59 minutes ago, pookondee said:

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

 

 

 

I have never heard of that happening (unless due to lack of documentation from the hospital..certainly not because it was Thailand).

 

Insurance policies specify the geographical region they are applicable to and none that I have ever seen specifically exclude Thailand...though many home country policies will only cover you in your country of residence and perhaps for emergencies during trips abroad of under a certain length.

 

Expatriate policies - which are what you would get for living here -- are typically worldwide, worldwide excluding the US, or worldwide with a longer list of exclusion countries (never once seen Thailand on such a list).

 

Many international insurers have direct payment arrangements with Thai hospitals and Thai private hospitals take in large amounts of revenue from same.

1 hour 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? 

 

your discussing something no one else is arguing.. 

 

For EXTENSIONS incountry, from now, the O and OA differences (for extension of permission of stay !!) are the same except for the single issue of insurance. Both require money in the bank, only 1 requires insurance. 

 

 

15 hours ago, oslooskar said:

Okay, you have my undivided attention. So please tell me why the immigration officers were wrong regarding their claim that my Kaiser Plan was unacceptable???

Nothing about the Kaiser plan. Just the extension.

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

Why a trip overseas? Savannaket or Vientiane (or somewhere else) works fine. It's like a short vacation.

the word overseas means 'foreign country' not exclusively one where you cross a sea.. 

19 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.

You can only get stamped in for the second free year when coming from abroad,not at immigration.

6 minutes ago, pookondee said:

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

 

 

 

Absolutely untrue, there is no policy that does or can do this. A pre-existing condition is one that pre-dates the start of the policy.

 

They can refuse to upgrade your coverage for any conditions that occurred after that, but they cannot deny coverage under the original level of cover.

 

A few  policies limit the maximum payable per condition (not the number of claims) and that may be what you have heard of. Personally I would advise against taking out a policy like that especially if the maximums are low. Most policies do not do this.

14 hours ago, Max69xl said:

Why would it say that? The second year is more of a loophole. 

Terms of the O-A apply

1 minute ago, LivinLOS said:

the word overseas means 'foreign country' not exclusively one where you cross a sea.. 

Overseas never means foreign country, especially not a neighbouring country. Overseas means Europe or any western country. 

29 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

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

a.  You did not get an extension of stay.  You left the country to obtain a new permission to stay for one year prior to the expiration of your original O-A visa.  

 

b.  You did this prior to the new law coming into effect on 31 October.  Your experience is meaningless in the context of the current conversation.  

31 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

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

and I think this is the 3rd time I have pointed out.. That would have zero bearing on a law that starts November 1st. 

 

Why keep reposting it ???

14 hours ago, Max69xl said:

That's bs. Why do you think people using the >800k in the bank method can't go below 400k since March 1? Do you think it's a coincidence that the minimum coverage for the insurance is 400k? People on O-A Visas don't need 1 bath in the bank,while people with the O Visa with extension normally have a lot of money in the bank. Plus, many of them already have insurances. I bet this never occurred to you. 

People with O-A visa have to show sufficient funds in bank when they apply, but in the country of application.

3 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

Terms of the O-A apply

There are many people with a first year O-A Visa who don't have a clue about the second free year. 

1 hour ago, Monomial said:

 

Sheryl,

 

I am not sure this is going to work. For any signature to be legally binding when dealing with a corporation, the person who signs must have legal authority to bind the company to a contract. That's what being an officer of a company means. Anyone who signs without this agency, could actually be opening themselves up to personal liability and criminal prosecution. Nobody with a lick of sense would do it. In short, you are going to need a corporate officer of Kaiser to sign the document, or else some other representative that has specifically been given authorization to bind the company by an act of the corporation's board of directors.  However you look at it, the board of directors needs to get involved in this.

 

 

They would not be signing a contract nor newly committing the company to anything. Just stating the terms of a policy that the person already holds.

 

That is fairly routine. The difficulty is that most companies have their own standard wording for such letters and the required TI certificate contains language that particularly puts them off (i.e. the reference to being in compliance with an unspecified Thai  Cabinet resolution).

4 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

a.  You did not get an extension of stay.  You left the country to obtain a new permission to stay for one year prior to the expiration of your original O-A visa.  

 

b.  You did this prior to the new law coming into effect on 31 October.  Your experience is meaningless in the context of the current conversation.  

old people and the internet ????

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

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

No no, a reprieve until one must exit and come back for any reason non visa related.

 

Then, one would be asked for insurance (second entry onwards), and the permission of stay would be granted according to the duration of the insurance.

 

For example, no insurance would entitle the holder for a permission of stay of zero days.

Edited November 2, 20196 yr by lkv

14 hours ago, Max69xl said:

Don't compare the O-X with the O-A. That's a stupid comparison,and you should have known it before you posted your comment. The O-A Visa is designed for people not staying more than 2 years and don't meet the financial requirements for the O Visa with extension and can't afford parking >800k in a Thai bank. You are the only one that brings up the O-X Visa in this thread, and that shows you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

NOT a case of "can't afford"  just common sense to keep it safe in our own country earning better rates and less chance of falling into bank managers hands in case of sudden death. This has happened before.

