O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Lovethailandelite]

2 hours ago, brianj1964 said:

I will take the chance that a land border crossing won't be too stringent when I leave to to obtain the non-immigrant O when this O-A expires 

You seem very certain you was entered in to the Immigration database with a leave to remain date of 12 months, when the I/O's in front of you told you 30 days? IMO, you have a stamping error in your passport.
And why you would think a land crossing would be any different in applying the Police order regarding an O-A visa, I really cannot begin to imagine. That just isn't going to happen.

[Momofarang]

2 hours ago, Max69xl said:

"For someone who is purely a retiree the answer seems obvious to me: move out to a place where you can manage a decent life end."

What are you rambling about? 

Is there something special with you compared to other retirees? Why don't you leave? Don't come with stupid advices. 

There is nothing special about me when compared to other expats who love their families and are good providers.

And I didn't give any advice, just stating the fact that if you can't stay you gotta go.

Edited November 7, 2019 by Momofarang

[Max69xl]

38 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

You seem very certain you was entered in to the Immigration database with a leave to remain date of 12 months, when the I/O's in front of you told you 30 days? IMO, you have a stamping error in your passport.
And why you would think a land crossing would be any different in applying the Police order regarding an O-A visa, I really cannot begin to imagine. That just isn't going to happen.

He's leaving when his O-A expires and will apply for a 90 days Non-Immigrant O Visa and re-enter Thailand. Get it? 

[Max69xl]

3 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

There is nothing special about me when compare to other expats who love their families and are good providers.

And I didn't give any advice, just stating the fact that if you can't stay you gotta go.

No, you were talking about being just a retiree. It seems you think you're special. You're not. 

[Peter Denis]

3 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

No, you were talking about being just a retiree. It seems you think you're special. You're not. 

 

20 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

He's leaving when his O-A expires and will apply for a 90 days Non-Immigrant O Visa and re-enter Thailand. Get it? 

Max69xl,

When you post 'real' responses to questions of OPs looking for information, your responses are almost always correct.  And then I often give them a 'like' (credit where credit is due).

But is it really necessary to belittle those who look for info, with remarks like 'Get it?'.

And you really go completely off the rails, in your non-factual responses.

The fact that this is an open Forum, does not mean that rude/crude remarks are appreciated.

And I am quite sure that I am not the only one of that opinion.

So a well-meant advice > before posting, ask yourself whether you would like to receive such a message yourself.

Have a nice evening.

   

[brianj1964]

51 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

You seem very certain you was entered in to the Immigration database with a leave to remain date of 12 months, when the I/O's in front of you told you 30 days? IMO, you have a stamping error in your passport.
And why you would think a land crossing would be any different in applying the Police order regarding an O-A visa, I really cannot begin to imagine. That just isn't going to happen.

I do not read Thai but have since spoken with people who do and they have all said the translation clearly stated visas applied and issued after 31st October required insurance. I applied for mine in mid October and valid from 15th October, possibly the IO who stamped me in took the same iterpretation, i don't know

did the original order state it was people who enter after 31st October? It seems that some IOS took that from the order, I've PMd a couple of senior BMs who have extensive knowledge of visas and Thailand, both say I have no problem "in their opinion" when I exit in 12 months time, given the error was theirs, I arrived with a valid visa. I am quite confident they probably won't even notice, time will tell but I value your opinion

[Lovethailandelite]

14 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

I do not read Thai but have since spoken with people who do and they have all said the translation clearly stated visas applied and issued after 31st October required insurance. I applied for mine in mid October and valid from 15th October, possibly the IO who stamped me in took the same iterpretation, i don't know

did the original order state it was people who enter after 31st October? It seems that some IOS took that from the order, I've PMd a couple of senior BMs who have extensive knowledge of visas and Thailand, both say I have no problem "in their opinion" when I exit in 12 months time, given the error was theirs, I arrived with a valid visa. I am quite confident they probably won't even notice, time will tell but I value your opinion

The order makes no mention of people entering after the 31st October. The date of the 31st October only pertains to the start of legislation for entrys and for the application of new OA applications. Hence why it is being applied to ALL OA entry's and extensions of OA visas, no matter when that original visa was obtained.
In the case of 'given the error was theirs' it is imperative that you understand why section 4 is written in to the order.
Good luck

[Lovethailandelite]

43 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

He's leaving when his O-A expires and will apply for a 90 days Non-Immigrant O Visa and re-enter Thailand. Get it? 

