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

[Mango Bob]

18 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Hi Mango Bob > Can you rephrase the question?  It's not clear for me what you are asking or looking for.

What type of a retirement visa was it?  An Non 0 or a Non O/A?

[unblocktheplanet]

Let us all pay for public health coverage! Why is this so hard?

[LivinLOS]

31 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

I do not doubt that Oslooskar did get the above response from an Immigration Officer.

However, there are also several reports from TVF members who queried their provincial Immigration Office on the issue, and received the response that health insurance will NOT be required for any extension of stay.

Note: That response is in line with the rationale to ONLY impose the health insurance requirement for those  applying for a Non Imm OA Visa in their home-country < see my post #150 >

 

Could you highlight which ones.. I keep seeing this posted but the overwhelming reports disagree, so which offices say that an OA extension does not need it ?? 

The offices that appear to have said it will be required are Phuket, Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Yasithorn, Nakhon Phanom, and importantly head office CW and the helpline. 

 

Notable gaps include Hua hin, Samui, and the issan ubon / udon areas. 

[wgdanson]

5 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Let us all pay for public health coverage! Why is this so hard?

And at DOUBLE what the locals pay, no problem.

[Peter Denis]

3 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

What type of a retirement visa was it?  An Non 0 or a Non O/A?

Several reports of TVF members that queried their provincial IO's whether health insurance would be required for an extension of stay based on their original OA retirement Visa, got the response that NO health insurance would be required for an extension of stay, be it for an original OA or an original O.  The rationale being that in both cases there would be 'money on a thai bank-account' to cover any eventualities.

[Mango Bob]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Several reports of TVF members that queried their provincial IO's whether health insurance would be required for an extension of stay based on their original OA retirement Visa, got the response that NO health insurance would be required for an extension of stay, be it for an original OA or an original O.  The rationale being that in both cases there would be 'money on a thai bank-account' to cover any eventualities.

That's great, but there are others that say you need health insurance.  Including my IO in Ratchaburi and I am the one who called the helpline and was  told health insurance is required for Non A/O next extension of stay.

[Misab]

Who is discussing this topic? Is the very rich Farang trying to get rid of the not so rich farangs?

Why discuss it at all, why not just let it be.

[WhatupThailand]

29 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Let us all pay for public health coverage! Why is this so hard?

Because it would not conform to the RULES

 

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.

[Olmate]

33 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Could you highlight which ones.. I keep seeing this posted but the overwhelming reports disagree, so which offices say that an OA extension does not need it ?? 

The offices that appear to have said it will be required are Phuket, Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Yasithorn, Nakhon Phanom, and importantly head office CW and the helpline. 

 

Notable gaps include Hua hin, Samui, and the issan ubon / udon areas. 

I would be going with the mainstream, the others can,t read!

[Olmate]

3 hours ago, DogNo1 said:

I suggest that you enter on a visa waiver and bring with you 400,000 if you are legally married or 800,000 if you need to do a retirement visa. Put your money in a Thai bank right away, then convert your visa waiver to a ninety-day Non-O about fifteen days in.  Near the end of the ninety days, apply for a one-year extension of stay.  Avoid the O-A confusion.

 

BTW, nobody has posted the financial requirements for extending an O-A visa in-country.  If they are the same as for a Non-O, then the basis for your stay should be changed to Non-O. There is no logic to requiring people who are satisfying the requirements for a Non-O to buy insurance.

Cost 800 k, Great idea

[Peter Denis]

32 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Could you highlight which ones.. I keep seeing this posted but the overwhelming reports disagree, so which offices say that an OA extension does not need it ?? 

The offices that appear to have said it will be required are Phuket, Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Yasithorn, Nakhon Phanom, and importantly head office CW and the helpline. 

 

Notable gaps include Hua hin, Samui, and the issan ubon / udon areas. 

In another thread on the Health Insurance requirement

> forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1128878-absolute-latest-from-immigration-on-insurance/#comments

there are at least 2 reports from provincial IO's (e.g. Hat Yai) stating that health insurance is NOT needed for an extension of stay.

In that particular thread there are also a couple of posts of UbonJoe who is of the same opinion based on the reading of the Police Report.

It's a crazy situation, because indeed the majority of IO's are spreading the message that health insurance will be required for an extension of stay if your original Visa was OA.  And that's not what the Police Report is stating, but which unfortunately is written in cryptic legalese.

 

 

[fittobethaied]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

In another thread on the Health Insurance requirement

> forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1128878-absolute-latest-from-immigration-on-insurance/#comments

there are at least 2 reports from provincial IO's (e.g. Hat Yai) stating that health insurance is NOT needed for an extension of stay.

In that particular thread there are also a couple of posts of UbonJoe who is of the same opinion based on the reading of the Police Report.

It's a crazy situation, because indeed the majority of IO's are spreading the message that health insurance will be required for an extension of stay if your original Visa was OA.  And that's not what the Police Report is stating, but which unfortunately is written in cryptic legalese.

