Thai approved insurer rejected the coverage

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, sfokevin said:

Curious do the insurance companies here keep a group database of people who apply for and were rejected Insurance (In the US the insurance companies are allowed to share such information among carriers)?

I very much doubt it

 

[jacko45k]

14 hours ago, peterb17 said:

I have mentioned before- if you  are doing a retirement extension OA ( (and having been here for a few years ) at Jomtien- there is no mention of requiring health insurance. Hopefully that will continue.

Strange, there was a large printed sign saying there was facing me as I did my renewal last month. 

[Expattaff1308]

On 12/26/2019 at 10:04 AM, ubonjoe said:

I don't think it will. IMO it was not originally meant for extension application that were for entries from a old OA visa but that got messed up by the way immigration did the police order.

They picked the OA visa due to it being issued by an embassy or official Thai consulate. I think they had it in mind that there was a greater chance of them being more likely not to have ties to the country that would prevent them from bailing out of the country to avoid paying for a hospital bill than those on extension of stay.

The sad part of this Joe is it is easily rectified by changing the police order so it is only for New OAs or grandfathering those on OAs pre Oct 2019, I won't be holding my breath!!

[ubonjoe]

16 minutes ago, Expattaff1308 said:

The sad part of this Joe is it is easily rectified by changing the police order so it is only for New OAs or grandfathering those on OAs pre Oct 2019, I won't be holding my breath!!

There is not "grandfathering" in it since it was not intended to be for old OA visa entry extensions. There is also nothing in the order stating is retroactive. 

As far as grandfatering goes it would normally of been a exemption from the new rules for a year similar to what they have done before when there was a significant change.

The rule from 1998 onward was different due to it affecting people going back several years. What is odd is that many people that qualified for it were not aware of it.

[Expattaff1308]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

There is not "grandfathering" in it since it was not intended to be for old OA visa entry extensions. There is also nothing in the order stating is retroactive. 

As far as grandfatering goes it would normally of been a exemption from the new rules for a year similar to what they have done before when there was a significant change.

The rule from 1998 onward was different due to it affecting people going back several years. What is odd is that many people that qualified for it were not aware of it.

I agree with you, when the talk of introducing it was first mentioned it was for New OAs and I understand that, as no cash needs to be shown in the country, unlike an extension, but, If it was not ment to be for those on old OA extensions why is it being enforced this way and why doesnt the Head of Imm instruct its offices of the correct procedure. As OAs can only be got in the home country Immigration should have nothing to do with it & should be left to the Embassy issuing the visa.

Edited December 28, 2019 by Expattaff1308

[Expattaff1308]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Strange, there was a large printed sign saying there was facing me as I did my renewal last month. 

Does this mean they do or do not?

Edited December 28, 2019 by Expattaff1308

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, Expattaff1308 said:

I agree with you, when the talk of introducing it was first mentioned it was for New OAs and I understand that, as no cash needs to be shown in the country, unlike an extension, but, If it was not ment to be for those on old OA extensions why is it being enforced this way and why doesnt the Head of Imm instruct its offices of the correct procedure. As OAs can only be got in the home country Immigration should have nothing to do with it & should be left to the Embassy issuing the visa.

It may of already been corrected. I received a PM from a member that got a extension this week that did not require insurance at a office that had been saying it was needed for those that were extending a entry from a OA visa. And a friend of his was told the same thing at that office.

Have we seen any recent reports of it being needed? It has been a while since I have seen one.

[Peter Denis]

35 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It may of already been corrected. I received a PM from a member that got a extension this week that did not require insurance at a office that had been saying it was needed for those that were extending a entry from a OA visa. And a friend of his was told the same thing at that office.

Have we seen any recent reports of it being needed? It has been a while since I have seen one.

Hi UbonJoe,

That would indeed be grand news!  Which office was this?

Last week at CW it was still enforced, as an original OA holder's application for extension of stay was denied because of no health-insurance.

 

[ubonjoe]

18 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Which office was this?

I don't want to disclose it at this time. Waiting for others.

[Peter Denis]

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

I don't want to disclose it at this time. Waiting for others.

