O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Sheryl]

8 minutes ago, lopburi3 said:

Below is gist of message just sent to those signed up for US Embassy announcements.

 

 

 

 

I would urge all US citizens who have been told they cannot use their foreign insurance, as well as all covered by Tricare, to inform the Embassy of their problem as the Embassy is apparently under the mis-apprehension that Immigration is allowing foreign policies.

 

We cannot expect the Embassy to argue the insurance requirement itself but we could ask them to advocate for acceptance of non-Thai policies that meet the Imm criteria. in particular we could hope they would step in to explain about Tricare on behalf of all the vets living here.

[Martyp]

7 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

The Non-OA is expired, if it expired 1 day ago, 1 year ago or 10 years ago it has still expired.
 

There is no reason to believe that there is going to be any different treatment. 

Several people have asked multiple Immigration offices about this and have been told that new extensions will require insurance no matter how long their original visas have been expired. However, conversations with an IO before a policy goes into effect can be questionable. Hence, now that we are past Oct 31, I am waiting for real reports from people who have experienced the issue since Oct 31. I agree with your interpretation but it is Immigration's interpretation that counts. Wait and see.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Martyp

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I would urge all US citizens who have been told they cannot use their foreign insurance, as well as all covered by Tricare, to inform the Embassy of their problem as the Embassy is apparently under the mis-apprehension that Immigration is allowing foreign policies.

 

We cannot expect the Embassy to argue the insurance requirement itself but we could ask them to advocate for acceptance of non-Thai policies that meet the Imm criteria. in particular we could hope they would step in to explain about Tricare on behalf of all the vets living here.

Great suggestion but I reckon you're probably being overly optimistic as far as their level of concern for U.S. expats in Thailand. As evidence for my pessimism -- their appalling behavior in ending the income letters when at least we know for a fact they could have done something to provide letters based on social security and military pensions. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Jingthing

[Mango Bob]

13 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

the last report I have seen posted on CW Imm was by member Pib and said he was told all extensions that came in on an OA originally, no matter how long ago, will need insurance.  That contradicts what some others were told earlier so worth rechecking with them closer to the date, as well as following developments on this forum as the situation seems quite fluid.

 

But also worth making some contingency plans in case it is required.

 

I called the hotline Tuesday and they told me we do need insurance when there extension of stay ends..  For those who entered Thailand with an O/A visa and are on an extension of stay now.  So two different reports.

[sometimewoodworker]

10 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Several people have asked multiple Immigration offices about this and have been told that new extensions will require insurance no matter how long their original visas have been expired. However, conversations with an IO before a policy goes into effect can be questionable. Hence, now that we are past Oct 31, I am waiting for real reports from people who have experienced the issue since Oct 31. I agree with your interpretation but it is Immigration's interpretation that counts. Wait and see.

You are conflating two different situations and so adding significant confusion.

 

please keep them separate.

 

1) The rules state that (and several/all) immigration offices are posting/following them that an extension from a Non-OA (whenever it was issued 1.5, 10 ,20 years ago)requires insurance.

2) entering without a current Non-OA on either a permission to stay or an extension of permission to stay given before 31 October 2019 and with a reentry permit; no reports of anyone needing insurance.

 

Edited November 8, 2019 by sometimewoodworker

[Sheryl]

47 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Yes. I am on an extension with a multiple re-entry permit and I am waiting for reports from those people.

 

There have been reports.

 

None had a o problem.

 

And no reason to expect one. The order clearly applies only to issuance of new permission to stay or extension of permission to stay neither of which occurs when you enter on a RE permit. You are stamped in for the same period you already had permission for.  It even contains a clause stating that anyone al;ready granted a permission to stay will be able to stay through the end of that period without needing insurance.

[Thaidream]

59 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Thai visa forum members had wildly divergent views on how the insurance requirement would be enforced. There have been a small number of direct reports, since Oct 31st, of people being told at the Bangkok airport that they need insurance even though they have OA visas issued prior to October 31st. It would appear from initial experience that the insurance requirement is being applied to anyone who has entered on an OA visa no matter how far in the past. I would like to see more reports particularly from people who have or are applying for extensions. It would be prudent to at least investigate the insurance options. I have time to watch and wait but for those people traveling now it is troublesome times

Agreed- if I was in this situation- and had an O-A issued prior to 31 Oct 2019 and received a 30 day stamp- I would do the following

 

A.  Go directly to Chaengwattana Immigration to LSection and ask to speak to the Senior Officer in the extension section wno deals with retirement issues. I would have in my hand the English Police order with the Memorandums along with the Thai versions. I would also have with me a person who is Thai and speaks excelent English ( Agent; friend or lawyer).

