38 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  Two instances posted in this thread alone of people being told they needed insurance to complete the extension.

Two posts, referring to "A French guy" and "A friend."

Maybe so, maybe not.  I think I'll wait until someone whose posting record here I can trust posts about his own experience before I get my knickers in a twist.

Just now, JTXR said:

Two posts, referring to "A French guy" and "A friend."

Maybe so, maybe not.  I think I'll wait until someone whose posting record here I can trust posts about his own experience before I get my knickers in a twist.

+1

21 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

A)

The person with the O when extending it 1 year needs at least 800k in a thai bank and "can never go below 400k". No insurance needed,but 400k in a Thai bank.

B)

The guy with the O-A when applying at home shows the money, at least 800k he's got in a bank back home, but then he can spend his money from day one (if he wants to of course). He's got "no money in a thai bank". Insurance covering minimum of 400k needed. 

 

Do you understand what I'm getting at? 

 

You still compare apples and oranges (Initial visa and extension)

when it comes to extension, what is the difference between an initial OA and an initial O?

if they use the 800 000 in bank method, there is no difference except one requires insurance

and one do not. It does not make sense.

4 hours ago, doctormann said:

No way can I get insurance

Are you really sure about that, particularly if you are aged 75 or under and are not burdened with existing medical conditions? If you have not already done so, I would strongly advise you to take a read of the following pinned thread (and the thread linked to it) on the Health forum:-

 

 

1 minute ago, kingofthemountain said:

You still compare apples and oranges (Initial visa and extension)

when it comes to extension, what is the difference between an initial OA and an initial O?

if they use the 800 000 in bank method, there is no difference except one requires insurance

and one do not. It does not make sense.

Darned right it doesn't. Maybe a decade or two of extensions without insurance and whammo, refused in 2019.

1 minute ago, kingofthemountain said:

You still compare apples and oranges (Initial visa and extension)

when it comes to extension, what is the difference between an initial OA and an initial O?

if they use the 800 000 in bank method, there is no difference except one requires insurance

and one do not. It does not make sense.

The initial OA visa does not require money in a Thai bank and people have maintained that position for two years, until they've had to extend the visa in Thailand, at which point funds in a Thai bank are required.

20 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

The coverage is 400k, not the cost. 

Yes and it's a ridiculous low amount for a coverage

especialy with an annual cost between 50 000 and 100 000 bahts (Depend on your age)

On 10/31/2019 at 11:30 PM, SpokaneAl said:

For what it’s worth, I flew into Bangkok this evening (October 31) with my non imm o-a multi entry visa that I purchased in June.

 

 

Congratulations!  And thanks for the update post...

 

Glad the IOs at the airport let you in with a pre Oct. 31 O-A without meeting their new health insurance requirements.

 

So at least, you get a reprieve for a year or two...until????

7 minutes ago, pookondee said:

I know you werent talking to me, but

It also depends IF he can get long term cover for a stay in Thailand.

Many western companies just flat-out refuse to honour claims from places like Thailand. 

 

For me, id sooner keep money in Thai bank (knowing i can eventually spend all) instead of giving xxxbaht to insurance companies for BS policy.

 

Yes, but now let's assume we're talking about applying for each Visa on Monday. Guy B now knows he needs an insurance covering at least 400k. Depending on where he's from, it will cost him. The age factor is really important. Just above 50 isn't that expensive, but from 65-66, it starts to get real expensive. Will this guy go for an O-A Visa? 

 

Guy A has the money and can afford parking them in a thai bank, like you and I. He'll go for his O Visa, and if he isn't that old,he can get an insurance in Thailand with better coverage than 400k and cheaper. 

13 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

One guy in Jomtien, yesterday, I believe.

 Ya, but I was asking @RickUdon specifically about his friend's case that he had posted on here in this thread... Not sure the Jomtien one and his are the same.....

4 minutes ago, saengd said:

The initial OA visa does not require money in a Thai bank and people have maintained that position for two years, until they've had to extend the visa in Thailand, at which point funds in a Thai bank are required.

