O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Sheryl]

25 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

So am I correct in thinking that point 4 above means that the existing O-A holder can enter Immigration but must have Insurance at the point of renewing their extension? 

 

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

This is insane. First, being nearly 75, with preexisting conditions, I may not even be insurable -- or if so, will pay a 6-figure premium for insurance I don't need (I have Tricare). And, if a high deductible, say 440k baht, I'll pay out-of-pocket to Thai hospitals the full amount the gov't says I need to be insured for..... So, why pay a premium for any coverage over this 440k....? Nuts!

 

Ok, Thai gov't, establish special bank accounts, where you can hold my 440k baht, to be tapped only by hospitals that I have stiffed with payment defaults (totally unlikely). Cost? Just the opportunity cost of the CD I cash in in the States, which as interest rates sink below 2%, is becoming nothing (plus, presumably the 440k would be earning some interest amount from the Thai bank). And, why not combine this concept with my 800k account needed for annual extension of stay renewals...... In any event, certainly a tons cheaper than buying a Thai insurance policy, that may become unrenewable, or prohibitively costly. Malaysia has these medical bank accounts for their foreign retirees, so it's not something new in this region.

 

I'm just afraid the insurance lobby sees a golden goose -- and knows who in gov't to visit to prevent any rain on their parade. Sadly, there' probably no one in gov't, who can understand the problem and who possesses decision making authority -- and ISN'T corrupt -- that can change matters. Sad.

 

 

Please email ACS at the Embassy if you have not already, with the specifics of your situation. They are aware of the situation and are advocating with the Thai government to allow people to keep and use their existing cover inlcuding - and especially - Tricare. .The more specifics they hear from people on the ground, the better. Note that they will not be able to advise you what to do. They can only raise issues with Imm and MoPH. But I think it is helpful for them to have specific examples of cases like yours to reference.

 

I'd suggest leaving out the part about corruption and also most of the next to last paragraph. Just stick to: I have been here X years, I have Tricare which fully covers my inpatient & outpatient costs with no limit (if you can, mention how much Tricare has already paid for your care here), I do not need private insurance since I am already covered and I can't get it anyway due to age and pre-existing conditions.

[Sheryl]

37 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

So am I correct in thinking that point 4 above means that the existing O-A holder can enter Immigration but must have Insurance at the point of renewing their extension? 

 

I think it is impossible to say if they mean visa validity or already granted permission of stay. The Police Order certainly says the latter. For sure anyone getting an OA after the 31 October has to have insurance just to get the visa so would have it on entry.

 

I also don't know the date this was written. It could predate the issuance of the Police Order for all we know.

 

 

[Kadilo]

Just now, Sheryl said:

 

I think it is impossible to say if they mean visa validity or already granted permission of stay. The Police Order certainly says the latter. For sure anyone getting an OA after the 31 October has to have insurance just to get the visa so would have it on entry.

 

I also don't know the date this was written. It could predate the issuance of the Police Order for all we know.

 

 

Thanks Sheryl appreciate your efforts in trying to help myself and everyone. 
Personally I’m losing the will to live so must be difficult for yourself lol

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Thanks very much Pib!  That long document from the MoPH is the first time I've ever seen sight of such a thing in good ole' English... Too bad MoPH didn't see fit to distribute it to the expat community here.

 

From a quick read, there's language in there that appears to support the notion that the insurance requirement is going to required for O-A extensions of stay.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the Thais certainly do love their "One Stop Service Centers."  First I've ever heard of such a thing existing, if it actually does, re the O-A insurance issue.

 

 

 

 

I would suggest anyone with issues around (1) use of foreign insurance (2) having Tricare or SS or (3) being genuinely unable to get insurance due to age or pre-existing conditions (unable, not unwilling!) try contacting them and post the outcome here.

 

Note that they are NOT Immigration so cannot directly affect your extension etc but they might be able to make some calls and even if not on an individual basis, as the entity which started this whole thing and the one most aware of its actual original intention they need to know these issues.

 Don't bother with the website, nothing useful there. Call or email or both.

Call Center +662-193-7999 Tel. +662-193-7014 Fax. +662-149-5630

Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Website : www.thailandmedicalhub.net

[Exploring Thailand]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Meanwhile, the Thais certainly do love their "One Stop Service Centers."  First I've ever heard of such a thing existing, if it actually does, re the O-A insurance issue.

I think think it's probably a reference to the TGIA website.

