O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Thaidream]

33 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

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.

I don't think so JT-  they would have to make a change in the law making the O-X and O-A the only way a person can get retirment status in Thailand.  In otherwords no O s issued for retirrment purpose.  As of now a person can let their O-A expire and get a Non O for retirement or marriage and start the process again.  

 

Since this change is for the O-A only and it is a pilot project and they are going to get huge numbers of complaints they would be very reluctant to try closing loopholes that will force  very elderly expats into the streets or in the media.

[Peter Denis]

42 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

,,,. I believe the wording can be interpreted in various 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 Constitution  and Thai law address the issue of ex post facto and accepts the concept.
...

We both agree - and many TVF members with us - that it is appalling how this whole thing has been implemented.

Most of your arguments I fully agree with, e.g. the one questioning the legality of the fact that +75 years old are not able to meet the new requirement as the thai policies are capped before that age.  

But the point I want to address is that you keep on repeating that this health-insurance requirement is applied retro-active (ex post facto).

And I respectfully don't think that particular argument stands.

Applying it retro-active would mean that holders of an OA Visa could be fined or deported for the time they stayed in the country pre Oct 31 because they did not meet during that time the newly issued requirements.  That's too absurd for words of course.

So imo IO is not applying the new requirement retro-actively, but

- they simply did not consider the notion of grandfathering at all, and

- they did not foresee a reasonable transition time.

That's absolutely and deeply unfair, and you could even argue that it's borderline illegal, but they do have the right to change the rules and regulations as they see fit.

And changing the rules also happens in Western countries all the time.  E.g. many West-European countries are scrapping certain rules for tax-deduction as they need more tax-income to balance their budget.  However, when they implement such a new rule, most of the time there are exceptions or softening conditions for certain groups (sort of grandfathering principle), and of course they do not implement overnight but there is a transition period before the rule goes into full effect.  And indeed they do not apply the new rule retro-active (that would mean applying the new rules to periods before it came into effect - you were granted the deduction X years ago but you have to pay it back now because we changed the rules).

Maybe you do not agree with the above, but imo using retro-activity as your main argument for challenging this new requirement, is weakening the otherwise strong case you are advocating.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Thaidream said:

I don't think so JT-  they would have to make a change in the law making the O-X and O-A the only way a person can get retirment status in Thailand.  In otherwords no O s issued for retirrment purpose.  As of now a person can let their O-A expire and get a Non O for retirement or marriage and start the process again.  

 

Since this change is for the O-A only and it is a pilot project and they are going to get huge numbers of complaints they would be very reluctant to try closing loopholes that will force  very elderly expats into the streets or in the media.

You don't think so but you don't know either way. 

Neither do I. 

But it appears to be a possibility. 

Wait and see.

In the meantime I suggest that people that might need to later rush the switch from OA to O if they can. 

[jackdd]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I don't think so JT-  they would have to make a change in the law making the O-X and O-A the only way a person can get retirment status in Thailand.

No change in law required, non-o visas are under the "others" category in the law, and were added there by a ministerial order. So they could be revoked with a ministerial order. But they don't even have to do this, they just have to order the embassies to stop issuing non-o visas for retirement.

[Exploring Thailand]

I guess they could argue that it is not retrospective because it applies only to new extensions of stay, not existing ones. Anyone who has a current extension of stay is not required to go out and buy insurance to maintain it, but when the current extension expires and they apply for a new one, they will (possibly) have to have insurance.

[brianj1964]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You don't think so but you don't know either way. 

Neither do I. 

But it appears to be a possibility. 

Wait and see.

In the meantime I suggest that people that might need to later rush the switch from OA to O if they can. 

As soon as they realise what people are doing JT they will include O visas too, the whole idea of introducing this was as they claim to stop expats rocking up at a hospital and not paying for treatment, IF that's true then that's another loophole

[brianj1964]

10 minutes ago, Exploring Thailand said:

I guess they could argue that it is not retrospective because it applies only to new extensions of stay, not existing ones. Anyone who has a current extension of stay is not required to go out and buy insurance to maintain it, but when the current extension expires and they apply for a new one, they will (possibly) have to have insurance.

The way I read it it's "definetly" not "possibly"

[john terry1001]

30 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

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.

I don't think so JT-  they would have to make a change in the law making the O-X and O-A the only way a person can get retirment status in Thailand.  In otherwords no O s issued for retirrment purpose.  As of now a person can let their O-A expire and get a Non O for retirement or marriage and start the process again.  