My commentary when talking with the officer would be that no where in the Memos or the police order does it say that the insurance requirement will be applied retroactive (Ex Post Facto) and that it would apply only to an O-A Visa issued with an effective date of 31 December 2019.

 

B. If I was getting resistance , i would politely point out that the Immigration Bureau does not and has not applied a major change retroactive as long as the original visa and subsequent extensions were unbroken and successive. The best example is in 1998 when the income requirements were raised and there are still people on extensions only subject to 200K in the bank. (It is also my position that application of a law ex post facto is against Thai law)

 

If the official refused to even consider my viewpoint- I would immediatly head for Soi Suan Plu which is where the Immigration Commisioner sits and attempt to see a senior member of his staff and explain the issue in detail and ask for help in resolving  the issue.  I would not indicate anyone is wrong-only that it appears there is confusion in interpetation. 

 

However, I would probably wait a week or two to see if the situation self corrects based upon actual reports and interaction with local immigration offices.

 

I feel for anyone in this situation and am hopeful this  madness can be resolved favorably and fairly.

 

 

 

 

 

[Martyp]

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

There have been reports.

 

None had a o problem.

 

And no reason to expect one. The order clearly applies only to issuance of new permission to stay or extension of permission to stay neither of which occurs when you enter on a RE permit. You are stamped in for the same period you already had permission for.  It even contains a clause stating that anyone al;ready granted a permission to stay will be able to stay through the end of that period without needing insurance.

I'm came on an OA in 2017. I am not concerned about O's. That is not what I am waiting to hear. I want to hear about experiences of people who arrived on OA's but are now on 1-year extensions stay that they got at the Immigration office in Thailand. Are this category of people being asked to provide proof of insurance at the airport/border? Are they being required to provide proof of insurance when applying for a 1-year extension? I know what people have been told before Oct 31. I am waiting to see what is happening now.

[Martyp]

17 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You are conflating two different situations and so adding significant confusion.

 

please keep them separate.

 

1) The rules state that (and several/all) immigration offices are posting/following them that an extension from a Non-OA (whenever it was issued 1.5, 10 ,20 years ago)requires insurance.

2) entering without a current Non-OA on either a permission to stay or an extension of permission to stay given before 31 October 2019 and with a reentry permit; no reports of anyone needing insurance.

 

We don't disagree. Point 2 - I agree that there are no reports. I am just waiting for reports one way or the other.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Martyp

[pookondee]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:47 PM, Max69xl said:

What's the point of having a 780k insurance and then 300k deductible? You get a cheaper insurance but the coverage is in most cases useless. 

Understandably, the majority of people do not trust insurance companies and see it as a scam. 

They are now being forced to give away a decent chunk of money for something they dont need, ever used, and never believed in.

 

simple as that.

 

People may as well seek 100% deductable, and pay the lowest possible fee,

especially the un-insurable or those who self insure.

I for sure, dont need to be pleading/fighting a company to pay up a claim when i am sick and need to recover.

 

Most people realise nobody ever gets anything for nothing..

 

hmm...except for insurance companies of course.

 

[sometimewoodworker]

16 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Agreed- if I was in this situation- and had an O-A issued prior to 31 Oct 2019 and received a 30 day stamp- I would do the following

 

A.  Go directly to Chaengwattana Immigration to LSection and ask to speak to the Senior Officer in the extension section wno deals with retirement issues. I would have in my hand the English Police order with the Memorandums along with the Thai versions. I would also have with me a person who is Thai and speaks excelent English ( Agent; friend or lawyer).

My commentary when talking with the officer would be that no where in the Memos or the police order does it say that the insurance requirement will be applied retroactive (Ex Post Facto) and that it would apply only to an O-A Visa issued with an effective date of 31 December 2019.