[lkv]

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

Actually there are three different documents (and the translations) in this PDF file.

Do you now want to argue that the "police memo" (which effectively orders IOs to do something, so could be called a police order), is not a "police order"? I don't know the legal differences between those two types of notifications, but i'm quite certain that IOs at entry points have to follow both, so they are about on the same level.

IOs at entry points have been ordered (through a "memo") to only let people on an OA visa in if these persons have insurance.

Ok, so this memo states that a person without insurance will be denied entry.

 

Under what section of the Immigration act would that happen?

[jackdd]

30 minutes ago, lkv said:

Ok, so this memo states that a person without insurance will be denied entry.

 

Under what section of the Immigration act would that happen?

The OA visa now requires insurance to be considered valid. So without insurance it's as if the person doesn't have a visa.

If the person is not eligable for a visa exempt or visa on arrival the reason for denial would be 12.1.

Edited November 14, 2019 by jackdd

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

[The US Embassy said]: We estimate approximately 75,000 U.S. citizens have some sort of long-stay visa. 

They mean, of course, that 75,000 Americans are in Thailand on one-year permissions of stay based on meeting retirement requirements (age 50 and financials). I've seen this before with the US Embassy -- they, like so many, call permissions of stay "visas." And long stay varieties are retirement visas. And so too the Thai MFA: On their website, where they describe how to obtain a Non Immigrant O-A "Long Stay" visa, they of course mention their embassies and consulates abroad -- but also mention you can obtain a Non Imm O-A "Long Stay" visa at Thai Immigration. Of course you literally cannot -- but you can get a one year permission of stay based on retirement from Immigration; and that this emanates from a Non Imm O (not O-A) visa doesn't seem to mean much to MFA, and others. So to MFA, and others, a Non Imm O-A Long Stay visa is shorthand for any and all one-year permissions of stay issued by Immigration for those meeting retirement criteria. Handy shorthand, I guess -- unless you start making laws that require literal preciseness---

 

--which is where we are today, because it makes sense that the new health insurance rules were meant to apply to all those foreigners here on one year permissions of stay based on retirement criteria. But when they blithely wrote the law, using the term Non Imm O-A visa to snag what they thought was the entire retirement community -- well, they're finding out that you can't use non-literal shorthand when writing new laws.

 

Almost have to laugh, before I cry, because for all the years I've been on this forum, the one thing that always crops up, when it comes to visas, is: That's not a visa, that's an extension of stay based on a visa. But nobody ever seems to get it right -- even the US Embassy. So, here we are, with what can happen when you confuse your terminology. Thus, don't rush out and get your Non Imm O visa just yet....

[lkv]

18 minutes ago, jackdd said:

The OA visa now requires insurance to be considered valid. So without insurance it's as if the person doesn't have a visa.

If the person is not eligable for a visa exempt or visa on arrival the reason for denial would be 12.1.

So the Embassy, under MFA supervision, issued an invalid visa?

 

Or a visa that all of the sudden becomes invalid because of an Immigration internal memo?

 

Even though the applicant met the requirements to be issued such a visa?

 

A visa that, under Ministerial regulations, has an associated permission of stay of up to 12 months?

Edited November 14, 2019 by lkv

[jackdd]

8 minutes ago, JimGant said:

--which is where we are today, because it makes sense that the new health insurance rules were meant to apply to all those foreigners here on one year permissions of stay based on retirement criteria. But when they blithely wrote the law, using the term Non Imm O-A visa to snag what they thought was the entire retirement community -- well, they're finding out that you can't use non-literal shorthand when writing new laws.

Would have caused too much trouble to introduce it for all at the same time, they most probably intended to do what they did.

But we can expect that they either will apply this to other non-o visas as well (or maybe even all non-immigrant visas, or even all visas).

An alternative would be what the guy in the Youtube video suggested: They will stop issuing non-o visas for retirement, so future retirees can only get a non-oa visa which has the insurance requirement

[jackdd]

11 minutes ago, lkv said:

So the Embassy, under MFA supervision, issued an invalid visa?

 

Or a visa that all of the sudden becomes invalid because of an Immigration internal memo?

 

Even though the applicant met the requirements to be issued such a visa?

 

A visa that, under Ministerial Orders, has an associated permission of stay of up to 12 months?

Didn't you read the various threads about people being denied entry even though they had a valid tourist visa?

For these denials a memo probably doesn't even exist (or they could deny them officially under 12.1. and would not need to abuse 12.2.), they deny them just like that.

