O/A visa and insurance experience today

[jackdd]

53 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The LA Consulate makes perfect sense- why indeed would they mark a passport after 31 Oct 2019 indicating insurance when they have already checked one has it as it is a requirement.

Because not everybody who gets an OA visa might plan to stay for a whole year. Maybe somebody plans to stay only 6 months, and thus buys insurance for just 6 months. Then the embassy would stamp the expiry date of the insurance in the passport, so the IO directly sees how long the person will be permitted to stay.

[KeeTua]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The LA Consulate makes perfect sense- why indeed would they mark a passport after 31 Oct 2019 indicating insurance when they have already checked one has it as it is a requirement.   In the past they never marked apassport indicating one  had fullfilled the other requirements.  If one did not fullfill the requirements they wouldn't have the visa.

I think they would need to make a comment on the visa showing expiration date of the current insurance policy so that an IO could stamp the correct  admitted until date in the passport on entry to the Kingdom.

 

Oops, just saw the post above mine already stating that.

Edited November 11, 2019 by KeeTua
oops

[Momofarang]

1 hour ago, Mango Bob said:

Not everyone is married to some 24 year old.

Yeah I am 97, my wife is 14.

 

But seriously I can't understand why some people here won't see the reason why Marriages, and families deserve at least some caution from the authorities. Even a Thai civil servant may be able to see that there is a different benefit to risk ratio. If a 10000 "Cheap Charlie" retirees move to Laos, who cares? If thousands of families are torn apart there will be a cost to Thai society, and massive damage to country's reputation. This is exactly why I have never considered taking retirement extensions, even though there were less a burden to get, until a year ago.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Momofarang

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

Thanks for the post.     The LA Consulate makes perfect sense- why indeed would they mark a passport after 31 Oct 2019 indicating insurance when they have already checked one has it as it is a requirement.   In the past they never marked apassport indicating one  had fullfilled the other requirements.  If one did not fullfill the requirements they wouldn't have the visa.

 

IMO the police order is unclear and shows a lack of professonalism and co-ordination with other necessary ministries.  IMO there is no reason to check if a person has insurance at the airport at all. If one has an O-A prior to 31 October 2019 there is no insurance reuirement.  If one has an O-A issued after 31 Oct 2019- the Embassy/Consulate alread checked the insurance.  Why check again =they don't check the income requirement....

Because (1) the police order states they are to make such a notation and IOs at entry points have been instructed to check for it.  (2) the IO stamping you in needs to know the policy expiration date in order to know how ling to stamp you in for. 

[Sheryl]

15 hours ago, lkv said:

 

It's not that easy 1-2-3.

 

Once you buy the insurance, the insurance companies will register you on the tgia portal manually (likely takes some time) then immigration has to connect to that portal, check there etc.

 

I would not even be surprised if Immigration cannot even connect to the database as of today.

 

Plus, let's make it clear, you don't buy insurance from the tgia website, you buy insurance from the participating companies.

 

I don't believe insurance is sold online by these companies, like buying a plane ticket and paying with card here in Thailand, but I stand to be corrected.

 

Even if it was, they have to approve you, register you in the portal etc.

 

That report is most likely bogus.

 

As I have explained it is quite possible to buy insurance online on the spot from several of these companies. Nothing bogus or suspect about reports of people doing this.  

 

However the policy so obtained is of little value and the policy holder has no assurrance that claims for illnesses will be paid because there had been no medical underwriting. The company decides ec post facto if a claim is related to a pre existing condition and their reasoning on that score can be highly "creative". 

 

The Thai private  health insurance market is very small and many of the listed companies do mainly motor vehicle and/or life insurance. One still does not provide any sort of health insurance when last I checked.

 

The Thai health insurance "culture" is to provide policies of very low cover with no advance medical underwriting and then investigate the person's medical history only when a claim is made...with a resulting high rate of claim denials.

 

There are a few companies on the approved list that do provide policies which are completely underwritten but those can't be gotten on the spot. Can be done online,  but the process will take days or weeks to complete. A full medical history will be required and if over 65 may also be required to undergo a medical check up.

 

Anyone denied entry for lack of insurance and intending to take out an approved policy would do best to take the 30 day visa exempt entry and spend that time getting a fully undetwritten policy rather than buy a policy on the spot, tempting though that option may seem at the time to a weary traveller.