It's exactly what i am saying

when you are on extension of stay with 800 000 bahts in a Thai bank

there is no difference between an initail OA holder and an intial O holder

except one need insurance and one not, can you explain to me why?

1 minute ago, kingofthemountain said:

Yes and it's a ridiculous low amount for a coverage

especialy with an annual cost between 50 000 and 100 000 bahts (Depend on your age)

And God only knows what these companies are like about honoring claims or disallowing pre-existing conditions.  It may be the best strategy is just to look for the cheapest premium and consider it a cost-of-doing-business visa fee rather than real health cover.

3 minutes ago, saengd said:

The initial OA visa does not require money in a Thai bank and people have maintained that position for two years, until they've had to extend the visa in Thailand, at which point funds in a Thai bank are required.

That's correct.  But when applying for an EXTENSION OF STAY the requirements for an original O based on retirement and an original OA type Visa were identical.  Were, because it seems that from now on - based on the 2 cases mentioned in previous threads - an extension of stay for an original OA type Visa does now require health insurance, while the O type Visa does not.

1 minute ago, kingofthemountain said:

It's exactly what i am saying

when you are on extension of stay with 800 000 bahts in a Thai bank

there is no difference between an initail OA holder and an intial O holder

except one need insurance and one not, can you explain to me why?

Part of the problem is that people have been using the two years of an initial OA visa to avoid putting money in a Thai bank, after the two years they have started all over with a new OA visa and got a second period of two years, rinse and repeat.

2 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

It's exactly what i am saying

when you are on extension of stay with 800 000 bahts in a Thai bank

there is no difference between an initail OA holder and an intial O holder

except one need insurance and one not, can you explain to me why?

That's easy, the money in a thai bank and never below 400k vs 800k in a home bank "when applying" for the O-A, but then he can do what he want with the money. No need to show any money after the application. That's the difference.

8 minutes ago, JTXR said:

And God only knows what these companies are like about honoring claims or disallowing pre-existing conditions.  It may be the best strategy is just to look for the cheapest premium and consider it a cost-of-doing-business visa fee rather than real health cover.

And never stay in BKK,Phuket or Pattaya where the hospitals are quite expensive. Government hospitals will be the only solution.

9 minutes ago, saengd said:

Part of the problem is that people have been using the two years of an initial OA visa to avoid putting money in a Thai bank, after the two years they have started all over with a new OA visa and got a second period of two years, rinse and repeat.

I hear what you are saying.  And - from a thai perspective - it would make sense to require that OA Visa applicants would have health insurance for the duration of that OA Visa validity (as they have effectively done).  However, it does not make sense to also require that for extensions of stay, because for an extension of stay you do need to meet the financial requirements.

Edited November 2, 20196 yr by Peter Denis

16 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

Yes and it's a ridiculous low amount for a coverage

especialy with an annual cost between 50 000 and 100 000 bahts (Depend on your age)

It is a ridiculously low coverage if staying in the wrong place. 

19 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

OK, so we have 2 real-life cases already:

1. The American pre Oct 31 issued OA holder (with no health assurance) who arrived yesterday at Suvarnabhumi Airport, and was stamped in for 1 year without any remarks.

2. The French OA holder going for his extension of stay yesterday in Jomtien, and being denied his extension for having no thai approved health assurance.

Too early to draw conclusions already, but more cases will surely pop-up in course of coming days.

Now 3 real-life cases as i did my extension to O-A visa run on sunday  27th .All ok' till Oct 2020.

18 hours ago, Max69xl said:

Like I told you earlier today, the immigration officers have no clue how to read the police order. And we are not any wiser. 

So what can the French guy do about this Immigration officer's mistake, as he should have got stamped in for further 12 months without the insurance.

22 minutes ago, saengd said:

Part of the problem is that people have been using the two years of an initial OA visa to avoid putting money in a Thai bank, after the two years they have started all over with a new OA visa and got a second period of two years, rinse and repeat.

Yes i get it

but still does not explain why the extensions of stay are affected

2 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

So what can the French guy do about this Immigration officer's mistake, as he should have got stamped in for further 12 months without the insurance.

He might have to seek the advice and help of an agent....

17 hours ago, domdom said:

The french guy asked for extensiin on 31st and would supposigly get it today 1st.. so after the 31st date barrier.. Should he have done it last week, would have got it.. this is totally stupid..

I understand what you say..

Anyway we can summarize the situation..

Thailand having tourists apparently leaving some hospital debts decides to charge, not the tourists but long term expats living here, who obviously don t have debts and who day by day inject money into thai economy..

I fear there will be no end to unfair decisions.. year by yearcwe are more pressurized..

For me with pre existant pathologies, I will have to pay a thai insurance on top of my foreign one I cannot abandon becauae it covers my pathologies..

I can afford paying it without any problem, but I begin to be fed up to have to obey stupid rules without any reasonable real base.. I feel being ripped off

Good evening

After 14 years i have always paid my hospital bills and feel  offended at being put into a group that do not pay their bills. If i had failed to pay my bills, surely this would be recorded in my name.   Not happy at all.

20 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

That's easy, the money in a thai bank and never below 400k vs 800k in a home bank "when applying" for the O-A, but then he can do what he want with the money. No need to show any money after the application. That's the difference.

I am not talking about applying for the OA

read again my post, i am talking about applying for 1 year extension of stay

and you NEED to show money in a Thai bank never below 400 000. no matter if

your initial visa was O or OA some years ago. So WHY one require insurance and one doesnt??

23 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

And never stay in BKK,Phuket or Pattaya where the hospitals are quite expensive. Government hospitals will be the only solution.

Even in governments hospitals you are not going very far with 400 000

especially since they have recently decided to x3 the rates for foreigners

22 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Yes, but now let's assume we're talking about applying for each Visa on Monday. Guy B now knows he needs an insurance covering at least 400k. Depending on where he's from, it will cost him. The age factor is really important. Just above 50 isn't that expensive, but from 65-66, it starts to get real expensive. Will this guy go for an O-A Visa? 

 

Guy A has the money and can afford parking them in a thai bank, like you and I. He'll go for his O Visa, and if he isn't that old,he can get an insurance in Thailand with better coverage than 400k and cheaper. 

So, i guess you are saying it comes down to the quality/price/value, of the insurance?

 

I'd say most people are aware that typical insurance companies ALL try to negate every possible thing you might claim on.

 

And they will only pay once for any new condition, after that its a "pre-existing" condition.

In any in any case, premiums skyrocket IF you get a claim.

It really is money for nothing IMO.

(but thats an argument for another day)

 

If i am forced, Id sooner pick the absolute cheapest, because i expect ill get xxxx'd around in any case when going to claim or renew.

 

Really, Governments everywhere dont always consider all the issues when making these such "blanket" decisions.

Lets hope all these issues somehow reach the ears of the Thai decision makers.

 

I cant possibly think of an answer for the very old "uninsurable" or those with pre-existing conditions the companies wont touch.

 

22 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

It is a ridiculously low coverage if staying in the wrong place. 

What do you mean by wrong place?

Are you sure you can always chose the place to go 

when you have an urgent health problem?

16 hours ago, Max69xl said:

That was a good move, doing it last week. But if you're going to extend it,you might have a problem with the insurance. Even if you leave Thailand on a re-entry permit and come back, same thing. 

Yes mate, i have heard all the negative suggestions, so will see when the time comes as i did on sunday 27th.

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

Reminder on posts about persons denied:

 

- Post #71:

 

- Post #112:

 

Facebook posts I have read include first person Chiang Rai report that 'as of nov 1st insurance is required' not strictly a denial is how I read it merely a confirmation. 

37 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

It's exactly what i am saying

when you are on extension of stay with 800 000 bahts in a Thai bank

there is no difference between an initail OA holder and an intial O holder

except one need insurance and one not, can you explain to me why?

You answered it yourself.

The classes you mention both have the money in a THAI bank.

The new O-A (got from another country) has money in the bank back home.

 

Quite obvious, its easier for a hospital to pull a patients funds out of a Thai ATM here

Rather than gamble and wait for money being sent from abroad 

I think its that simple.