O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Jingthing]

3 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.

His PREVIOUS reading was that ALL on retirement status would be subject to the insurance requirements. O and O-A based. He has revised that! Not rocket science. O-A impacted. O not impacted as long as they keep doing indefinite annual extensions. 

[vivananahuahin]

I am 73 with OA extension since 2014 and i have a very good insurance from my country and they do want accept it,anyway my insurance company cannot fill and  sign document from the Thai health authority,legally cannot,then my only way is to go out the country without re entry permit and ask in Laos or anywhere a O Visa marriage,i am married in Thailand since 2012 then very easy for me.November 22 i do my 90 days report and i will ask to the IO if the rules are the same like last year,i will never speak about insurance and will listen what he say exactly.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

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, I believe he really means O-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 in the first place.

Too bad. You don't understand the CONTEXT of his previous readings. If you did understand then you would understand that saying that those on O based extensions are GRANDFATHERED because his PREVIOUS conclusion was that both O and O-A based extensions would have the same insurance requirement. But he's changed his position. So now it's entirely logical if you understood the CONTEXT of his previous position that he would say O based extensions are grandfathered (and O-A based ones are not). 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Jingthing

[Exploring Thailand]

5 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

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

He says that he's managing director of Integrity Legal law firm. I believe that. I guess it would be possible to look up his credentials, if anyone doubted them.

[LivinLOS]

3 hours 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 the IO at the border will look at that mark to know when to stamp the person in untill. They do not get 1 year but only up to the end date of the insurance which is what the notation appeared to be for. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

his PREVIOUS conclusion was that both O and O-A based extensions would have the same insurance requirement.

 If he actually thought that (regular Os were going to have the insurance requirement), then he knows less about the topic at hand than most of the folks posting here, and his opinions should be valued accordingly.

 

 

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

What is not clear to me is what happens when someone with an O-A dated prior to 31 October 2019 goes into an Immigration Office and seeks an extension.  Logic tells me- there is no requirement- yet we have had reports that several offices are teling people it is required.  In fact, there is a note posted at Jomtien  office indicating it may be required but even the note is incomplete and is questionable.

Have you read the various orders your posting your opinion on ?? 

 

They seem perfectly clear to me. 

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

That is what the police order MAY say  and some IOs have indicated the same but I and others do not believe the Police Order actualy indicates that and that prior O-A holders are grandfathered.

 

I may be completely wrong. time will tell.

Please explain how you read this order then ?? 

[Jingthing]

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 If he actually thought that (regular Os were going to have the insurance requirement), then he knows less about the topic at hand than most of the folks posting here, and his opinions should be valued accordingly.

 

 

Yes, he actually did think that. But now he doesn't. You can of course discount the value of his content because of that. Your choice. I would take everyone's readings and predictions with skepticism including Ubonjoe who I think has consistently been saying this wouldn't impact those on previous O-A extensions. If that ends up being wrong as it appears it was, are you not ever going to listen to UJ again on any visa matter.

At least now you finally get what I've been trying to tell you about the current position of the IL lawyer. Cheers. 

[LivinLOS]

1 hour 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.

 

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.

 

See the following. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

 

At least now you finally get what I've been trying to tell you about the current position of the IL lawyer. Cheers. 

 

Well, I understand what you're saying. But I still believe his grandfathering comments in the latest video pertained to pre 10/31 O-A-based extensions of stay moving forward, not straight Os.... Gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

[LivinLOS]

1 hour 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.

 

Or appears to have read the order which states exactly that.. Insurance requirements for extensions of stay. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Well, I understand what you're saying. But I still believe his grandfathering comments in the latest video pertained to pre 10/31 O-A-based extensions of stay moving forward, not straight Os.... Gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

I will agree to that but I'm telling you that my confidence about what he was saying (O vs. O-A extensions) is over 99 percent. Not whether he is right or wrong but what he is now saying!

[LivinLOS]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

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

Ohh well he managed to clear up the question that absolutely no one was confused by then.. 

 

At no point ever has the current insurance implementation been suggested to apply to O class visas. 

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

What about this part?

 

 

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.

The above is my understanding of how it is suppised to work. Hence the need for the Embassy ir Consulate  notation.

 

It is clear from the police order that you can be stamped in for a period of less than one year if your insurance expiry is in less than one year.  How various Embassies and Consulates will interpret and apply the rules remains to be seen. Certainly most people using their existing foreign insurance will not be fully in sync with their entry date.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Ohh well he managed to clear up the question that absolutely no one was confused by then.. 