 

Since this change is for the O-A only and it is a pilot project and they are going to get huge numbers of complaints they would be very reluctant to try closing loopholes that will force  very elderly expats into the streets or in the media.

Not entirely true. The qualification for an O VISA  has been restricted more and more over the years and currently stands (according to the Thai Embassy in London) as: 

 

"O"	To visit family or friends in Thailand, voluntary job, retirement, medical treatment, to attend judicial process, to work as diplomat's housekeeper

 

Married to a Thai/having a Thai family is catered for, as is the 'officially' retired who is also in receipt of a state state pension.......plus just a few minor options as well. They wouldn't have to change any laws,  they're already in place, they would simply have to just strictly enforce those rules. If they wanted to include all retirees in the insurance scheme in the future they would simply remove them from the O VISA option and direct them to an O-A. That would leave the vast majority to use an O-A or tourist/VE visa and family just a little more protected/secure for now. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by john terry1001

[Thaidream]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

We both agree - and many TVF members with us - that it is appalling how this whole thing has been implemented.

Most of your arguments I fully agree with, e.g. the one questioning the legality of the fact that +75 years old are not able to meet the new requirement as the thai policies are capped before that age.  

But the point I want to address is that you keep on repeating that this health-insurance requirement is applied retro-active (ex post facto).

And I respectfully don't think that particular argument stands.

Applying it retro-active would mean that holders of an OA Visa could be fined or deported for the time they stayed in the country pre Oct 31 because they did not meet during that time the newly issued requirements.  That's too absurd for words of course.

So imo IO is not applying the new requirement retro-actively, but

- they simply did not consider the notion of grandfathering at all, and

- they did not foresee a reasonable transition time.

That's absolutely and deeply unfair, and you could even argue that it's borderline illegal, but they do have the right to change the rules and regulations as they see fit.

And changing the rules also happens in Western countries all the time.  E.g. many West-European countries are scrapping certain rules for tax-deduction as they need more tax-income to balance their budget.  However, when they implement such a new rule, most of the time there are exceptions or softening conditions for certain groups (sort of grandfathering principle), and of course they do not implement overnight but there is a transition period before the rule goes into full effect.  And indeed they do not apply the new rule retro-active (that would mean applying the new rules to periods before it came into effect - you were granted the deduction X years ago but you have to pay it back now because we changed the rules).

Maybe you do not agree with the above, but imo using retro-activity as your main argument for challenging this new requirement, is weakening the otherwise strong case you are advocating.

You may be right that retroactive is not  the proper term to use- I do know the concept is ex post facto- it is a legal concept and has been interpreted in several ways by courts and mostly applies to  criminal cases. However, if someone does not obey the Immigration Law- it is a criminal matter and therefore would mostly apply.  One of the consequences of ex post facto- is that  the results of applying it is some type of punishment.  In other words- you don't get your extension and have to leave and if you don't you are fined or go to jail.  In addition- the law is impossible to meet- the 76 year old who cannot get the insurance to cover the requirement. He can buy, but no will sell it to him.

 

The concept became prominent during the 60s when the civil rights law was being enacted. Several US states had laws   called the 'grandfather clause'.  Even though the federal government and constitution says anone can vote- some states had a law that if your grandfather didn't vote- neither could you.  It was directed at African Americans and  used to refuse to register them to vote.

 

IMO-Thailand must recognize the concept- since they indeed did Grandfather people in 1998 when the income amount required for extensions for retirment was raised. As long as one was here and had unbroken extensions the income amount did not apply to them  There are still people here who use 200K as their requirement instead of 800K. (20K per month as opposed to 65K)  Therefore there is a precedent.

 

IMO  the insurance requirement  on the O-A Visa and extensions is the same thing.  A person who obtained an O-A Visa in 2003 and then extends it unbroken had no insurance requirement.  Why should they now have the requirement?  How is a person who had no previous requirements of insurance now be required to addhere to somedthing he cannot obtain?

 

In addition- all the Memorandum signed by the Immigration Bureau Chief indicates the order and rule change is effective as of 31 October 2019. 

 

The past history of  Thailand recognizing grandfathering ; the situation of some people  finding it imposible to abide by the regulation and the effective date all lead me to believe the rule change cannot be applied prior to the effective date.

 

Your Honor-  the defense rests!!

 

 

[Maestro]

6 hours ago, Momofarang said:

...I am in the O-A/ marriage...

 

Is this a visa? 

[lkv]

19 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Yes, someone mentioned seeing 2 people do that

So Sheryl, if someone mentioned seeing two people doing that, it must be true, right?

 

Whilst plenty of reports on Facebook that I consider genuine said no insurance was demanded upon entry.