1 minute ago, lkv said:

No no, a reprieve until one must exit and come back for any reason non visa related.

 

Then, one would be asked for insurance (second entry onwards), and the permission of stay would be granted according to the duration of the insurance.

 

For example, no insurance would entitle the holder for a permission of stay of zero days.

Jury is still out on that.. 

Secondly you really should be able to come back with a re-entry permit, thats keeping an existing permission of stay, already granted, open. 

6 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

People with O-A visa have to show sufficient funds in bank when they apply, but in the country of application.

Yes,but only when they apply for the visa. Never after. They can spend all of it when ever they want. I can never go below 400k in my account. It's a big difference. 

5 minutes ago, lkv said:

No no, a reprieve until one must exit and come back for any reason non visa related.

 

Then, one would be asked for insurance (second entry onwards), and the permission of stay would be granted according to the duration of the insurance.

 

For example, no insurance would entitle the holder for a permission of stay of zero days.

 

if they were asking people coming in on second (or subsequent) entry on an O-A visa issued prior to the 31st I think we would have had reports by now. There have surely been people making such entries in the past 3 days.

 

All indications so far are that airports at least are not enforcing this for entries on visas issued prior to the effective date.

 

13 hours ago, Aforek said:

Do you think that Thai authorities have enough brain to understand this ; now I wonder, they took so many stupid decisions these last months 

They are all Hi-So so could not care less about poorer dependents. 

5 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

i was thinking about this money grab thing yesterday and not so sure how effective it will be. surely 90%+ of all applicants will just go with pacific cross as they seem to be the only one with (good!) english speaking representatives. all the others will pick up the crumbs left over.

 

i used to be a broker and can tell you all 10% of 80K retirees is <deleted> all market in the insurance world, its peanuts.

 

or is pacific cross a 100% thai owned company?

 

 

Ok, good counter points.  It may not be a large overall grab unless the kickbacks go to a select small number of Thai officials.  Still would like to know who actually pushed the "legislation" through.  Knowing Thai society, few would argue or debate it with a senior official if it did come down from the top

2 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

LOL.. Your wife and family isnt worth a single trip overseas to obtain a single entry non imm O ??? 

 

WOW.. 

Or an overnight trip to Suvanakhet?

15 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

if they were asking people coming in on second (or subsequent) entry on an O-A visa issued prior to the 31st I think we would have had reports by now.

I think the non O-A market is more limited than we imagine, probably a few thousand people (out of the total 80K "retirees" claimed).

 

Keep in mind that a large majority of them are not travelling in and out internationally every day. Many don't even exit for the whole 12 months.

 

Then, not all hurry up on forums to report experiences.

 

I have seen some people on Facebook saying they will enter on 7 Nov...17 Nov...something like that. On non O-A's

 

Actually, there is one claiming that a non O-A holder has been asked for insurance at the airport, but hearsay.

 

Should become more clear in a few days.

Edited November 2, 20196 yr by lkv

8 hours ago, jacko45k said:

So where are we now in relation to Jomtien and extensions based on an original O-A permission, 2 saying insurance not required and 1 saying it is? And will I need to dig out my old passport with the original  O-Visa from 13 years ago when I apply to do my extension soon, to confirm I did not have an O-A? Or is it explicit in the transfer stamp, which says Non-Imm-O.

 

And fond memories I have of it being easily obtained from Hull, that Non-Imm-O Multi Entry, for just under 100 quid with hardly any requirements!

I am asking this because i am a little confused. Are you saying that you got your O-A 13 years ago and have just got annual extensions ever since by getting the re-entry visa and doing a border run ?

24 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

They would not be signing a contract nor newly committing the company to anything. Just stating the terms of a policy that the person already holds.

 

That is fairly routine. The difficulty is that most companies have their own standard wording for such letters and the required TI certificate contains language that particularly puts them off (i.e. the reference to being in compliance with an unspecified Thai  Cabinet resolution).

 

Based on the wording I see, I respectfully disagree that they are stating terms of policy a person already holds. They are guaranteeing terms of a policy according to a specific verbiage that is different from the terms of the policy. That implies the person signing has made an interpretation that the two are equivalent, and as such is a legally binding document. It is defintely not fairly routine.

 

It is not just offputting. It is legally not allowed except by an officer of the company or their agent.

Edited November 2, 20196 yr by Monomial

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395920320731833/permalink/2552768101713710/

 

This is the claim for the airport experience, hearsay though. "I know someone that...." First comment.

Edited November 2, 20196 yr by lkv

6 hours ago, Pib said:

No, not "in & out"....annual extensions where I go to my servicing IO and apply for another retirement extension of stay.

 

How  and what is required please.

2 hours ago, pookondee said:

Someone has already been denied extension of stay for not having Insurance?

 

Can you please share the source/thread you heard this?

 

It was at Jomtein.

36 minutes ago, Huckenfell said:

I am asking this because i am a little confused. Are you saying that you got your O-A 13 years ago and have just got annual extensions ever since by getting the re-entry visa and doing a border run ?

He's got the O Visa, not the O-A.

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

You can only get stamped in for the second free year when coming from abroad,not at immigration.

OK so the answer is that he should have done a border run as i did . Common sense really.