 

At no point ever has the current insurance implementation been suggested to apply to O class visas. 

Well, he's been saying that his reading is that it will apply to O visa based extensions for months now. So yes he was suggesting that. So people need to understand that history and context to get what he's saying now. Again people are free to ignore everything he says based on previous position about inclusion of O based extensions if they want. 

[LivinLOS]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Well, he's been saying that his reading is that it will apply to O visa based extensions for months now. So yes he was suggesting that. So people need to understand that history and context to get what he's saying now. Again people are free to ignore everything he says based on previous position about inclusion of O based extensions if they want. 

Well if he read those police orders, and thought it applied to non imm O's at this time, then hes not got much value has he ?? 

 

No where, on any of the published orders, does it say it will apply to non imm O's (at this point). 

[Thaidream]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

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.

Yes- I see the rationale for that but it appears either the LA Consulate didn't get the word or are choosing to ignore it.

 

In addition, they need to accept all foreign policies and the verification form needs to be changed.  No director is going to get near the form but I suppose an insurance agent would sign a simple form indicating valid dates and coverage summary.

 

What I will never accept is if they apply this to all O-A original Visas and subsequent unbroken extensions of the original Visa- in other words apply it retroactively.   Not only would that be unethical; completely unfair but I believe illegal.  

 

Thanks for all of your work, excellent responses and patience.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Well if he read those police orders, and thought it applied to non imm O's at this time, then hes not got much value has he ?? 

 

No where, on any of the published orders, does it say it will apply to non imm O's (at this point). 

You are free to judge his worth. His position before was that Thai immigration saw no distinction between O and OA for purposes of retirement extensions. Indeed BEFORE NOW the process for retirement extension applications for O and OA was exactly the same giving exactly the same status. 

[LivinLOS]

Just now, Thaidream said:

What I will never accept is if they apply this to all O-A original Visas and subsequent unbroken extensions of the original Visa- in other words apply it retroactively.   Not only would that be unethical; completely unfair but I believe illegal.  

You keep saying it, but that is the order, crystal clear.. 

[jonwilly]

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

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

Well that's how I read the comments by the US Lawyer.

I have had a O-R since I turned 55 in 2003, 16 years ago. My original visa to Thailand being a Red vertical visa, as have all visas since, none of the Blue horizontal O-A visa.

I have always planned to "Self Insure" paying my bills as I go along. My last 2 hospital bills being B65K and B91K.

I came close to doing an Elite Visa on my last extension but remember when this type of visa came out. That was 2003-4 and the story at the time was that it was for well off visitors to Thailand to whom 1 mill was chicken feed, they got the limos, the entry to serious golf clubs and high end spas as part of the visa. Tale at the time was it was issued via  private company owned by a friend of the then PM Khun T and it had a rough reception on this board.

Assuming that our US Lawyer is right and we will have to wait for a formal announcement from Thai Government and then base future decisions on the new interpretation of the law.

 

john

[zydeco]

2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Yea, and a few weeks back, the same guy in his videos was saying that every type of extension would need insurance. He's all over the map. Maybe it's unfair, but looking at him and his presentation does not fill me with confidence. 

[Thaidream]

1 minute ago, LivinLOS said:

You keep saying it, but that is the order, crystal clear.

That is not how I read it or understand it. I believe the wording can be intepreted in vatious ways.  You may be right and I may be wrong.  If it is retroactive, I still will not accept it is legal, or ethical.  The Thai Cconstitution  and Thai law address the issue of ex post facto and accepts the concept/

 

 Actually, it is the totality of the order and the Memoranda with prior History that makes me believe it should not be retroactive.  In 1998, they raised the income level from 200K to 800K but it did not apply  to anyone who was already here on an extension of stay prior to the start date. There are still people here who do not have to show 800K for their extension of stay due to retirement. 

 

Luckily for everyone there are ways around it -if it is retroactive and maybe that is why these  work arounds are allowed.   I won't spell them out , they have been mentioned many times. 

However, it's a sad commentary when an 80 year old pensioner who retired in Thailand in 2000 with an O-A Visa and unbroken extensions now has to let his extension expire- leave the country- return with either a Tourist Visa and convert it or a new Non O.  And  if he has foreign insurance coverage- it won't be accepted and if he wanted to purchase coverage - no one will cover him.  A scenario like this should bother everyone. 