 

 

[ThailandRyan]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Because not everybody who gets an OA visa might plan to stay for a whole year. Maybe somebody plans to stay only 6 months, and thus buys insurance for just 6 months. Then the embassy would stamp the expiry date of the insurance in the passport, so the IO directly sees how long the person will be permitted to stay.

The O-A visa is issued for a 1 year stay with multiple entries, whether or not one wants to stay 6 months or whatever, the way the consulates are requiring the forms, for the O-A visa per the resolution, is to cover the entire year.  This is the section straight from the Thai Consulate Los Angeles.    

 

Non – Immigrant Visa Category “O-A” (long stay) : Those age 50 years and over who wish to stay in Thailand for a period of not exceeding 1 year without the intention of working.

 

1. Pursuant to the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of Thailand, dated 2 April B.E. 2562 (2019),
   approving in principle for the stipulation of health insurance as an additional requirement for Non-Immigrant ‘O-A’ (Long Stay) visa application, the Royal Thai Embassy  has introduced the following requirements for the said visa application:

   Effective from 31 October 2019 , the applicant must be medically insured for the entire period of stay in Thailand with the following coverage:

   – Outpatient benefit with a sum insured of not less than 40,000 THB, and

   – Inpatient benefit with a sum insured of not less than  400,000 THB

   The applicants must submit the following:

   9.1. Health insurance policy document issued by a Thai or foreign insurance company, stating that the applicant is medically insured for the period and with coverage as mentioned above:

   (a) In case of a foreign insurance company, the applicant must submit the original insurance policy document with 2 copies;

   (b) In case of a Thai insurance company, the applicant must submit 2 copies of the insurance policy document or, if available, the original insurance policy document with 2 copies. A list of Thai insurance companies participating in the scheme can be found here: http://longstay.tgia.org

   9.2. Foreign Insurance Certificate as stipulated by the Office of Insurance Commission and Health Insurance of Thailand, which must be completed, signed and stamped by the insurance company. The form can be downloaded here: Foreign Insurance Certificate Form

In the case where the accompanying spouse is not eligible to apply for the Category ‘O-A’ (Long Stay) visa, he or she will be considered for temporary stay under Category ‘O’ visa. A marriage certificate must be provided as evidence

*No where does it state anything less than a year....

Directly from a conversation with this consulate, everything submitted is for a 1 year period.

An O-A Visa is not issued for any period of time less than 1 year.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by ThailandRyan
Update

[jackdd]

15 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

*No where does it state anything less than a year....

What about this part?

15 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

stay in Thailand for a period of not exceeding 1 year

 

 

15 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

An O-A Visa is not issued for any period of time less than 1 year.

This is also correct. But if you would buy health insurance for 6 months and use it to apply for the visa, they would give you a visa valid for one year, but would make an annotation that you have insurance for only 6 months and upon entering the country the IO would stamp you in for 6 months.

[Exploring Thailand]

For what it's worth, this lawyer thinks that current and future OA visa holders will need insurance, whereas anyone with an existing extension, from either O or OA won't need insurance. He also thinks that it will become increasingly difficult to get an O for anything other than marriage, (or other family relationship), and that people wishing to retire here will be obliged to get an OA.

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

17 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

 

An O-A Visa is not issued for any period of time less than 1 year.

 

 

Yes, but I believe Immigration's policy pretty much says if you show up as an O-A visa holder deemed subject to the insurance requirement, and your O-A certified insurance only happens to provide cover for the coming 6 months, then they'll only give you a six month permission to stay at entry... In other words, permission to stay will not exceed duration of insurance.

 

 

[Momofarang]

12 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

For what it's worth, this lawyer thinks that current and future OA visa holders will need insurance, whereas anyone with an existing extension, from either O or OA won't need insurance. He also thinks that it will become increasingly difficult to get an O for anything other than marriage, (or other family relationship), and that people wishing to retire here will be obliged to get an OA.

Would make perfect sense, hence unlikely. T.I.T. Interestingly he says exactly what Ubonjoe used to repeat here relentlessly until a week ago, when he got "flooded" out of the debated.

Edited November 11, 2019 by Momofarang

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Because not everybody who gets an OA visa might plan to stay for a whole year. Maybe somebody plans to stay only 6 months, and thus buys insurance for just 6 months. Then the embassy would stamp the expiry date of the insurance in the passport, so the IO directly sees how long the person will be permitted to stay.

