, etc.  The reps said she did not know the answer

 

The last time I had occasion to visit the "Non-Info Desk" at CW Immigration, I was trying to ask if they had an EN version of the marriage extension of stay requirements....

 

And between the student intern working there and then the uniformed Thai officer she passed me off to, they kept trying to give me a TM-7 form... Never got past that with them. They were HOPELESS!!!

 

[Sheryl]

my biggest worry is that I am leaving the country for five days in mid November, what are the chances they don't let me in because of lack of insurance, could get ugly, I already have my re-entry permit

Coming in on a re-entry permit does not generate a new permission to stay so should not be an issue.

Where there is a question and conflicting policies is (1) making a new entry on a current OA visa issued prior to Oct 31 (thus getting a new 1 year permission to stay) and (2) getting an in-country extension of stay after having entered on a (now expired) OA visa, likewise leading to a new 1 year permission to stay.

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

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, flexomike said:

my biggest worry is that I am leaving the country for five days in mid November, what are the chances they don't let me in because of lack of insurance, could get ugly, I already have my re-entry permit

On entry to the country it only applies to those that have gotten a OA visa since the new requirement went into effect.

Also you would not be entering with a valid OA visa, Just a re-entry permit for a extension extension of stay.

[Martyp]

The nonsensical aspect of Pib’s post is that they told him that if he gets a non-O and then an extension of stay then his past history magically goes away and Thailand no longer considers him a risk as a hospital fee runner.

[rumak]

21 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

with the single exception of the health insurance. It makes no sense to differentiate the 2. 

uhhh.......  what about the  "single exception"   ?     isn't that the point ?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Martyp said:

The nonsensical aspect of Pib’s post is that they told him that if he gets a non-O and then an extension of stay then his past history magically goes away and Thailand no longer considers him a risk as a hospital fee runner.

Yes indeed and that is why it is not in the slightest bit paranoid to think that the insurance coverage requirement may sooner or later migrate to include those on retirement extensions with base O visas. It's exactly the same demographic on exactly the same basis for permissions to stay -- annual retirement extensions. 

[LivinLOS]

Just now, rumak said:

uhhh.......  what about the  "single exception"   ?     isn't that the point ?

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

[ubonjoe]

10 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Where there is a question and conflicting policies is (1) making a new entry on a current OA visa issued prior to Oct 31 (thus getting a new 1 year permission to stay) and (2) getting an in-country extension of stay after having entered on a (now expired) OA visa, likewise leading to a new 1 year permission to stay.

It seem clear in the last memo in the English part of the order it is only for new OA visa holders issued after the 31st who would have a remark on their visa with the insurance expiration date but if less than a year they would only get a entry to the date the insurance expires.

 

[LivinLOS]

13 hours ago, saengd said:

Perhaps you meant to write that they always were tolerated by Immigration, until now! Objectively, do you really think that back to back O-A's for two years each at a time is the spirit of what was intended, especially when there is an extension option that is readily and easily available? This whole issue is about the reluctance or inability of people to bring 800k into the country and the ways they have found to avoid having to do so.

 

Some of us spend large or frequent parts of the year outside the country, for work or pleasure. 

As you can only extend in the last month of the permission to stay it prevents us from extending here. I have no problem whatsoever showing funds, I do however have a problem spending >120 days in one place. 

[rumak]

3 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

uhhh,   one more  "exception".     the slight matter that one requires  800k  in the bank .   This has already been pointed out to you.   are you paying attention,  or just don't care ?

[ubonjoe]

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

[LivinLOS]

1 minute ago, rumak said:

uhhh,   one more  "exception".     the slight matter that one requires  800k  in the bank .   This has already been pointed out to you.   are you paying attention,  or just don't care ?

Sigh* Again, for the hard of comprehension.. For EXTENSIONS of stay based on retirement.

 

Joe Bloggs 75 years old, entered on an OA, extending his permission of stay based on retirement, has 800k in the bank, needs insurance. 

 

Joseph Briggs 75 years old, entered on an O, extending his permission of stay based on retirement, has 800k in the bank, doesnt need insurance.

 

That makes no logical sense.. They are identical applicants, with identical requirements, except for the one issue of insurance. 

 

Clear now ?? 

[LivinLOS]

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Agree.. 

 

It either should apply to none (only the initial obraining of a visa outside the country) or all (all retirement class extensions). 

 

We believed it was the former, it is yet to determine if it will be or not. 

[LivinLOS]

11 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

Saying it was applicable to O-A visa only.

 

 

Right.. 

 

But we still have mods, including just yesterday posts from yourself, saying it doesnt apply to ANY extensions. 

 

Clearly as this was at an immigration office incountry, not a visa or consulate outside the kingdom, this was about about extensions of OA visa generated permissions of stay. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by LivinLOS

[Exploring Thailand]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded. If that's the case it would better if it said for "the" granted length of stay, meaning that your current extension based is unaffected, but if you apply for a new one, then the new rules will apply.

[erymax]

7 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Joe this refers to permission of stay after one year visa not extension of stay. IMO. The granted length of stay is the second year after visa expires.

[moogradod]

25 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

It makes no sense that one class has a restriction and yet the absolute identical retiree applicant in every other respect, doesn need insurance. 

 

Either it should apply to all retirement extensions or none of them. 

Instead of trying to point out what is logical why you and others here are not just happy for anybody not affected, regardless of the reason ?

 

"Look, look, I have found someone which seems not be affected  but should be - please look that he will be punished in the same way that everybody (me) is - it would be logical...."

 

This mind set makes me feel sad.

Edited October 18, 2019 by moogradod

[BertM]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

Today I went to the Chaeng Wattana (Bangkok) immigration Office (my servicing office) to ask about the insurance requirement.  Like will it apply to me....I'm now on my 11th retirement extension of stay with an underlying OA Visa from 2008.

 

I got to set down with an immigration officer in the Long Stay Section which is the section where a person goes to apply for their annual extension of stay....like I have done 11 times with the 11th time being just a few months ago.  

 

I ask the officer I want to know if the insurance requirement applies in my situation...want more info on the insurance requirement.  I do not say I have an OA visa from Christmas past.  The officer looks at my numerous extension of stay stamps in my passport and looks for the supporting visa in the passport. When she sees it's an OA visa she makes a facial expression indicating she going to give me bad news.  But instead she says follow me and leads me over to another immigration officer to talk to.  I assume this officer to be of the supervisory type as she's in her 50's and occupying the desk that other immigration officers take docs to for final review and approval....final sign off...like the boss for the section. 

 

 

-  For the next 10 to 15 minutes I talk to this officer and she spoke pretty good English.  Once again this officer started scanning thru my numerous extension of stay stamps....back to the OA visa stamp.  And when seeing the OA visa from 2008 there is the bad news is coming facial expression again.  She said, "Yes I will be required to have insurance to extend again."   The new requirement applies all all OA visas issued "before, on, or after" 31 Oct 2019.  No grandfathering....it even applied to my 2008 OA visa.  

 

-  During those 10 to 15 minutes I asked the question at least 3 times in various forms like pointing out my OA visa is from 2008...."an old visa"....I've got 11 extension of stay since that 2008 OA visa expired---she said that didn't make a difference.  The new rule did not apply just to OAs issued after 31 Oct 2019....it applied to all OAs...past, current, and future.

 

- She said my only option to avoid the insurance requirement was to switch to a Non-O visa.  We talk for 5 or so minutes on the two ways to do that...either at a Thai embassy outside of Thailand or going the Exempt to Non O method within Thailand.  

 

- So, now that I have had the chance to set down with a supervisory level immigration officer at CW in the very section that processes extension application....the section that has given me 11 extensions of stay so far, I'm fully, 100% convinced the insurance requirement applies to OAs issued "before, on, or after 31 Oct 2019."   No grandfathering.   And I will need to get a Non-O before my current extension of stay expires in late 2020 in order to avoid the insurance requirement.  

 

-  Yeap, I'm now 100% convinced.  And what I was told at CW is in sync with what some other immigration offices like Chiang Mai are telling people.  At least now I will not be reading hundreds of more posts where different people are expressing their opinion on this issue since I've now heard it from the horse's mouth--a CW supervisory level immigration officer....my servicing immigration office.  Didn't get the answer I wanted to hear, but I guess that is life. 

 

- This change is surely going to have a huge negative impact on many especially since the new requirement does not accept foreign medical insurance....foreign medical insurance that is better and lower cost than Thai insurance. 

 

 

Pib,

Would you be so kind as to start a new Topic with this exact story (cut & paste) so that people do not need to read thru 330 posts... And, thanks so much for taking the initiative and time to go do this... Kindly...

[LivinLOS]

7 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

I take it you haven't been reading the reports.

 

Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Koh Samui, Prachinburi and I think a few others are reported to say it applies for any extension of stay of someone who entered under an O-A.

 

Other IOs in other places say differently.

 

remains to be seen if central Imm will do anything to clarify matters.

 

Has anyone been compiling any list of which offices are confirming that an extension of stay of an OA does NOT need insurance ?? 

 

We have been highlighting the reports of ones who say it is required, including apparently a operator on the central phone advice line, but not seen any list of ones who currently say it isnt needed. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Has anyone been compiling any list of which offices are confirming that an extension of stay of an OA does NOT need insurance ?? 

 

We have been highlighting the reports of ones who say it is required, including apparently a operator on the central phone advice line, but not seen any list of ones who currently say it isnt needed. 

 

I don't recall seeing ANY of the "not required" for O-A-origin extensions of stay variety. Just the half dozen or so Sheryl recapped above saying that insurance will be required for O-A-origin extensions, along with a report from the 1178 Immigration Hotline, and now Pib's confirming visit report from BKK CW Immigration.

 

I believe one difference between Tanoshi's prior report and Pib's report today is:

 

--I believe Tanoshi's report was that people already on extensions of stay with O-A origins would not be impacted, but people going for their first and future extensions base on O-As would be...

 

--Whereas the version Pib received at CW Immigration was that insurance will be required for all future extensions of stay with the origin on O-A visas, regardless of when the O-A visa was issued.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[The Man Who Sold the World]

It isn't in effect yet. Come October 31/November 1 actual cases will be reported on. 

Dealing with personal interpretations of an English translation of a Thai language document.

 

My personal belief is this is on the order of "grandfathering" in the insurance regulation. Face it. Factual that persons over the age of 65/70 will find it impossible to procure insurance from the companies listed. The companies all seem to reserve the right to cancel, or not insure "certain" individuals. If these regulations are applied across the board there will be collateral damage in the form of "uninsurable" persons who have established families and dependents. These persons will be forced to leave their families.

 

Again, my personal belief is the Thai Government intends to allow those who are already here to stay. And, I believe the Thai government will require "new" visa procurers to purchase and maintain insurance during their stay in Thailand.

 

Do not let your "permission to stay" expire.