O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Martyp]

Within a couple of days the non-immigrant O visa has become the star visa to get. No more pushing the OA visa. Those intent on keeping their money (or some of it) out of Thai banks will have a reckoning.

[Sheryl]

1 minute ago, Max69xl said:

Imo it makes more sense not having a forced on crappy thai insurance at all if not needed. I mean, start all over with a Non-Immigrant O with 1 year extensions. 

 

The only problem with that, is we do not know for how long this will work, and for anyone pushing 70 or 75 options for immigration-approved insurance will soon vanish.  (Not a single option available for people over 75 and only 2 for people aged 71-75).

 

I am on an O myself so no immediate problem for me personally but the language in the Cabinet Resolution is worrisome for the long run, and while it would likely take some time for anything to happen affecting other visa types I am toying with the idea of  getting a second policy sometime in the next few years, before I am too old to do so.  Of course I will wait and see first how things shake out. But it is in my mind since I am deeply committed to staying here (built a large house and just spent a small fortune on a new roof!!!)

 

Another option which my broker mentioned to me is to take a larger deductible on my "real" insurance to lower its premiums and use the savings to by a 400/40 local policy with the idea that the local policy would cover the deductible on the main policy. (I would not suggest doing this without a good broker as my experience with getting local insurer to pay a deductible was that it was an uphill struggle to get them to understand it).

[Peter Denis]

17 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

or a permission to stay based on an original OA Visa, irrespective when it was issued, are from now on required to meet the new health-insurance requirement

 

40 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Have you seen such a report? It would actually mean someone arriving holding a re-entry permit of course, but that in itself does not categorically mention the originating visa class... they would need to look at the actual Extension stamp, or transfer stamp. Just don't think I have read of that happening yet.

 

My full statement - based on several reports that have been posted - was that:

It confirms that the present practice in Suvarnabhumi Airport is that ALL holders of an OA Visa or a permission to stay based on an original OA Visa, irrespective when it was issued, are from now on required to meet the new health-insurance requirement.

And you have 2 options > either buy that required health-insurance on the spot OR enter Thailand Visa-exempt and sort it out later at an in-country IO after having bought thai-approved health insurance and get stamped in for the full year you were entitled to if you had met the HI requirement on entry. 

< or go for the Non Imm O Visa application, that does not require health insurance >

 

Until yesterday I still believed and hoped that the correct interpretation of the Police Order was that health-insurance would NOT be required for holders of an OA Visa (or an extension of stay based on an original OA Visa) when it was issued before Oct 31.

However, till now there is not one report of an OA Visa holder entering Thailand or applying for an extension of stay based on an OA Visa, that was accepted without having to show the health-insurance requirement was met.

But reports - first-hand, second-hand and statements by IO officers - keep on coming in that such health-insurance is required for all OA Visa holders when entering Thailand or applying for an extension of stay.  

Note: Permissions to stay on an OA Visa that have been granted (before Oct 31) are not affected.  So when leaving and re-entering Thailand before the expiry of your permission to stay you would need a re-entry permit to keep that granted permission 'alive'.

 

For what's it worth >

The turning point for me was when moderator Sheryl admitted (sort of apologized) in one of her posts that the TVF stance on Not Required for pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas turned out to be not correct.

The point being that IO have the right to change the requirements for approval.  For sure, they do NOT have the right to turn back on a granted permission to stay.  But a granted permission is only for a defined period, and after that period it is not automatically re-approved when meeting the  conditions when originally applying, but it needs to meet the conditions which are current at the moment of the new application.

Of course that's not fair, and it means that you are never sure that you can stay indefinitely as they might impose new requirements that are very hard or even impossible to meet.  But they do have that right, and it seems they are making use of it...

 

In conclusion: All reports till now seem to support that ALL Non Imm OA Visa holders will be affected by the new health-insurance requirement somewhere within the coming 12 months when

a) entering or re-entering Thailand, or

b) applying for an extension of a permission to stay.

 

[Sheryl]

23 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

Did Immigration actually come up with the list of thai insurances and denied O-A Visa holders insurances from foreign companies? It must have been the Health Department together with maybe another Department. The whole idea about a mandatory insurance for O-A Visa holders,came from the Health Department.

