Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

[Maestro]

4 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

also re: grandfathering in every other document it seems to have its own section and yet with this document there is none

 

sorry guys i think you are clutching at straws, this is not being grandfathered, IMO all OAs must have insurance upon entry or extension after tomorrow whenever they were granted

 

What purpose, then, would clause 2.22(7) have?

 

Incidentally, it just occurred to me that the grandfathered lower financial requirements for the retirement extensions are not in Police Order 248/2562. I wonder if this was done intentionally, as it is in no way related to the declared purpose of requiring health insurance.

 

What an awful mess!

[The Man Who Sold the World]

How the resolution to the police order is interpreted and enforced as it applies to us (those already in Thailand) remains with the individual Immigration Office. We will know shortly as actual experiences are provided.

 

The real problem I see is; most expats are not adverse to purchasing valid medical insurance policies - it does make sense. The problem is there are many who will not be able to purchase medical insurance due to age, and due to pre-existing condition exclusions. Many, if not all of the "qualified" Thai Insurance Policy providers reserve the right to raise premiums and deny coverage without recourse. 

 

And the biggest problem (and easiest solution to this issue) is there is NO "self-insurance" provision. 

 

I, along with many others "Lock-Up" THB 400k year round and THB 800k for five months. I am more than willing to put an additional THB 440k into a "Medical Only" account. i.e. I have the means to self-insure and am more than willing to prove it. 

 

I currently carry an expat USD $1M medical insurance policy that covers me anywhere in the world but is not accepted due to a) no outpatient, and, b) not from a Thai company. If I use the policy they will immediately send ANY Thai hospital a "letter of guarantee" concerning payment of my medical bills up to USD $1M equivalent. Yet, this policy does not meet the Thai provisions.  

[GeorgeCross]

7 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

How the resolution to the police order is interpreted and enforced as it applies to us (those already in Thailand) remains with the individual Immigration Office. We will know shortly as actual experiences are provided.

 

The real problem I see is; most expats are not adverse to purchasing valid medical insurance policies - it does make sense. The problem is there are many who will not be able to purchase medical insurance due to age, and due to pre-existing condition exclusions. Many, if not all of the "qualified" Thai Insurance Policy providers reserve the right to raise premiums and deny coverage without recourse. 

 

And the biggest problem (and easiest solution to this issue) is there is NO "self-insurance" provision. 

 

I, along with many others "Lock-Up" THB 400k year round and THB 800k for five months. I am more than willing to put an additional THB 440k into a "Medical Only" account. i.e. I have the means to self-insure and am more than willing to prove it. 

 

I currently carry an expat USD $1M medical insurance policy that covers me anywhere in the world but is not accepted due to a) no outpatient, and, b) not from a Thai company. If I use the policy they will immediately send ANY Thai hospital a "letter of guarantee" concerning payment of my medical bills up to USD $1M equivalent. Yet, this policy does not meet the Thai provisions.  

 

yes, by effectively not allowing self insurance our future fates are left in the hands of the whims of 13 insurance companies and after 75 just the one who is renewing you. just imagine the company decides you are too sick to insure next year. yep home for you. 

 

i have no idea how anyone can live their lives like that it will be constant worry.

 

 

[Thaidream]

5 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

I currently carry an expat USD $1M medical insurance policy that covers me anywhere in the world but is not accepted due to a) no outpatient, and, b) not from a Thai company. If I use the policy they will immediately send ANY Thai hospital a "letter of guarantee" concerning payment of my medical bills up to USD $1M equivalent. Yet, this policy does not meet the Thai provisions.

While I would agree that medical insurance is  a good thing- it must be fairly priced and not directed at only a certain age group which puts those people in a group by themselves and causes high premiums

 

In addition- anyone like yourself who already has  insurance along with retired people from the military and those of us on military disability should not be required to purchase a high priced policy with low coverage. We already have insurance.

 

In addition-  a retiree who came to Thailand decades ago and now is age 75 up cannot purchase any medical insurance in Thailand due to age.   In  Malaysia's retierment scheme- insurance is required unless a person cannot obtain it- then it is waived. If something is manadatory, there always must be a priovision for those who cannot get it.

 

In Mexico after a certain period of time- a foreign retiree can then buy into the Social Security Scheme and get full coverage at reasonable rates.

