Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

[whitemouse]

26 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

for someone of my age, unaffordable. 

And that's the point of this law. There is no other explanation.

[Sheryl]

Hello
 
I have seen on the link a certificate which can be signed by a foreign insurance BUT I imagine it is only to get the first OA visa, as the text states that for 1st year you can have a foreign insurance but no more for extension..
I think they found this idea to squeeze a little more retirees, forcing them to invest in local insurance companies..
Have a nice evening

That is not a government website you saw this on. It is one run by a group of local insurers.

Note the disclaimer on the site.

Attempts are underway to get clarification from Immigration on use of foreign policies.

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

[LivinLOS]

2 hours ago, madmen said:

Not even close. One requires 800k while the other required zip in a thai bank how is that the same ?

The only maybe are the 65k income earners that seem to be on good wicket and why are they not required to have insurance but in reality they are very few and far between eg oz pension is 35k as of last month 

Your talking about Visas, the initial issuance of them outside Thailand, I mean the the requirements for extensions based on retirement. 

The extension of stay for reasons of retirement for both an non imm OA generated and a non imm O generated permission of stay.. 

Both those classes have exactly the same set of requirements, to result in the same kind of annual extension, with the single exception of the health insurance. It makes no sense to differentiate the 2. 

[LivinLOS]

2 hours ago, smedly said:

based on what - you are claiming something on hearsay/rumour when you have been told on numerous threads it is nonsense

 

you can believe what you want but by constantly posting it on here you are bordering on spamming trolling and inventing conspiracies for effect

 

Read the official police order and move on and stop with the nonsense rumours

 

 

and BTW I am no supporter of Thai authorities and their actions this last year or so - idiotic 

Based on the video posted recording an officer saying it was applicable to extensions of permission of stay !! 

[madmen]

3 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Based on the video posted recording an officer saying it was applicable to extensions of permission of stay !! 

nope !!

[LivinLOS]

2 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Might as well go back to doing border runs.Don't need money in bank don't need insurance don't need umpteen misinterpreted rules made up by misinformed IO's.It's so simple.

just its getting harder and harder to get multiple entry non imm visas.. UK for example now pushes everyone to single entry non imms and extending incountry. Its an annoyance for me as I like using MEs and travel a lot so almost never get to 90 days so can avoid all the requirements, TM30, etc etc.. My issue is I am not here long enough to get to the end of a 90 day stay, and then request the extension and under review period, that would go to 120 days and I simply dont have that much time in one place. 

[LivinLOS]

6 minutes ago, madmen said:

nope !!

Nope that video wasnt posted ?? Nope that officer didnt say that ?? 

[jollyhangmon]

 

... thinking I might just have figured out why O-X requires both, dosh with the local banksters as well as insurance ... here it goes:

If one commits himself voluntarily to 10 years in the LOS(panners-permanently-thrown-in-and-meanwhile-gettin-massively-on-me-gonads) one needs to be punished and therefore is subjected to the pretty worthless scam-insurance ...

Well? How's that for an explanation? 

[lkv]

4 hours ago, whitemouse said:

The way it looks now, agents may be useless, this time.

Look at last couple of years, everything is designed to get foreigners, especially Westerners out. 

The money in the bank, strictly enforced, before AND after extension is granted.

No more letters from Embassies accepted, notice how Embassies they selected happen to be of countries where most expats come from.

TM30, I live in Pattaya, going to Bangkok for a weekend requires me to visit Bangkok immigration. Regulation designed to harrass, no other possible reason.

Western tourist with valid visas denied entry, deported, using false reasons (lack of money). As if a Westerners does not have 500€ in a bank. Coincidentally, traveller is not allowed to use ATM, this is not toughtlessness, this is the intended effect, it is designed to kick Westerners out.

Anyone who believes this insurance requirement affects only O-A is kidding themselves. Thailand is culling the herd of Westerners, it is so obvious, how can anyone not see it?

Whilst i agree with what you are saying, that there is an anti foreigner vibe coming from the top, down at the bottom of the pyramid, money is money, at the end of the day.

 

It seems that they forget about TM30, financials, and likely insurances, for a price.

 

For people that really want to stay in Thailand, and are willing to put up with it, it may come as a viable option. Perhaps better than "i need to move back home, I have no other options".

Edited October 17, 2019 by lkv

[madmen]

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Nope that video wasnt posted ?? Nope that officer didnt say that ?? 

officer. thread was  locked by mods after carefully watching it.I saw it and didn't see what you claim. Did you watch it or relying on just comments from others

[Chiller]

This policy has to be intended to affect only those long term visitors to Thailand who by virtue of having a Non O-A Visa do not need to have any money deposited in Los.  Anyone applying for extensions have to prove either income, or monies in a Thai bank, and I would suggest most ex pats are now showing money in the bank. 