 

Whie it does not currently apply to me ( Non O and married to Thai)  , the absolute unfairness of a retroactive law boggles my mind.  

 

As the weeks roll on and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gets diplomatic local  notes from various embassies and  various Thai Embassies and Consulates arounf the World, there maybe a change in how the IOs work the actual extensions. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

That is not how I read it or understand it. I believe the wording can be intepreted in vatious ways.  You may be right and I may be wrong.  If it is retroactive, I still will not accept it is legal, or ethical.  The Thai Cconstitution  and Thai law address the issue of ex post facto and accepts the concept/

 

 Actually, it is the totality of the order and the Memoranda with prior History that makes me believe it should not be retroactive.  In 1998, they raised the income level from 200K to 800K but it did not apply  to anyone who was already here on an extension of stay prior to the start date. There are still people here who do not have to show 800K for their extension of stay due to retirement. 

 

Luckily for everyone there are ways around it -if it is retroactive and maybe that is why these  work arounds are allowed.   I won't spell them out , they have been mentioned many times. 

However, it's a sad commentary when an 80 year old pensioner who retired in Thailand in 2000 with an O-A Visa and unbroken extensions now has to let his extension expire- leave the country- return with either a Tourist Visa and convert it or a new Non O.  And  if he has foreign insurance coverage- it won't be accepted and if he wanted to purchase coverage - no one will cover him.  A scenario like this should bother everyone. 

 

Whie it does not currently apply to me ( Non O and married to Thai)  , the absolute unfairness of a retroactive law boggles my mind.  

 

As the weeks roll on and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs gets diplomatic local  notes from various embassies and  various Thai Embassies and Consulates arounf the World, there maybe a change in how the IOs work the actual extensions. 

That "loophole" might be expiring. Being able to start with a new O and/or to get a new O based on retirement. Stay tuned.

[Exploring Thailand]

11 minutes ago, zydeco said:

Yea, and a few weeks back, the same guy in his videos was saying that every type of extension would need insurance. He's all over the map. Maybe it's unfair, but looking at him and his presentation does not fill me with confidence. 

Yes. I listen to him, this stuff is his job, after all. For laws that haven't changed for years, he is probably a good source, but when something new and untested like this comes along, he can do nothing more than offer his best guess.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Exploring Thailand said:

Yes. I listen to him, this stuff is his job, after all. For laws that haven't changed for years, he is probably a good source, but when something new and untested like this comes along, he can do nothing more than offer his best guess.

Yes but we can say that about any "experts" in earlier stages of major changes here!

[Exploring Thailand]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Yes but we can say that about any "experts" in earlier stages of major changes here!

True. I give him about the same credence as I do the more knowledgeable posters on this board - worth listening to but not infallible ????

[Jingthing]

Just now, Exploring Thailand said:

True. I give him about the same credence as I do the more knowledgeable posters on this board - worth listening to but not infallible ????

Exactly. We've got some visa gurus but there are no visa Gods!

[Thaidream]

1 hour ago, LivinLOS said:

Please explain how you read this order then ??

I understand what you are saying and reading- To me the key is the start date- the order is appliable starting 31 October 2019.  Not before then- only after.  I have already explained about ex post facto and the 1998 grandfathering.  If they did it then why not now when almost every country in the World )including Thailand) recognizes  the concept of Ex Post Facto.

 

I maybe wrong and  many offices are interpreting it as you say but that doesn't necessarily make it right, ethical or legal.  However, I would agree that if you are right -those on an O-A will have to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

[KeeTua]

33 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Actually, it is the totality of the order and the Memoranda with prior History that makes me believe it should not be retroactive.  In 1998, they raised the income level from 200K to 800K but it did not apply  to anyone who was already here on an extension of stay prior to the start date. There are still people here who do not have to show 800K for their extension of stay due to retirement. 

That statement in itself could be confirmation that the insurance requirement is retroactive since the current order does not explicitly exclude any O-A visa or extensions of stay the same way the order to raise income level from 200K to 800K explicitly excluded those who entered the Kingdom prior to 1998.

 

(6)       An alien who entered the Kingdom before October 21, 1998 and has been consecutively permitted to stay in the Kingdom for retirement shall be subject to the
following criteria:
(a)       Must be 60 years of age or over and have an annual fixed income with fluids maintained in a bank account for the past three months of no less than Baht 200,000 or
have a monthly income of no less than Baht 20,000