 

Unless Thailand  grandfathers everyone on an O-A prior to 31 October 2019- there will be chaos and possibly heartbreak for many.  Octanagerians being refused extensions;  others scrambling to  Thai Embassies apply for new O Visas; others converting tourist Visas.  This would be the height of unfairness and I am sure draw considerable negative commentary in the press and social media.

 

I am still hopeful that those who hold the power will realize that grandfathering is the only way anyone of this is fair or  will work.

[Pib]

8 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

yes, by effectively not allowing self insurance our future fates are left in the hands of the whims of 13 insurance companies and after 75 just the one who is renewing you. just imagine the company decides you are too sick to insure next year. yep home for you. 

 

i have no idea how anyone can live their lives like that it will be constant worry.

It could simply be the govt has made the decision it does not want "old" farangs anymore...but the govt would never admit such.  Sounds cruel but could very well be true.

[illiterate]

On 10/16/2019 at 2:53 PM, john terry1001 said:

OK, have read this bit

 

but

 

Can't find this bit quoted anywhere in the police order

 

So you got the exact opposite answer to Tanochi when he asked at both his local Imm Office and the Immigration call centre in Bangkok.

 

So this really shows the answer you and Tanochi got is still just speculation. One of the official replies you both received as got to be wrong.

That may be true, but when you corroborate what he has said with what ubon joe had been stating, it is enough man. You are not going to get much more solid info that that. Relax. 

[Thaidream]

12 minutes ago, Pib said:

t could simply be the govt has made the decision it does not want "old" farangs anymore...but the govt would never admit such.  Sounds cruel but could very well be true.

It could very well be that they want to reduce the number of people coming to Thailand to retire but as a responsible entity- you have to  allow those who are already here and came in years ago under a different set of regulations the possiblity of remaining.  Anything less thant that is cruel and heartless and IMO illegal.  Does the Thai Government really want to be responsbile for  aging  westerners denied extensions of stay and being deported to an unknon fate.   Some of these people have no family at all in the birth country.

 

No responsible entity would enact a law or regulation that was retroactive. 

[GeorgeCross]

2 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

It could very well be that they want to reduce the number of people coming to Thailand to retire but as a responsible entity- you have to  allow those who are already here and came in years ago under a different set of regulations the possiblity of remaining.  Anything less thant that is cruel and heartless and IMO illegal.  Does the Thai Government really want to be responsbile for  aging  westerners denied extensions of stay and being deported to an unknon fate.   Some of these people have no family at all in the birth country.

 

No responsible entity would enact a law or regulation that was retroactive. 

 

well they have a recent history of doing just so. recent example being 800K in the bank to 800K in the bank for half year and 400K for the rest. nothing retroactive there. why would adding an extra document be any different? in their eyes you either qualify or it's your choice/problem. 

 

 

[AussieBob18]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

It could very well be that they want to reduce the number of people coming to Thailand to retire but as a responsible entity- you have to  allow those who are already here and came in years ago under a different set of regulations the possiblity of remaining.  Anything less thant that is cruel and heartless and IMO illegal.  Does the Thai Government really want to be responsbile for  aging  westerners denied extensions of stay and being deported to an unknon fate.   Some of these people have no family at all in the birth country.

No responsible entity would enact a law or regulation that was retroactive. 

You used the phrase ' responsible entity' twice, but I dont think that it applies once to this mob. 

[AussieBob18]

1 minute ago, GeorgeCross said:

well they have a recent history of doing just so. recent example being 800K in the bank to 800K in the bank for half year and 400K for the rest. nothing retroactive there. why would adding an extra document be any different? in their eyes you either qualify or it's your choice/problem. 

100% correct.  To add more proof you only have to listen to what the Thai head of immigration said at that forum about TM30s.  He was directly asked why an Expat should pay the fines when they are renewing/extending, when they have no way of knowing if a Hotel they stayed at did not notify Immigration of them staying there.  The answer was:  "You have to pay.  That is the law."

[The Man Who Sold the World]

Regulations are always a double edged sword with collateral damage. 

 

If mandatory medical insurance is required across the board. Collateral damage falang with established families who cannot obtain medical insurance will be forced to "abandon" their Thai families. So, who pays the bills for the abandoned families? There are many uninsurable falang residents who do self insure and do spend considerable amounts of money paying for healthcare in Thailand. The hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. will lose this money. There are many falang in assisted care facilities who are not insurable - kick them out and their money goes with them.