What part of section 4 is hard for you to understand?

[KeeTua]

39 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

I do not read Thai but have since spoken with people who do and they have all said the translation clearly stated visas applied and issued after 31st October required insurance.

The English translation is very good. No where in the Thai version does it clearly state (in Thai): "visas applied and issued after 31st October required insurance"

 

That is a fact that it does apply to those visas but the wording in the Thai and English versions does not exclude dates prior to 31st October as your statement implies.

 

Please get one of the Thai readers who told you that to reveal where that is said in the Thai version, I would like to see it.

[brianj1964]

3 minutes ago, KeeTua said:

The English translation is very good. No where in the Thai version does it clearly state (in Thai): "visas applied and issued after 31st October required insurance"

 

That is a fact that it does apply to those visas but the wording in the Thai and English versions does not exclude dates prior to 31st October as your statement implies.

 

Please get one of the Thai readers who told you that to reveal where that is said in the Thai version, I would like to see it.

If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months.

[LivinLOS]

9 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months.

If you have an admitted until stamp clearly showing your 1 year permission of stay, I would feel absolutely confident in remaining here for the duration of that period. 

 

If you leave the country, you may have issues to re-enter without insurance, or to extend, quite obviously. But claiming your on overstay because you were given the 1 year stamp that that visa class does potentially give, seems overly worried. 

[Maestro]

1 hour ago, brianj1964 said:

I've PMd a couple of senior BMs

 

What is a BM?

[brianj1964]

8 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

What is a BM?

Board member, I'm sure that's the shortened phrase

[Maestro]

2 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

Board member, I'm sure that's the shortened phrase

 

Member of the Board of Directors of the company that owns the Thaivisa forum?

[Lovethailandelite]

33 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months.

Nobody is suggesting you have done anything wrong nor suggesting you rush out and buy Insurance. What you would need to do is take stock of your own report and those that have followed you in receiving a stamp for 30 days. Immigration simply don't take responsibility for stamping errors. It is on you to ensure that for whatever reason, you are stamped in with the correct permission to stay. You need to take note of post 358. That is the correct course of action to be taking.  

[TheAppletons]

52 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months.

  As much as I admire, appreciate, and respect the opinions and assistance that Ubonjoe has provided in the many years he has posted on this forum, in this instance he was simply wrong.  The Thai Immigration folks do not differentiate between O-A visas issued prior to or after the enactment of the new law.  

   

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

  As much as I admire, appreciate, and respect the opinions and assistance that Ubonjoe has provided in the many years he has posted on this forum, in this instance he was simply wrong.  The Thai Immigration folks do not differentiate between O-A visas issued prior to or after the enactment of the new law.  

   

Well, I wouldn't exactly say right or wrong on this one.

We have texts of police orders, etc. that people are trying to interpret in the English version (when the Thai version is what matters) and then we have an often separate thing -- how those orders are actually implemented in real life. 

[KeeTua]

brianj1964 :

" If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months. "

 

 

Yes, anyone with an O-A visa, not an extension of stay, enters the Kingdom they need proof of insurance to show the Immigration officer since October 31.
 
