4 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

If it did as you suggest and I refused to insure and they denied permission to stay in Thailand how would that sit with the international convention signed by Thailand to not deny couples the right to reside together?

They are not denying you the right, any more or less than 400k in the bank is denying you the right.. 

 

You have the right, as long as you comply with the rules they set. 

5 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

how would that sit with the international convention signed by Thailand to not deny couples the right to reside together?

That's a very good question. This website will answer it.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/24/thailand-new-government-disregards-rights

52 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

I don't understand. The foreigner must be in Thailand to change his status, and the requirement for Insurance is to be checked when entering the country, so nothing to win by changing the status... not? 

 

And BTW, changing your visa status is easier to say than to do. You must qualify for it... and some of those who chose O-A do it precisely because they don't qualify for Non-O extensions.

 

Edit: Then in fact, Phuket Immigration is saying that those on Non-O-A will need Insurance for their yearly extension... the opposite of what ThaiVisa is saying from the beginning... 

Might this, in effect, mean that, at least as far as Phuket Immigration is concerned, retirees whose original visa was of the non-OA variety can avoid the health insurance requirement by converting their existing permission of stay into a non-O visa before hitting the retirement extension of stay road again? If so, this would appear to lend credence to what you said in your edit.

1 minute ago, LivinLOS said:

They are not denying you the right, any more or less than 400k in the bank is denying you the right.. 

 

You have the right, as long as you comply with the rules they set. 

Yes their rules will set a requirement that you pay for you inalienable right to live with your partner and they can set the amount to what ever level they please and effectively make it unaffordable for anybody to comply with the rules which in my opinion would contravene the international agreement signed by Thailand.At what level would be considered a fair amount?Not that fairness has anything to do with Thai Immigration.

9 minutes ago, lkv said:

That's a very good question. This website will answer it.

 

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/24/thailand-new-government-disregards-rights

I can't put a thanks and a laughing emoji at the same time.

Is SSO (Social security) considered "Mandatory health insurance" ?

Why does this Thai administration keep showing how stupid they can be and then insist on being even more stupid?Don't they care about losing face?Are they trying to create yet another HUB?

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

Then why is there insurance for a Non-O-A either? Both have the same financial requirements...

 

 

 

 

Not correct.   An O-A is applied for at a consulate/embassy external to Thailand.   Whilst proof of monies and/or income are similar, funds for an O-A can be held anywhere and there are no restrictions on the use of this money throughout the visa duration.

 

A non O extension applied for in Thailand requires that the funds (if going the bank deposit rather than the monthly income route) are in a Thai bank, with a minimum balance of 800,000 for 3 months after extension granted, and thereafter a minimum of 400,000 for 6/7 months rising to 800,000 again for the next extension.   Therefore, any person using bank month for a non O extension based on retirement will have a minimum of 400,000 baht in a Thai bank throughout the year, the exact same amount as the health insurance required for O-A applicants.

Again, journalist needs to interview and to write more clearly. This copy is not so good.

34 minutes ago, mosan said:

"some of those who chose O-A do it precisely because they don't qualify for Non-O extensions"

You are absolutely wrong.  Most chose the O-A because you don't have to hassle with bringing in the money and locking it up in Thai banks for months at a time.  One still has to prove they have 800k deposited in their home bank or 65K per month income.

Hi. First; I said 'some', not 'most' . Second; the requirement for O-A was just equivalent of 800k in the bank when asking for the visa, so just a few days. Very different of 800/400k all year long, and by example very easy to achieve with the help of a few friends or family members in home country.

1 minute ago, Pattaya46 said:

Hi. First; I said 'some', not 'most' . Second; the requirement for O-A was just equivalent of 800k in the bank when asking for the visa, so just a few days. Very different of 800/400k all year long, and by example very easy to achieve with the help of a few friends or family members in home country.

then why does an o/a who apply for extension of stay and been here 10 years have to have insurance.  Both the o/a and the o are the same.  Explain that.

22 minutes ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Why does this Thai administration keep showing how stupid they can be and then insist on being even more stupid?Don't they care about losing face?Are they trying to create yet another HUB?

Main objective is to hold on to power. That's where the money comes from. Key elements are controlling the masses and stopping foreign interference.

 

As far as the local media, it's all controlled. As you may be aware, tourism is "booming" and the Thai baht is the strongest currency in SE Asia, "clearly indicating Thailand's success under the current administration".

 

I disagree with you actually. I don't think they are stupid at all, since they managed to hold on to power for so long and enrich themselves, without a revolution.

 

Back on topic, nothing that is in any way related to visas i.e. foreigners has seen a positive evolution for the benefit of the foreigners over the last 5 years.

Classes of visa (from Thai embassy website):

"O" 
To visit family or friends in Thailand, voluntary job, retirement, medical treatment, to attend judicial process, to work as diplomat's housekeeper.

 

"O-A" 
For applicants aged 50 and over who wish to stay in Thailand for an extended period without the intention of working. 

 

"O-X"
For applicants aged 50 and over who wish to stay in Thailand for an extended period without the intention of working, and who are nationals of of (1) Japan (2) Australia (3) Denmark (4) Finland (5) France (6) Germany (7) Italy (8) Netherlands (9) Norway (10) Sweden (11) Switzerland (12) United Kingdom (13) Canada (14) United States of America.

5 minutes ago, lkv said:

I disagree with you actually. I don't think they are stupid at all, since they managed to hold on to power for so long and enrich themselves, without a revolution.

I think you are absolutely correct and remember posting exactly that previously,maybe I should have asked why they insist on doing such stupid things as even clever people can do stupid things and this latest debacle certainly gives credence to the saying that stupidity knows no bounds.I fear and anticipate a knee jerk reaction.

Not a smart move by this clown by advertising a loophole that most OA visa holders new about, now they will do the same with the O visa and the loophole closed. All OA visa holders says thanks for nothing you glorty hunting clown.

1 hour ago, smedly said:

everybody knows that this insurance debacle is nothing but a huge scam and money grab

 

Also, people who have chosen to retire here now have an age limit of 75 because they will never get the insurance past that age.

 

There are other more simple options 

 

- hold a permanent bank balance of Baht 400,000 for all those on 12 month extension

or

- Let those on 12 month extension pay into the Thai public health system

or

- just not allow people to retire here (many are/will be leaving anyway)

hold a permanent bank balance of Baht 800000, I agree with the second, the third is not worth discussing.

16 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

then why does an o/a who apply for extension of stay and been here 10 years have to have insurance.  Both the o/a and the o are the same.  Explain that.

When you renewed your Non-Imm OA Visa every 2 years, you could stay in Thailand indefinitely without the requirement to park funds (400.000/800.000) on a thai bank account or prove that your monthly income was +65.000 THB.  With this new health insurance requirement, those - like myself - who enjoyed that benefit, might now consider to switch to O status to avoid the cost of the mandatory insurance.

And that will be definitely be the case for those original OA Visa holders that did not renew the Visa but instead opted for an extension of stay after 2 years, and thus have to park 400K/800K on a thai bank account.  If mandatory health insurance would also be required for OA extensions, most of them would consider switching to O status.

Infinity of chaos  reigns supreme, 

I love this place,

46 minutes ago, BEngBKK said:

Is SSO (Social security) considered "Mandatory health insurance" ?

Good question, as many Europeans staying in Thailand kept their residence in Europe and still fall under their home country's social security system.  Hence they only need travel insurance as health insurance is already covered in their home country's SSO.

However, I am afraid that this European situation has not been considered when changing the requirements.  I already checked the website of the royal Thai Embassy in Belgium, and the mandatory health insurance requirement has been added as requirement for Non-Imm OA Visa application. 

1 hour ago, smedly said:

it is a huge difference - for an extension of stay the money needs to be in Thailand and other rules apply to that money 

 

So they are NOT THE SAME

They are the same inasmuch as the applicant has to show sustaining funds SOMEWHERE.

A post using a trolling meme has been removed. 

With the 4 decade old TM30 requirement resurfacing, the mandatory insurance for Non O-A holders, it must make be making expats feel uneasy, e.g. what's next, mandatory insurance for all expats, or is there any truth in that rumour that I heard at the local waterhole the other day, i.e. that the Thai government was seriously thinking of granting permanent visas to all expats who have lived here for more than 5 years and hold at least 10,000,000 baht in a Thai bank account....lol

6 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

any truth in that rumour that I heard at the local waterhole the other day, i.e. that the Thai government was seriously thinking of granting permanent visas to all expats who have lived here for more than 5 years and hold at least 10,000,000 baht in a Thai bank account....lol

 

sounds great.. i wonder if my local agent can get the financials waved for his usual fee? 

9 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

With the 4 decade old TM30 requirement resurfacing, the mandatory insurance for Non O-A holders, it must make be making expats feel uneasy, e.g. what's next, mandatory insurance for all expats, or is there any truth in that rumour that I heard at the local waterhole the other day, i.e. that the Thai government was seriously thinking of granting permanent visas to all expats who have lived here for more than 5 years and hold at least 10,000,000 baht in a Thai bank account....lol

I might be able to hold 10,000,000 satang!

2 hours ago, Jonathan Fairfield said:

Hence, any foreigners staying on a “Non-Immigrant O-A” visa can change their permit-to-stay status to “Non-Immigrant O” and avoid the mandatory health insurance requirement

You can't change the category of Non Immigrant Visa. You would have to leave the country and get a now Non O, or enter as a tourist and apply for a Non O in-country.

 

IMO the authorities will eventually phase out the Non O for use by retirees, and insist all retirees enter with a Non O-A. Otherwise the policy of compulsory insurance is pointless and will fail.

1 minute ago, walkers said:

The insurance requirement was designed for NON OA visas and none others except tourists so uhm no not a loophole this was the intent in the first place


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

100% correct. its not like immigration just forgot to include Non O

2 hours ago, KhunBENQ said:

What a mess that not even the local immigration bosses seem to know what it exactly means.

 

 

Several of the offices mentioned in the article as seeking delays for further clarification of the new requirement are among those that have told members here, rightly or wrongly, that the insurance requirement WILL also apply to O-A origin extensions of stay....

 

It would seem, you'd be lucky if you could find any two Immigration officers anywhere in the entire country who would give you the exact same explanation and details for this absurd mess.

 

There is no loop hole at all. The facts are that with an "O-A" visa you only had to show that you had the money and that money could be in any account in any country. This insurance <deleted> I believe was done to get you off the "O-A" visa and get you on the Non-Imm "O" where your money MUST be in a Thai bank account which gives the Thai banks and the Thai government control of your money. They had no control or use of your money whilst you are on the "O-A" visa.

6 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You can't change the category of Non Immigrant Visa. You would have to leave the country and get a now Non O, or enter as a tourist and apply for a Non O in-country.

 

IMO the authorities will eventually phase out the Non O for use by retirees, and insist all retirees enter with a Non O-A. Otherwise the policy of compulsory insurance is pointless and will fail.

The article quotes Phuket Immigration saying that you can change the category of the visa once in Thailand.If they do insist on mandatory health insurance on top of the required money in the bank would make it very difficult for many retirees that don't do border runs. 

3 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

There is no loop hole at all. The facts are that with an "O-A" visa you only had to show that you had the money and that money could be in any account in any country. This insurance <deleted> I believe was done to get you off the "O-A" visa and get you on the Non-Imm "O" where your money MUST be in a Thai bank account which gives the Thai banks and the Thai government control of your money. They had no control or use of your money whilst you are on the "O-A" visa.

Good work. It makes a lot of sense