So yes, that's exactly what they will do (and have an official order to do so)

 

They could also offer them that they buy insurance on the spot and will then be allowed entry. Maybe in the future an insurance company will offer a booth before immigration where these people can purchase insurance.

Edited November 14, 2019 by jackdd

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

 Don't bother with the website, nothing useful there. Call or email or both.

 

Call Center +662-193-7999 Tel. +662-193-7014 Fax. +662-149-5630

Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Website : www.thailandmedicalhub.net

 

I was kinda wondering about contacting MoPH re all this:

 

1. Would anyone actually speak English at their supposed One Stop Service Center for foreigner insurance?

and

2. Re phone calls, if the MoPH is anything like CW BKK Immigration, which basically seems to not answer their phones at all!

 

Those aren't rhetorical questions... I'd really like to find out!

 

[lkv]

31 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Didn't you read the various threads about people being denied entry even though they had a valid tourist visa?

For these denials a memo probably doesn't even exist (or they could deny them officially under 12.1. and would not need to abuse 12.2.), they deny them just like that.

So yes, that's exactly what they will do (and have an official order to do so)

 

They could also offer them that they buy insurance on the spot and will then be allowed entry. Maybe in the future an insurance company will offer a booth before immigration where these people can purchase insurance.

I don't think the Immigration Act allows what you are suggesting.

 

12.2 and 12.3 were used for tourists with long histories, in an abusive way sometimes, but still valid under the Immigration Act.

 

I don't see how they can claim that a person that proved 800K in the bank, would fall under 2 or 3. Remember, the rejections for not having the 20K are not because they did not have 20K at the time of application, but because they did not have 20K on them. Upon entry. Or "no means of living" etc.

 

I don't believe non O-A holders have to travel with 800K cash in their pockets, nor is it a requirement, unlike tourist visas or visa exempt.

 

As for 12.1, unlike 12.2 or 12.3, use of such reason would effectively contradict the Immigration Act, since the traveller is in the possesion of a valid visa.

 

Why do you think people holding a tourist visa did not get rejected on 12.1? Because they had a visa.

 

Visa that, after they got rejected, they went to another entry point and happily used further, because the visa was still valid.

 

Because Immigration does not cancel visas, nor does it have the authority to do so. They only have authority to grant or not grant a permission of stay based on Section 12 of the Immigration act.

 

Which, in my opinion, creates a catch 22, where it's difficult to use any of the points under Section 12.

 

Therefore, it's likely for them to issue visa exempt entries, legality of which I would question for valid visa holders.

 

And that was one of my previous questions, that would need further investigation.

 

I know it sounds very pedantic, but hopefully you understand where I am coming from.

Edited November 14, 2019 by lkv

[el jefe]

3 minutes ago, Martyp said:

You need to be a little more precise. Did they use an agent and then obtained a 1 year extension of stay without having insurance from a Thai company?

Exactly. I know people that have renewed an extension with an agent but all were on original O visas. 

I'd like to see a firsthand report of someone using an agent to get another year on an O-A without insurance. 

[Sheryl]

33 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I was kinda wondering about contacting MoPH re all this:

 

1. Would anyone actually speak English at their supposed One Stop Service Center for foreigner insurance?

and

2. Re phone calls, if the MoPH is anything like CW BKK Immigration, which basically seems to not answer their phones at all!

 

Those aren't rhetorical questions... I'd really like to find out!

 

Only one way to do that..

 

 

[La Migra]

For those on Tricare, I recommend you also contact them and explain the new requirements.  If enough people, and there is probably a large pool of Tricare recipients in Thailand, if enough folks are contacting them, I believe they will respond with appropriate coverage certificate.  This would be in addition to contacting ACS at the embassy for continued advocacy on the issue. Sorry for this awkward cut and paste - I added in what I think is the correct email at the end. https://www.tricare.mil/ContactUs/CallUs/OverseasResources Pacific Area; Guam, Japan, Korea, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India and Western Pacific remote countries. Singapore Call Center +65-6339-2676 1-877-678-1208 (toll-free from the U.S.) Sydney Call Center +61-2-9273-2710 1-877-678-1209 (toll-free from the U.S.) Commercial: +81-98-970-9155 DSN: 315-643-2036 Toll-Free: 1-888-777-8343 (if calling from the U.S.) [email protected]

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

They mean, of course, that 75,000 Americans are in Thailand on one-year permissions of stay based on meeting retirement requirements (age 50 and financials)...

Or marriage. Probably at least as many of those as retirement extension and I suspect the balance will soon shift towards more matriage/fewer retirement.

[Mango Bob]

5 minutes ago, La Migra said:

For those on Tricare, I recommend you also contact them and explain the new requirements.  If enough people, and there is probably a large pool of Tricare recipients in Thailand, if enough folks are contacting them, I believe they will respond with appropriate coverage certificate.  This would be in addition to contacting ACS at the embassy for continued advocacy on the issue. Sorry for this awkward cut and paste - I added in what I think is the correct email at the end. https://www.tricare.mil/ContactUs/CallUs/OverseasResources Pacific Area; Guam, Japan, Korea, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India and Western Pacific remote countries. Singapore Call Center +65-6339-2676 1-877-678-1208 (toll-free from the U.S.) Sydney Call Center +61-2-9273-2710 1-877-678-1209 (toll-free from the U.S.) Commercial: +81-98-970-9155 DSN: 315-643-2036 Toll-Free: 1-888-777-8343 (if calling from the U.S.) [email protected]

Even with Tricare being a better health insurance and excess what the dirty dozen insurance companies here offer.  Tricare will not say that their policies has a 400,000/40,000 policy.  Just like many U.S. Insurance companies will not sign the form for insurance.

[La Migra]

14 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

Even with Tricare being a better health insurance and excess what the dirty dozen insurance companies here offer.  Tricare will not say that their policies has a 400,000/40,000 policy.  Just like many U.S. Insurance companies will not sign the form for insurance.

If one person asks they (Tricare) will likely refuse because it falls outside their normal operations ..... if 1000 or 10000 people contact Tricare with the same question - they will likely look into what is going on....and since their coverage meets the requirements - they will (ok, "might") start issuing the letter/certificate. Strength in numbers, squeaky wheel...

Edited November 14, 2019 by La Migra
clarification

[JimGant]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Or marriage. Probably at least as many of those as retirement extension and I suspect the balance will soon shift towards more matriage/fewer retirement.

Yeah, as they certainly didn't mean 75,000 Americans were here on active/expired-extended O-A visas. As we further delve into definitions -- the US Embassy's use of the term 'long stay' (small l, small s) includes, I guess, marriage extensions. Maybe if the L and S are capitalized, we're now talking retirement extensions. SI Hayakawa would be going nuts.

[jackdd]

37 minutes ago, lkv said:

As for 12.1, unlike 12.2 or 12.3, use of such reason would effectively contradict the Immigration Act, since the traveller is in the possesion of a valid visa.

There is no other visa which has an "on entry" requirement (besides the cash required under 12.9.), so the OA visa is the first of it's kind.

I think it's as simple as this, the OA visa now requires the holder to have health insurance, to be able to use it upon entry: No insurance -> No visa -> Denied for 12.1 because no visa (If visa exempt, VOA or buying insurance on the spot is not an option)

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, Exploring Thailand said:

I think think it's probably a reference to the TGIA website.

No it is not. It refers to something the MoPH has set up. See prior post with email and website.

 

From the website it is a new section set up related to medical care for foreigners and not exclusively or even primarily about the insurance but also medical tourism.

 

I don't know if there is a physical place one can go and talk face to face with them though. Someone needs to call and/or email to see.

[rwill]

19 minutes ago, La Migra said:

If one person asks they (Tricare) will likely refuse because it falls outside their normal operations ..... if 1000 or 10000 people contact Tricare with the same question - they will likely look into what is going on....and since their coverage meets the requirements - they will (ok, "might") start issuing the letter/certificate. Strength in numbers, squeaky wheel...

My understanding is that the letter is only for the initial visa application outside of Thailand.  Once you are in Thailand and extending your stay then your only options are to used the approved companies.

[Sheryl]

39 minutes ago, La Migra said:

For those on Tricare, I recommend you also contact them and explain the new requirements.  If enough people, and there is probably a large pool of Tricare recipients in Thailand, if enough folks are contacting them, I believe they will respond with appropriate coverage certificate.  This would be in addition to contacting ACS at the embassy for continued advocacy on the issue. Sorry for this awkward cut and paste - I added in what I think is the correct email at the end. https://www.tricare.mil/ContactUs/CallUs/OverseasResources Pacific Area; Guam, Japan, Korea, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, India and Western Pacific remote countries. Singapore Call Center +65-6339-2676 1-877-678-1208 (toll-free from the U.S.) Sydney Call Center +61-2-9273-2710 1-877-678-1209 (toll-free from the U.S.) Commercial: +81-98-970-9155 DSN: 315-643-2036 Toll-Free: 1-888-777-8343 (if calling from the U.S.) [email protected]

Agree. Numbers are the key.

 

Transfetwise initially responded "no can do" when asked about setting up income transfers such that recipients could specify recivibg bank (in order to have it coded as a foreifn transfer). But as more and more people contacted them with the same request they came around and found a way. 

 

Of course certificate is but part of the battle still need TI to accept foteign coverage which is whete the Embassies are important. . But if/when they do  there will have to be some documentation.

[Mango Bob]

8 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Agree. Numbers are the key.

 

Transfetwise initially responded "no can do" when asked about setting up income transfers such that recipients could specify recivibg bank (in order to have it coded as a foreifn transfer). But as more and more people contacted them with the same request they came around and found a way. 

 

Of course certificate is but part of the battle still need TI to accept foteign coverage which is whete the Embassies are important. . But if/when they do  there will have to be some documentation.

With Tricare you only need a military id card and your Medicare card.  PLus you can get a letter from the military stating that you are on Tricare and the effective date.  You can either get this online or from writing to them.  I have done both in the past.

[Sheryl]

5 minutes ago, Mango Bob said:

With Tricare you only need a military id card and your Medicare card.  PLus you can get a letter from the military stating that you are on Tricare and the effective date.  You can either get this online or from writing to them.  I have done both in the past.

Yes but that does not privide a third party like TI with details about the level of cover. They will want a certificate with standard wording to the effect that cover is not less than 400/40.

[Sheryl]

22 minutes ago, rwill said:

My understanding is that the letter is only for the initial visa application outside of Thailand.  Once you are in Thailand and extending your stay then your only options are to used the approved companies.

That is what the Embassies are in dialogue with government about.

 

This first year only business is not in the police order. It is only on the tgia webdite. There is room for this to change but it will need sustained effort.

[Mango Bob]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Yes but that does not privide a third party like TI with details about the level of cober. They will want a certificate with standard wording to the effect that cover is not less than 400/40.

Yes, that is the problem.  Unless the State Department or Embassy get involved I doubt anything could be done.  The documents I listed were for the IO.

[Thaidream]

12 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

That is what the Embassies are in dialogue with government about.

 

This first year only business is not in the police order. It is only on the tgia webdite. There is room for this to change but it will need sustained effor

The Embassies need to do more. there have to be thousands of elderly Americans here who came years ago over the age of 76 living comfortably with insurance from other sources or  that pay for their care out of pocket.  What are these people to do?Let the  Thai authorities tell everyone directly what these people shoud do.

 

It is  completely against all  ethical considerations to make somerthing mandatory that a person cannot obtain because it is not available.  At the very least , these people need to be given a waiver just as  Malaysia does in their program.

 

As I have said so many times- the only reasonable solution is to grandfather eveyone  here on an O-A dated prior to 31 October 2019.

 

There is a difference between interferring in the  issues of a foreign country and advocating for fair and rquitable treatment of  their citizens.

 

No reasonable country  applies a change of law to people who came into their country under a differeent set of circumstance and if they do- they need to be told bluntly it is not acceptable.

[Jingthing]

49 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Embassies need to do more. there have to be thousands of elderly Americans here who came years ago over the age of 76 living comfortably with insurance from other sources or  that pay for their care out of pocket.  What are these people to do?Let the  Thai authorities tell everyone directly what these people shoud do.

 

It is  completely against all  ethical considerations to make somerthing mandatory that a person cannot obtain because it is not available.  At the very least , these people need to be given a waiver just as  Malaysia does in their program.

 

As I have said so many times- the only reasonable solution is to grandfather eveyone  here on an O-A dated prior to 31 October 2019.

 

There is a difference between interferring in the  issues of a foreign country and advocating for fair and rquitable treatment of  their citizens.

 

No reasonable country  applies a change of law to people who came into their country under a differeent set of circumstance and if they do- they need to be told bluntly it is not acceptable.

Yeah sure. You're talking ethics. What I think is that as you're talking about the U.S. government is that the U.S. government cares very, very little about providing support for elderly Americans to live abroad. So don't hold your breath. The income letter fiasco case in point.