 

So, in a nutshell, solving the unpaid medical bills (which are primarily tourists) by eliminating the aged retiree population will have a net zero or negative effect on the hospitals "bottom line". 

 

By the way, just how does a resident falang "skip out" on a hospital bill anyway? They always hit me up before I'm allowed to leave the facility.

[sirineou]

30 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

Regulations are always a double edged sword with collateral damage. 

 

If mandatory medical insurance is required across the board. Collateral damage falang with established families who cannot obtain medical insurance will be forced to "abandon" their Thai families. So, who pays the bills for the abandoned families? There are many uninsurable falang residents who do self insure and do spend considerable amounts of money paying for healthcare in Thailand. The hospitals, doctors, clinics, etc. will lose this money. There are many falang in assisted care facilities who are not insurable - kick them out and their money goes with them.

 

So, in a nutshell, solving the unpaid medical bills (which are primarily tourists) by eliminating the aged retiree population will have a net zero or negative effect on the hospitals "bottom line". 

 

By the way, just how does a resident falang "skip out" on a hospital bill anyway? They always hit me up before I'm allowed to leave the facility.

I was also confused and  I finally got a handle on this, with the help of some very nice members and their replies in this threads and a couple of PMs.

It seems that this whole issue is a "tempest in a teacup"  The insurance requirement  is only fo A-0 visas and not for extensions so , simply convert to an Non IM -O visa and you are good to go, We should really have insurance anyway , whether required or not, Or have the funds to self insure. But it eliminates the fear of being thrown out when older and unable to get insurance.

  Furthermore the insurance requirement does not apply to Non Imm -0 and therefore extensions to stay based on Marriage or family,  so breaking up families should not be a concern.

  Also the concern of the Thai authorities that uninsured expats are draining the system with their unpaid bills is a jock. In another thread the numbers were posted for 2018  ( dont quote me, but I think it was 680,000 cases and about 3mil bht which equates to an average 411 bht per case. I am sure the implementation of this new regulation is costing more than 3 mil bht 

Edited October 30, 2019 by sirineou

[GeorgeCross]

29 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

By the way, just how does a resident falang "skip out" on a hospital bill anyway? They always hit me up before I'm allowed to leave the facility.

 

well the most obvious way is by not leaving the hospital in a state to pay the bill either through never recovering or dieing

 

 

[GeorgeCross]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I was also confused and  I finally got a handle on this, with the help of some very nice members and their replies in this threads and a couple of PMs.

It seems that this whole issue is a "tempest in a teacup"  The insurance requirement  is only fo A-0 visas and not for extensions so , simply convert to an Non IM -O visa and you are good to go

 

assuming of course one is fit enough to make it to the border, a consulate and back again ????

 

as per:

 

33 minutes ago, The Man Who Sold the World said:

There are many falang in assisted care facilities who are not insurable

 

i have seen this first hand though one would hope they would be able to get some kind of medical exemption (too sick to fly or something)

 

[sirineou]

41 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

assuming of course one is fit enough to make it to the border, a consulate and back again ????

I am sure there are provisions for those who are not ambulatory .

  I know there is a very nice member in this forum who trough an accident is paraplegic, he would  be better equipped to address the above concern , but I don't think he goes to immigration for his Immigration related issues.

 

 

Edited October 30, 2019 by sirineou

[Maestro]

Together with the Police Order 548/2562 and the Immigration Bureau Order 300/2562, the Bureau of Immigration also published two memos.

 

Memorandum 0029.161/W 4603 dated 27.09.2019
This memorandum makes reference to the earlier Memorandum 0029.142/160 dated 14.01.2008 regarding the permission of stay not exceeding one year to be granted to foreigners arriving with an O-A visa and it is a guideline for immigration officials at arrival checkpoints how to deal with foreigners who arrive with an O-A visa from 31.10.2019 onwards. 

 

Available in the Thai original and an English translation:
Health insurance - Memorandum 0029.161-W 4603 dated 27.09.2019 - en.pdf

Health insurance - Memorandum 0029.161-W 4603 dated 27.09.2019 - th.pdf

 

Memorandum 0029.161/545 dated 01.10.2019
Only the Thai original of this memorandum is available. As far as I can see, it makes reference to the new health insurance requirement, and the Police Order 548/2562 and the Immigration Bureau Order 300/2562 regarding the amendment of clause 2.22 about the retirement extension. In paragraph 3 of the memorandum I see also a reference to the Memorandum 0029.161/W 4603.
Health insurance - Memorandum 0029.161-545 dated 01.10.2019 - th.pdf

[Maestro]

Has anyone seen a translation of the Bureau of Immigration’s Memorandum 0029.161/545 dated 01.10.2019?