 

13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

The O-A visa is issued for a 1 year stay with multiple entries, whether or not one wants to stay 6 months or whatever, the way the consulates are requiring the forms, for the O-A visa per the resolution, is to cover the entire year.  This is the section straight from the Thai Consulate Los Angeles.    

 

Non – Immigrant Visa Category “O-A” (long stay) : Those age 50 years and over who wish to stay in Thailand for a period of not exceeding 1 year without the intention of working.

Effective from 31 October 2019 , the applicant must be medically insured for the entire period of stay in Thailand with the following coverage:

– Outpatient benefit with a sum insured of not less than 40,000 THB, and

– Inpatient benefit with a sum insured of not less than  400,000 THB

13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

*No where does it state anything less than a year....

Directly from a conversation with this consulate, everything submitted is for a 1 year period.

An O-A Visa is not issued for any period of time less than 1 year.

Imo @jackddis correct and the Embassy/Consulate will add the note when the insurance taken does not cover the full year the OA Visa covers.  That way, border Immigration officers will know the expiry date of the insurance and will only stamp the OA holder in, until that date.

Interestingly the requirements from the US thai Embassy are NOT EXACTLY worded the same as those posted by the Belgian thai Embassy.

The US thai embassy text says:

           > Effective from 31 October 2019 , the applicant must be medically insured for the entire period of stay in Thailand ...

While the Belgian thai embassy says:

         > ****As of 31 October 2019, the visa applicant for Non-Immigrant Visa “O-A” (Long Stay) must have health insurance which covers the period that s/he will stay in Thailand

 

The European text is imo more clear as it states that it will cover the period s/he will stay in Thailand, which could indeed be shorter than the 1 year OA Visa period.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

whereas anyone with an existing extension, from either O or OA won't need insurance.

 

Obviously he's not in touch with the various Immigration offices that, rightly or wrongly, are giving exactly the opposite guidance to people with prior O-As on current extensions of stay when they go to renew those now.

 

[Exploring Thailand]

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Obviously he's not in touch with the various Immigration offices that, rightly or wrongly, are giving exactly the opposite guidance to people with prior O-As on current extensions of stay when they go to renew those now.

 

Have to agree that I'm skeptical. On one hand, it would make sense, as Momofarang says, but I don't see how that guy would be able to get a definitive answer about the intentions of the Thai authorities when no one else has been able to. Sounds like just one more opinion -- could be right, could be wrong.

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

For what it's worth, this lawyer thinks that current and future OA visa holders will need insurance, whereas anyone with an existing extension, from either O or OA won't need insurance. He also thinks that it will become increasingly difficult to get an O for anything other than marriage, (or other family relationship), and that people wishing to retire here will be obliged to get an OA.

 

 

 

I think you are very mistaken about what he thinks. Yes he now thinks those on O based extensions won't need insurance. But he does think those on OA based extensions including existing ones will need the insurance. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Extension of stay reports out of Chiang Mai, fyi....

 

 

[MJKT2014]

28 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

For what it's worth, this lawyer thinks

Not worth a lot it seems. This lawyer doesn't seem to realise Non Imm O visas are obtained inside Thailand. At 4:00 of video he suggests we were rolling into 1 yr extensions off of tourist entries into the country? I'd take half what he says with a pinch of salt.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Extension of stay reports out of Chiang Mai, fyi....

 

 

Yes matching the Integrity Legal lawyers opinion that ALL of those with OA visas and extensions past present and future will have the insurance requirement.

[GeorgeCross]

1 hour ago, Momofarang said:

But seriously I can't understand why some people here won't see the reason why Marriages, and families deserve at least some caution from the authorities. Even a Thai civil servant may be able to see that there is a different benefit to risk ratio. If a 10000 "Cheap Charlie" retirees move to Laos, who cares? If thousands of families are torn apart there will be a cost to Thai society, and massive damage to country's reputation. This is exactly why I have never considered taking retirement extensions, even though there were less a burden to get, until a year ago.

 

married men on average are lower risk and live healthier lives than single men. fact

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[Exploring Thailand]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think you are very mistaken about what he thinks. Yes he now thinks those on O based extensions won't need insurance. But he does think those on OA based extensions including existing ones will need the insurance. 

You could be right. At 2:34 he does say "not strictly speaking OA", but what he says after that does seem muddy the waters a bit.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes matching the Integrity Legal lawyers opinion that ALL of those with OA visas and extensions past present and future will have the insurance requirement.

