O/A visa and insurance experience today

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 minutes ago, Canuck50 said:

Yes, I did ask her twice if insurance would be required if convert to marriage and both times she said NO. She didn't actually offer to convert herself but said I could do it at desk C, and motioned there as if I could do it immediately. Still confused about that though. I thought marriage extensions could be either based on a non-OA or a non-O. Am I wrong about that? I was trying to determine if one went that route, would they still end up with an OA that might be targeted next or would it be a conversion to an O-based on marriage, which might be targeted later ????.

 

You can have a marriage extension from either an O-A or an O, AFAIK...

 

But hopefully the main issue is, as I noted above....

 

when Immigration revised their rules lately, they did add the O-A insurance language to the section re retirement extensions. They did NOT add it to the comparable section on marriage extensions of stay....

 

PS, of course, there's no guarantee that Immigration won't in the future at some point add the same insurance requirement to other types of stay including marriage extensions...  But, they haven't done it yet!

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Canuck50 said:

I was trying to determine if one went that route, would they still end up with an OA that might be targeted next or would it be a conversion to an O-based on marriage, which might be targeted later ????.

Impossible to do.

Even the IO's don't know what they will say to the next applicant in front of them.

Stop trying to predict the future, you'll just drive yourself crazy.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, Canuck50 said:

Yes, I did ask her twice if insurance would be required if convert to marriage and both times she said NO.

 

Thanks for elaborating/clarifying on that point... I didn't quite catch such a definitive answer on that point from your original post.

 

PS... if you just apply for a different extension, like marriage, you'd still have the same original O-A visa underlying it... But no insurance requirement for O-A based marriage extensions.

 

If you leave the country and return visa exempt and then convert to an O, you're changing your visa basis to O... And then could apply for either retirement or marriage extension without worrying about insurance, at least for now.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[moontang]

53 minutes ago, Canuck50 said:

So, the verdict is in, for me at least. Went to CW this morning and got firmly rejected on my EofS based on original non-imm O-A from 2012. After waiting for 2 hours I made it through the document screening desk and then the initial IO went through everything and it looked promising but at the end she said "where is insurance"? I said I have coverage from Canada to US $5 million and she went to get her supervisor, likely because of the language. Supervisor showed me the link to the gov insurance page saying I must buy before they can issue extension. I said I will not buy that because I already have more cover than that one offers. I tried to convince her that my OA was old and I have already had many extensions since 2012 so could she approve it and she said "cannot"! She went back to the insurance link several times as though to convince me to buy it and I kept saying "NO".

 

Her recommendation was for me to leave Thailand, return on a 30 day Visa Exempt, go immediately to CW to convert to non-imm O, then return in 45 days to convert to one year extension. I asked if she could convert my OA to O for me there so I wouldn't have to leave the country and she said "cannot". I then asked if I could convert to an extension based on marriage without leaving the country and she said "yes, at desk C". I asked twice if that marriage extension would be based on OA or O and both times she just said "marriage extension", so either she didn't understand my question or the question made no sense, don't know which.

 

So I wasted 500 baht on return taxi fare and 6 hours of my life, but at least I know where I stand, unless they change their collective minds tomorrow!

thanks for the report...we were rooting for you.  good to hear they are advising a border bounce instead of the consulates...did you have any kind of certificate with a stamp on it, or just a copy of your policy?

 

BTW, do you not drink while in Canada?  It seems like you would be caving in to yet another government imposed ripoff every time you bought even the lowest of quality beer.  And ciggies?

Edited November 28, 2019 by moontang

[LivinLOS]

24 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

 I am not sure it does (have to break loose). There is really no political constituency here that would care.  Having many of the foreign retirees leave would be absolutely fine with both the Health Ministry and Immigration, from the point of view of both the fewer of these people here the better.  The country leadership is distinctly xenophobic in attitude and surely won't mind fewer foreigners living here. The baht is strong right now and the current reserves good so no great need for the foreign currency they bring in (which was the main impetus for allowing a class of retirement visa). While there are individual people who will take a hit from retiree departures on a large scale it wouldn't register even a blip onto the overall economy.

 

Been saying this about the entire expat population for ages.. Sure on the ground many businesses would miss the income, but in the ivory towers they simply dont care, and IMO would prefer it if we left. 

[deej]

38 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

   The country leadership is distinctly xenophobic in attitude and surely won't mind fewer foreigners living here. The baht is strong right now and the current reserves good so no great need for the foreign currency they bring in (which was the main impetus for allowing a class of retirement visa). While there are individual people who will take a hit from retiree departures on a large scale it wouldn't register even a blip onto the overall economy.

 

 

Thats your view and certainly entitled to.

But 

at this point of time a very poor one .(JMO)

All leading World economys are presently facing strong head winds etc etc

Therefore if the S??t hits the fan.  Thailand will need every Cheap Charley here.

No difference to approx 2 decades ago

Little Fish are Sweet

 

[moontang]

27 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

 

Been saying this about the entire expat population for ages.. Sure on the ground many businesses would miss the income, but in the ivory towers they simply dont care, and IMO would prefer it if we left. 

Yes, shooting yourself in the feet is as much a part of Thai "culture" as a pack of soi dogs.  At all levels of society.  Business down?  Raise prices.  

[Canuck50]

21 minutes ago, moontang said:

thanks for the report...we were rooting for you.  good to hear they are advising a border bounce instead of the consulates...did you have any kind of certificate with a stamp on it, or just a copy of your policy?

 

BTW, do you not drink while in Canada?  It seems like you would be caving in to yet another government imposed ripoff every time you bought even the lowest of quality beer.  And ciggies?

Didn't try to convince them to accept my insurance and she never asked to see any proof. The reason is that my main cover is government insurance which has limits while abroad, supplemented with travel insurance to US $5 mil to cover higher amounts only while out of Canada. I would not have any proof of government insurance and my travel coverage only applies for the part of the year I am in Thailand and they require proof of 12 months, if they were to even accept it.

 

Not sure what you are getting at with the drinking and ciggies question, except maybe comparing Canadian consumption taxes with the recent Thai policy on insurance requirements. If so, many differences between the two. First, consumption taxes apply to all, not discriminatory to a segment of the population (like OA and not O, or tourist). Secondly, one can choose to buy or not buy beer without having to leave the country if you decide not to. And the money spent in consumption taxes gives back in the form of social services and free health care. Really don't want to get into a big debate on the policy ethics of the Canadian government versus the "government" here. And I won't cave to any ripoff, government or otherwise, Thai or Canadian. By the way...I don't drink beer much, certainly don't smoke, and my preferred beverage red wine is far cheaper, even with taxes, with much more availability in Canada (California, Aussie, French, German, etc) compared to anything I find here.

 

Anyway, this was only my experience and I wouldn't be too surprised if someone else goes there tomorrow and gets approved, no questions asked. I should also point out that there were no extenuating circumstances with my encounter, meaning I was well dressed, polite, friendly, calm and cool, as were both the IO and supervisor. So they had every reason to approve my application if they had a means to do so. Still surprises me about the lack of actual reports on here though.

[Mapguy]

It seems that the stage of wishful thinking, misinformation and confusion has nearly ended. Perhaps there will be a policy shift but much doubt about that.  The writing has been on the wall for years about the difficulties (oroutright avoidance) unprepared foreigners have had paying their health care costs. 

 

This has been part of a larger problem of blatant disregard among too many foreigners for the immigration rules and their intention.  Sadly, the changes in NON-OA requirements have blindsided responsible people.  The imperfect solution is certainly undeservedly draconian for many, particularly those over 75, those holding valid "foreign" insurance policies, and those able to self-insure responsibly.  Lots of inconvenience if not financial and other disruptive misery for too many.

 

A bit ominous, of course, is the number of posters on ThaiVisa who obviously are looking to circumvent the change without adequately insuring.  That certainly invites change to the requirements for NON-O visas either obtained out of country or by conversion in Thailand.  Indeed, it is already clear that consulates throughout the world have already restricted the issuance of NON-O visas "for the purpose of retirement." To ignore the intention of the requirement for health insurance is to invite more trouble for more people in the future.

 

Time to move on. But I fear that it is wishful thinking to see dramatic positive changes in policy.

 

 

[BritManToo]

19 minutes ago, Mapguy said:

A bit ominous, of course, is the number of posters on ThaiVisa who obviously are looking to circumvent the change without adequately insuring. 

You consider the Thai policy as 'adequately insuring'?

Be interesting to see what happens if anyone attempts a claim.

Thai insurance companies are very good at not paying.

 

Currently Thai insurance is required for 1 year VISAs (but not Elite?).

Would point out the obvious, Non-O VISAs are for 90 days, if they insist on Thai insurance for 90 day entries, why not insist on Thai insurance for 60 day entries?

Edited November 28, 2019 by BritManToo

[GeorgeCross]

15 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Currently Thai insurance is required for 1 year VISAs (but not Elite?).

Would point out the obvious, Non-O VISAs are for 90 days, if they insist on Thai insurance for 90 day entries, why not insist on Thai insurance for 60 day entries?

 

yeah agree and i've said it before o-extensions are more likely than o-visas and elite is also more likely to be mandated too, just because they can't (with a straight face anyway) mandate foreigners to get expensive 12 month 'thai only' health insurance plans to cover stays less than 12 months!

may as well do SETV visas and METVs too if that is the case. 

 

[Pib]

3 hours ago, Canuck50 said:

So, the verdict is in, for me at least. Went to CW this morning and got firmly rejected on my EofS based on original non-imm O-A from 2012. After waiting for 2 hours I made it through the document screening desk and then the initial IO went through everything and it looked promising but at the end she said "where is insurance"? I said I have coverage from Canada to US $5 million and she went to get her supervisor, likely because of the language. Supervisor showed me the link to the gov insurance page saying I must buy before they can issue extension. I said I will not buy that because I already have more cover than that one offers. I tried to convince her that my OA was old and I have already had many extensions since 2012 so could she approve it and she said "cannot"! She went back to the insurance link several times as though to convince me to buy it and I kept saying "NO".

 

Her recommendation was for me to leave Thailand, return on a 30 day Visa Exempt, go immediately to CW to convert to non-imm O, then return in 45 days to convert to one year extension. I asked if she could convert my OA to O for me there so I wouldn't have to leave the country and she said "cannot". I then asked if I could convert to an extension based on marriage without leaving the country and she said "yes, at desk C". I asked twice if that marriage extension would be based on OA or O and both times she just said "marriage extension", so either she didn't understand my question or the question made no sense, don't know which.

 

So I wasted 500 baht on return taxi fare and 6 hours of my life, but at least I know where I stand, unless they change their collective minds tomorrow!

 

Thanks Canuck50. 

 

Your actual extension results are in sync with what CW told on 18 Oct 2019 when I had a 15 minute face-to-face conversation with two CW immigration officers.  See my 18 Oct post below from a related thread.  Summary of my 18 Oct post: if you have an OA Visa from Christmas past, present, or future and using it to do Retirement Extensions of Stay medical insurance is required.

 

And as you will see later on in the thread I didn't ask the "Well, if I change from an OA Retirement Extension (like I've been doing for over a decade) to an OA Marriage Extension will insurance be required?"  As we know the Extension of Stay for Marriage section of the police orders was not changed to require insurance like the 2.22 Retirement Extension of Stay section was relating to having an OA Visa.  

 

But based on your post above it appears a person who has an OA Visa from Christmas past who has being doing (or switches to) a Marriage Extension of Stay does "not" require insurance?  Am I understanding you right?  I wonder what Desk C is? 

 

And I wonder if you went back to CW in a week or so with an extension application "for marriage" versus "for retirement" along with all the associated supporting docs for a marriage extension if  CW would then process/approve your application since you are applying of a marriage extension of stay?  I'm still unclear on this.   

 

[Pib]

3 hours ago, Canuck50 said:

Yes, I did ask her twice if insurance would be required if convert to marriage and both times she said NO. She didn't actually offer to convert herself but said I could do it at desk C, and motioned there as if I could do it immediately. Still confused about that though. I thought marriage extensions could be either based on a non-OA or a non-O. Am I wrong about that? I was trying to determine if one went that route, would they still end up with an OA that might be targeted next or would it be a conversion to an O-based on marriage, which might be targeted later ????.

Marriage extension can be based on a Non-OA.   

 

Now what we need is a report from some one who has being doing Retirement Extensions of Stay for numerous years based on an OA Visa from Christmas past but instead of applying for a Retirement Extension is to apply for a Marriage Extension (assuming they can do so because they have one each Thai spouse).    

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, Pib said:

Marriage extension can be based on a Non-OA.   

 

Now what we need is a report from some one who has being doing Retirement Extensions of Stay for numerous years based on an OA Visa from Christmas past but instead of applying for a Retirement Extension is to apply for a Marriage Extension (assuming they can do so because they have one each Thai spouse).    

 

Hopefully the answer Canuck50 believes he got on that point is the correct one, and will be repeated with the same answer on future inquiries at BKK CW....

 

Quote

Yes, I did ask her twice if insurance would be required if convert to marriage and both times she said NO.

 

Immigration made no changes lately to the rules/regs for marriage extensions, so there's no legitimate reason marriage extensions should be pulled into the insurance fray....at least... thus far.

 

[Mapguy]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

You consider the Thai policy as 'adequately insuring'?

Be interesting to see what happens if anyone attempts a claim.

Thai insurance companies are very good at not paying.

 

Currently Thai insurance is required for 1 year VISAs (but not Elite?).

Would point out the obvious, Non-O VISAs are for 90 days, if they insist on Thai insurance for 90 day entries, why not insist on Thai insurance for 60 day entries?

"Adequately insuring" in this quote refers to meeting Thai NON-OA visa requirements and the extensions that stem from it.

 

Quality of the insurance? Very, very limited.  That is obvious.

[Martyp]

37 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Hopefully the answer Canuck50 believes he got on that point is the correct one, and will be repeated with the same answer on future inquiries at BKK CW....

 

 

Immigration made no changes lately to the rules/regs for marriage extensions, so there's no legitimate reason marriage extensions should be pulled into the insurance fray....at least... thus far.

 

I often hear that you have to break the chain of an original O-A visa entry by getting an O. While it seems to be true that marriage extensions don't require insurance it is not entirely clear to me that a marriage extension of an original O-A doesn't require insurance. What we need is a definitive report such as the one above about the requirement of insurance for a retirement extension off of an original O-A.

 

I am on retirement extensions off an original O-A. I got married to a Thai this year but continued my extension as a retiree. I still haven't seen a report of someone being approved or rejected for a marriage extension off an original O-A. If necessary (and it isn't for me right now) my plan B would be to leave and return to get an non-O then extensions of either retirement or marriage.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Martyp

[Mapguy]

What have I missed?  Or not?  I believe that there is confusion in some minds about the differences between NON-OA and NON-O visas and the extensions that stem from them.

 

I have seen several casual references above in various posts to extending a NON-OA on the basis of marriage. Converting to a NON-O would change things, but that's different.  Here is the pertinent requirement to obtain a NON-OA visa from a typical MOFA consular site:

 

- 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 [normally successfully] under Category ‘O’ visa.  A marriage certificate must be provided as evidence and should be notarised by notary organs or by the applicant’s diplomatic or consular mission.

 

It IS clear that a dependent spouse (i.e., a spouse not qualified in his or her own right for a NON-OA retirement visa [e.g., too young] carried on his or her qualified spouse's visa using that spouse's financial data, will be considered (normally successfully) for a NON-O visa and extension.  This would apply to any qualified dependent.  BUT, later, should the NON-OA principal holder not maintain his or her extension due to the new health insurance requirement, then the dependent must qualify to stay in Thailand on his or her own.  A NON-O and subsequent extensions have different requirements regarding marriage and dependents.

 

 

Furthermore,  it is required now that all dependents "carried on" a NON-OA visa or extension must meet the same 40/400 health insurance requirements as the principal holder.  That's in the new directives.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 28, 2019 by Mapguy

[JimGant]

3 hours ago, Canuck50 said:

Still surprises me about the lack of actual reports on here though.

Yeah, me too. There have to be a lot (or at least ten) of original O-A visa holders renewing their extensions of stay since all of this hit the fan. Did they all sail nicely through, without insurance -- and are they all not TV participants? Something doesn't seem right here -- maybe the TV participant part possibly....

[Martyp]

7 minutes ago, Mapguy said:

What have I missed?  Or not?  I believe that there is confusion in some minds about the differences between NON-OA and NON-O visas and the extensions that stem from them.

 

I have seen several casual references above in various posts to extending a NON-OA on the basis of marriage. Converting to a NON-O would change things, but that's different.  Here is the pertinent requirement to obtain a NON-OA visa from a typical MOFA consular site:

 

- 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 [normally successfully] under Category ‘O’ visa.  A marriage certificate must be provided as evidence and should be notarised by notary organs or by the applicant’s diplomatic or consular mission.

 

It IS clear that a dependent spouse (i.e., a spouse not qualified in his or her own right for a NON-OA retirement visa [e.g., too young] carried on his or her qualified spouse's visa using that spouse's financial data, will be considered (normally successfully) for a NON-O visa and extension.  This would apply to any qualified dependent.  BUT, later, should the NON-OA principal holder not maintain his or her extension due to the new health insurance requirement, then the dependent must qualify to stay in Thailand on his or her own.  A NON-O and subsequent extensions have different requirements regarding marriage and dependents.

 

Furthermore,  it is required now that all dependents "carried on" a NON-OA visa or extension must meet the same 40/400 health insurance requirements as the principal holder.

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone is confused about O vs OA. My wife is Thai. There is no issue of a dependent visa. The question is whether I can avoid the insurance requirement by applying for an extension base on marriage when my original visa (2017) was an OA or do I have to start over with an O. I am convinced starting over with an O will work. It is still untested and up-in-the-air whether I can just apply for a marriage extension next time and not have to have insurance.

[Mapguy]

Thai wife?  No problem. But you need a NON-O, as you have written.

 

But, of course,  you should have appropriate health insurance unless you can self-insure adequately.  Unless you have a  Thai wife and her family to back you up financially!

Edited November 28, 2019 by Mapguy

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

so there's no legitimate reason marriage extensions should be pulled into the insurance fray...

Yeah, a 75-year old geezer married to a Thai, and on a marriage extension, doesn't need insurance, until he gets divorced and has to switch to a retirement extension....

Makes about as much sense as the rest of this incredible goat rope.

Time to bring the steamship Exodus out of mothballs. Just make sure the loading ramp can accommodate wheelchairs.

[Thaidream]

4 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 I am not sure it does (have to break loose). There is really no political constituency here that would care.  Having many of the foreign retirees leave would be absolutely fine with both the Health Ministry and Immigration, from the point of view of both the fewer of these people here the better.  The country leadership is distinctly xenophobic in attitude and surely won't mind fewer foreigners living here. The baht is strong right now and the current reserves good so no great need for the foreign currency they bring in (which was the main impetus for allowing a class of retirement visa). While there are individual people who will take a hit from retiree departures on a large scale it wouldn't register even a blip onto the overall economy.

I am sure the Thai cabinet didn't care when they and the MOH plotted out  this change. In fact- I doubt they had any idea of how it would work or even cared.

 

However- they  are aware now of the chaos-since many Embassies have sent Diplomatic notes to the Thai Government indicating their confusion over this issue and  it is expected that there be a response from the Thai Government.

 

IMO- ate very least  it may stop the Government from imposing this  chaos on the rest of the Expats as well as Tourists.  In fact, there is talk of a few visa changes that may be positivE Such as a  double entry tourist visa.  The powers that be know that  they have a problem with lagging tourist arrivals and a deficit budget as well as an economy headed to  recession.   They want to stay in power so they may be hesitant to authorize any further  negative changes.

 

Luckily- they have given a way out for those  with an old O-A such as  letting the O-A run out and then apply for  an O or coverting to a marriage extension.  If they were really concerned and wanted to win friends- they would go back to the Embassies with a statement that indicates they are  grandfathering all old O-A Visa holders and the insurance requirement does not apply. By doing this- they would put a positive face forward and improve their image greatly which would encourage tourists to actually come to Thailand.

 

The sad part of all this is that they have not solved the issue of Medical Insurance and alleged unpaid bills. In fact- they have only made it worse.

 

If they came up with a reasonable insurance plan; based upon  a system that does not  prohibit  pre existing conditions; or limit people because of age and make the insurance pool 0-100 instead of 50-75- expats would buy in.

 

I

 

[moontang]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

Yeah, me too. There have to be a lot (or at least ten) of original O-A visa holders renewing their extensions of stay since all of this hit the fan. Did they all sail nicely through, without insurance -- and are they all not TV participants? Something doesn't seem right here -- maybe the TV participant part possibly....

Jim, December is a much busier month than November at the IOs.  Even moreso, where they only allow you to do your extension 30 days before, like Nonthaburi..zero wait time, then told I was two eeeks early...came back with new letter and it was a two hour wait in mid December.  If I ws to do it over again, I would have made the extension due in the late Summer months.

[mfd101]

35 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

If they came up with a reasonable insurance plan; based upon  a system that does not  prohibit  pre existing conditions; or limit people because of age and make the insurance pool 0-100 instead of 50-75- expats would buy in.

 

Strange concept of an insurance plan for farangs who, by definition, are aged 50 years and over, and have never contributed to the insurance company's income during their working years.

 

What do you expect? At age 70, having lived here since age 66, I should be charged no more than a, say, 30-year-old whose being paying his or her annual premiums for the last 10 years? Quick way to an early company mortality, I should think.

[Martyp]

48 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

If they came up with a reasonable insurance plan; based upon  a system that does not  prohibit  pre existing conditions; or limit people because of age and make the insurance pool 0-100 instead of 50-75- expats would buy in.

 

I

 

There is clearly no relief for people 75+ to enter the insurance market. However for the rest of it Pacific Cross does exactly what you are asking for. You can buy a substantial policy in a 0-100 age pool with deductibles to bring the cost down. If you buy a policy before age 75 then you can continue buying policies after age 75. I can’t speak to whether they will pay if you make a claim. Premium increases with age will eventually be a problem. That is not unusual in insurance markets anywhere. People have a love/hate relationship insurance companies. If you are from a country with universal health care then none of this makes any sense. And if you have a foreign policy you just can’t give up the having two policies can be a problem. 

[Thaidream]

11 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Strange concept of an insurance plan for farangs who, by definition, are aged 50 years and over, and have never contributed to the insurance company's income during their working years.

 

What do you expect? At age 70, having lived here since age 66, I should be charged no more than a, say, 30-year-old whose being paying his or her annual premiums for the last 10 years? Quick way to an early company mortality, I should think.

I never said the coverage had to be only private hospitals- if you include government hospitals and start with the concept that Medical care is a human right  and not  a product to make a profit on then everything becomes possible.  

 

Why should any industry  exists related to health care that  makes a profit off the  misery of another.

 

Every  industrialised country in the World  except the USA  provides healthcare as a right and thus makes no rpofit from it- attempting to cover expenses only.

 

Unfortunately, Thailand  is trying to  channel the American system which exists solely to make a  profit. A huge mistake by Thailand as even the US system is about to be extinct and Thailand will stand alone.

[moontang]

12 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I never said the coverage had to be only private hospitals- if you include government hospitals and start with the concept that Medical care is a human right  and not  a product to make a profit on then everything becomes possible.  

 

Why should any industry  exists related to health care that  makes a profit off the  misery of another.

 

Every  industrialised country in the World  except the USA  provides healthcare as a right and thus makes no rpofit from it- attempting to cover expenses only.

 

Unfortunately, Thailand  is trying to  channel the American system which exists solely to make a  profit. A huge mistake by Thailand as even the US system is about to be extinct and Thailand will stand alone.

The National health systems still rely on private companies for everything from the newest and best drugs, to almost all medical devices, and everything in between.  Astrazennaca, Glaxo..just as profitable as Pfizer or Merck.

[Maestro]

14 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Yes UTH is the airport code. I often refer to places this way too... BKK, SGN etc. 

 

It is wrong to expect that the readers of this forum know the IATA airport codes of all airports in Thailand in particular, except perhaps BKK, and of the airport codes in the rest of the world and understand that the poster uses it to refer not to the airport but to a town or city with the same name as the airport.

 

Forum members who use these and other uncommon codes, acronyms or abbreviations run the risk that their posts get removed for the reason of being incomprehensible.

[Momofarang]

6 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

 I am not sure it does (have to break loose). There is really no political constituency here that would care.  Having many of the foreign retirees leave would be absolutely fine with both the Health Ministry and Immigration, from the point of view of both the fewer of these people here the better.  The country leadership is distinctly xenophobic in attitude and surely won't mind fewer foreigners living here. The baht is strong right now and the current reserves good so no great need for the foreign currency they bring in (which was the main impetus for allowing a class of retirement visa). While there are individual people who will take a hit from retiree departures on a large scale it wouldn't register even a blip onto the overall economy.

 

From what I hear the local insurance companies are definitely not making everyone insurable. They are turning lots of people down altogether. Other than Pacific Cross none of them are really making much of an effort that I can see to tap into the market created by the new regulations.

Best post of the thread, and by a margin. It summarizes to the perfection the predicament we are all in. As far as I am concerned and even though I am on marriage extensions I will harden my defenses by getting a Non O, as well as a useless Pacific Cross insurance, if they want me...

[lamyai3]

4 hours ago, Maestro said:

It is wrong to expect that the readers of this forum know the IATA airport codes of all airports in Thailand in particular, except perhaps BKK, and of the airport codes in the rest of the world and understand that the poster uses it to refer not to the airport but to a town or city with the same name as the airport.

 

Forum members who use these and other uncommon codes, acronyms or abbreviations run the risk that their posts get removed for the reason of being incomprehensible.

Bear in mind I was just answering your query as to what it meant. I wouldn't use airport codes myself on here to refer to something non airport related such as my local visa office, though I might do if referring to a well known airport.

 

Incidentally, while UTH most likely refers to Udon Thani (since the post also mentions Nong Khai), I suppose it could also refer to Uthai Thani. With the number of Thai provinces I agree that anything other than the really major places (CW, CM) should be written out properly.