No non OA visa extensions in Hua Hin because no health Insurance.

[GeorgeCross]

30 minutes ago, lapamita said:

No O-A  need heallthinsurance hmmm

 

and NON O extension dont need hmmmm

 

THE next thing will be the cancelation of all NON O  and NON O MULTI  Visas

 

and this followed byan ADD ON ..for grandaftherd Visas ( i had a nice add on in 2003)

 

..than everybody must apply with o-a , and everybody need special thai nonsens insurance ( 400k for hosiptal haahha 2 days could cost ou this already and a more stupid OPD w 40k)

 

welcome to thailand.........

 

 

 

 

but i'm married, not retired and under 50 - where do i apply?

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, Pedrogaz said:

This is doing my head in. My visa non 0 visa is about 15 years old....it's in another passport which I no longer have. It was issued abroad but I assume it was a non 0-A.

My current passport only says non 0 on all of the stamps.

You may be wrong assuming that. Your current passport should have had stamps transferred into it. One, likely on the first or second page, details that original visa type.  

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Probably because it's not really relevant, unless you can time travel.

If you apply for an extension from now on, the new rules will apply.

You and other posters are basing this on strict interpretation of the  English translation.   Thai is not so precise with verb tenses. It can be made so by the addition of some helper words but this was not done.

 

What is translated as "has recieved" can just as easily he translated as "receives", i.e. present or future tense.  

 

In other words like many TI police orders it is vague and can be legitimately interpreted in more than one way (precisely what has happened).

 

High level officials have clarified that for new entries the order applies only to OA visas issued after the effective date of 31 October. There is no reason to think this is anything other than clarification of original intent.

 

It remains to be seen if a similiar clarification will be issued regarding extensionss or not. The Thai wording to my reading certainly leaves room for it.

[Sheryl]

12 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

This is doing my head in. My visa non 0 visa is about 15 years old....it's in another passport which I no longer have. It was issued abroad but I assume it was a non 0-A.

My current passport only says non 0 on all of the stamps.

Then you probably have an O, not O-A visa. 

 

On one of the first pages in your passport there will be an entry by immigration with the details of your original visa: old passport number, visa date, visa type.

[Sheryl]

6 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

..... As for insurance, I caution people that have their own foreign or home insurance policies yet then go and buy the Thai insurance policies.  Many health insurance policies expressly do not allow the person to hold multiple policies.

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

[GroveHillWanderer]

2 hours ago, FarFlungFalang said:

Seems like another click bait thread starting with "someone told me".Then off it goes!

It's hardly just, "someone told me," when there are multiple posts showing actual notices that are posted at immigration offices in different areas of the country, and the info from the Phuket immigration volunteers, all saying essentially the same thing.

[lapamita]

28 minutes ago, GeorgeCross said:

 

but i'm married, not retired and under 50 - where do i apply?

 

maybe in the future with O-A or  same 0..with new requierments and only single entry , or extension  w same rule aplly to over 50

 

Non O--- is all-- married or not, over 50 and so on..all same..cat is NON 0

 

... dont wory within 12 month they cancell this visas/or new requirment............or they cancell the hole s*** , for everybody , bcs they see the stupidness

[andre47]

17 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

my insurance (AXA Germany) has the right to cancel my insurance as soon they know that I have another insurance

[thinktoomuch]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Your correct, it wasn't on the previous page, glad you raised it, see below

 

I created those images to answer a question.

 

They don't say that the order in question only applies to visas issued before the 31st of October 2019.

 

The images you posted say that if you have already obtained a permission to stay before the effective date of October 31st 2019 your permission to stay is not invalidated by this new order. i.e you will not suddenly require insurance for your current permission to stay.

 

However, after the effective date when seeking a new permission to stay, the new order applies.

 

This is how the order reads (to me) and how it appears many immigration offices are *currently* interpreting it.

 

My interpretation of permission to stay includes an extension of stay, a re-entry permit or an entry stamp. It also includes an under consideration stamp but who knows how each immigration office would handle the subsequent granting of the extension of stay - they may consider these to be two different permissions to stay.

