Went to immigration in Rayong and asked if social security would be acceptable in lieu of insurance. I was given a flat "NO".

 

Anyone thinking of using this as I was in case of emergency for visa application... forget it... Sadly

There is currently no exception for SS, Tricare or (except for the onitial yrar of entry) foreign insurance. One of several major flaws with this scheme.

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

There is currently no exception for SS, Tricare or (except for the onitial yrar of entry) foreign insurance. One of several major flaws with this scheme.

Yes, and the second flaw in the system is that you only can go get a regular Non-O and make extension one year based on retirement or marriage and your insurance problem lifts up to the sky and away on a couple of blue wings.

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

There is currently no exception for SS, Tricare or (except for the onitial yrar of entry) foreign insurance. One of several major flaws with this scheme.

 

  The title of the thread reads that Thai Social Security is not acceptable.  I was interpreting that OP meant some sort of Thai medical system coverage was not being accepted but that may just be me reading too much into it.  

8 minutes ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  The title of the thread reads that Thai Social Security is not acceptable.  I was interpreting that OP meant some sort of Thai medical system coverage was not being accepted but that may just be me reading too much into it.  

Pagan Sangkom which is the thai social security which covers hospital bills and surgery etc... falang can get it if they work for a thai company... it is not accepted in lieu of insurance as many of us thought it would be... confirmed this at my immi office 2day

16 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

There is currently no exception for SS, Tricare or (except for the onitial yrar of entry) foreign insurance. One of several major flaws with this scheme.

What about foreigners who are married to Thai spouses who are government employees? That would be applicable for quite a number of expats, although probably not the ones on OA visas.

7 minutes ago, cmsally said:

What about foreigners who are married to Thai spouses who are government employees? That would be applicable for quite a number of expats, although probably not the ones on OA visas.

They would not be on oa visas. Most likely non b or O visa. 

1 hour ago, LazySlipper said:

They would not be on oa visas. Most likely non b or O visa. 

they could have been on oa prior to marriage. but they should now go on a married extenion

2 hours ago, cmsally said:

What about foreigners who are married to Thai spouses who are government employees? That would be applicable for quite a number of expats, although probably not the ones on OA visas.

 

 

Would also not apply. No exceptions are currently made to the requirement to have a private insurance policy from one of specified companies. The "policy" as it is currently written emphasizes purchase from specified companies, of insurance whether needed or not,  and does NOT emphasize (or IMO address) being adequately insured/protected for medical costs.

 

But anyone with a Thai spouse or child  could change to  extension of stay for marriage.

 

Some IOs are apparently saying that even those require insurance if the original visa was OA. I think that is wrong interpretation but if so, would need to leave the country and return on a non-O first  (or come in visa exempt and change to non-O).

2 hours ago, TheAppletons said:

 

  The title of the thread reads that Thai Social Security is not acceptable.  I was interpreting that OP meant some sort of Thai medical system coverage was not being accepted but that may just be me reading too much into it.  

 

No, you read it correctly.

 

Thai medical system coverage that includes inpatient and outpatient with no limit.

 

Not accepted  under the new policy as currently written and applied.

4 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

They would not be on oa visas. Most likely non b or O visa. 

I'm married with a Thai lady and on retirement extension and have no plan to change that.To much paperwork for marriage extension and it takes almost a month until I get the extension.I have to extend again end of this month,if they ask me for health insurance I probably fly to HCM and get a 1 yr Non O visa based on marriage.I feel tired with all the paperwork and extra stuff immigration is asking every year.As long I'm fit I can fly out every 90 days and have a nice time in Vietnam or Malaysia

This just prooves that the whole thing is purely a cash grab provided by the Thai gov. for their friends in the Thai insurence industry there must have been some serious brown envelopes flying for this. I am working now but intend to keep up my Thai SS when i stop in 2 years or so as I'm married to a Thai. 

 If they won't accept it when it's Thai and covers everything it prooves how shady this whole thing is...

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

 

Would also not apply. No exceptions are currently made to the requirement to have a private insurance policy from one of specified companies. The "policy" as it is currently written emphasizes purchase from specified companies, of insurance whether needed or not,  and does NOT emphasize (or IMO address) being adequately insured/protected for medical costs.

 

But anyone with a Thai spouse or child  could change to  extension of stay for marriage.

 

Some IOs are apparently saying that even those require insurance if the original visa was OA. I think that is wrong interpretation but if so, would need to leave the country and return on a non-O first  (or come in visa exempt and change to non-O).

Do you no which office saying that. Even if you make marriage extension, you require insurance if the original visa was OA.

10 minutes ago, mrmicbkktxl said:

I'm married with a Thai lady and on retirement extension and have no plan to change that.To much paperwork for marriage extension and it takes almost a month until I get the extension.I have to extend again end of this month,if they ask me for health insurance I probably fly to HCM and get a 1 yr Non O visa based on marriage.I feel tired with all the paperwork and extra stuff immigration is asking every year.As long I'm fit I can fly out every 90 days and have a nice time in Vietnam or Malaysia

I'm with you on that, I have the same plan and I am now looking forward to seeing other places that I have never been before such as the Philippines and Vietnam for example.