 

Actually the Minister of Health publicly stated that foreign insurance would be accepted....and that there would be some alternative scheme in place for those unable to get insurance.  Neither of which happened.

 

The impetus to have an insurance requirement came from the health ministry yes, but the details of the "scheme" were worked out largely by Thai insurance companies as far as I can tell.  Due to universal coverage, the Thai health dept has very little knowledge or understanding of private insurance and the whole thing seems to have been left to the OIC and private companies to hash out.. if you read the police order all details revert to "see the tgia website", I don't think I have ever seen a governmental order that simply refers everyone to whatever is on a private, for profit companies website.

 

Obviously they have a vested interest in not allowing foreign insurance. And with just one or two exceptions they have done a truly terrible job of responding to market demand in terms of appropriate policies,  to say the least. The Thai health insurance sector has always been very, very weak.

 

 

 

 

[jacko45k]

11 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

However, till now there is not one report of an OA Visa holder entering Thailand or applying for an extension of stay based on an OA Visa, that was accepted without having to show the health-insurance requirement was met.

Pretty sure I read one report of a guy who was held up for 2 hours, but ultimately got a 12 month stamp for his Non-Imm_O-A (issued prior to Oct 31st, arrived after).  It will become clearer in time. 

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by jacko45k

[mosan]

12 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The only problem with that, is we do not know for how long this will work, and for anyone pushing 70 or 75 options for immigration-approved insurance will soon vanish.  (Not a single option available for people over 75 and only 2 for people aged 71-75).

 

I am on an O myself so no immediate problem for me personally but the language in the Cabinet Resolution is worrisome for the long run, and while it would likely take some time for anything to happen affecting other visa types I am toying with the idea of  getting a second policy sometime in the next few years, before I am too old to do so.  Of course I will wait and see first how things shake out. But it is in my mind since I am deeply committed to staying here (built a large house and just spent a small fortune on a new roof!!!)

 

Another option which my broker mentioned to me is to take a larger deductible on my "real" insurance to lower its premiums and use the savings to by a 400/40 local policy with the idea that the local policy would cover the deductible on the main policy. (I would not suggest doing this without a good broker as my experience with getting local insurer to pay a deductible was that it was an uphill struggle to get them to understand it).

I'd like to add that as a US veteran, one can use the 40/400K Thai police as the first payer. TRICARE will revert to a "wrap-around" roll. Also, once your costs go above the $3000 (100,000 Baht) catastrophic cap, TRICARE pays 100% of cost from there on.  Therefore, it's a good idea to get the cheapest Thai policy possble...

Edited November 7, 2019 by mosan
Clarity

[el jefe]

3 hours ago, TheAppletons said:

I'm in the same situation so I'm interested to see if CM Immigration will actually grant you a re-entry permit while still having an active first year O-A with multiple entries available. 

I'm the one who posted that I'm leaving today with a ME-OA first year Visa issued in September 2019. I'm leaving from BKK where I am now. It took an hour for them to agree to give me the Reentry permit and they told me that it may not be accepted when I return next week.  I said I'll take my chances. 

This system sucks. 

[Martyp]

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

Pretty sure I read one report of a guy who was held up for 2 hours, but ultimately got a 12 month stamp for his Non-Imm_O-A (issued prior to Oct 31st, arrived after).  It will become clearer in time. 

Yes but if was a different IO that stamped him in for a year and he thinks he just got lucky. The IOs he talked with were insistent that he needed insurance and others have been allowed to enter for 30 days to sort out the insurance.

[Sheryl]

14 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The turning point for me was when moderator Sheryl admitted (sort of apologized) in one of her posts that the TVF stance on Not Required for pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas turned out to be not correct.

 

 

 

Nothing I have said reflects an "official TVF stance".  It reflects my own thinking, no more, no less.

 

It is evident to me  that IOs at Suvannabhumi at least are requiring health insurance from people entering on active OA visas (not re-entry permits for existing extensions of stay!). Maybe this will change, maybe not; maybe their understanding of the order is correct and maybe not;  but it does seem to be the current reality as of now.

 

The Memorandum for entry point officers that Maestro provided sheds some light on this; as worded it does seem to apply the effective date as the date of entry not date of visa issuance. If so there has been a major failure of communication between Imm and the MFA and its Embassies/Consulates as all of the latter seem to have understood the effective date to relate to issuance of visas. If the intent was to start requiring insurance of anyone entering after the 31st then the Embassies and Consulates needed to have started enforcing it at once, which they did not do.  Indeed, people with already issued visas who called some  Embassies for advise reported being assurred it would not affect them.

 

On extensions of stay there have been conflicting reports from people who asked their local IO in advance,  and so far limited reports of people actually doing one. A  few that I have seen seem to point to it being required in the few places reported on.  This too might or might not be a correct interpretation of the order and might or might not change.

[jacko45k]

4 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Yes but if was a different IO that stamped him in for a year and he thinks he just got lucky. The IOs he talked with were insistent that he needed insurance and others have been allowed to enter for 30 days to sort out the insurance.

And is there a mechanism for them to go to domestic immigration with their new insurance certificate and subsequently get  12 month permission to Stay (from their initial arrival date)?

[Sheryl]

8 minutes ago, el jefe said:

I'm the one who posted that I'm leaving today with a ME-OA first year Visa issued in September 2019. I'm leaving from BKK where I am now. It took an hour for them to agree to give me the Reentry permit and they told me that it may not be accepted when I return next week.  I said I'll take my chances. 

This system sucks. 

 

If your OA was issued in September 2019 then it is still valid which is why the issue about giving you a RE permit, and why your RE permit might not  be accepted on entry. In fact I am surprised they let you have the RE permit at all.

 

Would be a different matter for someone whose OA has expired and seeks a RE permit to maintain an existing permission of stay,

[Martyp]

2 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

And is there a mechanism for them to go to domestic immigration with their new insurance certificate and subsequently get  12 month permission to Stay (from their initial arrival date)?

I asked that very question several pages back in this discussion thread. Will they even know what you are talking about at CW? Maybe section L will handle it. Some have suggested that you have to leave and reenter with your insurance certificate to get you year long stamp at the entry point.

[Chongalulu]

The all too common toxic mixture of willful ignorance,stupidity,bloody minded face saving and confusion. And they wonder why tourism numbers are in decline and the economy starts to suffer. 

[Andrew Dwyer]

4 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

And is there a mechanism for them to go to domestic immigration with their new insurance certificate and subsequently get  12 month permission to Stay (from their initial arrival date)?

That is a good question !!

 

The last 2 reports, of people given 30 days exempt to obtain insurance, has told them to leave Thailand and re-enter, presumably to kickstart the OA again ?

[Peter Denis]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

If your O-A Visa is still valid for entry within 1 year of it's date of issue, then it would be a new entry (not a re-entry) granting a new permission of stay for 1 year. Insurance would be required.

A re-entry permit only keeps any existing permission of stay valid.

That's correct, but there is a grey area here.

I will leave Thailand next week and will buy a re-entry permit before doing so.

My original issued OA Visa is valid till June 26, and the granted permission to stay based on that OA Visa will expire July 22.

I foresee no problem buying a re-entry permit, as the IO cannot know that I plan to return before the expiry of my original Visa.  And if he asks I will say that I plan to only return beginning of July and hence want to keep my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

But there might occur a problem when I will return from my trip next month.  Because my passport will carry an OA Visa valid till June 26, as well as a re-entry permit that keeps my granted permission to stay till July 22 alive.

Previously having a re-entry permit with a non-expired OA Visa would be senseless, because you would be stamped in for another year from the entrance date. 

However, and that's the point > my OA Visa - although not expired - is not valid anymore for entering Thailand without the new health-insurance requirement.  So they cannot let me in on that OA Visa, but I can point to the valid re-entry permit which keeps my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

The above will probably provoke some raised eyebrows from border-immigration, but I believe that they cannot deny entry on a granted permission of stay 'secured' by a re-entry permit.

Putting it differently:  If I would not have left Thailand I could stay the full granted permission of stay.  So why would exiting/returning revoke that permission when I have a valid re-entry permit?

But of course any comments are welcome if you see flaws in 'my little plan'.

 

[Sheryl]

14 minutes ago, mosan said:

I'd like to add that as a US veteran, one can use the 40/400K Thai police as the first payer. TRICARE will revert to a "wrap-around" roll. Also, once your costs go above the $3000 (100,000 Baht) catastrophic cap, TRICARE pays 100% of cost from there on.  Therefore, it's a good idea to get the cheapest Thai policy possble...

 

One thing to be wary of is that many of these Thai policies do not do real medical underwriting -- for sure not the ones you can buy online on the spot as that by definition means it was not underwritten.

 

This is one of several "quirks" in the local health insurance sector.  Basically they wait until you have a claim and then investigate to decide if it is allowable or whether it falls into the "pre-existing" category...and is why local policies have such a bad reputation for actually paying out.  Claims in the first year especially, if not due to an accident, are likely to be rigorously investigated to see if they can possibly be attributed to something pre-existing, and sometimes the leaps of logic used to decide this are rather tenuous.  Full medical underwriting largely avoids this by making it explicit from the start what is and is not covered, but that takes time to do (and in soem cases a medical exam).

 

Pacific Cross does do full underwriting. AETNA might, I'm not sure. I think most of the others do not. For sure the on-the-spot folks don't. Caveat emptor.

 

Between the unrealistically low level of inpatient cover and the many policies that do not do full medical underwriting, plenty of what Immigration considers  "insured" people will still be left unable to pay their bill -- especially those who bought a quick policy at the airport at IO insistance.   (In their defense I don't think the IOs have a clue how health insurance works, why would they?).  I predict that the MoPH will eventually see that this "solution" does not help, but that will take time -- probably years - to play out and who knows what they will then come up with.

[Sheryl]

3 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

That's correct, but there is a grey area here.

I will leave Thailand next week and will buy a re-entry permit before doing so.

My original issued OA Visa is valid till June 26, and the granted permission to stay based on that OA Visa will expire July 22.

I foresee no problem buying a re-entry permit, as the IO cannot know that I plan to return before the expiry of my original Visa.  And if he asks I will say that I plan to only return beginning of July and hence want to keep my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

But there might occur a problem when I will return from my trip next month.  Because my passport will carry an OA Visa valid till June 26, as well as a re-entry permit that keeps my granted permission to stay till July 22 alive.

Previously having a re-entry permit with a non-expired OA Visa would be senseless, because you would be stamped in for another year from the entrance date. 

However, and that's the point > my OA Visa - although not expired - is not valid anymore for entering Thailand without the new health-insurance requirement.  So they cannot let me in on that OA Visa, but I can point to the valid re-entry permit which keeps my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

The above will probably provoke some raised eyebrows from border-immigration, but I believe that they cannot deny entry on a granted permission of stay 'secured' by a re-entry permit.

Putting it differently:  If I would not have left Thailand I could stay the full granted permission of stay.  So why would exiting/returning revoke that permission when I have a valid re-entry permit?

But of course any comments are welcome if you see flaws in 'my little plan'.

 

 

I think you know the flaw already, i.e. they may notice the still active OA and insist you have to use it,

 

A bold move and I wish you luck.

 

Let us know what happens.

 

 

[GeorgeCross]

Quote

Why "Go out of Thailand"?  Can't he get the insurance and just go to the local immigration?

 

2 hours ago, wgdanson said:

Not according to the IO at Swampy. He is going to argue it out with IO at Jomtien today. I shall keep you informed.

 

and it rolls back to my 'irony' post yesterday..

 

Quote

wouldn't it be ironic if by forcing those without insurance to leave the country they just came back with a non-o!

 

these numbnuts really haven't thought any of this through ????

 

 

[zydeco]

4 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

these numbnuts really haven't thought any of this through

They never do. It's just a bunch of old cronies setting around a table saying, "how about this?" "Okay, that sounds good. Let's do it."

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

If your OA was issued in September 2019 then it is still valid which is why the issue about giving you a RE permit, and why your RE permit might not  be accepted on entry. In fact I am surprised they let you have the RE permit at all.

 

Would be a different matter for someone whose OA has expired and seeks a RE permit to maintain an existing permission of stay,

When issuing a re-entry permit the IO cannot know (unless you tell him) when you plan to return.

So your Visa could still be valid on the day of requesting a re-entry permit, because you plan to come back after it expired.  And for that reason you would want to buy a re-entry permit which keeps your granted permission to stay 'alive'.

The above is not hypothetical, there must be many cases of Visa holders leaving just before the expiry date of their Visa and wanting to keep their permission to stay alive.

[Mango Bob]

I plan to go to the United States in April and will be getting a RE permit.  I had an O/A visa 13 years ago and have been on extensions of stay since then.  Will the IO be asking about insurance with me.  My extension of stay ends 27 Jul 19.

[GeorgeCross]

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

Imo it makes more sense not having a forced on crappy thai insurance at all if not needed. I mean, start all over with a Non-Immigrant O with 1 year extensions. 

 

dangerous game to play if near 75 though because if you move to O and then they migrate the policy to other classes (as they are currently discussing) one might oneself to old to get insurance and then be faced with a forced flight home anyway ????

 

 

[UKresonant]

23 hours ago, Max69xl said:

Do you understand the topic? It's about an O-A Visa issued prior to October 31,and then an insurance is not needed. 

After enquiring generally a few months ago, they said that they probably not sell me a Thai policy, because I was not sure that I would be in Thailand more than the 180 days a year.

I was looking to have, 

1. Out patients, self funded money in a debit card, which I would save into, and treat it as spent money.

2. Travel insurance to cover all my Trips here.

3. Thai health insurance policy (nothing fancy), which I could include my son on (Who is 50% covered at present).

4. Was searching for some sort of flat rate hospital IP benefit insurance (just an idea).

5. Try and make sure my credit cards have emergency available credit.

 

I've read other posts of people using the O-A visa as a Multi-entry visa, where Thailand  was not their only location throughout the year. My interest in the O-A was only the ME aspect (in lieu of non-O ME availability in the UK)

I was simply trying to highlight that if they are new applicants coming from overseas, especially if they do not spend all year here, how could they meet the T&Cs, to actually be insured? 1. for the application initially in home country. 2. If the were offered at the Airport. 3. They were stamped in for 30 day (30 days + time in Thailand  still not 180+).

How could they be compliant and have the insurance? (They must have changed the Thai insurance law, was the curiosity).

If the person asked to buy the insurance, does not fulfill the T&C of the policy, they may not be covered by the policy. Therefore the Thai hospital would be left with an unpaid bill. (unless the people directing people to buy it paid the bill, and would be the very folk to confirm the T&C compliance or not ???? )

Edited November 7, 2019 by UKresonant

[AussieBob18]

19 minutes ago, zydeco said:

They never do. It's just a bunch of old cronies setting around a table saying, "how about this?" "Okay, that sounds good. Let's do it."

It is more like - "This is what I want to do".    Yes Yes Boss - We do now.  

Questions or Suggestions are NOT allowed - and would lead to reprimand and/or demotion and/or redeployment (or all).

 

[mosan]

31 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

One thing to be wary of is that many of these Thai policies do not do real medical underwriting -- for sure not the ones you can buy online on the spot as that by definition means it was not underwritten.

 

This is one of several "quirks" in the local health insurance sector.  Basically they wait until you have a claim and then investigate to decide if it is allowable or whether it falls into the "pre-existing" category...and is why local policies have such a bad reputation for actually paying out.  Claims in the first year especially, if not due to an accident, are likely to be rigorously investigated to see if they can possibly be attributed to something pre-existing, and sometimes the leaps of logic used to decide this are rather tenuous.  Full medical underwriting largely avoids this by making it explicit from the start what is and is not covered, but that takes time to do (and in soem cases a medical exam).

