43 minutes ago, sometimewoodworker said:

It’s clear in the police order. 
 

you did notice the effective date?

 

Effective date of what? For example, "this Police Order about granting an extension of the permission to stay temporarily in the Kingdom is effective from 31 October 2019". In this case, would it be unreasonable take "effective" to refer to the date of issue of the extension?

21 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

The Standard Extra has a max of 780000 so if one takes off the the max deductible of 300000 it leaves a cover of 480000. This is my understanding. And would make sense for the hospitals as many bills will exceed the puny 400000 required by Immifrakkinggration.

It's not about the total amount of cover. If he had a 300k deductible Thai hospitals who treat him have 300k of exposure. 

 

Right now folks have the option of going and getting anon imm O.. but if this type of to all non imm classes, either they need to have greater flexibility and options, or there's going to be many unhappy folks pushed out. 

20 minutes ago, Momofarang said:

The Standard Extra has a max of 780000 so if one takes off the the max deductible of 300000 it leaves a cover of 480000. This is my understanding. And would make sense for the hospitals as many bills will exceed the puny 400000 required by Immifrakkinggration.

What's the point of having a 780k insurance and then 300k deductible? You get a cheaper insurance but the coverage is in most cases useless. 

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

 

This topic is about entry with an O-A visa (obtained from a Thai embassy or consulate), not about entry with a re-entry permit.

Actually there has been speculation or belief that if you have ever had an OA visa any time in the past that the insurance requirements will apply. At the time of application for a new 1 year extension and maybe at entry at the airport. I don’t think so and certainly hope not but I would like to hear immigration experiences of every permutation. Or put it this way, if someone on an extension of stay and a re-entry permit was asked for proof of insurance it would be of great interest.

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

What's the point of having a 780k insurance and then 300k deductible? You get a cheaper insurance but the coverage is in most cases useless. 

The point is that many people MUST have insurance that they don't need.  In my case, 200,000 deductible changes my premium from about ฿75,000 to ฿45,000.

12 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Actually there has been speculation or belief that if you have ever had an OA visa any time in the past that the insurance requirements will apply. At the time of application for a new 1 year extension and maybe at entry at the airport. I don’t think so and certainly hope not but I would like to hear immigration experiences of every permutation. Or put it this way, if someone on an extension of stay and a re-entry permit was asked for proof of insurance it would be of great interest.

An O-A with a re-entry permit is an existing visa. It's not an extension. No insurance needed if issued before October 31. 

Just now, AAArdvark said:

The point is that many people MUST have insurance that they don't need.  In my case, 200,000 deductible changes my premium from about ฿75,000 to ฿45,000.

If you really need it, it will probably be useless because of the low coverage. Paying a lower cost, in your case 45k just to have an insurance is not that smart imo. Then it's much better to change visa to an O with annual extensions when the O-A expires. 

11 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

If you really need it, it will probably be useless because of the low coverage. Paying a lower cost, in your case 45k just to have an insurance is not that smart imo. Then it's much better to change visa to an O with annual extensions when the O-A expires. 

I was planning on doing that.  If, however, what a couple of posters have said that they were forced to get insurance after a re-entry while on an O-A, I will not be ready.  I was planning on having another 15 months on the O-A with the extra nearly one year of permission to stay granted during the 1st year after a re-entry.  I do not yet have the 800K required for an O.  I do have 8 months of 100K income into a Thai bank but that may not work for the O.

37 minutes ago, Martyp said:

Actually there has been speculation or belief that if you have ever had an OA visa any time in the past that the insurance requirements will apply. At the time of application for a new 1 year extension and maybe at entry at the airport. I don’t think so and certainly hope not but I would like to hear immigration experiences of every permutation. Or put it this way, if someone on an extension of stay and a re-entry permit was asked for proof of insurance it would be of great interest.

 

You've got a point. We have already gone off topic by discussing the application for the retirement extension based on an O-A visa, so to round it off let's add the entry into Thailand with a re-entry permit based on this type of extension or on the permission to stay obtained with an entry with the O-A visa. It may take a while until we hear from somebody who arrives with this type of re-entry permit so that we may note it for the record.