 

Only one guy on this forum did, that joined on Wednesday.

 

And you are saying: well maybe at the beginning the IO's asked for it, but they stopped doing that.

 

I have looked on the websites of some of these companies, I don't see how they can be purchased online on the spot.

 

It's only some form you complete and submit and "we will call you back". In most cases "within working hours" i.e. 9 to 6 sort of thing.

 

Maybe you could tell me what I may have missed and how they can be purchased online on the spot.

 

Otherwise, I am tempted to discount that particular report.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv

[Maestro]

5 hours 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.

 

I should love to have a copy of the instructions the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to the Thai embassies and consulates regarding notes to be added to the O-A visa. Can you post a link to it, please?

[john terry1001]

12 minutes ago, lkv said:

Whilsts plenty of reports on Facebook that I consider genuine said no insurance was demanded upon entry.

Trolls on Thai Visa are bad enough, but there are more trolls on Facebook in one day than there are on TV on a month ????.

[lkv]

22 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

Trolls on Thai Visa are bad enough, but there are more trolls on Facebook in one day than there are on TV on a month ????.

Yeah, maybe someone can show me a non O-A visa AND a 30 day stamp next to it, as it is being claimed.

 

By the way, this is at Suvarnabhumi.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, brianj1964 said:

As soon as they realise what people are doing JT they will include O visas too, the whole idea of introducing this was as they claim to stop expats rocking up at a hospital and not paying for treatment, IF that's true then that's another loophole

They are already well aware of what you call a loophole. But your conclusion may or may not be correct. Instead of including O based extensions in the insurance requirement they could simply STOP issuing 90 day O visas based on retirement, inside or outside of Thailand. Then the people with O based extensions will be grandfathered but there won't be any NEW ones.

[brianj1964]

22 minutes ago, lkv said:

Yeah, maybe someone can show me a non O-A visa AND a 30 day stamp next to it, as it is being claimed.

 

By the way, this is at Suvarnabhumi.

 

I can only presume entering bang on the 31st was borderline/ grey area but that's only a guess.

on another point why are some suggesting that making people who have extensions on O-A for years take mandatory insurance at their next extension illegal? I'm not too sure military coups are legal either

Edited November 11, 2019 by brianj1964

[jackdd]

59 minutes ago, Maestro said:

I should love to have a copy of the instructions the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to the Thai embassies and consulates regarding notes to be added to the O-A visa. Can you post a link to it, please?

I don't work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so i can't leak their internal documents

 

45 minutes ago, lkv said:

Yeah, maybe someone can show me a non O-A visa AND a 30 day stamp next to it, as it is being claimed.

 

By the way, this is at Suvarnabhumi.

If i were you i would not set a foot in an immigration office in this year, because this is your case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

So if an IO does notice this he might cancel your permission to stay (or maybe tells you that you have to buy health insurance if you don't want to have it canceled)

 

[Mango Bob]

If you leave Thailand and re enter visa exempt to apply for an Non O visa will you face problems at the point of entry that you must have a round trip ticket and 10,000 or 20,000 baht.

 

[GeorgeCross]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

They are already well aware of what you call a loophole. But your conclusion may or may not be correct. Instead of including O based extensions in the insurance requirement they could simply STOP issuing 90 day O visas based on retirement, inside or outside of Thailand. Then the people with O based extensions will be grandfathered but there won't be any NEW ones.

 

yeah thats how they'd play it for sure. i remember 15 years ago the smart way to come to thailand, if under 50, was to go to Hull or Birmingham and get the non-o with reason "visiting friends" - they stopped issuing those, after a few years, without any new police or ministerial order, they just stopped accepting applications for them

 

 

[brianj1964]

40 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I don't work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, so i can't leak their internal documents

 

If i were you i would not set a foot in an immigration office in this year, because this is your case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

So if an IO does notice this he might cancel your permission to stay (or maybe tells you that you have to buy health insurance if you don't want to have it canceled)

 

Mine is worse, I got a year on the 5th November, do they want to see a passport for a TM30? I've never done one before but the form doesn't ask for passport details, I Googled the picture

Edited November 11, 2019 by brianj1964

[Tracyb]

5 hours ago, MJKT2014 said:

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.

where can one obtain a Non-IMM "O" visa in Thailand?  I think not.

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Tracyb said:

where can one obtain a Non-IMM "O" visa in Thailand?  I think not.

 

Well actually people have been obtaining 90 day O visas IN THAILAND for many many years as part of the two step process where the second step is the first retirement extension.