From the immigration document:
-------------------------------------
Therefore, when an alien, who has been granted Non-Immigrant VisaClass O-A from an overseas Royal Thai Embassy with the purpose of retirement(not exceeding 1 year), enters the Kingdom, an immigration office shall abide by the following practices for permitting an alien to stay in the Kingdom, effective October 31, 2019 onwards:

 

    1. An alien, who has been granted Non-Immigrant Visa Class O-A for single or multiple entry and enters the Kingdom for the first time, will be permitted to stay in the Kingdom for a coverage period of health insurance for not exceeding 1 year. An immigration officer shall check any remarks on a visa issued by an overseas Royal Thai Embassy for consideration and approval.
-------------------------------------

To me you were clearly required to show proof of insurance when you entered the Kingdom, it doesn't matter when you were issued the O-A visa.

 

If it were me I would get the insurance and get your new stamps in passport within the 30 days they said they were going to give you. I'd rest easier at night if it were me.

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by KeeTua
add text from Brianj

[Max69xl]

23 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Well, I wouldn't exactly say right or wrong on this one.

We have texts of police orders, etc. that people are trying to interpret in the English version (when the Thai version is what matters) and then we have an often separate thing -- how those orders are actually implemented in real life. 

And who got the police order translated and released? Wasn't it Immigration? How hard is it to translate anything correctly when it's in this case quite important?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Max69xl

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

And who got the police order translated and released? Wasn't it  Immigration? How hard is it to translate anything correctly when it's in this case quite important?

Apparently pretty hard when it comes to immigration matters where there are numerous potential scenarios that maybe weren't even covered in the Thai version!

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

And who got the police order translated and released? Wasn't it Immigration? How hard is it to translate anything correctly when it's in this case quite important?

Immigration (or the translator tasked with the translation by the minister) can't even translate the arrival card properly, don't expect too much from them.

Why don't you translate it if it's not too hard?

Edited November 7, 2019 by jackdd

[brianj1964]

58 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

  As much as I admire, appreciate, and respect the opinions and assistance that Ubonjoe has provided in the many years he has posted on this forum, in this instance he was simply wrong.  The Thai Immigration folks do not differentiate between O-A visas issued prior to or after the enactment of the new law.  

   

So what do people advise on this?

[Martyp]

18 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

So what do people advise on this?

I would wait a week and see what transpires with additional reports. However, sooner or later you will have to buy insurance or switch to a non-O. Do some research, talk to some agents.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, TheAppletons said:

  As much as I admire, appreciate, and respect the opinions and assistance that Ubonjoe has provided in the many years he has posted on this forum, in this instance he was simply wrong.  The Thai Immigration folks do not differentiate between O-A visas issued prior to or after the enactment of the new law.  

 

 

This seems correct according to the police order, which never mentions when the visa was issued, only the date of entry.  Below I have highlighted Page 11 (English language page 5) of the new police order https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

 

Also note clause 2, if you enter on an O/A for the second time on Oct 31, 2019 or later, you need insurance. No  mention of when you got the visa or when you entered Thailand for the first time on that O/A visa.

=========

Therefore, when an alien, who has been granted Non-immigrant Visa Class O-A from an overseas Royal Thai Embassy with the purpose of retirement (not exceeding one year), enters the Kingdom, an immigration officer shall abide by the following practices for permitting an alien to stay in the Kingdom, effective from October, 31, 2019.
 

1.   An alien, who has been granted Non-immigrant Visa Class O-A for single entry or multiple entry and enters the Kingdom for the first time, will be permitted to stay in the Kingdom for a coverage period of health insurance for not exceeding 1 year. An immigration officer shall check any remarks on a visa issued by and overseas Royal Thai Embassy for consideration and approval.

2.   An alien, who has been granted Non-immigrant Visa Class O-A for multiple entry and enters the Kingdom from the second time onwards, will be permitted to stay in the Kingdom for the remaining coverage period of health insurance for not exceeding 1 year.

3.   An alien, who has been granted Non-immigrant Visa Class O-A for multiple entry but the coverage period of health insurance has already expired, even if the visa is still valid, will not be permitted to enter the Kingdom. However, the said alien can buy a health insurance in Thailand in order to be permitted to enter the Kingdom for a coverage period of health insurance for not exceeding 1 year.