17 minutes ago, anwa said:

Do you no which office saying that. Even if you make marriage extension, you require insurance if the original visa was OA.

 

I do nto recall and in any event it is a moving target. If you are in this situation suggest you ask your own IO. And ask more than once if your extension date is not near.

Important update: 

 

"The Department of Health Service Support, the Ministry of Public Health established

One Stop Service Centre for the foreigner who intended to apply for Non O-X (10 Year)

and Non O-A (1 Year) Visa in order to inform: (1) criteria, conditions and qualifications

for the appliance, as well as advantages gaining (2) the process of medical insurance

purchase, terms of the purchase and the channel to purchase for applying the visa..."

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

Email : [email protected] / [email protected]

Website : www.thailandmedicalhub.net

 I suggest anyone seeking to use SS or Tricare to exempt them from the insurance requirement contact the above. And post the outcome.  No guarantee it will help but it might. At least this is the entity that connects to the actual intent of the  policy so more likely than IOs to understand that it makes no sense to require it of people on SS etc.

 

I am on O-A. Ex.

Married to a Thai Teacher.

Covered by her medical scheme.

Doe that mean IMO will not accept that?

 

Edited November 14, 20196 yr by Deerculler
Sl

I was going to say it’s crazy but insane fits better.. Guessing there are no quasi monopoly restrictions 

On 11/14/2019 at 10:45 AM, Deerculler said:

I am on O-A. Ex.

Married to a Thai Teacher.

Covered by her medical scheme.

Doe that mean IMO will not accept that?

 

 

Yes, according to immigration's current implementation of the insurance requirement.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:45 PM, Deerculler said:

I am on O-A. Ex.

Married to a Thai Teacher.

Covered by her medical scheme.

Doe that mean IMO will not accept that?

 

I presume that is a Retirement Extension?

Simplest to do a marriage extension next time.

On 11/14/2019 at 4:45 PM, Deerculler said:

I am on O-A. Ex.

Married to a Thai Teacher.

Covered by her medical scheme.

Doe that mean IMO will not accept that?

 

If you are on an extension of stay for retirement (as opposed to for marriage) andIF the insurance requirement extends to extensions of stay from OA visas issued before the effective date (still debatable) then yes as it currently stands this will not be accepted. The cabinet resolution and police order made no exceptions for people covered by Thai SS or other schemes that logicall make pruvate unsurance unnecessary.

 

  I think it simply  did not occur to them. I also think with time and if people keep raising the issue the oversight will be addressed.

9 hours ago, jacko45k said:

I presume that is a Retirement Extension?

Simplest to do a marriage extension next time.

But even then, if it came from an OA initial entry, its going to be IO dependant no matter the grounds for extension of stay. 

On 11/14/2019 at 10:02 AM, LazySlipper said:

Pagan Sangkom which is the thai social security which covers hospital bills and surgery etc... falang can get it if they work for a thai company... it is not accepted in lieu of insurance as many of us thought it would be... confirmed this at my immi office 2day

More and more one might conclude this whole insurance thing is a nice 1-2-3 between someone/somewhere and private hospitals and insurance companies.

The whole story about state hospitals having unpaid bills seems to be forgotten.

Edited November 16, 20196 yr by hansnl

The big bills at the hospital's.

Red herring.

3 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

But even then, if it came from an OA initial entry, its going to be IO dependant no matter the grounds for extension of stay. 

So people are going to tell me the A/O I got 13 years ago will still follow me for the rest of my life?  Even if I leave the country and get an O visa for marriage.   I don't buy it.  

11 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

But even then, if it came from an OA initial entry, its going to be IO dependant no matter the grounds for extension of stay. 

What makes you think that? The requirements for a marriage extension are quite different and I doubt the insurance requirement can be associated to it even by the most clueless IO. They re also required to be approved at a regional office. 

10 hours ago, jacko45k said:

What makes you think that? The requirements for a marriage extension are quite different and I doubt the insurance requirement can be associated to it even by the most clueless IO. They re also required to be approved at a regional office. 

Because IOs have already said it would  !! Seen multiple reports on here that a marriage extension from an oa generated permission of stay,  is the same.  

 

Rightly or wrongly,  that's the effect if this confusion and it will be officer dependent in that niche case.

55 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

Seen multiple reports on here that a marriage extension from an oa generated permission of stay,  is the same.  

People on here are just expressing opinions without fact then. No Police Order specifies this, and the notices being pinned up at places like Jomtiem and Chiang Mai....posted by those IOs, specify Retirement 'Visas' (sic)

 

Edited November 17, 20196 yr by jacko45k

Confusion still gains momentum.

All this gets very unsettling.

Can I please ask that those who post,please only talk about facts and not speculation.

 

57 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

People on here are just expressing opinions without fact then. No Police Order specifies this, and the notices being pinned up at places like Jomtiem and Chiang Mai....posted by those IOs, specify Retirement 'Visas' (sic)

 

all agreed.. I dont think its explicitly demanded.. However your going to always be at the mercy of a rogue IO in this situation. 

 

This is what I am trying to point out, not that the rules clearly exempt or demand it, but the lack of clarity will always allow for interpretations in this case.