 

Unfortunately, from memory, the only thing in any of the orders that is stated to ONLY apply to new visas is the requirement to take out insurance when applying for a brand new O-A visa from the 31st of October 2019.

 

There are several orders from different agencies and I think that some people here are reading the orders as if they were a single order instead of a bunch of distinct orders related to O-A visa holders aimed at different parts of the state (embassies, borders and immigration offices). I think that people are also applying common sense to the situation and assuming that all the immigration officers will do the same.

 

Taking this into account it is easy to see why some don't believe that immigration will demand insurance for an 80 year old doing their tenth O-A extension or believe that someone with a current O-A visa going for a weekend trip to Singapore will be required to buy insurance on their return

 

It may be that over time common sense will prevail. We are already seeing some variance where people are being stamped in for a full year regardless of when their insurance expires i.e. immigration have so far opted not to implement the order stating that O-A visa holders should only be stamped in to the end of the insurance period (in all the reports I've seen so far). Also not everyone entering with an O-A visa or seeking an extension of one is being asked for insurance.

 

 

[Nowisee]

37 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

 

On my BCBS webpage there is a section to add other health insurance coverage.

 

[gk10002000]

47 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

because they want to bill you and have first crack at over charging you and forcing you to use their hospitals, doctors, pay their rates, etc.

[Sheryl]

16 minutes ago, thinktoomuch said:

I created those images to answer a question.

 

They don't say that the order in question only applies to visas issued before the 31st of October 2019.

 

The images you posted say that if you have already obtained a permission to stay before the effective date of October 31st 2019 your permission to stay is not invalidated by this new order. i.e you will not suddenly require insurance for your current permission to stay.

 

However, after the effective date when seeking a new permission to stay, the new order applies.

 

This is how the order reads (to me) and how it appears many immigration offices are *currently* interpreting it.

 

My interpretation of permission to stay includes an extension of stay, a re-entry permit or an entry stamp....

 

 

Makes  no sense to put re entry permit in this category. It does not confer a new permission to stay or extension.

 

Not a single case reported of someone entering on a re entry permit being asked to show insurance. Nor 800k in the bank or 65k/ month for same reason. You have already met the criteria for your existing permission to stay and  no new permissio  to stay   or extension is being given.

[Expattaff1308]

12 hours ago, jackdd said:

No insurance required, they only changed the requirements for a retirement extension if on a non-OA visa.

In some thread here was a guy who was told by his IO that insurance would be required (OA visa -> marriage extension), but imho this IO was wrong, because that's not what the police order says.

Just to clarify:- because in the Police Order it says extension to OA it doesnt mention the reason, (unless I missed it of course)

1. So despite coming in on a Non O-A 11 yrs ago and receiving annual extensions based on retirement... if I continued down this route I would need Insurance?

2. Change my extension to one of marriage to a Thai national and no insurance will be required?

Edited November 13, 2019 by Expattaff1308

[mngmn]

2 hours ago, lapamita said:

No O-A  need heallthinsurance hmmm

 

and NON O extension dont need hmmmm

 

THE next thing will be the cancelation of all NON O  and NON O MULTI  Visas

 

and this followed byan ADD ON ..for grandaftherd Visas ( i had a nice add on in 2003)

 

..than everybody must apply with o-a , and everybody need special thai nonsens insurance ( 400k for hosiptal haahha 2 days could cost ou this already and a more stupid OPD w 40k)

 

welcome to thailand.........

 

 

 

Interesting thought.  I was refused my fourth Non-Imm O (to visit my Thai daughter) at an Australia consulate in March.  The consulate staff told me they would give me a Non-Imm OA or a ME Tourist Visa.  I now live in Australia but had been pretty much living full time in Thailand using the Non-Imm O. (Before the hounds arrive, yes I know that's probably not intended use of the visa).

 

Either pushing me towards an extension of stay (likely) or pushing me towards an OA knowing that a plan like this was in the works (possible as you say).  Would not be at all suprised if retirement O is retired (oh the irony) and replaced by OA only.