4.   In case the permission of stay in the Kingdom exceeds the coverage period of health insurance, an immigration officer shall apply mutatin mutandid to Order of the Immigration Bureau no. 115/2553 dated June 29, 2919 concerning the Amendment of an immigration stamp in a passport and the Order of the Immigration Bureau no. 79/2557 dated April 1, 2014 concerning the Guideline in case of an alien's granted permission of stay in the Kingdom is not meet a visa class or visa exemption.

 

[britishjohn]

1 hour ago, KeeTua said:

brianj1964 :

" If what you suggest is true it applies to anyone with an O-A visa who came here without requiring insurance then leaves for any reason then requires it on their return. I think Ubonjoes interpretation was also visas issued before the 31st did not require mandatory insurance. People on here have been saying the same thing since it was ordered. Would you ignore the date I was given if it was you or would you buy the insurance? I get some saying I've done nothing wrong i get 1 BM suggesting i will be on overstay for 11 months. "

 

 

Yes, anyone with an O-A visa, not an extension of stay, enters the Kingdom they need proof of insurance to show the Immigration officer since October 31.
 
From the immigration document:
-------------------------------------
Therefore, when an alien, who has been granted Non-Immigrant VisaClass O-A from an overseas Royal Thai Embassy with the purpose of retirement(not exceeding 1 year), enters the Kingdom, an immigration office shall abide by the following practices for permitting an alien to stay in the Kingdom, effective October 31, 2019 onwards:

 

    1. An alien, who has been granted Non-Immigrant Visa Class O-A for single or multiple entry and enters the Kingdom for the first time, will be permitted to stay in the Kingdom for a coverage period of health insurance for not exceeding 1 year. An immigration officer shall check any remarks on a visa issued by an overseas Royal Thai Embassy for consideration and approval.
-------------------------------------

To me you were clearly required to show proof of insurance when you entered the Kingdom, it doesn't matter when you were issued the O-A visa.

 

If it were me I would get the insurance and get your new stamps in passport within the 30 days they said they were going to give you. I'd rest easier at night if it were me.

 

And do you consider insurance will be needed on entry even if the OA holder has a re entry permit ? 

I still don't know if I dare take trip out of this place... quite absurd !

[brianj1964]

On 11/6/2019 at 11:14 AM, Sheryl said:

 

Immigration officer will not know the cost which in any case will depend on your age and which company/policy you select. Unless you are under the age of 60 your premium is going to be well over 40,000.

 

  The 40,000 the Immigration officer referred to is  the required coverage:  a minimum of 400,000 inpatient and 40,000 outpatient cover. Note that 400,000 inpatient cover, while it satisfies Immigration requirements, is completely insufficient for actual protection, a single hospitalization here after a severe accident or illness can reach 1 million baht in a government hospital and well over 3 million in a private hospital.

 

You can find charts which  summarize the info available from the companies on the website  here:

 

Has a short chart attached and is what you should refer to if you are planning n settling here permanently.

 

If you are not planning on retiring here permanently (and therefore do not need to worry about whether the policy can be renewed for life) then your choices are wider and you should see the chart attached to this thread:

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1128396-cheat-sheet-for-longstay-insurance-policies/

 

 

Can you confirm that deductible is acceptable to immigration? If I take the pacific Cross minimum cover then add maximum deductible it comes to little over 13000 baht. I don’t want to buy any but If it saves me a problem later I will bite the bullet then bin the O-A after 12 months 

what paperwork is required to get the non-immigrant O in Laos these days and is it the best place to obtain it 

[Ellis]

3 hours ago, TheAppletons said:

 As much as I admire, appreciate, and respect the opinions and assistance that Ubonjoe has provided in the many years he has posted on this forum, in this instance he was simply wrong.  The Thai Immigration folks do not differentiate between O-A visas issued prior to or after the enactment of the new law.  

