Changing from O-A to O

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, Tchooptip said:

If we go that far, then there is no reason why the VIP visa even at 1,000,000 for twenty years is found one day with the same compulsory insurance!

What is beyond me is that insurances in our respective countries are no longer valid overnight for immigration, while they remains of course for hospitals.

I have no knowledge on this but it seems to me that the international insurance companies should be informed that the Kingdom of Thailand is refusing to recognize the validity of their company international contracted policies. My thought is that in regards to this point, international agreements will be brought to bear. Speculation? Yes, but that is what we are dealing with in abundance without specific knowledge which seems not forthcoming. I was recently informed of a long term resident being told at Chiang Mai Immigration, that her AXA 39 million coverage is not acceptable, that it must be one of the Thai listed companies.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

My thought is that in regards to this point, international agreements will be brought to bear.

Which international agreements are you mentioning?

[wwest5829]

5 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Which international agreements are you mentioning?

As I say, I do not have specific knowledge on this matter.  My field was American/European general studies history. I speculate that there are international trade agreements or individual country trade agreements calling on the signing countries to recognize the validity of the international healthcare insurance policies. I believe such existing agreements, for example, allowed a Chiang Mai hospital to accept international payment from my US healthcare insurer for my heart attack billing (part of my retirement benefit in the US). For the Kingdom of Thailand to refuse to recognize the validity of the policy within its sovereign borders seems to me inconsistent with existing international trade. I am thinking the international trade attorneys would have the knowledge which may come into play. My guess is that there will be international insurance company resulting pressure applied out of our view (because potential profits are involved).

[ThaiBunny]

14 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

As I say, I do not have specific knowledge on this matter.  My field was American/European general studies history. I speculate that there are international trade agreements or individual country trade agreements calling on the signing countries to recognize the validity of the international healthcare insurance policies. I believe such existing agreements, for example, allowed a Chiang Mai hospital to accept international payment from my US healthcare insurer for my heart attack billing (part of my retirement benefit in the US). For the Kingdom of Thailand to refuse to recognize the validity of the policy within its sovereign borders seems to me inconsistent with existing international trade. I am thinking the international trade attorneys would have the knowledge which may come into play. My guess is that there will be international insurance company resulting pressure applied out of our view (because potential profits are involved).

You got that right - it's speculation. It is up to the health provider to avail themselves of the promises of the insurance company. That a sovereign government that is in no sense a party to the insurance policy can be forced to accept its validity for some other purpose simply isn't going to happen

Edited December 27, 2019 by ThaiBunny

[oldcpu]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

I have no knowledge on this but it seems to me that the international insurance companies should be informed that the Kingdom of Thailand is refusing to recognize the validity of their company international contracted policies.

I think it a bit more complex than this. 

 

For example some of the more expensive Thailand hospitals (Bumrungrad, Bangkok Hospital,  Vichaiyut Hospital) accept my International Insurance, and even have direct billing to my International Insurance company. 

 

Yet my International Insurance company will not complete the Thailand 'Foreign Insurance Certificate' claiming they do not understand the Thailand Health requirements as laid out in that form.  Instead they want Thailand to accept their foreign language (English) Insurance certificate (which states nothing about the level of Insurance coverage) and go to an Insurance web page that only an Insurance policy holder can access, to get the details.  Clearly that is impractical for the Thai government.

 

I suspect Thailand's immigration anticipated this 'lack of co-operation' of International Insurance companies, so they came up with their own method of having an 'approved list' of Thailand insurance companies ... which unfortunately does not include the International companies.

 

IMHO large insurance companies have their own bureaucracy's and they don't see Thailand as a large market for them to bend their policy to produce documents in the Thai language acceptable to Thailand immigration.  How are native Thailand speaking Immigration officials to verify what a foreigner says about their International Insurance , when they can not verify the non-Thailand language forms provided by the International Insurance companies?

 

IMHO there is more work to be done (which I hope will be done in coming years) to make International Insurance acceptable. 

 

I believe the Thailand form "Foreign Insurance Certificate" could be improved to make it more acceptable to being completed by International Insurance Companies, while still achieving the goal of proving adequate insurance.  

 

I also believe Thailand Ministry of Health in conjunction/cooperation with Thailand immigration, could transfer the responsibility for checking foreigner's International Insurance to the Thailand Hospitals - where for a nominal fee the Hospitals could check the insurance, and provide a certified Thailand form for the foreigner to take to Thailand immigration.

 

After all, was it not the hospitals complaining about foreigners running up bills without paying?

 

I will continue to be hopeful, although my prediction is we could be looking at years before International Insurance verification will be better tuned and made acceptable/useful to all.

.

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by oldcpu

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Not being able to get a non-o visa for being 50 or over for retirement is really nothing new. Many embassies and official consulates have not issued one for many years now. Only honorary consulates were able to issue one since they cannot issue a non-oa visa.

Exactly. They have clearly been moving towards O-A visa for retirees for years. It’s been my opinion for years that the O would eventually go for retirees. The advent of compulsory insurance increases that belief.

 

There is no point having the O if they want to sell insurance.

 

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

A category non-o visa can be issued for many reasons. Only the reason for issuing one can be restricted.

Yes, and the reasons change over time and place. I had a couple of ME O’s in the past just with a letter of invite from a Thai friend. 
 

So it will be easy for them to stop issuing them for retirement; which they already do in some places.
 

Quote

You seem to of forgotten that immigration can issue the visa as well. They have even expanded it to all offices now while before only certain offices could issued them.

That changes over time. They could easily withdraw that facility.

 

You repeatedly assured members that the compulsory insurance was only for O-A visa holders and wouldn’t apply to extensions of stay. You were wrong.

 

It seems obvious that they are targeting ‘retirees’; the group. So I don’t see why the category of visa will ultimately enable any retiree to swerve insurance. They might keep the O too, but it doesn’t make sense for them to do so.

Edited December 27, 2019 by elviajero

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

You mean to westerners married with Thai wife too? 

No. There’s nothing whatsoever to suggest that at the moment.

[wwest5829]

5 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No. There’s nothing whatsoever to suggest that at the moment.

"At the moment" is key in my consideration. I applied for, submitted the legal record, the medical record, the financial record in good faith in order to demonstrate that I would be an attribute coming to retire in the Kingdom of Thailand and spend my retirement income there. I was granted a NON IMM O-A Visa for retirement. I have had a non issue 8 years in Thailand paying all bills, including the 411,000 baht hospital bill. Now I am told that my stay will be voided by a new requirement for medical insurance that I cannot qualify for due to my pre-existing condition. Yes, choice is mine as a free man to go elsewhere but the Kingdom of Thailand has shown me bad faith in voiding the agreement we made to each other in 2011.

[emptypockets]

15 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

"At the moment" is key in my consideration. I applied for, submitted the legal record, the medical record, the financial record in good faith in order to demonstrate that I would be an attribute coming to retire in the Kingdom of Thailand and spend my retirement income there. I was granted a NON IMM O-A Visa for retirement. I have had a non issue 8 years in Thailand paying all bills, including the 411,000 baht hospital bill. Now I am told that my stay will be voided by a new requirement for medical insurance that I cannot qualify for due to my pre-existing condition. Yes, choice is mine as a free man to go elsewhere but the Kingdom of Thailand has shown me bad faith in voiding the agreement we made to each other in 2011.

The agreement is/was for 12 months at a time. Not for life unfortunately.

[Lovethailandelite]

Quote from an interesting article published yesterday from an outlet which cannot be linked too

''

The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) remains bullish on the insurance industry in 2020, saying ''health insurance'', ''government-related insurance'' products and crop insurance will be boosters.

Although the economic slowdown dealt a blow to the business this year, prospects look brighter for next year, said secretary-general Suthiphon Taveechaiyagarn.

"Insurance companies are facing a challenge from implementation of IFRS 17, an international financial reporting standard to be adopted in the next two years, but fast-growing health insurance products and growing demand for insurance products from ''government-related parties'' are growth drivers for next year," Mr Suthiphon said.

[hugocnx]

If Non-O would also require health ins. in the future, what about going back to Non-O multiple entry?

[emptypockets]

 

11 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Quote from an interesting article published yesterday from an outlet which cannot be linked too

''

The Office of Insurance Commission (OIC) remains bullish on the insurance industry in 2020, saying ''health insurance'', ''government-related insurance'' products and crop insurance will be boosters.

Although the economic slowdown dealt a blow to the business this year, prospects look brighter for next year, said secretary-general Suthiphon Taveechaiyagarn.

"Insurance companies are facing a challenge from implementation of IFRS 17, an international financial reporting standard to be adopted in the next two years, but fast-growing health insurance products and growing demand for insurance products from ''government-related parties'' are growth drivers for next year," Mr Suthiphon said.

Interested to know what your opinion is on this. Is it referring to expat insurance (which I think would be a drop in the ocean in the big picture) or something else?

[Lovethailandelite]

14 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

 

Interested to know what your opinion is on this. Is it referring to expat insurance (which I think would be a drop in the ocean in the big picture) or something else?

The article never made reference to anything in particular, other than to those insurance products.
IMO, Health Insurance will eventually be required to ALL extensions of stay or at least to those on extensions which are in the 50yr and above age bracket. 50 years old seems to be the trigger that the MoPH refer too.
It would make no sense to apply a health Insurance to an O-A visa and extensions of, in order for people to switch to a Non O, for instance and extend that with no insurance requirement. It would simply be the same people in the same country and same situation. IMO, they did it to the O-A first in order, not to have mass panic and confusion. I see at some stage, the Non O being phased out and not issued for retirement, and the only option being the O-A visa

[Suradit69]

On December 26, 2019 at 4:25 AM, bkk6060 said:

Seems many IO's are misinformed or spreading rumors.

Thankfully farang posting on TV never spread unsubstantiated rumors or cause stress or worry by posting mindless speculation .  It is only immigration officers who, we are reliably informed, do so while presenting sinister smiles.

[Peter Denis]

31 minutes ago, elviajero said:

You repeatedly assured members that the compulsory insurance was only for O-A visa holders and wouldn’t apply to extensions of stay. You were wrong.

Re your response to @ubonjoe's post,

 

I am of a different opinion.

Imo UbonJoe was exactly right in his opinion that it was never the INTENTION to enforce the health-insurance requirement on those living already years in Thailand on an OA - retirement Visa extension.

The main idea was to make it applicable for new OA Visa applicants (OA Visas issued after Oct 31, 2019), which they indeed pushed through.

But the IMPLEMENTATION has gone horribly wrong, and now affects the full OA Visa retiree population.

First you had the influx of pre Oct 31 issued OA Visa-holder arrivals at the airports, that were incorrectly required to show health-insurance, and that took almost 2 weeks before it was straightened out that it was NOT required, and only applied to OA Visas issued after Oct 31.

But in mean time also the first applications for extensions of stay based on an original Non Imm OA - retirement Visa from yesteryear were being refused.  Instead of the very visible bush-fire of new arrivals beinf refused at the Airport, the latter was a more serious but far less visible phenomenon taking place. And we are now almost 2 months (only 2 months) down this road with IOs requiring pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas for reason of retirement to meet the health-insurance requirement. 

Imo, it was never the intention to enforce it on the non-married retiree population that long time ago entered Thailand on an OA, who could have easily entered Thailand and then apply for an O (that does not require the health-insurance requirement).  However, the train has derailed so far already that it is virtually impossible now to put it back on track again without serious loss-of-face.  And so the March of Folly continues.

There are basically 3 options now:

- Backtracking and admitting that it was a horrible mistake and that all pre Oct 31 issued OA Visas were meant to be grandfathered > will most probably never happen (the loss-of-face thing);

- Full speed ahead and enforcing health-insurance also on the retiree population with O - retirement extension status > possible but needs considerable changes/amendments in the roll-out to ensure solutions a.o. for those that cannot get insurance under the present scheme (e.g. +75 years of age, or pre-existing conditions);

- Slowly letting the whole mess fizzle out without enforcing health-insurance to the O - retirement population  > that will result in a considerable migration from OA Visa holders to O - retirement type extensions, but it would be somewhat of a face-saver.