[LivinLOS]

10 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Even the Thai version  uses the term -applies only to the O-A Visa...    However, an exact translation of the Thai text may reveal some of the nuances that were missed 

 

IMO- I just can't believe that this change is going to be applied retroactively to anyone who has an O-A Visa or extension prior to 31 Oct 2019.  The utter unfairness of applying it retroactively  creates diffuclt challenges for not only the expats but the Immigration offices.

And yet that is,  with almost unusual consistency,  what the offices around the country,  what the head office,  what the national phone helpline,  and what the legal order say it will do.  

[LivinLOS]

8 hours ago, Thaidream said:

 

No responsible entity would enact a law or regulation that was retroactive. 

But it's not retroactive,  it's going forward. 

 

Such is the nature of non immigrant status,  I have long argued the unfairness of not having a clear open route to naturalisation,  and many had told me what's the problem,  just obey your visa requirements and be happy etc etc. Some even applaud Thailand wishing our own countries let less in..

 

This is essentially the problem,  without a open achievable route,  almost all of us are less than one year from potentially failing whatever new clause is applied,  maybe or maybe not making the cut.  From about 03 when nothing was needed,  to years of visas just for asking for them, to shopping friendly consuls, to now.. that's a decade and a bit,  what does the next decade bring,  and the one after ??

[lkv]

29 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

that's a decade and a bit,  what does the next decade bring,  and the one after ??

Exactly so why bother with non O-X etc? Why waste money on scammy insurance.

 

Keep the investment in Thailand at the absolute minimum with non O with 800k or agent no 800K. (as some prefer).

 

Not sure where in Thailand you are, but if it becomes like Bangkok (which got to my head more than the visa issues, i.e police knocking at doors checking passports, urine tests, taxi/car stops and pocket searches), you will want to be gone, regardless of visa options.

 

 

[Pib]

Back on 18 Oct 2020 post #330 I described the results of my 10-15 minutes face-to-face conversation with a CW immigration officer where I asked repeatedly since I originally entered on a Non-OA visa in 2008 and have since got retirement extensions of stay 11 times, do I need insurance when I apply to extend again in 2020.  The answer was Yes.  Click on above date and post number to review my earlier post.  

 

Today just for the heck of it I called the immigration hot line at 1178 to ask the same question again.  Was only listening to elevator music for about 10 minutes before I got a rep....a rep that spoke good English.  The answer I got was I would "not" require insurance. 

 

I repeated the question to ensure the rep understood.  I stressed the point that I originally started with an OA visa.  The answer was no again.  Of course this goes against the majority of reports from immigration offices where they are saying insurance will be required if you have an old Non-OA....that is, what you originally got your ensuing retirement extensions of stay from.

 

I then asked has something changed over the last few days as a CW immigration told me Yes approx 10 days ago.  The hotline rep put me on hold to get some additional info and came back online about two minutes later and said again insurance would not be required but I should contact CW immigration at 02-141-7884 or 02-141-7890.  When calling those numbers they do not work....they immediately hangup....do not even ring once.

 

So, I'm left with what a CW immigration officer told me 10 days ago in a 10 minute face-to-face conversation that insurance would be required and what an immigration hotline 1178 rep just told me today in that insurance would not be required.  At this point in time I'm going to believe what the immigration office told me face-to-face 10 days ago vs the immigration hotline.  Plus I remember at least one post in this thread where someone called 1178, asked the question I asked, and was told Yes insurance will be required to renew your retirement extension of stay.

 

During the call today I also asked a second question that since I'm married to a Thai if I switch to a marriage extension of stay from a retirement extension of stay would insurance be required and keeping in mind my original Non-OA Retirement visa from 2008?  The answer was no insurance would be required.

 

Regarding the marriage extension of stay with a Non-OA from Christmas past involved, I wonder if it's really true that if you originally started with an OA visa, then got one or many retirement  extensions of stay over the years, but then decide to switch to a marriage extension of stay will insurance be required?  I know the police order section that deals with marriage extension of stay was not affected like the 2.22 Retirement section.

 

Gosh, how I wish we could all get solid, non-conflicting answers from the various immigration authorities.