 

If it was otherwise intended to also require O-A Visa holders to have insurance at the point of applying for an extension of stay then it would also apply to those with a Non O type Visa.

 

It cannot be the intended case that two ex pats could arrive at the same Immigration Office on the same day, one aged 75 years with a Non O Visa, and one aged 55 years with an O-A Visa and in order to be granted an extension of stay only the 55 year old would require health Insurance?!

 

I think we will find that this policy is not designed for those seeking extensions, who in the main do have funds available in Thailand if required.

[daejung]

18 hours ago, Ej2562 said:

Will the health insurance one has in their home country be accept for the insurance requirement?

Or does it has to be medical insurance purchased in Thailand?

Apparently not, only thai insurance companies for renewal,  http://longstay.tgia.org/home/guidelineoa

Quote

First year, all applicants can buy health insurance from insurance companies in their owned countries or authorized insurance company in Thailand. When the applicants want to renew the visa, the applicants must buy insurance from authorized insurance companies in Thailand only. Any inquiries on completing Insurance application can be addressed at each insurance company

 

Edited October 17, 2019 by aixois

[saengd]

3 hours ago, Chiller said:

This policy has to be intended to affect only those long term visitors to Thailand who by virtue of having a Non O-A Visa do not need to have any money deposited in Los.  Anyone applying for extensions have to prove either income, or monies in a Thai bank, and I would suggest most ex pats are now showing money in the bank. 

 

If it was otherwise intended to also require O-A Visa holders to have insurance at the point of applying for an extension of stay then it would also apply to those with a Non O type Visa.

 

It cannot be the intended case that two ex pats could arrive at the same Immigration Office on the same day, one aged 75 years with a Non O Visa, and one aged 55 years with an O-A Visa and in order to be granted an extension of stay only the 55 year old would require health Insurance?!

 

I think we will find that this policy is not designed for those seeking extensions, who in the main do have funds available in Thailand if required.

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

 

Also, there is a template in one of the other threads that can be printed and must be signed by Directors of overseas insurance companies, if they are to be used instead of a Thai insurance company. I have read reports of at least two people getting that form signed and ready to use.

Edited October 17, 2019 by saengd

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, saengd said:

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

 

Also, there is a template in one of the other threads that can be printed and must be signed by Directors of overseas insurance companies, if they are to be used instead of a Thai insurance company. I have read reports of at least two people getting that form signed and ready to use.

O-A visas -- no need for money deposited in Thailand for bank methods.

 

Extensions based on retirement -- need for money deposited in Thailand for bank methods (starting from OA or O)

 

Next … 

[Don Mega]

8 minutes ago, saengd said:

 

Also, there is a template in one of the other threads that can be printed and must be signed by Directors of overseas insurance companies, if they are to be used instead of a Thai insurance company. I have read reports of at least two people getting that form signed and ready to use.

http://longstay.tgia.org/document/overseas_insurance_certificate.pdf

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, saengd said:

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

They aren't. O-A visa holders just need to provide evidence of the monies in their home country bank and this will suffice for the full two year potential validity of the visa, after which they can either get a new visa, or convert the O-A to an extension of stay. Even this doesn't necessarily require the monies to be in-country, if the person's embassy still provides income letters, or if an agent is used. Your 800k on deposit is only one of several options. 

[saengd]

3 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

They aren't. O-A visa holders just need to provide evidence of the monies in their home country bank and this will suffice for the full two year potential validity of the visa, after which they can either get a new visa, or convert the O-A to an extension of stay. Even this doesn't necessarily require the monies to be in-country, if the person's embassy still provides income letters, or if an agent is used. Your 800k on deposit is only one of several options. 

Hmm, well, if folks really are gaming the system by getting back to back two year O-A access entitlements, just to avoid having proven funds available in country, especially when they are retired and living here with families etc., they deserve to get clobbered, IMHO.

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

they will see that as avoiding the rule and the spirit of the law. 

And? This is commonplace, no different than agent obtained retirement extensions. 

[el jefe]

14 minutes ago, saengd said:

Hmm, well, if folks really are gaming the system by getting back to back two year O-A access entitlements, just to avoid having proven funds available in country, especially when they are retired and living here with families etc., they deserve to get clobbered, IMHO.

I'm here on an O-A and I'm not trying to game the system. I've been here 14 years on a variety of visas, most of which are no longer available. Now I'm here on a O-A issued last month.

i would gladly have converted any of my prior visas to to an O and then went for a Retirement Extension but there is no way to do that at Chiang Mai Immigration without paying an additional 15,000 baht to an agent, in addition to all the other fees.
I'll gladly put 800k baht in a Thai bank rather than pay for insurance I don't need.