 

Maybe I am horribly wrong, and is it indeed a deliberate strategy to enforce a profitable insurance-scheme on the retiree-population.  Or - equally possible - just plain bungling driven by incompetence, short-sightedness and greed.

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, emptypockets said:

The agreement is/was for 12 months at a time. Not for life unfortunately.

Agree, I wrongfully counted on no changes unless I did something wrong to break the original agreement on my being welcomed to Thailand as my only residence. Ah, well ....

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

"At the moment" is key in my consideration. I applied for, submitted the legal record, the medical record, the financial record in good faith in order to demonstrate that I would be an attribute coming to retire in the Kingdom of Thailand and spend my retirement income there. I was granted a NON IMM O-A Visa for retirement. I have had a non issue 8 years in Thailand paying all bills, including the 411,000 baht hospital bill. Now I am told that my stay will be voided by a new requirement for medical insurance that I cannot qualify for due to my pre-existing condition. Yes, choice is mine as a free man to go elsewhere but the Kingdom of Thailand has shown me bad faith in voiding the agreement we made to each other in 2011.

I understand your frustration, but you have a common misunderstanding of your permission to stay.

 

You haven't been given permission to 'retire in the Kingdom". You have -- as a retiree -- been given permission to live in the country -- for 1 year only -- because you have proved you have sufficient money in the bank or passive income to support your stay. Nothing more.

 

They will not void your current 1 year stay -- which is all they've agreed to -- and they can change the goalposts however they wish for future visas/extensions, which have always been a new application.

 

I hope you can find one of the insurers to cover you, if not the best bet would be to change over to an O visa/extension and deal with any further changes to that visa category when/if they happen.

[Thaidream]

35 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Well the facts now prove he was wrong, so -- with respect -- it's a bit daft for you to maintain he was right!

While the current facts on the ground support  you- I am not certain that the drafter of the Police Order did not intend to Grandfather everyone with an O-A prior to 31 oct. 

 

The implementation of the order has been  rather chaotic in that at first Swampy was  only approving 30 days as entry, then they backed off.

 

Now we have various Embassies  sending diplomatic notes indicating chaos amongst the holders of O-A Visas/extensions.

 

We also have various reports of  applicants with  pre conditions and over age 75 being refused insurance and extensions.  The MOH actually tecongnized this as a problem but never acted on it - throwing the issue back to the Thai cabinet.  It is a known problem.

 

IMO if the powers that be want to come out of this debacle and save face- they will grandfather everyone- say that is what the intent was and the chaos and problems end.

 

If they do this- that gives them time to actually come up with an insurance system that can be applied across the board.

 

IMO since there has been so much pushback from expats and Embassies- the Thai powers may well hold up on any further implementation and re-study what they have done.   With the popularity of social media- there are many  negative impressions out there regarding this issue.

 

However- in the long term I would agree that they will phase out any issuance of Non O for retirement. If someone wants to retire in Thailand- they will only be able to get Non O-A or Non X with the insurance requirement and the result of such a requirement will be the ending of Thailand as a  place to retire.  They may well want this to happen

 

Those alreasy in nthe system will turn to agents or if married use the Non O for married extensions. 

 

I  seriously doubt that Non O visas and extensions for marriage will be impacted since the Thai Government would be facing problems under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights/

[wwest5829]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

I understand your frustration, but you have a common misunderstanding of your permission to stay.

 

You haven't been given permission to 'retire in the Kingdom". You have -- as a retiree -- been given permission to live in the country -- for 1 year only -- because you have proved you have sufficient money in the bank or passive income to support your stay. Nothing more.

 

They will not void your current 1 year stay -- which is all they've agreed to -- and they can change the goalposts however they wish for future visas/extensions, which have always been a new application.

 

I hope you can find one of the insurers to cover you, if not the best bet would be to change over to an O visa/extension and deal with any further changes to that visa category when/if they happen.