[Tracyb]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Well actually people have been obtaining 90 day O visas IN THAILAND for many many years as part of the two step process where the second step is the first retirement extension.

I see!  Thanks for clarifying that for me.  Appreciated!

[federicoP]

Just for information, I wrote yesterday to my Embassy (Italian) and today they have answered me ensuring that the issue has already been discussed in the last coordination meeting of the European Embassies.

They (all together) are well aware of the situation and they will do their best to have a reasonable regulation on the subject.

 

[La Migra]

3 hours ago, lkv said:

So Sheryl, if someone mentioned seeing two people doing that, it must be true, right?.... I have looked on the websites of some of these companies, I don't see how they can be purchased online on the spot.

I believe the larger point was: Don't purchase insurance on the spot at the airport.  If faced with the dilemma of a 30 day permission to stay or buying insurance while in immigration : take the 30 day stamp and sort it out.

Also, I agree, I don't see how to purchase in such short order - unless these companies have "operators standing by...." 24/7 . If you can just 'apply', and get a year stamp while waiting for approval ..... that sounds like a loophole Thai Immigration will close quickly. " post excogitato"

Edited November 11, 2019 by La Migra

[lkv]

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

If i were you i would not set a foot in an immigration office in this year, because this is your case:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

So if an IO does notice this he might cancel your permission to stay (or maybe tells you that you have to buy health insurance if you don't want to have it canceled)

It's not mine, it's taken from Facebook, as the other reports, from people with real profile pics, real content, who I am more inclined to categorise as genuine. And some even post passport pics, such as the one I have reposted here.

 

In that particular case, the poster has been stamped for 1 year without insurance required on the 31st of October, in Suvarnabhumi.

 

So again, I would like to see the pic with a non O-A visa AND a 30 day stamp, from Suvarnabhumi, as it is being claimed, and I would like to understand where, on which insurance company's website, and exactly how, can someone purchase insurance online on the spot, as easy as booking a flight, with immediate confirmation.

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv

[GeorgeCross]

8 minutes ago, La Migra said:

post excogitato

 

sounds painful 

 

 

[brianj1964]

38 minutes ago, lkv said:

It's not mine, it's taken from Facebook, as the other reports, from people with real profile pics, real content, who I am more inclined to categorise as genuine. And some even post passport pics, such as the one I have reposted here.

 

In that particular case, the poster has been stamped for 1 year without insurance required on the 31st of October, in Suvarnabhumi.

 

So again, I would like to see the pic with a non O-A visa AND a 30 day stamp, from Suvarnabhumi, as it is being claimed, and I would like to understand where, on which insurance company's website, and exactly how, can someone purchase insurance online on the spot, as easy as booking a flight, with immediate confirmation.

Please believe me the 30 day stamp was offered to me, after 2 hours of arguing I relented but when I went back to passport control, I went to a different IO and was stamped in for a year.

[sometimewoodworker]

3 hours ago, Mango Bob said:

If you leave Thailand and re enter visa exempt to apply for an Non O visa will you face problems at the point of entry that you must have a round trip ticket and 10,000 or 20,000 baht.

 

That depends on your entry point at DMK & BKK quite probably, at NongKai probably no. Other entry points other answers.

[lkv]

2 hours ago, brianj1964 said:

Please believe me the 30 day stamp was offered to me, after 2 hours of arguing I relented but when I went back to passport control, I went to a different IO and was stamped in for a year.

Ok, I went through all the 59 pages to make sure I understand what each and everyone is saying here.

 

I saw you posted your entry stamp for 1 year also previously.

 

I was referring to the poster that said he did receive the 30 day stamp.

 

He claimed that he got the 30 day stamp, and the IO's showed him pictures on the smartphone "that other people purchased" that previous day.

 

So it's unclear to me how can people purchase insurance on the spot, had they decided to do so (apparently, he is claiming he was shown some did "earlier that day").

 

And i am yet to see a 30 day stamp (visa exempt) next to an O-A visa. If that is indeed the case, we will be seeing these pictures shortly on forums.

 

A 30 day permission of stay is given when the person entering Thailand has no visa, so in other words it's like there was no non O-A sticker in the passport.

 

Trouble is, I am not yet seeing enough reports of people being given a 30 day stamp.

 

On that logic, anybody that enters with a non O-A after the 31st October will be given a 30 day stamp in lieu of insurance.

 

All the others would be stamped in error.

 

So all those people on Facebook have in fact been stamped in error and they should have received 30 days? Including yourself? (you got 1 year with no insurance).

 

Am I understanding this right?

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv