1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

If the US Embassy was serious in protecting US Citizens they could solve the problem instantly.....there is so much use of the term quid pro quo in the news lately,  the solution to the problem is right in front of the Embassies face: 

 

Effective October 31st 2019 any Thai National applying for ANY type of Visa to the United States Of America must have a paid health insurance policy issued in the US prior to the issuance of any visa by the US Embassy Bangkok or US Consulate in Chang Mai  

 

How long do you think it would take for the Thai authorities to re think this new policy if this became the US requirement ?  My letter to the US Embassy will not be asking them to keep, advocating, begging, and monitoring the Thai authorities but to start forcing them to level the playing field or just how about a little Quid Pro Quo  

Your letter to the US Embassy?  What's the address you sent it to? By mail, or Email?

I would also like to use your statement in Bold lettering above....

I doubt that that would happen...Quid Pro Quo...but it doesn't hurt to let them (Us government) know how we feel.

 

14 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

Can I ask what may seem a silly question but here goes, when the insurance company ask the date of visa renewal, are they referring to the O-A visa or the actual stamp, obviously there's 2 different dates, clearly the dates would never be the same unless you got the visa and entered the same day

I have no idea as there is not actually any such thing as visa renewal. Better call them and ask. 

 

What they would logically need to know is entry date and end of permission of stay.

2 hours ago, bangkokbanjo said:

So, I got my OA visa in NYC before October 31 and will be arriving in November.  Even though the law says I did not need insurance since I got the visa prior to the deadline, I purchased a policy outside of Thailand designed to meet the requirements from Regency.  I had the fill out the form for policies outside of Thailand from the website.   Should I anticipate any issues? 

 

Maybe. They are not one of the approved companies. According to the tgia website --- which bizarrely  is serving as the only source of policy on this even though not a government source -- foreign policy is allowed (for the first year only). But we have not yet had any reports of someone using it.

 

What I would do if I were you is contact the Consulate, explain that you have learned the insurance requirement is being applied retroactively and you need them to make the appropriate notation in your passport. Then bring or send them your passport, the certificate and if they so request, policy documents.

 

Armed with both the Consulate notation on the visa and the certificate you will be in a better position.

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I have no idea as there is not actually any such thing as visa renewal. Better call them and ask. 

 

What they would logically need to know is entry date and end of permission of stay.

It was an email I got from Pacific Cross asking for visa renewal date! Type of visa and my age

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

If the US Embassy was serious in protecting US Citizens they could solve the problem instantly.....there is so much use of the term quid pro quo in the news lately,  the solution to the problem is right in front of the Embassies face: 

 

Effective October 31st 2019 any Thai National applying for ANY type of Visa to the United States Of America must have a paid health insurance policy issued in the US prior to the issuance of any visa by the US Embassy Bangkok or US Consulate in Chang Mai  

 

How long do you think it would take for the Thai authorities to re think this new policy if this became the US requirement ?  My letter to the US Embassy will not be asking them to keep, advocating, begging, and monitoring the Thai authorities but to start forcing them to level the playing field or just how about a little Quid Pro Quo  

 

The Embassy does not make immigration laws or policies, just applies them.  It would take an Executive Order or act of Congress to do what you describe. It would also likely not have the effect you expect.

 

I would urge people not to say things like this in  letters to the Embassy, it is  pointless, likely to antagonize and apt make the writer seem less than credible.

5 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

It was an email I got from Pacific Cross asking for visa renewal date! Type of visa and my age

 

Suggest you reply with:

 

Date visa issued

Date visa expires

Date of entry into Thailand

Desired period of insurance

 

That should cover all bases

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The Embassy does not make immigration laws or policies, just applies them.  It would take an Executive Order or act of Congress to do what you describe. It would also likely not have the effect you expect.

 

I would urge people not to say things like this in  letters to the Embassy, it is  pointless, likely to antagonize and apt make the writer seem less than credible.

I completely agree- the Us Embassy simply follows American Law when issuing a Visa. They do not make the law.  

 

Just as an aside- an Executive Order was recently issued indicating all US Green Card applicants must have Medical coverage or proven means of funds to  self fund or the Visa will not be issued.  A US Court has blocked the orer-it cannot be enforced.

 

IMO- the Police Order is against Thai Law as it is being interpreted as applying to a Visa issued before the implementation date.  However, challenging this in a Thai court would cost a lot and take years.

 

 In addition- no provision has been made for people  over the age of 75- either to provide the opportunity  for coverage or make them exempt. In addition,  foreign insurance; military tricare and Veterans Coverage is not accepted. What about long stayers who are still part of the Thai Social Security System.

 

There are so many things wrong with this scheme it's as if no one sat down and even discussed the ramafications and the implementation issues. I can only hope that intervention by the local Embassies calling attention to the issues and letters directed to Thai Embassies abroad  and the Ministry of Health will invoke some changes.

1 hour ago, lampangguy said:

Strictly by chance, I already have an insurance policy through Navakij (one of the "approved" Thai companies). It is through Luma, but the policy is from Navakij. The policy is a 40 page document, all in english, and not easy to understand what the coverage is exactly. Will be interesting when I hand that to the IO office when the time comes. Will they just see the dates and the insurance company name and leave it at that. Or will they delve into the "guts" of the document (again, in english) to verify the coverage.....

 Imm is not about to review policies to determine compliance. (Though they might like a photocopy of the face page of the policy as an attachment....you know them, the more pieces of paper in a file the better)

 

You have to show the standard certificate.

 

Contact LUMA, or your broker if you have, one and request the certificate for Immigration.

 

Note that if your Imm office requires this they will extend you only up to the policy expiration date, whatever that is. 

I guess pacific cross needs the extension due date so that your policy starts on visa due date so that you will get the full year of the visa extension when we apply .
 

I was told I needed health insurance at cnx immigration yesterday . I came in on o/a visa extending for over 4 years .
 

If I go to immigration 30 days earlier to apply before my visa extension expire, do I start my insurance policy on visa extension due date so that I get 1 full year of visa extension to correlate with my insurance or I need a policy 30 days earlier since I am applying earlier, ( just want to get full 1 year extension)

 

any thoughts , thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I completely agree- the Us Embassy simply follows American Law when issuing a Visa. They do not make the law. 

They do conduct interviews in which they can ask anything they want. They make their judgment about granting a visa or withholding one without any explanation. There is room here to retaliate. 

11 minutes ago, Alotoftravel said:

I guess pacific cross needs the extension due date so that your policy starts on visa due date so that you will get the full year of the visa extension when we apply .
 

I was told I needed health insurance at cnx immigration yesterday . I came in on o/a visa extending for over 4 years .
 

If I go to immigration 30 days earlier to apply before my visa extension expire, do I start my insurance policy on visa extension due date so that I get 1 full year of visa extension to correlate with my insurance or I need a policy 30 days earlier since I am applying earlier, ( just want to get full 1 year extension)

 

any thoughts , thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

If they are requiring it, you will need the policy to be in effect on the day you apply 

 

Make sure to get the official certifcate from the company.

2 minutes ago, Alotoftravel said:

I guess pacific cross needs the extension due date so that your policy starts on visa due date so that you will get the full year of the visa extension when we apply .
 

I was told I needed health insurance at cnx immigration yesterday . I came in on o/a visa extending for over 4 years .
 

If I go to immigration 30 days earlier to apply before my visa extension expire, do I start my insurance policy on visa extension due date so that I get 1 full year of visa extension to correlate with my insurance or I need a policy 30 days earlier since I am applying earlier, ( just want to get full 1 year extension)

 

any thoughts , thanks 

 

 

 

 

 

Some one a day or two ago said they just did their extension off of a OA and did not need insurance at Chiang Mai.  Many wanted more details from that person which he would not give.