 

Pacific Cross does do full underwriting. AETNA might, I'm not sure. I think most of the others do not. For sure the on-the-spot folks don't. Caveat emptor.

 

Between the unrealistically low level of inpatient cover and the many policies that do not do full medical underwriting, plenty of what Immigration considers  "insured" people will still be left unable to pay their bill -- especially those who bought a quick policy at the airport at IO insistance.   (In their defense I don't think the IOs have a clue how health insurance works, why would they?).  I predict that the MoPH will eventually see that this "solution" does not help, but that will take time -- probably years - to play out and who knows what they will then come up with.

In effect, if one has TRICARE/TRICARE for Life, it does not matter if the Thai policy pays anything.  We only have to purchase the Thai policy because it is required to enter and extend your stay in the Kingdom.  Under TRICARE my sole liability is 25% of the bill up to 100,000 Baht, after that TRICARE Pays 100% with no pre-existing exclusions...

[Roy Baht]

1 hour ago, mosan said:

I'd like to add that as a US veteran, one can use the 40/400K Thai police as the first payer. TRICARE will revert to a "wrap-around" roll. Also, once your costs go above the $3000 (100,000 Baht) catastrophic cap, TRICARE pays 100% of cost from there on.  Therefore, it's a good idea to get the cheapest Thai policy possble...

Yeah, I think you (and Sheryl) have hit upon the most practical solution, at least to the current situation: Buy the cheapest Thai policy possible and have it cover the deductible of your overseas policy (Tri-care, or Cigna or whatever).

[deej]

17 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

dangerous game to play if near 75 though because if you move to O and then they migrate the policy to other classes (as they are currently discussing) one might oneself to old to get insurance and then be faced with a forced flight home anyway ????

 

 

May i ask for valid confirmation of your above comments.

Particular (As they are currently discussing)????

[Sheryl]

32 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

I plan to go to the United States in April and will be getting a RE permit.  I had an O/A visa 13 years ago and have been on extensions of stay since then.  Will the IO be asking about insurance with me.  My extension of stay ends 27 Jul 19.

 

 They will not ask it forgetting  Re-entry permit. RE permits do not entail an extension of stay, just enable you to leave and return under the existing one.

 

However depending on the IO they might ask it at your next extension.

[Martyp]

31 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

I plan to go to the United States in April and will be getting a RE permit.  I had an O/A visa 13 years ago and have been on extensions of stay since then.  Will the IO be asking about insurance with me.  My extension of stay ends 27 Jul 19.

One of the many questions unanswered so far. I want to know the answer to this as well. You are going to the US April. Do you plan to return before July 27th?

[el jefe]

52 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

That's correct, but there is a grey area here.

I will leave Thailand next week and will buy a re-entry permit before doing so.

My original issued OA Visa is valid till June 26, and the granted permission to stay based on that OA Visa will expire July 22.

I foresee no problem buying a re-entry permit, as the IO cannot know that I plan to return before the expiry of my original Visa.  And if he asks I will say that I plan to only return beginning of July and hence want to keep my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

But there might occur a problem when I will return from my trip next month.  Because my passport will carry an OA Visa valid till June 26, as well as a re-entry permit that keeps my granted permission to stay till July 22 alive.

Previously having a re-entry permit with a non-expired OA Visa would be senseless, because you would be stamped in for another year from the entrance date. 

However, and that's the point > my OA Visa - although not expired - is not valid anymore for entering Thailand without the new health-insurance requirement.  So they cannot let me in on that OA Visa, but I can point to the valid re-entry permit which keeps my granted permission to stay 'alive'.

The above will probably provoke some raised eyebrows from border-immigration, but I believe that they cannot deny entry on a granted permission of stay 'secured' by a re-entry permit.

Putting it differently:  If I would not have left Thailand I could stay the full granted permission of stay.  So why would exiting/returning revoke that permission when I have a valid re-entry permit?

But of course any comments are welcome if you see flaws in 'my little plan'.

 

I just spent an hour arguing that point at BKK as I was leaving Thailand. I was eventually granted the Reentry permit but told it may not be honored. I'll report back in 9 days. I hope you'll do the same.