If the rules don't change when my 2 years are up and I can't get a second O-A visa, I'll go back to METV's. If I can no longer get those either, I'll get a SETV and pack up and leave at the end of my permission to stay.
Meanwhile, I'll be one of the first to test the new requiremnts. I'm leaving next week and come back the first week in Nov. I don't have time to investigate the useless insurance before I go. According to everything I've read (I read every post in this thread) I won't have a problem re-entering on my O-A issued last month, but no one really knows.

Edited October 17, 2019 by el jefe

[lamyai3]

Just now, saengd said:

Hmm, well, if folks really are gaming the system by getting back to back two year O-A access entitlements, just to avoid having proven funds available in country, especially when they are retired and living here with families etc., they deserve to get clobbered, IMHO.

Nonsense. Repeat Non O-A's have always been fully acceptable to immigration, and often work better for people who continue to spend some time back in their home country, or prefer or need to keep some of their income there. New visas require bank statements along with a medical certificate and a police report, stamped, signed and notarised - a higher bar than anything you have to provide here with your bank letter. I'm fully aware of the differences myself having done both Non O-A applications and in-country extensions. Obtaining a new visa has never been "gaming the system" and involves quite a bit of effort, far more than my last extension did.

 

As far as having the money in Thailand for extensions goes, income has always been verifiable via embassy letters until this year (and remains so for all but three nationalities). For most countries in the world they do not need to bring this money in if they wish not to.

[saengd]

1 minute ago, el jefe said:

I'm here on an O-A and I'm not trying to game thesystem. I'e been here 14 years on a variety of visas, most of which I are no longer available. Now I'm here on a O-A issued last month.

i would gladly have converted any of my prior visas to to an O and then went for a Retirement Extension but there is no way to do that at Chiang Mai Immigration without paying an additional 15,000 baht to an agent, in addition to all the other fees.
I'll gladly put 800k baht in a Thai bank rather than pay for insurance I don't need.

If the rules don't change when my 2 years are up and I can't get a second O-A visa, I'll go back to METV's. If I can no longer get those either, I'll get a SETV and pack up and leave at the end of my permission to stay.
Meanwhile, I'll be one of the first to test the new requiremnts. I'm leaving next week and come back the first week in Nov. I don't have time to investigate the useless insurance before I go. According to everything I've read (I read every post in this thread) I won't have a problem re-entering on my O-A issued last month, but no one really knows.

Each to their own of course and you have the right to have done all those things. Personally I'm amazed that anyone would spend 14 years of their retirement living here with that degree of uncertainty and being subject to constant change. You've gone from METV's (which are not intended for retirement in the first place), to an O-A but you say you would want to get a new O-A when the first one expires hence there's an avoidance issue in there somewhere. But then you say you would gladly put 800k in the bank here but you don't want to spend 15k on an agent to do that (or presumably, spend the money to travel overseas to get an O visa and then come back and extend it). Maybe you are not gaming the system but your strategy seems odd to me when you have the agent option or a return trip overseas to get an O. Up to you as they say.

[saengd]

5 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Nonsense. Repeat Non O-A's have always been fully acceptable to immigration, and often work better for people who continue to spend some time back in their home country, or prefer or need to keep some of their income there. New visas require bank statements along with a medical certificate and a police report, stamped, signed and notarised - a higher bar than anything you have to provide here with your bank letter. I'm fully aware of the differences myself having done both Non O-A applications and in-country extensions. Obtaining a new visa has never been "gaming the system" and involves quite a bit of effort, far more than my last extension did.

 

As far as having the money in Thailand for extensions goes, income has always been verifiable via embassy letters until this year (and remains so for all but three nationalities). For most countries in the world they do not need to bring this money in if they wish not to.

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.

[lamyai3]

1 minute 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.

You seem to be unaware of the income methods available, which don't require money in excess of a person's needs to be brought in to the country for those countries where embassy letters are still provided. These, along with new visa applications (with their more stringent hoop jumping than anything you have to bother with) have always been fully acceptable to immigration. The only thing that might be considered to be legally dubious is agent assisted extensions, which ironically you seem to be condoning in your post above this one (#261). 

[saengd]

Just now, lamyai3 said:

You seem to be unaware of the income methods available, which don't require money in excess of a person's needs to be brought in to the country for those countries where embassy letters are still provided. These, along with new visa applications (with their more stringent hoop jumping than anything you have to bother with) have always been fully acceptable to immigration. The only thing that might be considered to be legally dubious is agent assisted extensions, which ironically you seem to be condoning in your post above this one (#261). 

I am aware of the income method and I'm also aware it was canned because huge numbers of people were making false declarations to their embassies in order to get the required letter of so called proof, people who once again were gaming the system.