[mngmn]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

 

I have read literally dozens of policies and never seen such a provision.

 

There are provisions that prevent double claims,  of course. And some policies specify that any other insurance must  pay first. But I have never seen a policy that precludes having other insurance.

 

Not saying it doesn't exist but I'd need to actually see such a policy document. It is definitely not the norm and it is hard to imagine why an insurer would want to do this.

 

(I agree with you re Elite option though)

Common practice in the insurance industry.  You can't insure the same risk more than once.  Try purchasing three or four car insurance policies for the same driver/vehicle.

 

And before anyone mentions it you buy life *Assurance* not *Insurance*!  The risk is based on how long you live not the probability of an event happening (or not as the case may be).

 

[LivinLOS]

3 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Your correct, it wasn't on the previous page, glad you raised it, see below

 

Note the 'who has been granted' AS WELL AS 'and has been permitted to stay'.. 

So anyone who has arrived already is good for the year.. Their 1 year permission of stay is valid. 

[jacko45k]

33 minutes ago, Expattaff1308 said:

Just to clarify:- because in the Police Order it says extension to OA it doesnt mention the reason, (unless I missed it of course)

1. So despite coming in on a Non O-A 11 yrs ago and receiving annual extensions based on retirement... if I continued down this route I would need Insurance?

2. Change my extension to one of marriage to a Thai national and no insurance will be required?

1. At the moment it is looking that way, with 3 or 4 IOs putting out statements saying so, as well as a few 'agents'. Not a done deal, dead cert yet though!

2. Correct. 

[LivinLOS]

35 minutes ago, Expattaff1308 said:

Just to clarify:- because in the Police Order it says extension to OA it doesnt mention the reason, (unless I missed it of course)

1. So despite coming in on a Non O-A 11 yrs ago and receiving annual extensions based on retirement... if I continued down this route I would need Insurance?

2. Change my extension to one of marriage to a Thai national and no insurance will be required?

No one is going to be able to truly answer 2.. its not explicitly stated and will be officer and office dependant. Logic says a marriage extension should be exempted but it isnt exempted explicitly in the legal instruction. 

[jacko45k]

1 minute ago, LivinLOS said:

No one is going to be able to truly answer 2.. its not explicitly stated and will be officer and office dependant. Logic says a marriage extension should be exempted but it isnt exempted explicitly in the legal instruction. 

Nor is it included in the Order specific to marriage Extensions. That has not changed in some time. 

[thinktoomuch]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

Makes  no sense to put re entry permit in this category. It does not confer a new permission to stay or extension.

 

Not a single case reported of someone entering on a re entry permit being asked to show insurance. Nor 800k in the bank or 65k/ month for same reason. You have already met the criteria for your existing permission to stay and  no new permissio  to stay   or extension is being given.

You misunderstood my point. The order that was quoted said that an existing permission to stay remained valid.

 

I consider a re-entry permit to be an existing permission to stay so it is unaffected by the new order.

 

Therefore I would NOT expect anyone on a re-entry permit to be asked for insurance since they are on an existing permission to stay.

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, thinktoomuch said:

I created those images to answer a question.

No copyright infringement here, refer to #63 perhaps that will concur my thoughts

[Sheryl]

19 minutes ago, mngmn said:

Common practice in the insurance industry.  You can't insure the same risk more than once.  Try purchasing three or four car insurance policies for the same driver/vehicle.

 

And before anyone mentions it you buy life *Assurance* not *Insurance*!  The risk is based on how long you live not the probability of an event happening (or not as the case may be).

 

Again most health insurance policies do alloe you to have othet insurance and there will be language in the policy which specifically addresses this to insure no double billing. You will also usually be asked the details of any other coverage at time of application.

[Max69xl]

22 hours ago, Haribo said:

But what if the foreigner have an international health insurance whats cover in and outpatient with mutch more than 400 000 THB. Can they only show the insurance card or  the police cetrificate? Because i not understand if the client has a mutch better health insurance with a high cover wy the need a Thai health insurance with a low coverage?  

Aren't you supposed to be an agent,but still haven't got a clue about what's needed for a foreign health insurance to be accepted? 

[thinktoomuch]

4 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

No copyright infringement here, refer to #63 perhaps that will concur my thoughts

Haha. Thanks for that, I actually missed post #63.

[4MyEgo]

1 minute ago, thinktoomuch said:

Haha. Thanks for that, I actually missed post #63.

All good, Sheryl's on it ????

 

[Expattaff1308]

The Companies listed as those to get insurance from (12 I believe) are they the only ones acceptable??

I have found a company (office in Bangkok) whose cover is exactly what is required 400k / 40k and their premium is at least a third or even a half in some cases cheaper than those companies listed.

Looks to me that this consortium of companies listed are maximizing their premiums.

Edited November 13, 2019 by Expattaff1308

[thinktoomuch]

5 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Again most health insurance policies do alloe you to have othet insurance and there will be language in the policy which specifically addresses this to insure no double billing. You will also usually be asked the details of any other coverage at time of application.

This is what I have seen in my limited experience with insurance. The companies I have dealt with have some language about diving the cost of any claim between the various insurers if there is more than one.

 

However, I also understand the principle of not being able to receive double the payout because you have two insurance policies (haven't heard it for a long time though). It make me wonder if these companies are a bit old-school or if this is something that may be more prevalent in some countries but not in others.

[jackdd]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

You and other posters are basing this on strict interpretation of the  English translation.   Thai is not so precise with verb tenses. It can be made so by the addition of some helper words but this was not done.

 

What is translated as "has recieved" can just as easily he translated as "receives", i.e. present or future tense.  

 

In other words like many TI police orders it is vague and can be legitimately interpreted in more than one way (precisely what has happened).

If this were the case, and it were supposed to only be applied to visas obtained in the future, there would have been no need to write this part:

2.An alien, who has been granted Non-Immigrant Visa Class 0-A (not exceeding 1 year) and has been permitted to stay in the Kingdom before this order is effective, will be able to continually stay in the Kingdom for a granted length of stay.

The existence of this section shows that it most likely applies to all visas, but they didn't want it to affect existing permissions of stay, so they exempted these.

 

Can somebody post the link to the original Thai version of this document? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

 

[cheshiremusicman]

For people like myself aged 76, I cannot get health insurance and I would be willing to take out a 'Bond' with a Thai Bank for 440k Baht that would 'Self Insure me'. I have used the Hua Hin General hospital a few times and been very pleased with the outcome and always paid my bills. My last stay was for pneumonia and I had to pay my bills every two days. I cannot see how anybody could get out of hospital without paying their bills and if the hospital needed assurances, then just retain the patients passport until they are discharged, I would have absolutely no objections to this. If the 'Bond' was acceptable then you would not have to renew it every year only make sure that if you have had treatment of any kind then you just topped up the money in the 'Bond' to the 440k again when you left hospital. Surely the fact that we are now required to retain 400k in our bank accounts all year round is sufficient to prove that we have the money to pay for hospital treatment, again with the same proviso that we 'topped it up after treatment'.

 

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, Expattaff1308 said:

The Companies listed as those to get insurance from (12 I believe) are they the only ones acceptable??

I have found a company (office in Bangkok) whose cover is exactly what is required 400k / 40k and their premium is at least a third or even a half in some cases cheaper than those companies listed.

Looks to me that this consortium of companies listed are maximizing their premiums.

Unfortunately yes only these companies after the first year.

 

It is possible the policy you want is underwritten by one of these companies though,  in which case you might be able to get the required certificate. AAs they do inderwrite policies managed by othet companies. Ask who the underwriter is and if one of the "chosen few" ask if you can get the cettificate for Ommigration with this policy.

 

Pay attention to renewal clause. If they do not guarantee lifetime renewal (most don't) and you plan to stay in Thailand the rest  of your life you are just setting yourself up for huge problems later. At a time when you'll be older, weaker and less able to handle it.