Mandatory health insurance for retirees falls flat as ‘Non-Imm O’ visa loophole exposed

[wensiensheng]

I think the difference between these two types of visa that is relevant to this case, is that one is a long stay visa (1 year) where the visa holder does not have to leave Thailand, just do 90 reporting.

 

the other is a short stay visa (90 days) because the visa holder has to leave Thailand within that period.

 

hence, the long stay visa needs health insurance and the short stay does not. The latter is consistent with a 90 day tourist visa which also does not require health insurance.
 

whether that is sensible or not is another matter, but the authorities have consistently said that health insurance is a requirement for long stay foreigners, and 90 days just isn’t that long.

[holy cow cm]

3 minutes ago, wensiensheng said:

I think the difference between these two types of visa that is relevant to this case, is that one is a long stay visa (1 year) where the visa holder does not have to leave Thailand, just do 90 reporting.

 

the other is a short stay visa (90 days) because the visa holder has to leave Thailand within that period.

 

hence, the long stay visa needs health insurance and the short stay does not. The latter is consistent with a 90 day tourist visa which also does not require health insurance.
 

whether that is sensible or not is another matter, but the authorities have consistently said that health insurance is a requirement for long stay foreigners, and 90 days just isn’t that long.

Both can be turned into 1yr extensions of stay. So that is where the hatchet will fall if and when it catches up with itself. Honestly, if they did every change at one time then they would never be able to come up with new things for brownie points looking like they are doing something. I do recall a poster or something written saying that retirement is different than marriage as when married here with Thai the Thai woman will take care of the man and thus no need to have insurance. Logic or not, but got to love it. 

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, chrisinth said:

Not trying to be confrontational but a serious question..............

 

If what you wrote above is correct, then why has this been an issue in the first place where a holder of an O-A changing to extension of stay (retirement) was worried that the original non-O (O-A) would still need proof of insurance?

You’re not really changing anything, the category of Non-Imm visa you enter with stays with you when you apply for any extension of stay.

 

At the end of a 90 day (O) or 1 year (O-A) stay you can apply for a 1 year extension based on retirement (being over 50). The extension (1 year stay permit) is exactly the same; however, an O-A visa now requires insurance when you buy the visa and for the insurance to be maintained through any stay issued on the back of this visa. That includes a 1 year stay issued on entry and any subsequent 1 year extension of it.

 

Presumably now when you apply for a 1 year extension the IO will check the category of visa used to enter the country and if it’s a O-A they will also check insurance is in place.

 

What I wrote above is that it’s not possible to change the category of visa at immigration to an O from an O-A before applying for the extension.

 

Someone that enters for study (ED) and wants to change the reason for their stay to work (B) would have to leave and re-enter with a new category B visa because immigration can’t/won’t change the ED to B in-country. The same principle applies to someone applying as a retiree that wants to change from a O-A to O to avoid the insurance requirement; it can’t — under the current rules/system — be done.

 

Quote

If what you say is correct then the extension of stay would be based on a non-O so there wouldn't be any issue? Does that make sense of have I got this totally wrong?

Any extension is based on the category of visa used to enter the country, and up to now O and O-A visa retirement extension application requirements were exactly the same. Since mandatory insurance was first announced I have written that, IMO, they will not impose the insurance requirement on existing O visa holders because it would affect thousands of long term retirees. That opinion hasn’t changed; but it is becoming clear to me that the long term play will be to stop issuing O entry visas to retirees and only issue O-A’s. That way future stays for retirees will have to start with insurance and maintaining that insurance will be a condition throughout their stay.

Edited October 28, 2019 by elviajero

[Time Traveller]

What did anyone expect? 

I knew the Thai immigration themselves had no clue what they were doing. They never do. In fact, they originally told us it was just a requirement for visas. But the wording of the regulation implied it was also for extensions of stay as well. I suspect, they'll save face but mandating insurance for all categories of extension of stay.

Whatever happens, one thing is for certain the thai government see you as a cow to be milked. And they are going to ratchet things up to squeeze as much money out of you every year as possible.

 

 

[elviajero]

48 minutes ago, holy cow cm said:

I would gather you are correct. They are not going to do it as it makes zero sense. But to change premise for say retirement to marriage it can be done but even this I would say they will not easily do it as is too different. But say like for family to marriage it is sort of the same and even IO's have asked me before why don't we just flip to that during the extension process, probably because the paper work is easier than the family. Because we did not want to do it. But the issued visa of Non O or Non OA will stay intact as it is ludicrous they would even consider it. Even if I was an IO I would say no. So really there is only the loop hole of going outside and obtaining the change, but then again Non O's are becoming less and less being harder to get nowadays. And then I would gather the Consulates and Embassies will just deny the Non O and say get an O-A.

Yes, that is my opinion. Ultimately they will not issue O entry visas to retirees and only sell them an O-A with compulsory insurance.

[randy723]

18 hours 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)

what you are saying about the 400,00 baht bank account my immigration officer who speaks very good english almost told me the same thing. He said that they had already perposed this to their boss and it was shot down because then the insurnces companies would not get the business that they pay the health minister and Pm to pay this law

[NanLaew]

12 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

13 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Ret Ext 101 question... what are the other 3 available options?

Discussed many many times already on this forum, but the 4 options are :

- proof of 65kB/month with Embassy Letter

- proof of 65kB/month with Bank Letter proving transfers

- proof of 800/400kB in Thai Bank   (or combo method when still accepted)

- visa agent...

(and yes the last one must not be 100% legal, but now so popular that need to be listed)

That's what I thought. Your initial response to an obviously Australian member suggested (to me anyway) that there were 3 other options that didn't entail providence of sustaining funds. Agreed that only the British, American and Australians can't use any embassy letters/affidavits/stat decs any more. Only the first one "- proof of 65kB/month with Embassy Letter" allows one to leave funds overseas, the other 2 require the money to be in the Thai account from the get-go.

 

Nothing new to see here... move along now.

[NanLaew]

7 minutes ago, randy723 said:

...and it was shot down because then the insurnces companies would not get the business that they pay the health minister and Pm to pay this law

Thai urban myth quote of the day award goes to...

[sfokevin]

2 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

There are always loopholes here so what is the problem?

Some of us prefer to live a simple life without the need of loopholes... 

[holy cow cm]

14 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Yes, that is my opinion. Ultimately they will not issue O entry visas to retirees and only sell them an O-A with compulsory insurance.

Would seem to figure that is the full direction and new intention of discretion. 

[Pattaya46]

14 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Only the first one "- proof of 65kB/month with Embassy Letter" allows one to leave funds overseas, the other 2 require the money to be in the Thai account from the get-go.

Not really. The 4th option (agent) also allows to keep fund overseas. And the 3rd option (transfer 65k/month) is money that you would have to send to you anyway for your monthly outgoings, so not  really "money in the bank".

[moe666]

Here we go again another endless word twistting thread that a few here love to debate

[Dogmatix]

If the intention was to no longer have foreigners staying long term on temporary visas without medical insurance, it shouldn’t be difficult to reword the regulations to apply to all O, OA visas and extension thereof.

[Enki]

19 hours ago, Mango Bob said:

The insurance is supposed to be for those who apply for an O/A visa after 31 Oct 19 and extend here.   Those who have  been here on an O/A visa in the past and are on an extension to stay now do not need the insurance.  Why can't be Immigrations Chiefs read their own Police Report.  What the hell is the matter with these people.

Everyone living long term in Thailand needs a health insurance. You mix up "immigration laws" with "extension of visa rules". The Immigration laws always were clear that you can not live here if you have no health insurance. Now it is enforced (or there is an attempt to enforce it) during visa extension. Why you simply not get health insurance (like every Thai) is beyond me.

 

[carbon007]

I am getting seriously tired of all this nonsense. Only motive to please insurance company partners. Maybe Southern Spain or France should be seriously considered for me as an EU citizen

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

an O-A visa now requires insurance when you buy the visa and for the insurance to be maintained through any stay issued on the back of this visa. That includes a 1 year stay issued on entry and any subsequent 1 year extension of it.

 

I don't disagree with your opinion re insurance likely applying to future O-A based extensions of stay. However, you do realize, the TVF officialdom continues to adamantly insist that the new rule only applies to O-A holders and not once those same people ultimately end up on extensions of stay...

 

[Mango Bob]

12 minutes ago, Enki said:

Everyone living long term in Thailand needs a health insurance. You mix up "immigration laws" with "extension of visa rules". The Immigration laws always were clear that you can not live here if you have no health insurance. Now it is enforced (or there is an attempt to enforce it) during visa extension. Why you simply not get health insurance (like every Thai) is beyond me.

 

I have  life insurance.  Better than this <deleted> that is being offered here and I pay nothing for it except a deductible of $150.  I pay 25% of the bill and if I pay $3,000 in a year everything after that is at no cost to me.  Now beat that or shut up.

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by Mango Bob

[Caldera]

I don't see how this will help in the long run. They're clearly in the process of phasing in health insurance, so whatever applies to Non-OA visa now will soon apply to Non-O visa as well. A news report such as this one will just speed things up.

[wwest5829]

19 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

Not according to Chiang mai, Jomtien, yasithorn, (a few other regional offices that escape me at moment in NE) and most importantly CW main office and the central phone helpline. All of them have confirmed at one time or other that this will apply to extensions of stay coming from an initial O-A. In fact even this Phuket piece confirms that same outcome for an O-A. 

Whats different here is they are apparently willing to 'convert' non imm O-A permission of stays into O permission of stays. Perfectly possible and something thats been questioned all along. 

Unfortunately, this was confirmed here in Chiang Mai at our monthly meeting of the Chiang Mai Expats.

[sturdyd]

20 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

It is not a good look...

 

 

It's the only look they know.

[Dogmatix]

28 minutes ago, Enki said:

Everyone living long term in Thailand needs a health insurance. You mix up "immigration laws" with "extension of visa rules". The Immigration laws always were clear that you can not live here if you have no health insurance. Now it is enforced (or there is an attempt to enforce it) during visa extension. Why you simply not get health insurance (like every Thai) is beyond me.

 

Most Thais have no private health insurance but are in one of the three government schemes: civil service, social security or gold card.

[Skallywag]

28 minutes ago, Enki said:

The Immigration laws always were clear that you can not live here if you have no health insurance.

Really? please post a link regarding "can not live here if you have no health insurance" 

Many live here "self-insured" or have insurance in their home country and are never asked if they have health insurance by anyone at Immigration.

[TDCNINJA]

20 hours 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... 

 

The Non-OA requirements at the Royal Thai Consulate in the United States were vastly more stringent than what was required of me to get my Non-O visa at Penang. 

 

VII. Retirement in Thailand (O-A visa), the applicant must be at least 50 years old and must submit documents as follows :

• documentation showing proof of retirement.
• bank statement or monthly/year income.
• a copy of the applicant’s criminal record from the local police department.
• a certificate of health.

*These documents must be certified by a Notary Public and certify true signature of the notary public by the Secretary of State.

**Additional requirement for Non-immigrant Visa “O-A” (for retirement long stay) application

As of 31 October 2019, visa applicant for Non-Immigrant Visa “O-A” (for retirement long stay) must have health insurance which covers the whole period of stay in Thailand.

Details of the requirement for health insurance are as follows:

• For In-patient: health insurance policy must have coverage at least 400,000 Thai Baht per policy year.
• For Out-patient: health insurance policy must have coverage at least 40,000 Thai Baht per policy year.

In addition to the existing required documents, visa applicant for Non-Immigrant Visa “O-A” (for retirement long stay) must furnish a completed“Insurance Certificate” as attached, as well as an original health insurance policy. A copy of the health insurance policymay only be accepted, provided that the applicant purchases the health insurance from participating Thai insurance companies as listed here http://longstay.tgia.org/.

http://www.thaiconsulatechicago.org/pages-non-immigrant-visa-eng.html

 

[Moti24]

20 hours ago, WhatupThailand said:

Rule #1- if the rule is too easy to understand, Change it.

 

Rule #2- All rules must have at least 3 different meanings, each of which can be proved valid.

 

Rule #3- All rules are subject to the Interpretation of the Officer, regardless of his state of mind.

 

Rule #4-  Immigration officers must insure that the applicants' savings are secure in a local bank before rejecting visa application.

[Dogmatix]

Despite all this bungling, compulsory insurance is coming for all long term stayers regardless of original visa or extension type as sure as God made little green apples. Since working expats are covered by social security, that will only leave permanent residents who are Ni longer working uncovered, although probably most PR retirees were in social security long enough to be covered.

 

But what is still missing is a way to buy into the gold card or some other affordable scheme.

[Genericnic]

I really get a laugh out of the insurance requirement threads. Supposedly, the mandatory insurance it to make sure the government is not stuck with paying for uninsured retirees. Even for those of us with insurance, payment can be an interesting exercise.

 

I am living here on an extension of stay to my original O-A retirement visa. My US based insurance provides way more coverage (IPD and OPD) than the upcoming required Thai insurance. About 6 weeks ago, I had stents put in at a leading hospital here in Chiang Mai. The cost was just under 600k baht. The hospital received a letter of guarantee from my insurance carrier, just as they would have done for coverage through a Thai carrier. I went by the hospital today for a post surgery follow-up and decided to check on the status of the claim. It seems the hospital has yet to submit the claim to the insurance company for payment. One would think that the bill would have been submitted the day I was discharged or at least a couple of days later at least. Truly, TIT. ????

 

David

[Redline]

Thinking, planning, enforcing, maintaining...never existed, but aimlessness and confusion reign supreme in the LOS

[Bangkok Basha]

Most of us on Non-O-A won't qualify for Non-O extensions:

Non-Immigrant Visa Category “O”Those who wish to stay with family in Thailand (Thai Family) or wish to do volunteering work with the state enterprises or social welfare organizations in Thailand  (Volunteering)

[Genericnic]

8 minutes ago, Bangkok Basha said:

Most of us on Non-O-A won't qualify for Non-O extensions:

Non-Immigrant Visa Category “O”Those who wish to stay with family in Thailand (Thai Family) or wish to do volunteering work with the state enterprises or social welfare organizations in Thailand  (Volunteering)

That is true for getting a non-O in the US (and maybe other places) but you can get a non-O (retirement) by coming in on a visa exempt and then doing a TM87 change visa to get a non-O (retirement) at immigration in Thailand. Do it a Cheangwattana if possible. Much easier than Chiang Mai. The attached file that I got at CW last week shows what is required there.

 

David

 

 

TM87-CW.pdf

[Peter Denis]

Maybe I will be proven wrong, but it looks to me that this mandatory health insurance is ONLY required when applying for a Non-Imm OA Visa in your home-country.

That would actually make very much sense from a thai perspective, because during the 1 year validity of an OA Visa (which can be extended by 1 year, when re-entering just before the Visa expires), you are NOT required to have any funds in a Thai bank-account or prove a monthly income transfer of +65.000 THB.  So, if anything happens to your during that 2 year period there won't be any money on a thai bank-account (unless you put it there voluntarily).

When at the end of the 2 year period you apply for an extension of stay, then the financial requirements (400K/800K on bank or income-method) will be applicable, and hence there would be no need anymore for the mandatory health insurance (as there is proof of sufficient funds on a thai bank-account).

So the 'loophole' of avoiding having to park 400K/800K on a thai bank-account, by re-applying for a new Non Imm OA Visa in your home-country at the end of the 2-year period, is now being filled by the new requirement that also mandatory health insurance must be proven during the Non Imm OA Visa validity.

The fact that the minimum amount covered by the insurance is same as the minimum fund on a thai bank-account (400.000 THB) is additional proof, that the only reason for introducing this new requirement is to cover that loophole.

So it makes indeed sense that this new health-insurance requirement is limited ONLY to those that apply for a Non Imm OA Visa in their home-country.  

The above implies that the health-insurance requirement is NOT applicable when applying for an OA extension (because then the financial 400K/800K requirement or income method kicks in).  And is of course also NOT applicable for O Visa holders, as the financial requirement is already covered for them.

I think the above provides the rationale for the new requirement, and as mentioned higher makes perfect sense from a thai perspective. 

Note: But of course, I could be proven wrong when it turns out that provincial IO's will require mandatory heatlh insurance proof for an OA extension of stay.  Or when they broaden the scope to also cover O Visas and extensions.  So, let's wait and see...