A google search turned up the Royal Thai Embassy in Singapore saying the O-A for retirement, I submit there are others. What will be will be, but I do not think I misjudged in treating Thailand at a retirement residence (retirement is not for a period of one year). Thus I will maintain that the current Thai government has acted in bad faith toward me after approving my request for a long stay retirement Visa in 2011 with the expectation of annual renewal (reliant on my continuing to fulfill the original conditions). There were other countries under consideration and I would not have chosen Thailand had I known that they would change the rules on me. In my background reading, coups and all, I did not pick up on changes in retirement Visa requirements being unstable. I viewed it as a contract. Can they breach the contract, yes. Same as they can breach any international business contract ... but there are costs to be paid. I and many others can no longer recommend Thailand as a retirement destination. Well, we can discuss but the current government will do what it will. They could void my current Visa as easily as they changed the conditions on my current status. The insurers will not cover my pre-existing conditions, thus any costs dealing with my heart would not be paid under the offered insurance. Yes, the agency I have used here for years will handle the change to an “O” Visa as the first counter measure. The last choice will be packing up and going elsewhere. As an aside, can we imagine that for a Schengen or other Visa, those countries state that only their countries companies can provide the required insurance? Expat numbers are definitely down in Chiang Mai but we cannot say if it is air pollution, the strong baht or immigration issues which are the cause.

[The Theory]

On 12/26/2019 at 4:18 AM, SoonOh said:

With a smile on her face, she told us that sometime next year Non-O will require medical insurance.

There is a possibility that happens for those who do not use 800,000 in bank method. 

[The Theory]

11 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

You mean to westerners married with Thai wife too? 

I do not think so,

there is a possibility that happens to those who do not use 400,000 (marriage extension) or 800,000 (retirement extension) method in bank.

"Required insurance policy is at list 400,000". 
 

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by The Theory

[DrJack54]

16 minutes ago, The Theory said:

I do not think so,

there is a possibility that happens to those who do not use 400,000 (marriage extension) or 800,000 (retirement extension) method in bank.

"Required insurance policy is at list 400,000". 
 

 

Can you remind me what married folk need to do with regards 400k in bank after their 12 month extension is granted.

[The Theory]

11 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Can you remind me what married folk need to do with regards 400k in bank after their 12 month extension is granted.

I don't know. Don't you remember ? 
 

[The Theory]

42 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

after their 12 month extension is granted.

So you mean there is no 400,000 requirement after 1st extension ? 
Then probably having insurance will be mandatory for them as well since they are not self insured by "fund in bank". 
If such scenario happens I see that many retired who are on marriage visa will change to 800,000 non-O in bank method if they have the fund available. 
 

Edited December 27, 2019 by The Theory

[Gweiloman]

34 minutes ago, The Theory said:

So you mean there is no 400,000 requirement after 1st extension ? 
Then probably having insurance will be mandatory for them as well since they are not self insured by "fund in bank". 
If such scenario happens I see that many retired who are on marriage visa will change to 800,000 non-O in bank method if they have the fund available. 
 

I see where you are going and logically you would be right. Unfortunately, logic is foreign to Thai mentality. I do hope you are right as this is also what I’m banking on. 

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, The Theory said:

So you mean there is no 400,000 requirement after 1st extension ? 
Then probably having insurance will be mandatory for them as well since they are not self insured by "fund in bank". 
If such scenario happens I see that many retired who are on marriage visa will change to 800,000 non-O in bank method if they have the fund available. 

You need 400K in the bank for 2 months before every extension. However, you can do whatever you like with the funds between application periods.

 

Insurance might come in for spouses not working in Thailand, but I can’t see it happening. Family based extensions are completely different to retiree extensions.

 

The money in the bank is not there to “self insure”. It’s to fund the 1 year stay. As you see with retirees; insurance is in addition to income or funds in the bank.

 

If married, IMO, it’s always been better to have a family based extension, and that’s even more the case now. I can’t see how your scenario pushes husbands to retiree extensions due to medical insurance.