 

B. If I was getting resistance , i would politely point out that the Immigration Bureau does not and has not applied a major change retroactive as long as the original visa and subsequent extensions were unbroken and successive. The best example is in 1998 when the income requirements were raised and there are still people on extensions only subject to 200K in the bank. (It is also my position that application of a law ex post facto is against Thai law)

 

If the official refused to even consider my viewpoint- I would immediatly head for Soi Suan Plu which is where the Immigration Commisioner sits and attempt to see a senior member of his staff and explain the issue in detail and ask for help in resolving  the issue.  I would not indicate anyone is wrong-only that it appears there is confusion in interpetation. 

 

However, I would probably wait a week or two to see if the situation self corrects based upon actual reports and interaction with local immigration offices.

 

I feel for anyone in this situation and am hopeful this  madness can be resolved favorably and fairly.

Your protestations would most probably be met by giving you a copy of this

 

The police order does not make any distinction between when the Visa was issued for subsequent entry’s, maybe it should but it does not

Edited November 8, 2019 by sometimewoodworker

[UKresonant]

Have any of the folk stamped in for the 30 days, with the demand to buy insurance, dropped by the MFA at CW and asked why they issued a visa, and the terms changed on arrival? (especially if issued before the Police order was apparent). 

Edited November 8, 2019 by UKresonant

[Martyp]

9 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Agreed- if I was in this situation- and had an O-A issued prior to 31 Oct 2019 and received a 30 day stamp- I would do the following

 

A.  Go directly to Chaengwattana Immigration to LSection and ask to speak to the Senior Officer in the extension section wno deals with retirement issues. I would have in my hand the English Police order with the Memorandums along with the Thai versions. I would also have with me a person who is Thai and speaks excelent English ( Agent; friend or lawyer).

My commentary when talking with the officer would be that no where in the Memos or the police order does it say that the insurance requirement will be applied retroactive (Ex Post Facto) and that it would apply only to an O-A Visa issued with an effective date of 31 December 2019.

 

B. If I was getting resistance , i would politely point out that the Immigration Bureau does not and has not applied a major change retroactive as long as the original visa and subsequent extensions were unbroken and successive. The best example is in 1998 when the income requirements were raised and there are still people on extensions only subject to 200K in the bank. (It is also my position that application of a law ex post facto is against Thai law)

 

If the official refused to even consider my viewpoint- I would immediatly head for Soi Suan Plu which is where the Immigration Commisioner sits and attempt to see a senior member of his staff and explain the issue in detail and ask for help in resolving  the issue.  I would not indicate anyone is wrong-only that it appears there is confusion in interpetation. 

 

However, I would probably wait a week or two to see if the situation self corrects based upon actual reports and interaction with local immigration offices.

 

I feel for anyone in this situation and am hopeful this  madness can be resolved favorably and fairly.

 

 

 

 

 

We will all be interested in a report when you (or someone) does all these things. Personally, I am not planning on challenging the requirement. I just want a clear explanation as to how it is being applied so I can do the right thing ahead of time and not have unexpected problems when I travel or apply for my next extension (which happens to be Nov 2020 so I have plenty of time until then).

[jackdd]

19 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

My commentary when talking with the officer would be that no where in the Memos or the police order does it say that the insurance requirement will be applied retroactive (Ex Post Facto) and that it would apply only to an O-A Visa issued with an effective date of 31 December 2019.

But it isn't applied retroactively, it only applies to future entries / extensions.

So if your whole point is "retroactively", then actually you have no point and you can safe yourself the time to head out to CW, because they would just tell you that your understanding is wrong.

 

 

What you could do is to ask your money back from the embassy or consulate which issued you the visa, because they changed the terms under which you bought this visa and you can't use it as expected. But maybe they can escape this through their "a visa does not guarantee entry to Thailand" term. Willing to sue them over a few thousand baht?

Edited November 8, 2019 by jackdd

[Peter Denis]

3 hours ago, GeorgeCross said:

maybe this is what is mentioned in the police memo about checking notations and we have over thought it (again)

maybe what it means is: IO will check the visa for OA notation and if there asks for insurance?

[Martyp]

2 minutes ago, UKresonant said:

Have any of the folk stamped in for the 30 days, with the demand to by insurance, dropped by the MFA at CW and asked why they issued a visa, and the terms changed on arrival? (especially if issued before the Police order was apparent). 