Peter, if you will read page 2 on the English translation of the Police Order, there is no doubt that it is saying insurance is needed for extensions of stay based on retirement. The heading at the top of the page clearly indicates this with details following in the page. I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. I wish it wasn't so my friend!

 

You may also want to read my previous post #180 on page 12 of this thread for more clarification on the matter. All the best!

Quote

 

 

 

Insurance O-A Visa New Police Order.pdf

Edited October 28, 2019 by fittobethaied

[Peter Denis]

17 minutes ago, fittobethaied said:

Peter, if you will read page 2 on the English translation of the Police Order, there is no doubt that it is saying insurance is needed for extensions of stay based on retirement. The heading at the top of the page clearly indicates this with details following in the page. I don't know how you could interpret it any other way. I wish it wasn't so my friend!

 

You may also want to read my previous post #180 on page 12 of this thread for more clarification on the matter. All the best!

 

Insurance O-A Visa New Police Order.pdf 1.87 MB · 1 download

Oops, yes - although stated in legalese - it's indeed clear that the Police Order requires health insurance coverage for extension of stay based on original OA Visa status.  Thanks for clarifying that, but shocked to learn that the new requirement defies any logic and consistency.  It's probably a farang problem to look for a reasonable explanation instead of accepting the utter mess.

[LivinLOS]

42 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

In another thread on the Health Insurance requirement

> forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1128878-absolute-latest-from-immigration-on-insurance/#comments

there are at least 2 reports from provincial IO's (e.g. Hat Yai) stating that health insurance is NOT needed for an extension of stay.

In that particular thread there are also a couple of posts of UbonJoe who is of the same opinion based on the reading of the Police Report.

It's a crazy situation, because indeed the majority of IO's are spreading the message that health insurance will be required for an extension of stay if your original Visa was OA.  And that's not what the Police Report is stating, but which unfortunately is written in cryptic legalese.

 

 

Personally I am baffled by why mods (not only ubonjoe) read the police order and the ongoing reports from IOs across the country the way they do. Lets just say that its a matter of opinion at this point. 

 

As to the reports from Hat Yai (and what others ??) would be better if we could see the quote and what context, was the IO answering an OA visa generated permission of stay extension (so many folks get so many basics wrong) or what precisely they have said. 

So far the overwhelming balance is in the side that OA based permission of stay extensions will requie insurance. That of course is subject to change, lets hope it does. 

[friend of siam]

4 hours ago, AAArdvark said:

The problem with the Elite visa is that you pay up front for 5 or 10 years.  You get away with no insurance but 2 years in they change the requirement.  Then you are stuck with getting insurance or loosing your money spent on the Elite visa. 

but this type of situation even a standard in thailand ( sorry sir can you pay more for room now - paid ahead for six month after one month in the contract this comes -because my car broken etc etc )

is not unique to LOS...europe i think is number two of unreliability in terms of government policy's

[holy cow cm]

And if definitely says a Thai insurance policy which is sacrilegious to make people do if have insurance already or adequate money in the bank. Bunch of vultures 

[PeteDaKat]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:48 AM, MartinKal said:

Extension of stay, not visa application. O-A visa, not O or OX.

Copied & pasted from Royal Thai Consulate Los Angeles application guidelines for O-X, stating specifically the requirement for health insurance

"Applicant must have a Thai health insurance for the duration of stay, with coverage for outpatient treatment of no less than 40,000 bahts and inpatient treatment of no less than 400,000 bahts."

[GeorgeCross]

18 hours ago, Chazar said:

Theyll fix  it to say EVERYONE  must have insurance, its what theyve been waiting for.

 

if that was the plan why not just do it in the first place?

 

 

 

 

[tgeezer]

Someone must have a degree in stating the obvious. The rule was made by people who understood the system of visas and extensions but implemented by people who in many cases didn’t have a clue. I include in the latter group many of us who having heard the rule and being convinced that everything Immigration does is designed to make it difficult for us to remain here, asked stupid questions and received confusing answers.  This latest piece of news is a perfect example of that, ignore it.  

[Chazar]

8 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

if that was the plan why not just do it in the first place?

 

 

 

 

softening you up and testing the waters

[Expat Brad]

On 10/27/2019 at 3:24 PM, 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 wouldn't give a toss about that!!!!

[sqwakvfr]

Just had an interesting email exchange with a representative from one of the insurance companies listed on the Long Stay Visa Insurance website.

 

He stated adamantly that one has to be inside Thailand in order purchase Health Insurance form his company.  He had no idea what a Non Imm O or OA visa was.  I asked then how would a foreigner apply for health insurance in order to obtain an OA?  “The Right Foot does not know what the Left Foot is doing” or TIT.  

 

I won’t name the company because after all this Thailand.  

[Exploring Thailand]

I picked up my OA from the Thai Embassy in London, today. I'm flying to Thailand later today to arrive on the 30th, the day before the rules come into force.

 

I asked the guy who gave me my passport back, "If I leave Thailand, will I need insurance to get back in?". I had to ask him about 3 times because he didn't seem to grasp what I was asking. He, told me, "Go sit over there and I'll get someone to explain it to you.". At that point, somebody behind him said, "Yes.". The guy I was speaking to repeated to me "Yes.". I said "I will need to get insurance if I leave and re-enter Thailand?". He said, "Yes, we start tomorrow".

 

I'm not sure how much faith I can put in the answer, because I had the distinct impression they were as confused about it as everyone else. I was going to ask him about subsequent retirement extensions to the OA, but the person behind him disappeared and he seemed anxious to get on with serving more customers.

 

If what he says is correct, it makes no difference when the OA was issued, as mine was issued 2 days before the rules come into force, and he told me that I will need insurance if I leave and re-enter the country.

[lkv]

28 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

 I said "I will need to get insurance if I leave and re-enter Thailand?". He said, "Yes, we start tomorrow".

Yes, they (the staff in the embassy) start requiring insurance for new applications, that's what they meant.

 

Deflection it's called, it comes with the Thainess. You ask them a question, they answer another question.

 

They have no idea what the Immigration officers will be doing on the 31st and after, within Thailand.

 

Neither does anybody on this forum, and very likely, a large majority of IO's.

Edited October 29, 2019 by lkv

[Exploring Thailand]

10 minutes ago, lkv said:

Yes, they (the staff in the embassy) start requiring insurance for new applications, that's what they meant.

 

It's a typical Thai answer. You ask them something, and they answer something else.

 

They have no idea what the Immigration officers will be doing on the 31st and after, within Thailand.

Yes. The guy I spoke to wasn't very well informed. I was pleased when he told me I would get to sit down and speak with someone who did know what was happening. The person who told him "yes" did appear to be senior to him, but she didn't seem to want to expand on her monosyllabic answer. I think, as you say, they know what they have to do -check the insurance- but as  to all the implications and grey areas of the new rule, they don't really have any idea.

[wisperone]

1 hour ago, Exploring Thailand said:

If what he says is correct, it makes no difference when the OA was issued, as mine was issued 2 days before the rules come into force, and he told me that I will need insurance if I leave and re-enter the country.

Like everything else, you will find out when you try to reenter the country. What one tells you elsewhere is inconsequential. Welcome to LOS.

[Exploring Thailand]

43 minutes ago, wisperone said:

Like everything else, you will find out when you try to reenter the country. What one tells you elsewhere is inconsequential. Welcome to LOS.

I'm going to let someone else find out first :), though of course there is no guarantee that their experience will be the same as mine.

[rabas]

On 10/28/2019 at 9:22 AM, elviajero said:

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.

 

To the contrary, at least in my experience it's easy to change visa status here without leaving as long as you qualify for the new visa type.  When I stopped working a while ago I asked to change to a marriage visa, no problem, just meet the marriage requirements. At the time I asked CW what if I want to work again? No problem, just come in with the correct work visa  paperwork and we will change it back. I never did but I have a few times switched between marriage and retirement. 

 

I once stupidly let my visa expire (don't do that) and CW said I must leave because I was now here illegally. But they instructed me to just get a tourist visa and they would change that into the Non-O at CW when I came back. I did, no problem. Two days, it's all in my passport.

 

So i don't agree that one always needs to exit.  My experience is you dont' need to exit as long are you are still hear legally and qualify for the new visa type. How this apples to non O-A is still unknown at least to me.

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by rabas

[phka]

It's not a loophole in the non imm OA visa. The O visa is a completely different type of visa

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, rabas said:

 

To the contrary, at least in my experience it's easy to change visa status here without leaving as long as you qualify for the new visa type.  When I stopped working a while ago I asked to change to a marriage visa, no problem, just meet the marriage requirements. At the time I asked CW what if I want to work again? No problem, just come in with the correct work visa  paperwork and we will change it back. I never did but I have a few times switched between marriage and retirement. 

 

I once stupidly let my visa expire (don't do that) and CW said I must leave because I was now here illegally. But they instructed me to just get a tourist visa and they would change that into the Non-O at CW when I came back. I did, no problem. Two days, it's all in my passport.

 

So i don't agree that one always needs to exit.  My experience is you dont' need to exit as long are you are still hear legally and qualify for the new visa type. How this apples to non O-A is still unknown at least to me.

 

I agree — and didn’t say to the contrary — that you don’t always need to exit, but you are confusing changing the reason an extension is given with changing the category of a Non-Imm visa.

 

In your case immigration allowed you to change the reason for your extension either because you already had a Non O, or they ignored the fact you had a Non B; either way the fact you had a Non-Imm visa was enough for them to issue an extension as a spouse.

 

If you had a Non B they would have been in their rights to send you out of the country for a Non O. And had they insisted on you having a Non O you couldn’t have changed your visa category from B to O at immigration.