[Maestro]

Cabinet,x Resolution of 2 April 2919, English translation, arranged by Jonathan Fairfield.

 

[LivinLOS]

11 minutes ago, Pib said:

Back on 18 Oct 2020 post #330 I described the results of my 10-15 minutes face-to-face conversation with a CW immigration officer where I asked repeatedly since I originally entered on a Non-OA visa in 2008 and have since got retirement extensions of stay 11 times, do I need insurance when I apply to extend again in 2020.  The answer was Yes.  Click on above date and post number to review my earlier post.  

 

Today just for the heck of it I called the immigration hot line at 1178 to ask the same question again.  Was only listening to elevator music for about 10 minutes before I got a rep....a rep that spoke good English.  The answer I got was I would "not" require insurance. 

 

I repeated the question to ensure the rep understood.  I stressed the point that I originally started with an OA visa.  The answer was no again.  Of course this goes against the majority of reports from immigration offices where they are saying insurance will be required if you have an old Non-OA....that is, what you originally got your ensuing retirement extensions of stay from.

 

I then asked has something changed over the last few days as a CW immigration told me Yes approx 10 days ago.  The hotline rep put me on hold to get some additional info and came back online about two minutes later and said again insurance would not be required but I should contact CW immigration at 02-141-7884 or 02-141-7890.  When calling those numbers they do not work....they immediately hangup....do not even ring once.

 

So, I'm left with what a CW immigration officer told me 10 days ago in a 10 minute face-to-face conversation that insurance would be required and what an immigration hotline 1178 rep just told me today in that insurance would not be required.  At this point in time I'm going to believe what the immigration office told me face-to-face 10 days ago vs the immigration hotline.  Plus I remember at least one post in this thread where someone called 1178, asked the question I asked, and was told Yes insurance will be required to renew your retirement extension of stay.

 

During the call today I also asked a second question that since I'm married to a Thai if I switch to a marriage extension of stay from a retirement extension of stay would insurance be required and keeping in mind my original Non-OA Retirement visa from 2008?  The answer was no insurance would be required.

 

Regarding the marriage extension of stay with a Non-OA from Christmas past involved, I wonder if it's really true that if you originally started with an OA visa, then got one or many retirement  extensions of stay over the years, but then decide to switch to a marriage extension of stay will insurance be required?  I know the police order section that deals with marriage extension of stay was not affected like the 2.22 Retirement section.

 

Gosh, how I wish we could all get solid, non-conflicting answers from the various immigration authorities.

hopeful anyway.. 

[LivinLOS]

10 hours ago, lkv said:

Exactly so why bother with non O-X etc? Why waste money on scammy insurance.

 

Keep the investment in Thailand at the absolute minimum with non O with 800k or agent no 800K. (as some prefer).

Because its 10 years of being secure.. Or maybe at least 5, and then a review.. 

And as for the investment angle, I appreciate its higher risk but theres no pockets in shrouds, I no longer wish to live in shoddy homes etc, so importing some funds and doing something I want seems the only solution bar leaving. 

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, Pib said:

Today just for the heck of it I called the immigration hot line at 1178 to ask the same question again.  Was only listening to elevator music for about 10 minutes before I got a rep....a rep that spoke good English.  The answer I got was I would "not" require insurance. 

It seems you finally got the correct answer.

Maybe the Immigration Bureau has gotten involved and is sorting out all the offices giving out the wrong info.

[Martyp]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

Back on 18 Oct 2020 post #330 I described the results of my 10-15 minutes face-to-face conversation with a CW immigration officer where I asked repeatedly since I originally entered on a Non-OA visa in 2008 and have since got retirement extensions of stay 11 times, do I need insurance when I apply to extend again in 2020.  The answer was Yes.  Click on above date and post number to review my earlier post.  

 

Today just for the heck of it I called the immigration hot line at 1178 to ask the same question again.  Was only listening to elevator music for about 10 minutes before I got a rep....a rep that spoke good English.  The answer I got was I would "not" require insurance. 

 

I repeated the question to ensure the rep understood.  I stressed the point that I originally started with an OA visa.  The answer was no again.  Of course this goes against the majority of reports from immigration offices where they are saying insurance will be required if you have an old Non-OA....that is, what you originally got your ensuing retirement extensions of stay from.