4 hours ago, La Migra said:

When I read the police and immigration orders - I thought the insurance requirement applied to everyone entering on O-A Visas
after the 31st of October.  If it was the first, or subsequent entry - after the 31st you had to have the note from the Embassy or Consulate on the visa, or prove to the IO that you had the coverage.  Regardless of when the visa was issued.  From a policy implementation standpoint (the goal is to have the visa holders have insurance) this makes sense.

Sorry.

 

It makes sense but I don't read Thai so was relying on information from BMs that can and they seemed to think it was issued after 31st and not entered after the 31st, the IO said to my wife that the issue date wasn't relevant, it was because I tried to enter after the 31st that was the problem 

8 minutes ago, Maestro said:

 

You've got a point. We have already gone off topic by discussing the application for the retirement extension based on an O-A visa, so to round it off let's add the entry into Thailand with a re-entry permit based on this type of extension or on the permission to stay obtained with an entry with the O-A visa. It may take a while until we hear from somebody who arrives with this type of re-entry permit so that we may note it for the record.

Me on 25/11

18 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

Me on 25/11

There's already been a post about entering on a re-entry permit. No problem as it should because it was an existing extension. 

I would discount that entry because no mention was made of the type of extension the re-entry permit was based on nor whether the extension was based on a permission obtained with an entry with an O-A visa. This is how convoluted things are getting.

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

An O-A with a re-entry permit is an existing visa. It's not an extension. No insurance needed if issued before October 31. 

Until the next extension.. 

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

An O-A with a re-entry permit is an existing visa. It's not an extension. No insurance needed if issued before October 31. 

Well, as you know, in the first year an OA is multiple entry. In the second year you are using a re-entry permit and I might expect those people to be questioned about insurance but that is definitely a case that needs to be reported on and certainly would be of interest to some people. After that are people, like myself, who arrived on an OA and are now on 1-year extensions. I don't expect to be questioned about insurance at the airport but I don't really know. If an IO were to flip through my passport they would see the big OA visa sticker from 2017 there. Then finally there is the case of applying for a new 1-year extension whether it is your first extension or your 10th. I would like to see reports on all these cases.

25 minutes ago, Maestro said:

I would discount that entry because no mention was made of the type of extension the re-entry permit was based on nor whether the extension was based on a permission obtained with an entry with an O-A visa. This is how convoluted things are getting.

Which means that if people are going to report something they have to provide enough details for the report to be meaningful. I noticed that that report was missing the original visa info as well. 

42 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

There's already been a post about entering on a re-entry permit. No problem as it should because it was an existing extension. 

I have no extension. First year of O-A.

39 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

It makes sense but I don't read Thai so was relying on information from BMs that can and they seemed to think it was issued after 31st and not entered after the 31st, the IO said to my wife that the issue date wasn't relevant, it was because I tried to enter after the 31st that was the problem 

 

"from October 31, 2019 onwards" is a quite accurate translation of the corresponding text in the Memorandum 0029.161/W 4603 dated 27.09.2019, except that is should probably be "onward".

 

Myself, I would take it to mean "on 31 October and thereafter", ie including 31 October itself, but at the same time I would find it easy to understand that an official reading the Thai text เป็นต้นไป (onward) would interpret it to mean "after 31 October"

3 minutes ago, AAArdvark said:

I have no extension.

 

It's not your entry being discussed in that post, but the entry a member observed a German man making with a re-entry permit.

1 hour ago, AAArdvark said:

I have no extension. First year of O-A.

then the re-entry permit aspect has zero relevance 

4 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

then the re-entry permit aspect has zero relevance 

Of course it does. I'm on my first year of an O-A issued Sept 2019. I arrived in October and I'm leaving today, coming back next week. According to 4 reports, I need a reentry permit to keep my Sept 20, 2020 permission to stay alive without insurance.

And I lose my entire second year.