I don't agree he's wrong, except he didn't predict how much of a hard line airport staff would take in applying the new rules. I was in contact with him by private message today and he strongly urged me to contact the immigration bureau here and get it corrected as a stamping error. I went to see them and I have to say everyone I spoke to was completely baffled by the new rules, but all were holding the line that insurance was needed on older visas as well. I pointed out the clause about remarks on a visa, but no one really understood it, and were very apologetic and sympathetic even, agreeing it wasn't fair. A staff member phoned the airport and came back to me and confirmed the insurance was needed. There was no way of speaking to anyone more informed about it, and I think it would require someone with connections (and perhaps legal experience relating to immigration matters here) to get contact with someone powerful enough to have a meaningful discussion on this. The staff were all nice, wanted to be helpful, and ultimately very sorry, but confusion reigns.

 

Ubonjoe was helpful and prompt in his email responses to me which I appreciate. I agree his position, that the ground staff and mid level ranks have misunderstood the new rules. Seems like in the absence of anyone able to challenge them, they're running with it. 

[brianj1964]

2 hours ago, Ellis said:

I don't agree he's wrong, except he didn't predict how much of a hard line airport staff would take in applying the new rules. I was in contact with him by private message today and he strongly urged me to contact the immigration bureau here and get it corrected as a stamping error. I went to see them and I have to say everyone I spoke to was completely baffled by the new rules, but all were holding the line that insurance was needed on older visas as well. I pointed out the clause about remarks on a visa, but no one really understood it, and were very apologetic and sympathetic even, agreeing it wasn't fair. A staff member phoned the airport and came back to me and confirmed the insurance was needed. There was no way of speaking to anyone more informed about it, and I think it would require someone with connections (and perhaps legal experience relating to immigration matters here) to get contact with someone powerful enough to have a meaningful discussion on this. The staff were all nice, wanted to be helpful, and ultimately very sorry, but confusion reigns.

 

Ubonjoe was helpful and prompt in his email responses to me which I appreciate. I agree his position, that the ground staff and mid level ranks have misunderstood the new rules. Seems like in the absence of anyone able to challenge them, they're running with it. 

Do you have to leave Thailand within the 30 days once you purchase the insurance?

my case is slightly different, I already have been stamped in for 1 year so presume if I want to avoid a world of pain sometime in the future I only need to buy the cheapest policy available and show it if I am asked 

[Skallywag]

4 hours ago, rabas said:

who has been granted Non-immigrant Visa Class O-A from an overseas Royal Thai Embassy with the purpose of retirement (not exceeding one year)

How I interpret this is that a Non-Imm O-A visa is not intended for more than one year, yet some on here have said they have renewed or had O-A visas since 2013? 

 

Seems immigration is stating if you "retire" in Thailand for more than one year, then you must change O-A to Non-Imm O or another long term visa (Elite) before year is out.  

 

So requiring health insurance makes sense that the Kingdom does not want people who are only passing through to rack up hospital bills as they have no plan for permanent stay and will soon be out of country. 

Makes more sense to require all tourists have travel insurance before entering the Kingdom.

 

[saengd]

21 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

How I interpret this is that a Non-Imm O-A visa is not intended for more than one year, yet some on here have said they have renewed or had O-A visas since 2013? 

 

Seems immigration is stating if you "retire" in Thailand for more than one year, then you must change O-A to Non-Imm O or another long term visa (Elite) before year is out.  

 

So requiring health insurance makes sense that the Kingdom does not want people who are only passing through to rack up hospital bills as they have no plan for permanent stay and will soon be out of country. 

Makes more sense to require all tourists have travel insurance before entering the Kingdom.

 

Nonsense, I've been, "passing through" on my O-A visa since I retired here in 2005 and I have always kept over 4 million in Thai banks. When I decided to come and live in Thailand in 2004 I went to the RTE in London and they recommended the O-A visa so that's what I got, everyone else I knew at the time had the same thing. It's only been in relatively recent years that people have used the first two years of an O-A visa to get full time residence here, without needing to put funds on deposit in Thailand, at the end of those two years, those people then got a new O-A.