 

I then asked has something changed over the last few days as a CW immigration told me Yes approx 10 days ago.  The hotline rep put me on hold to get some additional info and came back online about two minutes later and said again insurance would not be required but I should contact CW immigration at 02-141-7884 or 02-141-7890.  When calling those numbers they do not work....they immediately hangup....do not even ring once.

 

So, I'm left with what a CW immigration officer told me 10 days ago in a 10 minute face-to-face conversation that insurance would be required and what an immigration hotline 1178 rep just told me today in that insurance would not be required.  At this point in time I'm going to believe what the immigration office told me face-to-face 10 days ago vs the immigration hotline.  Plus I remember at least one post in this thread where someone called 1178, asked the question I asked, and was told Yes insurance will be required to renew your retirement extension of stay.

 

During the call today I also asked a second question that since I'm married to a Thai if I switch to a marriage extension of stay from a retirement extension of stay would insurance be required and keeping in mind my original Non-OA Retirement visa from 2008?  The answer was no insurance would be required.

 

Regarding the marriage extension of stay with a Non-OA from Christmas past involved, I wonder if it's really true that if you originally started with an OA visa, then got one or many retirement  extensions of stay over the years, but then decide to switch to a marriage extension of stay will insurance be required?  I know the police order section that deals with marriage extension of stay was not affected like the 2.22 Retirement section.

 

Gosh, how I wish we could all get solid, non-conflicting answers from the various immigration authorities.

Congratulations for the effort. At the end of all this is that you have to get the information directly from the Immigration office you go to from this point forward (after Oct 31st). The problem with assuming you need insurance is that you may buy insurance the you otherwise wouldn’t buy. Good luck.

[Thaidream]

3 hours ago, Pib said:

Regarding the marriage extension of stay with a Non-OA from Christmas past involved, I wonder if it's really true that if you originally started with an OA visa, then got one or many retirement  extensions of stay over the years, but then decide to switch to a marriage extension of stay will insurance be required?  I know the police order section that deals with marriage extension of stay was not affected like the 2.22 Retirement section.

As Ubon Joe stated- someone finally gave you a correct answer.   I still believe everyone who is here on an O-A issued prior to today is 'grandfathered',

 

However, just like the prior changes- rumors ran wild; individual immigration offices gave out conflicting information and it eventually settled down to some consistency.

 

As far as using a marriage extenson- they fall under a different category and there is no insurance requirement and the bank/income level drops to 400K/40K per month.

 

If by chance someone is faced with an O-A situation and married to a Thai and  wants to extend under marriage but is being told they need insurance- I would  ask for a 60 day exxtension and head off to the nearest Thai Embassy with  the marriage documents and get a Non O Visa; then return and file for an extension of stay.

 

Thanks for the report-   

[Exploring Thailand]

4 hours ago, Maestro said:

Cabinet,x Resolution of 2 April 2919, English translation, arranged by Jonathan Fairfield.

...

So nothing in the cabinet resolution about foreign insurance being for the first year only, although they do voice their concerns. It reads as though they haven't considered that an OA can result in a stay of over 12 months.

 

I wonder when the ministries of Public Health, Foreign Affairs, Tourism and Sports, and Immigration will be publishing this "updated information" referred to in point 2.

Edited October 31, 2019 by Exploring Thailand

[ubonjoe]

17 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

So nothing in the cabinet resolution about foreign insurance being for the first year only, although they do voice their concerns. It reads as though they haven't considered that an OA can result in a stay of over 12 months.

The police order that went into effect today states proof of insurance is needed for every entry when using a OA visa issued on or after today.

 

23 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

I wonder when the ministries of Public Health, Foreign Affairs, Tourism and Sports, and Immigration will be publishing this "updated information" referred to in point 2.

Buying the insurance online is more or less possible through one of the participating insurers. See: https://longstay.tgia.org/home/companiesoa

[Exploring Thailand]

12 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The police order that went into effect today states proof of insurance is needed for every entry when using a OA visa issued on or after today.

Right, but the longstay website says that you can use foreign insurance only for the first year, after that you have to use Thai insurance. That's not explicit in the cabinet resolution.

 

12 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Buying the insurance online is more or less possible through one of the participating insurers. See: https://longstay.tgia.org/home/companiesoa

Yes, it's possible to buy insurance, but point 2 reads, at least to me, as though those mentioned ministries should provide us with more information about what is going on, not just a list of where we can buy insurance.  Maybe it's being a bit optimistic to hope for that.

 

Edited October 31, 2019 by Exploring Thailand