Two more reports in the past 24 hours of people who did get in on pre October Non OA's without being asked for insurance. What the heck is going on here?

 

2 minutes ago, zydeco said:

They do conduct interviews in which they can ask anything they want. They make their judgment about granting a visa or withholding one without any explanation. There is room here to retaliate. 

They are not going to "retaliate" and asking them to is not a good way to get their maximum assistance with the things that they can do. Which is sit down with higher level officials than you or I have access to, and explain the kinds of insurance and medical cover their nationals may have that meet Imm requirements and lobby to have that accepted. And highlight the plight of people over 75 and those with pre existing conditions that make them uninsurable -- including those residing in (and paying) Thai care homes. Etc etc.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Ellis said:

Two more reports in the past 24 hours of people who did get in on pre October Non OA's without being asked for insurance. What the heck is going on here?

Maybe the big bosses learned about some officers enforcing a requirement that does on exist according the written requirements and informed them they were wrong.

5 minutes ago, Ellis said:

Two more reports in the past 24 hours of people who did get in on pre October Non OA's without being asked for insurance. What the heck is going on here?

 

No idea. Would really like to see reports from today. It is possible that airport IOs have gotten new instructions/ clarification but I would wait for more reports before assuming anything.

31 minutes ago, Ellis said:

Two more reports in the past 24 hours of people who did get in on pre October Non OA's without being asked for insurance. What the heck is going on here?

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one, he must have had the same IO as me, young lady and a more senior one, she entered the date after a brief chat with him, smiled and handed me my passport back. 1 question springs to mind, did they know about insurance, or had the same idea as me

Yes cnx immigration are requiring health insurance , they handed me below.

 

so my policy start date is the day I apply . So  I will not be going in early, 30 days earlier like previous years. Thanks 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

They are not going to "retaliate" and asking them to is not a good way to get their maximum assistance with the things that they can do. Which is sit down with higher level officials than you or I have access to, and explain the kinds of insurance and medical cover their nationals may have that meet Imm requirements and lobby to have that accepted. And highlight the plight of people over 75 and those with pre existing conditions that make them uninsurable -- including those residing in (and paying) Thai care homes. Etc etc.

 

 

Rumor has it that the Thai military has some pull in this current government..... As such, it would seem prudent to energize our Air and Military Attaches to hob knob with their Thai counterparts about how insurance (Tricare) earned by US military retirees in Thailand has become worthless in the eyes of civilian Thai bureaucrats. As such, only in Thailand will US military retirees have to pay out of pocket for additional, unneeded insurance.

 

There remains a strong bond between the RTAF and USAF, ever since we flew off their airfields during Vietnam. And today retirees from both services still socialize (I know firsthand). And, this strong old boy network can facilitate matters, like obtaining scarce spare parts for antiquated F-16s. So, maybe a Thai in blue can educate a civilian, who has decision making authority, about the error of this situation. Amazing what a uniform can do in this environment.

44 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Maybe the big bosses learned about some officers enforcing a requirement that does on exist according the written requirements and informed them they were wrong.

If this turns out to be the case, I feel for all the people that were given 30 days, travel out and back, bought insurance then had the O-A  approved, expensive and a hassle

2 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

If the US Embassy was serious in protecting US Citizens they could solve the problem instantly.....there is so much use of the term quid pro quo in the news lately,  the solution to the problem is right in front of the Embassies face: 

 

Effective October 31st 2019 any Thai National applying for ANY type of Visa to the United States Of America must have a paid health insurance policy issued in the US prior to the issuance of any visa by the US Embassy Bangkok or US Consulate in Chang Mai  

 

How long do you think it would take for the Thai authorities to re think this new policy if this became the US requirement ?  My letter to the US Embassy will not be asking them to keep, advocating, begging, and monitoring the Thai authorities but to start forcing them to level the playing field or just how about a little Quid Pro Quo  

I don't think it would change anything. As I understand it, you all have to pay in the US anyway. A few years ago the UK Immigration change the rules regarding health care. The UK has a national health service that is freely accessible to all that qualify. Anybody (including Thais) going to the UK with a visa of more than six months must now pay £600 per year into the NHS system until they either leave or obtain Indefinite leave to remain (usually at least five years). There was no public outcry from the Thai Government at the time and they are probably now just catching up with what other countries are already doing. 