The Immigration Department in Thailand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that issues visas are completely different parts of government. While we may think they should coordinate their policies that doesn't often appear to be the case. The questions for these folks stamped in for 30 days is whether it can be resolved at an Immigration office inside Thailand or if they have to exit the country and re-enter with their newly purchased insurance to take advantage of their OA visa and the 1 year stamp upon entry. Or least stamped in until the end of their insurance.

[sometimewoodworker]

1 minute ago, Martyp said:

The questions for these folks stamped in for 30 days is whether it can be resolved at an Immigration office inside Thailand or if they have to exit the country and re-enter with their newly purchased insurance to take advantage of their OA visa and the 1 year stamp upon entry.

That is a question that has been answered.

 

they have to leave and return 

[cookieboy]

I went to my local IO (Phetchabun) to enquire if I needed a Health Insurance Policy when my current extention finishes nex month. I entered thailand 2007 on an O-A visa and have had yearly extentions since then. 

I changed from a retirement extention to an extention based on married to a Thai 12 months ago. I was told that because my initial entry was on O-A then I would need the health Insurance to do my next extention.

[Thaidream]

6 minutes ago, jackdd said:

But it isn't applied retroactively, it only applies to future entries / extensions.

So if your whole point is "retroactively", then actually you have no point and you can safe yourself the time to head out to CW, because they would just tell you that your understanding is wrong.

If Immigration is asking anyone who has an O-A Visa or extension  with an original date prior to 31 October 2019 it is being applied retroactively. It's actual  nomenclature is Ex Post Facto.

 

As my post mentioned in 1998 the retirment income amount was raised from 200K but Immigration did not apply the rule to anyone already on an unbroken extension of stay and there are now people here in Thailand today who still show 200K in the bank - not 800K.

If Immigration insists that someone who obtained  an O-A Visa in 2000 and has had unbroken extensions of stay and  never had any insurance requirement but now they have is saying the new rule applies ex postf facto.   I would be very surprised if this was actually what they intended as  an ex post facto  application of  a change is against the law.

[alfieconn]

On 11/6/2019 at 3:17 PM, GeorgeCross said:

 

it was a running joke around here for a while that what's needed is 400K cover with a 400K deductible!
 

guess they ran with it ????

 

 

That is similar to outpatient cover with a 40,000 baht deductible, i would imagine very few outpatient visits would come up to 40,000 baht so there's a good chance that it could never be cost effective to even make a claim.

Although i do recall reading somewhere with Pacific Cross that the deductible only has to be paid on the first claim so that any other claims within the year the deductible doesn't have to be paid.

[Sheryl]

56 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Great suggestion but I reckon you're probably being overly optimistic as far as their level of concern for U.S. expats in Thailand. As evidence for my pessimism -- their appalling behavior in ending the income letters when at least we know for a fact they could have done something to provide letters based on social security and military pensions. 

 

That is hardly a reason not to try, JT.

 

It is going to become the Embassy's headache pretty soon of hundreds of frail elderly retirees, including those now in (and paying regularly for) Thai nursing homes, have to be repatriated. 

 

And it is clear from the message they sent out that they are unaware of the actual situation n the ground and wrongly think US and other foreign policies are being accepted.

 

I have already sent off my email to them. Urge you all to do the same -- but if in Thailand now (I'm not) by registered mail or EMS addressed to the Ambassador would be better.

 

Just make it clear that not asking them to appeal the need for insurance per se (they will not do that)  but rather to advocate for acceptance of US and other foreign policies and some alternative for those unable to insure -- both of which were promised as recently as last month by the Health Minister.

[kingofthemountain]

8 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

 I would be very surprised if this was actually what they intended as  an ex post facto  application of  a change is against the law.

From a government coming from a military coup 

i am not hoping a lot of law respect, it's really the last of their concern

 

[brianj1964]

3 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

I think you're getting confused (not difficult given how many threads/posts there are about this).

 

On leaving Thailand, the IO will not do anything to your original OA Visa / Extension dates, if (s)he's friendly. (s)he may warn you that you need insurance when/if you come back on an OA, but that's it.

 

Different kettle of fish if your original NON-OA Visa is still valid (I don't know how you would cancel it to get a new Non-O) or if you have a Re-Entry permit (You should have no problems coming back on the terms of that), but if your leaving without a Re-Entry permit and your original Visa is passed it's "Enter By Date" then your permission to stay effectively cancelled on exit and your free to come back on any visa option open to you.

 

Good Luck, do let us know how you get on.