Thanks UbonJoe, and I understand your reasons for not disclosing it yet and waiting for additional cases.

You have been undeservedly flamed the last months by several TVF members that you 'had it wrong' on this issue.

But it would be Grand News indeed when IO finally saw the light, and would be a Nice NewYear's Gift for all OA-retirees!

Note: I will not share this Breaking News further, until you have it confirmed from more offices.

 

[traveller101]

On 12/26/2019 at 12:22 PM, wgdanson said:

So you spend 500k on an Elite Visa. What would you do if you were hospitalised?

The notion to switch to a 5 year Elite as opposed to fork out an equivalent amount - a bit less if you're in your early sixties, more if you approach the seventies - starts to make sense, since the approved policies are next to worthless as Sheryl (see her policy cheat sheet below) and others have pointed out.

The switch from an OA-Visa extension based on retirement to an O-Visa and subsequent extension is - at the present time - the other option to go around the insurance requirement.

One has to keep in mind though that the current order might well be expanded sometime down the track to include all Extensions based on Retirement OR by the phasing out of the Non Imm O-Visa for the purpose of Retirement (but not other reasons such as marriage etc).

Keeping all those scenarios in mind, I most likely will sign up to the "Standard extra" policy of Pacific Cross in June 2020 which is approved but is not listed on the longstay.tgai.org website using the max. deductible (300000) to avail the 50% discount reducing the cost to around 19000 baht for a 64 year old. This plan of action will buy time to gain some more clarity where the government is heading to address the current issues widely speculated in this Forum.

 

OAvisapolicycheatsheet.xlsx

[mfd101]

38 minutes ago, traveller101 said:

Keeping all those scenarios in mind, I most likely will sign up to the "Standard extra" policy of Pacific Cross in June 2020 which is approved but is not listed on the longstay.tgai.org website using the max. deductible (300000) to avail the 50% discount reducing the cost to around 19000 baht for a 64 year old. This plan of action will buy time to gain some more clarity where the government is heading to address the current issues widely speculated in this Forum.

Yes, a sensible approach. How do the silly outpatient costs go with the 50% max. deductible approach? Do they come down too? by 50%?

Edited December 28, 2019 by mfd101

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, Expattaff1308 said:

Does this mean they do or do not?

There have been posts of IOs refusing a retirement Ext on O-A Permissions of Stay.. I can't be specific which offices. I would expect many people just avoid the possibility by changing to an 'O' or Marriage Ext.  

I personally took the posted notice at face value. Why would I not.

Edited December 28, 2019 by jacko45k

[traveller101]

5 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Yes, a sensible approach. How do the silly outpatient costs go with the 50% max. deductible approach? Do they come down too? by 50%?

Yes - 19000 cost of total package

[mfd101]

18 minutes ago, traveller101 said:

Yes - 19000 cost of total package

Sounds interesting. For me (and I hadn't really thought it through thoroughly - early days for me: not due for renewal till Oct20), with useful exclusions/deductibles (and that depends on how much I can pick'nchoose),  a health insurance package could become interesting. I also have accident insurance currently, which needs to be squeezed in to the picture somewhere ...

[Sheryl]

8 hours ago, mfd101 said:

Yes, a sensible approach. How do the silly outpatient costs go with the 50% max. deductible approach? Do they come down too? by 50%?

 The deductible applies to all costs, in and outpatient. So if you take a 300K deductible neither inpatient nor outpatient would be paid until you had first yourself paid 300K.

 

If is is only a 400/40 K policy and you take a deductible that large you are virtually uninsured.

 

People should take large deductibles only if they have ready cash in the amount of that deductible that they can put aside purely for medical costs (and replenish as used). Or have other insurance.

 

I am much afraid that before long someone with a high deductible mandatory insurance will end up unable to pay a hospital bill and if that happens could lead to Imm disallowing policies with deductibles....to the detriment of many.

 

 

[mfd101]

36 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 The deductible applies to all costs, in and outpatient. So if you take a 300K deductible neither inpatient nor outpatient would be paid until you had first yourself paid 300K.