6 minutes ago, el jefe said:

Of course it does. I'm on my first year of an O-A issued Sept 2019. I arrived in October and I'm leaving today, coming back next week. According to 4 reports, I need a reentry permit to keep my Sept 20, 2020 permission to stay alive without insurance.

You may be correct but that makes zero sense, why is a re-entry permit required for an original unexpired visa AND why should that allow the visa to escape the need for insurance.

51 minutes ago, saengd said:

You may be correct but that makes zero sense, why is a re-entry permit required for an original unexpired visa AND why should that allow the visa to escape the need for insurance.

  The re-entry permit preserves an already granted permission to stay (e.g., one that didn't require insurance.)

 

  He shouldn't be required to obtain a re-entry permit but attempting to re-enter on his original O-A visa puts him in the crosshairs of the insurance requirement as it would be entering on a new permission to stay after the enactment date of the insurance law.  

54 minutes ago, saengd said:

You may be correct but that makes zero sense, why is a re-entry permit required for an original unexpired visa AND why should that allow the visa to escape the need for insurance.

It makes even less sense that if I stay  I dont need insurance but if I leave and come back I do.

1 hour ago, el jefe said:

Of course it does. I'm on my first year of an O-A issued Sept 2019. I arrived in October and I'm leaving today, coming back next week. According to 4 reports, I need a reentry permit to keep my Sept 20, 2020 permission to stay alive without insurance.

And I lose my entire second year.

I'm in the same situation so I'm interested to see if CM Immigration will actually grant you a re-entry permit while still having an active first year O-A with multiple entries available. 

11 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

I'm in the same situation so I'm interested to see if CM Immigration will actually grant you a re-entry permit while still having an active first year O-A with multiple entries available. 

I don't think insurance applies to re-entry however it would come into effect at extension time.

i still don't get why foreign policies aren't acceptable, surely the only reason for insurance is that the hospital gets paid and the person gets treatment, if we are forced to accept inferior insurance to satisfy immigration then it's a scam. 

1 minute ago, brianj1964 said:

I don't think insurance applies to re-entry however it would come into effect at extension time.

i still don't get why foreign policies aren't acceptable, surely the only reason for insurance is that the hospital gets paid and the person gets treatment, if we are forced to accept inferior insurance to satisfy immigration then it's a scam. 

  I may not have communicated my point effectively.

 

  I understand that insurance doesn't apply to a re-entry permit.  My concern would be that a person on a first year O-A visa - meaning you have as many re-entries as you want without obtaining a re-entry permit - may be denied by Immigration for a re-entry permit since it's not required. 

 

(I realize we've seen one instance in another thread where someone accidentally did this but that was well before the new law became enacted.)

21 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

i still don't get why foreign policies aren't acceptable

They are acceptable.

 

22 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

surely the only reason for insurance is that the hospital gets paid and the person gets treatment

Another important reason is the money the people who introduced the insurance requirement get from the insurance companies. Might not come in cash, but maybe in the way of a new car or a nice watch.

25 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

I don't think insurance applies to re-entry however it would come into effect at extension time.

If your O-A Visa is still valid for entry within 1 year of it's date of issue, then it would be a new entry (not a re-entry) granting a new permission of stay for 1 year. Insurance would be required.

A re-entry permit only keeps any existing permission of stay valid.

 

25 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

i still don't get why foreign policies aren't acceptable, surely the only reason for insurance is that the hospital gets paid and the person gets treatment, if we are forced to accept inferior insurance to satisfy immigration then it's a scam. 

They would accept the Insurance certificate for the first year entry, (not policy) if you could get the foreign Insurer to issue it.

The problem with foreign policies is that they rarely have an agreement with local foreign hospitals to pay directly. Quite often you need to pay the bill, then reclaim it from your Insurer. The Thai companies will have an existing agreement for paying directly.

Just entered Thailand on my Non – Immigrant Visa "O-A" issued in June this year. Used it before with no problem. I only got 30 days this time. Was told to get insurance, leave Thailand and re-enter again. Now I have two stamps in my passport, one valid to June next year and one 30 days stamp till next month.  I go to emigration office today to register and see what they say.