 

 

The O-A is brand new, so the 5th November was the first day of use. I have 2 options as far as I can see, take a 12 month gamble and hope doing 90 day reporting doesn't bring up the fact I entered without insurance, would this be on the data base from the airport,?leave in 12 months time to Laos for an O based on marriage, would they know on exit I have no insurance?secondly buy the cheapest insurance from Pacific Cross it's little under 14000 and hope the problem disappears.no need to leave in 30 days and come back 

[mngmn]

On 11/6/2019 at 11:35 AM, Max69xl said:

An immigration officer at the largest airport in Thailand is supposed to be able to read a police order in thai and understand it. And if they don't understand, why not ask someone who should know? The police order was released in April,over 6 months ago. 

You must be new here?

[Sheryl]

13 minutes ago, alfieconn said:

That is similar to outpatient cover with a 40,000 baht deductible, i would imagine very few outpatient visits would come up to 40,000 baht so there's a good chance that it could never be cost effective to even make a claim.

Although i do recall reading somewhere with Pacific Cross that the deductible only has to be paid on the first claim so that any other claims within the year the deductible doesn't have to be paid.

 

I am not sure what you are trying to say there. The way a deductible works is you pay yourself out of pocket until you have paid the full deductible amount, regardless of how many claim/treatments  that involves.  A deductible would be likely to be met on the first claim in a year only if the deductible were very small or the claim very large.

[Thaidream]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I have already sent off my email to them. Urge you all to do the same -- but if in Thailand now (I'm not) by registered mail or EMS addressed to the Ambassador would be better.

I am doing the same and I urge everyone to be proactive and not only write to the Embassy but to The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Bureau .

 

I don;t know if it will have any effect but I do know doing nothing gets one nowhere. There is still a universal principle of fairness and equity and people need to be reminded of it.

[LivinLOS]

7 hours ago, saengd said:

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.

People have been doing it since I first heard of the OA 12 plus years ago.. Ozzie retirees especially popped home for a new one each couple of years. Nothing 'relatively new' about this at all.. 

[Peter Denis]

34 minutes ago, Martyp said:

We will all be interested in a report when you (or someone) does all these things. Personally, I am not planning on challenging the requirement. I just want a clear explanation as to how it is being applied so I can do the right thing ahead of time and not have unexpected problems when I travel or apply for my next extension (which happens to be Nov 2020 so I have plenty of time until then).

When your next extension is due in Nov 2020, it follows that the previous one was due in Nov 2019. 

Since your probably saw this coming, you re-applied early (before Oct 31).

Smart move!

[Sheryl]

3 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

The O-A is brand new, so the 5th November was the first day of use. I have 2 options as far as I can see, take a 12 month gamble and hope doing 90 day reporting doesn't bring up the fact I entered without insurance, would this be on the data base from the airport,?leave in 12 months time to Laos for an O based on marriage, would they know on exit I have no insurance?secondly buy the cheapest insurance from Pacific Cross it's little under 14000 and hope the problem disappears.no need to leave in 30 days and come back 

 

Your 90 day report is due by the 90th consecutive day in-country inclusive of the day of entry.

 

I have never heard of them   checking  anything related to criteria for stay on departure --  only that you are departing before expiration of your permission to stay.  They certainly aren't going to be asking you about insurance on your way out, that is the headache of the officers allowing you in.

 

I very much doubt, unless something changes,  that anything will be asked at 90 day report either.

[jackdd]

22 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

As my post mentioned in 1998 the retirment income amount was raised from 200K but Immigration did not apply the rule to anyone already on an unbroken extension of stay and there are now people here in Thailand today who still show 200K in the bank - not 800K.

If Immigration insists that someone who obtained  an O-A Visa in 2000 and has had unbroken extensions of stay and  never had any insurance requirement but now they have is saying the new rule applies ex postf facto.   I would be very surprised if this was actually what they intended as  an ex post facto  application of  a change is against the law.

I think so far we didn't have a report of somebody who went to get an extension after 31.10. and who initially started with an OA visa.

Imho the insurance requirement should not apply to extensions, because there is only one "retirement extension". If they consider this to be two different retirement extensions (one for non-o and one for non-oa), then it should be possible to just switch to the "non-o retirement extension", because there is nothing prohibiting you to switch to a different kind of extension.

Edited November 8, 2019 by jackdd