 

If is is only a 400/40 K policy and you take a deductible that large you are virtually uninsured.

 

People should take large deductibles only if they have ready cash in the amount of that deductible that they can put aside purely for medical costs (and replenish as used). Or have other insurance.

 

I am much afraid that before long someone with a high deductible mandatory insurance will end up unable to pay a hospital bill and if that happens could lead to Imm disallowing policies with deductibles....to the detriment of many.

 

 

Yes, clearly one has to calculate carefully the premium saving vs whatever one could afford in the event of a major claim. Easy to get it wrong, and the whole point of insurance is playing it safe.

[ubonjoe]

9 hours ago, Sheryl said:

People should take large deductibles only if they have ready cash in the amount of that deductible that they can put aside purely for medical costs (and replenish as used). Or have other insurance.

Or they might have insurance from outside the country that cannot be used to apply for the visa or extension of stay.

[lapamita]

On 12/27/2019 at 3:52 AM, CH1961 said:

Math is not yours ????

Gas 1.29 Euro vs 27 Baht

Electricity 0.22 Euro vs 5.5 Baht

Marlboro 4.5 Euro vs 80 Baht

Running a red light 90-300 Euro vs 500-1000 Baht

But yes, as you are coming from Sweden ... Beer is cheaper ????

and

+ local health insurance aprox 50% and more cheaper than in thai

+ Beers starting at 0,,50c  happy hour

+ Cheese - 80%

+National parks -100%

+No visa <deleted>

+Fruits - 50%

+ average shopping food (in supermarket mixed local/import) - 50%

+flights fro EU countrys -80%

+ free healthy enviroment

Spain , esp Canarias is a alternativ for "normal" people   who dont want visit bars and have s**, much better than any asian country at this time

 

..for  me after 30yrs leaving thailand, not to spain, bcs for me to burocratic and quiet ,but exit end february , after need 2 years to sell my propertys here. ( the demand is quite 0 - at pattaya), deinvestment nearly finished????

 

 

[roobaa01]

On 12/26/2019 at 10:15 AM, Langsuan Man said:

With all due respect from the TV leader on all things Immigration, when has Thai Immigration ever learned from past mistakes ?

they will never touch non-o eos family supporters as it would move against karma.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Peter Denis]

18 hours ago, Sheryl said:

...

I am much afraid that before long someone with a high deductible mandatory insurance will end up unable to pay a hospital bill and if that happens could lead to Imm disallowing policies with deductibles....to the detriment of many.

...

The health-insurance requirement only applies to OA-retirees on extension of stay, and that category also needs to meet the financial requirements for their extension of stay.

So most of them will be able to pay even the maximum deductible of 300K (and for sure when they are using the 800k/400K money-in-the-bank method).

The problem would occur if the hospital bill was way higher than the ridiculous 400K in-patient cap.

And that would be irrespective whether the OA retiree had subscribed to the thai-approved health-insurance policy with or without a deductible.

Imo there is simply no way to defend the present thai-approved health-insurance policies on offer.

The ones that are advertised with the 'IO thai-approved' mark, are simply exorbitantly expensive and basically useless bogus policies that provide a false-sense of security.  

Avoid them like the plague, by switching to other Visa alternatives that do NOT require this thai-approved health-insurance scam, and use the money saved to take decent insurance with realistic coverage (in case you are not covered already by your foreign insurance or otherwise).

 

Edited December 29, 2019 by Peter Denis

[Sheryl]

41 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

The health-insurance requirement only applies to OA-retirees on extension of stay, and that category also needs to meet the financial requirements for their extension of stay.

So most of them will be able to pay even the maximum deductible of 300K (and for sure when they are using the 800k/400K money-in-the-bank method).

 

Not necessarily. Those using the lump summethod aren't allowed to spend half of it at all and any of it 5 months of  the year. That rule has resulted in many barely scraping by to make rent and food.

 

And those with income method don't necessarily have hundresds of thousand sof baht put aside. Lots of people luve from month to month.