 

And no, I don't condone or support dubious activities by agents although I do support their use for genuine visa related activities where they can save time and avoid frustration for a fairly low fee.

 

Again, if people chose to go the route of back to back O-A's, with the acknowledged higher bar, that's their prerogative. The question in my mind however is why anyone would want to go through that additional aggravation every two years when a much easier option exists in-country. In some cases at least, if not in most, it must surely be related to their unwillingness or inability to prove funds in Thailand, a loop hole we're now seeing closed for many. TBH it's the scammers and gamers who have made this whole business more difficult for everyone else, folks who have done a runner on medical bills; people who have tried to live here on tourist visa's...and every other angle that exists that people dream up.

[UKresonant]

42 minutes ago, saengd said:

Personally I'm amazed that anyone would spend 14 years of their retirement living here with that degree of uncertainty and being subject to constant change.

 what certainty exists, over the past year every thing appears to be in a state of flux!

[lamyai3]

1 hour ago, saengd said:

I am aware of the income method and I'm also aware it was canned because huge numbers of people were making false declarations to their embassies in order to get the required letter of so called proof, people who once again were gaming the system

It wasn't canned at all. Three (originally four) embassies stopped issuing letters following undue pressure from immigration, pressure that was clearly never extended to the other embassies. Regarding sworn affidavits, the British Embassy never provided them, and had always required documentation. For most countries income letters continue to be available, exempting their nationals from the need to bring in income above their personal requirements.

 

1 hour ago, saengd said:

Again, if people chose to go the route of back to back O-A's, with the acknowledged higher bar, that's their prerogative. The question in my mind however is why anyone would want to go through that additional aggravation every two years when a much easier option exists in-country. In some cases at least, if not in most, it must surely be related to their unwillingness or inability to prove funds in Thailand, a loop hole we're now seeing closed for many.. TBH it's the scammers and gamers who have made this whole business more difficult for everyone else, folks who have done a runner on medical bills; people who have tried to live here on tourist visa's...and every other angle that exists that people dream up.

Those who have their money in better performing investments or funds in their own countries, or who use part of their income for responsibilities back home, or who are in the home country often enough to make getting a new visa a viable alternative? It's ridiculous and ill informed to suggest such people are scammers or gamers. Just as it is to condemn people who lived here on tourist visas in the past, and did so just as legitimately as you do on your retirement extension. People who do a runner on medical bills are most certainly scammers and should be caught and prosecuted, but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to O-A visa holders. 

 

In the current immigration witch-hunt era, any of yesterday's good guys is just a hair's breadth away from becoming one of today's bad guys. I'm surprised anyone who's been here 15 years and enjoyed consistent and reliable rules over a protracted period could seriously applaud immigration's antics in the last year. 

[Sheryl]

4 hours ago, saengd said:

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

 

 

 You have not held an O-A visa since 2005. You entered on an O-A visa and converted to in-country extensions of stay.

 

No money incountry required for the O-A visa.

 

Funds required for an in-country extension fo stay for retirement, same regardless of visa type.

[domdom]

Hello

 

If their idea is to have a 440.000 bahts warantee from farangs, why not ask them to deposit 440.000 bahts more into one account.. ?? at least this money would be here and not subject to disclaimer of waranties.. At least the money would be here and would not be spent in a low warantee insurance duplicating with your home country insurance

Have a nice day

[saengd]

9 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

It wasn't canned at all. Three (originally four) embassies stopped issuing letters following undue pressure from immigration, pressure that was clearly never extended to the other embassies. Regarding sworn affidavits, the British Embassy never provided them, and had always required documentation. For most countries income letters continue to be available, exempting their nationals from the need to bring in income above their personal requirements.

 

Those who have their money in better performing investments or funds in their own countries, or who use part of their income for responsibilities back home, or who are in the home country often enough to make getting a new visa a viable alternative? It's ridiculous and ill informed to suggest such people are scammers or gamers. Just as it is to condemn people who lived here on tourist visas in the past, and did so just as legitimately as you do on your retirement extension. People who do a runner on medical bills are most certainly scammers and should be caught and prosecuted, but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to O-A visa holders. 

 

In the current immigration witch-hunt era, any of yesterday's good guys is just a hair's breadth away from becoming one of today's bad guys. I'm surprised anyone who's been here 15 years and enjoyed consistent and reliable rules over a protracted period could seriously applaud immigration's antics in the last year. 

I don't applaud Immigrations actions at all, I'm merely suggesting why the action is being taken and that I understand why.

[Sheryl]

Based on the video posted recording an officer saying it was applicable to extensions of permission of stay !! 

 

Saying it was applicable to O-A visa only.