[jacko45k]

19 hours ago, Laza 45 said:

It look like they are already asking for Thai health insurance for No O in Australia..   I'll check with the consulate in Adelaide when I return for a visit in Feb..

 

https://canberra.thaiembassy.org/non-immigrant/

That link does not specify insurance for Non-Imm-O category, only O-A and O-X.

[Peter Denis]

11 hours ago, Thaidream said:

....

However- in the long term I would agree that they will phase out any issuance of Non O for retirement. If someone wants to retire in Thailand- they will only be able to get Non O-A or Non X with the insurance requirement and the result of such a requirement will be the ending of Thailand as a  place to retire. 

...

Fully agree with the stance you make in your full post #48.

And I even agree with the excerpt from that post featured above.

But the key phrase is 'in the long term'.

So at the present moment and in the short term, it would be ludicrous to step into the expensive and basically worthless thai-approved health-insurance scam that IO enforces on extensions of stay of original OA Visas for reason of retirement.

Especially since there is a cheap (less than 5.000 THB) and relatively easy escape-route that leads to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa.  The conditions and requirements for an extension of that Non Imm O - retirement Visa are EXACTLY the same as for the present Non Imm OA - retirement Visa, but don't require health-insurance. 

When and if in the long term IO ever decides to also impose health-insurance on that Non Imm O - retirement type Visa or phase it out, then as a minimum they need to foresee options for the retiree categories (+75 years old or pre-existing conditions) that are presently not eligible for the thai-approved health-insurance policies on offer.

So it does make all the sense of the world to switch over to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa when your OA - retirement extension is due, instead of succumbing to the present insurance-scam.

Note: I compiled a comprehensive roadmap with all details/options to make that conversion from an OA to an O.  Feel free to PM me if you'd like to receive a copy.

Yes, I am on a Mission to kill this bogus health-insurance scam. ????

 

[Lovethailandelite]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

That link does not specify insurance for Non-Imm-O category, only O-A and O-X.

I can no longer see on the Sydney, Adelaide and Canberra websites any listing for the Non O visa for retirement purposes. Only the O-A visa is now available for retirement purposes.
On the other end of the scale, the London E visa application site, has taken out the Non O for retirement and now showing 'Unless over 50 and in receipt of a state pension'. They are allowing those not in receipt of a state pension (Not everybody over 65 gets the state pension if you never made contributions) to show a 3-month bank statement of at least £10,000

Edited December 28, 2019 by Lovethailandelite

[Thaidream]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Yes, I am on a Mission to kill this bogus health-insurance scam.

A worthy objective since IMO the whole issue has been completely mishandled.

 

My objection to this whole charade is that at present they refuse to acknowledge grandfathering  which is always the key to any change in rules, regulations, or law. And what makes it so infuriating is that past  changes of income requirements have been grandfathered- so there is a precedent. Was the ommission done on purpose or simply through ignorance- we will never know/

 

The level of incompetence; chicanery' and lack of communication regarding this implementation is truly stagering .  It's as if the Police Order was writtn with ambiguity on purpose, either because the writer didn't truly understand the issues; or so they could interpret it as needed whichever way the wind was blowing.

 

As I have stated so often the solution to this is simple-

 

1.   Grandfather everyone who is here on an O-A issued prior to 31 October 2019 - No insurance requirement.

 

2. Any new O-A Visas issued after 31 October 2019 have an insurance requirement which can be met by using any company worldwide wide that provides  the coverage. A simple form filled out by one's insurance agent saying the coverage is current and paid suffices as proof.   The Embassy or IO can ask for the coverage page if needed.

 

3.   Provide a provision that anyone who  cannot obtain or is denied coverage due to age or pre-existing conditions can still be extended or obtain a new O-A . A letter of denial from  insurance would serve as proof.  the applicant would be required to sign a statement indicating they are responsible for any medical expenses.

 

4.  any furhter expansion of the Insurance requirement to other groups needs to be put on hold while a full range of options are disscussed and implemented such as allowing any foreign insurance coverage; buy in to the Thai Social Security System;  allowing all Thai Insurance Comanies to provide coverage not just  those on a list and getting feedback from the expat community osn the issues.