 

[Peter Denis]

32 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Not necessarily. Those using the lump sum method aren't allowed to spend half of it at all and any of it 5 months of  the year. That rule has resulted in many barely scraping by to make rent and food.

 

And those with income method don't necessarily have hundreds of thousands of baht put aside. Lots of people live from month to month.

 

Hi Sheryl,

I hear, understand and (partly) agree with what you are saying.

But those OA-retirees that are already scraping to make ends meet (and would not be able to pay their hospital bills - deductible or not), are now already being forced to pay for an expensive bogus insurance when applying for an extension of stay of their original OA retirement Visa. 

The cheapest option for a retiree under 60 years of age with the highest deductible possible, would cost minimum 15.000 THB annually, and those already over 70 years of age - if they even can subscribe to one of those IO thai-approved bogus policies - would easily have to pay an annual premium of 50.000 THB or more.  And the premium would become gradually more expensive (when 83 years old the premium can rise to 380.000 THB for a coverage capped at 400K!).

It's ridiculous! And at same time it makes me both angry and sad that many vulnerable retirees are stepping into this scam because they - wrongly - think it is necessary to be able to continue their life in Thailand. 

 

Would it not make more sense for them to switch to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, which is surprisingly easy to do and knowing that the whole conversion process would cost them max 5.000 THB?

Of course, those that are absolutely confident that thai authorities will very soon also enforce the same health-insurance requirement on Non Imm O - retirement Visa, will brand such a move as only 'bying time'.

But many TVF members - including myself - are not of the opinion that health-insurance will be required for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa anytime soon.  And it is even unsure whether it will EVER happen.

In the light of the above, it would be ludicrous to stay on an extension of your OA - retirement scheme and succumb to the thai-approved insurance-scam, when there is an easy alternative that leads to a Visa situation with exactly the same conditions/requirements as for OA (but does not require signing up to worthless insurance).

 

Yes, I am on a mission to kill this bogus insurance scam. 

 

[phetchy]

When health insurance issues with an O-A visa were first mooted, I came to the same conclusions that Ubonjoe alluded to in an earlier post.  The Thai logic behind this may be an assumption that far more O-A holders do not have family ties or have property (through a wife or company) as O holder have, putting them in a category of Thai health service users more likely to do a runner.  So the powers that be have imposed a mandatory minimum of "approved" health cover to reduce the losses through non payment of hospital bills.

 

It seems more than a coincidence that the minimum cover requirement is the same as the minimum amount that an O visa holder must have for 7 months of the year.  So consequently all hospital bills up to 400,000 baht are, apparently, covered for both visa classes.

 

Personally I hope that this system works and is kept on, as being on an O visa, I see compulsory useless insurance as yet more authoritarian meddling in how I spend my own money.  There are a multitude of supposedly rational reasons why we are required to provide evidence of sufficient funds - the ability to pay hospital bills being one.  Knowing how erudite isurance companies can be at avoiding paying out, I see health insurance as money down the drain.  I've "self-insured" myself and my wife well in excess of the O-A minimum and add to it annually, so it's there if I need it, or it's a new car if I don't.

 

500,000 for a 5 year "trouble free" lifestyle?  If something seems too good to be true .............

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 12/28/2019 at 11:32 AM, ubonjoe said:

 

Have we seen any recent reports of it being needed? It has been a while since I have seen one.

 

Pib was at BKK CW on Christmas Day, asking about switching from an O-A based retirement extension to a marriage extension in order to avoid the O-A insurance requirement for O-A visa-based retirement extensions.  And from his recap, there was no sign/signal that BKK CW has suddenly decided to no longer enforce the insurance requirement for O-A retirement extensions.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

11 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Pib was at BKK CW on Christmas Day, asking about switching from an O-A based retirement extension to a marriage extension in order to avoid the O-A insurance requirement for O-A visa-based retirement extensions.  And from his recap, there was no sign/signal that BKK CW has suddenly decided to no longer enforce the insurance requirement for O-A retirement extensions.

I don't' see that his topic was relevant to being denied a application based on retirement due to not having insurance.

He was only asking about changing to an extension based upon marriage.