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 Imm is not about to review policies to determine compliance. (Though they might like a photocopy of the face page of the policy as an attachment....you know them, the more pieces of paper in a file the better)

 

You have to show the standard certificate.

 

Contact LUMA, or your broker if you have, one and request the certificate for Immigration.

 

Note that if your Imm office requires this they will extend you only up to the policy expiration date, whatever that is. 

Of course, my policy which covers up to 32 Million Baht Inpatient, but Outpatient for cancer care only, won't suffice. Sad that I may have to a) get a bigger deductible and use that saving to buy one of these 400K/40K policies, or b) scrap my present plan altogether for a much worse plan just to satisfy this govt requirement. Its crazy. I asked my present agent for a quote to add 40K outpatient to my present plan, and he said that would cost an additional 70K a year! Now, that makes sense!

3 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

If the US Embassy was serious in protecting US Citizens they could solve the problem instantly.....there is so much use of the term quid pro quo in the news lately,  the solution to the problem is right in front of the Embassies face: 

 

Effective October 31st 2019 any Thai National applying for ANY type of Visa to the United States Of America must have a paid health insurance policy issued in the US prior to the issuance of any visa by the US Embassy Bangkok or US Consulate in Chang Mai  

 

How long do you think it would take for the Thai authorities to re think this new policy if this became the US requirement ?  My letter to the US Embassy will not be asking them to keep, advocating, begging, and monitoring the Thai authorities but to start forcing them to level the playing field or just how about a little Quid Pro Quo  

While I am not a supporter of the current US administration, I am thinking along the same lines as you. Perhaps this is a good time to bring in the political pressure from the point of inequitable treatment we are receiving on the part of Thailand and demand that equal regulation be enforced on all Thai citizens in the US. My hope being that there would be an equitable diplomatic solution for all concerned.

23 minutes ago, lampangguy said:

Of course, my policy which covers up to 32 Million Baht Inpatient, but Outpatient for cancer care only, won't suffice. Sad that I may have to a) get a bigger deductible and use that saving to buy one of these 400K/40K policies, or b) scrap my present plan altogether for a much worse plan just to satisfy this govt requirement. Its crazy. I asked my present agent for a quote to add 40K outpatient to my present plan, and he said that would cost an additional 70K a year! Now, that makes sense!

I completely understand and agree.

 

Suggest you write your Embassy.

 

And whatever you do, do nto chose option b) above. Solves one problem but leaves you wide open to worse ones.

2 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

While I am not a supporter of the current US administration, I am thinking along the same lines as you. Perhaps this is a good time to bring in the political pressure from the point of inequitable treatment we are receiving on the part of Thailand and demand that equal regulation be enforced on all Thai citizens in the US. My hope being that there would be an equitable diplomatic solution for all concerned.

Oh please.

In my estimation the level of concern of the U.S. government towards U.S. nationals living in Thailand is -- totally off the radar.

Not explicitly hostile but not supportive either. 

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I completely understand and agree.

 

Suggest you write your Embassy.

 

And whatever you do, do nto chose option b) above. Solves one problem but leaves you wide open to worse ones.

Sheryl, This was the rely from a recent inquiry to the embassy.

"We understand this requirement is for new and renewal applicants (see attached pages – English on the final pages).  You’ll need to discuss your options with Thai authorities. The US Embassy cannot, and does not, speak for Thai Immigration. 

 

With that being said, whether your insurance is from the U.S. or from Thailand it will need to meet the 40,000 Baht for outpatient treatment and 400,000 baht for inpatient treatment requirement.  You will have to provide proof of this every time you renew.

 

Respectfully,

ACS"

I got a much more detailed reply, maybe because I sent a more detailed message. See my prior posts.

 

They just sent out an email alert to people that stated that foreign insurance can be used, this is an opening to go back to them and report that this is not what is actually happening in practice and also that the current list of approved companies contains no options for people over 75.

 

What you should not bother  doing is ask them for advice or instructions on how to deal with Imm or an interpretation of Imm rules.  That is not their purview. What you can do is present specifics of your issue and ask them to advocate with Thai authorities to do XYZ (something other than nto require insurance at all...e.g. accept Tricare, accept foreign policies, develop an alternative option for people who cannot get insurance etc). That, they can do. May or may not bring results, but it is more than we can do and is the only avenue open to us to make high level Thai authorities aware of the various gaps in this new "system".

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Yes I looked at Regency some time back, policies looked attractive. You may well want to ask whoever marketed this policy to you, but, they do not appear to be on this website.

I exchanged quite a few emails with a broker regarding Regency. They are not a Thai company, so don't appear on the website, meaning the policy will only be valid for one year. Apart from that, it looked like a good policy for anyone looking for the bare-minimum coverage. The premiums were low and there was no age-limit. Premiums increase by 7% per year after 70.

 

As a long-shot, I asked the agent whether Regency had looked into getting listed on the TGIA website, despite being a foreign company. Is there anything in the original cabinet resolution or subsequent police orders that mentions that the second-year on must be an insurance company registered in Thailand?  The TGIA site itself uses the phrase, "must buy insurance from authorized insurance companies in Thailand only". What is an authorized insurance company? Is it a company registered in Thailand or is it a company that appears on the TGIA website? Most likely it's a Thai-registered company, but I thought it at least worth a shot for a foreign company to look into the criteria for being listed on the TGIA website, especially a company like Regency who has gone to the trouble of create a policy called Thailand Long-Stay.

6 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Is there anything in the original cabinet resolution or subsequent police orders that mentions that the second-year on must be an insurance company registered in Thailand?  The TGIA site itself uses the phrase, "must buy insurance from authorized insurance companies in Thailand only". What is an authorized insurance company? Is it a company registered in Thailand or is it a company that appears on the TGIA website? Most likely it's a Thai-registered company, but I thought it at least worth a shot for a foreign company to look into the criteria for being listed on the TGIA website, especially a company like Regency who has gone to the trouble of create a policy called Thailand Long-Stay.

 

There is nothing whatsoever in the Cabinet resolution or Police Order that says anything about foreign policies.

 

This "First year only" business appears only on the tgia website, a non-governmental site run by private local insurers with an obvious vested interest,. It even contains a declaimer to the effect they are not an official source.

 

However their site content is being treated as an official rule  by default due to lack of guidance from TI and the fact that the police order contains a link to the site.

 

Which does mean that there is room to allow foreign policies if TI can be so persuaded.

 

As I have said before they seem to have backed away from all details in favor of leaving it to this group of private companies with a clear conflict if interest. Pretty unprecedented approach for a government to take and a very, very bad idea.

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

There is nothing whatsoever in the Cabinet resolution or Police Order that says anything about foreign policies.

...

 

However their site content is being treated as an official rule  by default due to lack of guidance from TI and the fact that the police order contains a link to the site.

 

Which does mean that there is room to allow foreign policies if TI can be so persuaded.

That's the way I saw it. The fact that the order contains a link to the TGIA website is unfortunate in that everyone naturally takes anything on that website to be endorsed by the government, whereas I think the intention was probably just that the website would contain the list of officially approved insurers. 

 

I did see a comment somewhere by a Thai official that it would be impossible for them to check, and keep to track of,  every overseas policy, which is understandable. If the TGIA could become a portal whereby any insurance company could submit a policy for approval for use with Thai visas, then a lot of our current problems would disappear. How likely that is to come about is another matter.