 

Actually Jing, the Integrity guy was claiming that PRIOR O-A visa holders and those with continuous retirement extensions of those prior O-As should NOT be covered.... (There's mounting evidence/reports that he's wrong about that, at least in terms of past O-As seeking extensions of stay now).

 

But then he was saying, post Oct. 31 O-As and extensions of those post-Oct. 31 O-As occurring in the future will be covered...  And I don't think there's much doubt about that.

 

[Max69xl]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think you are very mistaken about what he thinks. Yes he now thinks those on O based extensions won't need insurance. But he does think those on OA based extensions including existing ones will need the insurance. 

I wouldn't listen to an "online lawyer" who got his degree from a cereal box.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

You could be right. At 2:34 he does say "not strictly speaking OA", but what he says after that does seem muddy the waters a bit.

 

 

5 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Actually Jing, the Integrity guy was claiming that PRIOR O-A visa holders and those with continuous retirement extensions of those prior O-As should NOT be covered.... (There's mounting evidence/reports that he's wrong about that, at least in terms of past O-As seeking extensions of stay now).

 

But then he was saying, post Oct. 31 O-As and extensions of those post-Oct. 31 O-As occurring in the future will be covered...  And I don't think there's much doubt about that.

 

I don't agree with your reading.

BEFORE he was saying all on retirement status (O and O-A) would need insurance.

He has recently revised that to be all on O-A status will be needing it and all on O status will be grandfathered to not needing it.

Also saying O visas for retirement purposes would become very hard to get ANYWHERE.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

I wouldn't listen to an "online lawyer" who got his degree from a cereal box.

He was largely correct about an important part of this. Don't shoot the messenger. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Jingthing

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I don't agree with your reading.

 

Listen to his remarks starting at 3:10 in the video and continuing thru 3:24....   And again 5:10 to 5:29... But he muddies the waters a bit when he starts talking about "O category retirement."... when I think he's really referring to prior O-As.

 

Not to mention the title of his actual video itself.

 

Retirees "Grandfathered Out" of Thai Health Insurance?

 

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Exploring Thailand]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

He was largely correct about an important part of this. Don't shoot the messenger. 

Well, he started his previous video by saying that his analysis had been wrong. Also, it has to be said that, for a lawyer, his language is not the most precise. Lots of people, including myself, have talked to embassies and consulates abroad, and we've received widely differing advice. If he has access to people higher up the hierarchy than we do, then I'd agree that his opinion has more weight. If he's just making the same phone calls as everyone else, then his opinion is just one among many.

[Exploring Thailand]

Now we're going to have a discussion trying to clarify the lawyer's clarification video ????

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Listen to his remarks starting at 3:10 in the video and continuing thru 3:24....   And again 5:10 to 5:29... But he muddies the waters a bit when he starts talking about "O category retirement."... when I think he's really referring to prior O-As.

 

Not to mention the title of his actual video itself.

 

Retirees "Grandfathered Out" of Thai Health Insurance?

 

 

Sorry again. I really think you've got this wrong. He is clearly saying those on current extensions based on O visas (AND NOT O-A VISAS!) are grandfathered out of the health insurance requirement. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Exploring Thailand said:

Now we're going to have a discussion trying to clarify the lawyer's clarification video ????

It's actually clear. O based extensions  -- grandfathered. O-A based extensions -- NOT. 

[Max69xl]

2 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Well, he started his previous video by saying that his analysis had been wrong. Also, it has to be said that, for a lawyer, his language is not the most precise. Lots of people, including myself, have talked to embassies and consulates abroad, and we've received widely differing advice. If he has access to people higher up the hierarchy than we do, then I'd agree that his opinion has more weight. If he's just making the same phone calls as everyone else, then his opinion is just one among many.

Do you really believe that he's a lawyer with a degree working on a thai visa website? 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sorry again. I really think you've got this wrong. He is clearly saying those on current extensions based on O visas (AND NOT O-A VISAS!) are grandfathered out of the health insurance requirement. 

 

Don't agree... As I said, he ends up conflating Os and O-A, and at one point basically says he considers them the same...  But in the parts I highlighted to you, while he's saying O category retirement, I believe he really means and is talking aboutO-A...  which is the subject of the video... 

 

No one needs to be saying Os are grandfathered, because there was never any question about straight Os being involved in any of this in the first place. The video is about O-As.

Edited November 11, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK