Changing from O-A to O

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

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.

It has never been shown on the embassy in Canberra or the official consulate in Sydney websites.

I was possible at the honorary consulates until a little over 2 years ago when the embassy told them not to issue them.

[Lovethailandelite]

23 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It has never been shown on the embassy in Canberra or the official consulate in Sydney websites.

I was possible at the honorary consulates until a little over 2 years ago when the embassy told them not to issue them.

I looked due too Laza 45 seeming to infer he was going to enquire in Adelaide. In that case, he is out of luck too. 

[Peter Denis]

38 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

...

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

 

Thank you @Thaidream

 

Yes, a relatively simple 4-step schema, but by far the most sensible and practical approach to clean up the whole mess I have come across.

And so the easy and all encompassing solution is handed here on a Silver Platter to the thai authorities.

When fully implemented this approach will indeed positively impact the non-paid hospital bills (the stated reason for introducing the health-care requirement).

But of course it will not line the pockets of the thai insurance-lobby in the way the present scheme is shamelessly doing. So from that side there will for sure be some resistance against this Common Sense approach.

Let's hope reason prevails.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by Peter Denis

[ubonjoe]

9 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I looked due too Laza 45 seeming to infer he was going to enquire in Adelaide. In that case, he is out of luck too. 

I had already replied to his post yesterday.

 

22 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

None of the honorary consulates in Australia can issue a non-o visa for being 50 or over for retirement. The embassy made them stop issuing them at least 2 years ago.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

13 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I looked due too Laza 45 seeming to infer he was going to enquire in Adelaide. In that case, he is out of luck too. 

I had already replied to his post yesterday.

 

22 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

None of the honorary consulates in Australia can issue a non-o visa for being 50 or over for retirement. The embassy made them stop issuing them at least 2 years ago.

 

 

[The Theory]

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

The money in the bank is not there to “self insure”. It’s to fund the 1 year stay.

Isn't that why we can not use 400,000 and it has to be in the account all year long ?!!!! The insurance policy for OA has to be at least 400,000 as well. 

perhaps 400,000 could be for "1 year stay" as you mentioned, but not all 800,000. 

 

Edited December 28, 2019 by The Theory

[oldcpu]

6 hours ago, Thaidream said:

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.

My view is most International Insurance companies are not likely to fill in such a form, no matter how simple it is made.  Large Insurance companies have their own bureaucracies, and they far prefer other organisations and countries to accept THEIR paperwork in their nominal language (which is typically NOT the Thai language).

 

I think for your #2, that I quoted, a far likelier to succeed approach with International Insurance companies, is for Thailand to authorise selected hospitals to check a foreigners international insurance (and charge the foreigner money for conducting the check), and then the Thai Hospital fill in and stamp the appropriate Thai government form showing the foreigner's proof of adequate Health Insurance.  The more expensive Thai hospitals do this already in part, for major operations to confirm the foreigner's insurance is adequate.

 

I think it was the hospitals that were concerned in the 1st place, about unpaid foreigner bills, so why not task the hospitals (or selected hospitals) with doing the needed Health Insurance verification, using the Thai government 400k/40k inpatient/outpatient as their guideline for verification?

[elviajero]

4 hours ago, The Theory said:

Isn't that why we can not use 400,000 and it has to be in the account all year long ?!!!! The insurance policy for OA has to be at least 400,000 as well. 

perhaps 400,000 could be for "1 year stay" as you mentioned, but not all 800,000. 

No. It's another way of separating the 'wheat from the chaff', and stopping applicants taking short term loans to qualify for an extension.

 

An O-A visa holder needs 400K in the bank all year plus insurance.

[The Theory]

2 hours ago, elviajero said:

An O-A visa holder needs 400K in the bank all year plus in

400k in bank for OA retirement !!!! Ok 

whatever you say

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, The Theory said:

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

An O-A visa holder needs 400K in the bank all year plus in

400k in bank for OA retirement !!!! Ok 

whatever you say

I was referring to an extension of stay for a O-A visa!

[lorbhaim]

My O-A visa cancelled....

I am 77, have 1600000$ insurance from my country.

To CM IO, not acceptable. got same info as OP post.

I have no doubt O visa will be the same.

So now I am in Manila to look for alternative.

Dannang next.

Panama, Costa Rica are alternatives to check.

So far, is different and in many ways better.

[Thaidream]

On 12/28/2019 at 4:18 PM, oldcpu said:

 

I think for your #2, that I quoted, a far likelier to succeed approach with International Insurance companies, is for Thailand to authorise selected hospitals to check a foreigners international insurance (and charge the foreigner money for conducting the check), and then the Thai Hospital fill in and stamp the appropriate Thai government form showing the foreigner's proof of adequate Health Insurance.  The more expensive Thai hospitals do this already in part, for major operations to confirm the foreigner's insurance is adequate.

 

I think it was the hospitals that were concerned in the 1st place, about unpaid foreigner bills, so why not task the hospitals (or selected hospitals) with doing the needed Health Insurance verification, using the Thai government 400k/40k inpatient/outpatient as their guideline for verification?

While your  suggestion has merit- I seriously doubt that a Thai private hospital would have the time or the inclination to act as a tool of their own government- even with a fee.  

 

Then there is the issue of the US Military and Us Veterans Adminstration that provides  Worldwide Healthcare to its retired members and those with disabilities.  They would be more inclined to  fill out a simple form- than constantly get phone calls  which go to voice mail. They won;t call back.

 

Then there is some European countries that allow their Government insurance to be used overseas-  I just can;t see a Thai person speaking English trying to explain to a french speaking bureauacrat trying to verify anything.

 

The only real solution is a simple pre printed form that can be signed indicating coverage is verified or a buy in to the Thai Social Security system/  The IO can ask for the foreign insurance delcaration page if they doubt veracity.

 

Until the powers that be in Thailand can figure out what will work- they need to grandfather everyone and realistically put the whole scheme on hold.  They are doing a massive diseervice to  long stayers who came years ago under a different set of regulations trying to force them into a square peg in which it is an impossibility.

 

any reasonable bureacracy would realize they have created an impossible situation. Frankly, the result will be a continual pull out of expats from Thailand and a situation where hardly anyone will want to come.  The bad publicity will and already has spilled over to  tourism.

 

Thailand- you reap what you sow.

 

 

 

[JimGant]

On 12/28/2019 at 5:45 AM, elviajero said:

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.

But it certainly could be. Using the Malaysian MM2H visa example -- they require visa holders to have a fixed deposit account, accessible only for medical emergencies (and a few others, like education, or quitting your visa). So, for Joe average, with home country insurance and/or enough self funding to pay Malaysian hospital bills, this surety bond fixed deposit account never needs to be touched. But, if he becomes behind in his hospital payments, well, this surety bond account gets tapped (but, then, necessarily replenished -- if no can do, adios mo' fo')

 

Nothing brilliant here. For retirement extenders here in Thailand, yes, a bank account (vice monthly income inserts) would now be needed. But, hey, this shouldn't be too insurmountable  (particularly when you exam the cost for health insurance, particularly for us ancient farts).

 

But, we keep going round and round with the same suggestions, on these multitude of related threads. Preaching to each other, as doubtful any Thai with decision making authority is getting any feed back from these threads. Has the Malaysian example even been looked at by the Thais? Sad to witness a wannabe first world country stuck in third world mindset.

[oldcpu]

4 hours ago, Thaidream said:

While your  suggestion has merit- I seriously doubt that a Thai private hospital would have the time or the inclination to act as a tool of their own government- even with a fee. 

I think "with a fee" some of the hospitals will be interested, dependent on the size of the fee they receive. 

 

As noted, some of the private hospitals already contact the International Insurance companies to ensure coverage for major medical treatments.  There is money for the hospitals in performing major treatments paid for by International Insurance.

[AussieBob18]

On 12/28/2019 at 9:17 AM, ubonjoe said:

It has never been shown on the embassy in Canberra or the official consulate in Sydney websites.

I was possible at the honorary consulates until a little over 2 years ago when the embassy told them not to issue them.

That is correct ubonjoe - as usual ????

[AussieBob18]

13 hours ago, JimGant said:

But it certainly could be. Using the Malaysian MM2H visa example -- they require visa holders to have a fixed deposit account, accessible only for medical emergencies (and a few others, like education, or quitting your visa). So, for Joe average, with home country insurance and/or enough self funding to pay Malaysian hospital bills, this surety bond fixed deposit account never needs to be touched. But, if he becomes behind in his hospital payments, well, this surety bond account gets tapped (but, then, necessarily replenished -- if no can do, adios mo' fo')

 

Nothing brilliant here. For retirement extenders here in Thailand, yes, a bank account (vice monthly income inserts) would now be needed. But, hey, this shouldn't be too insurmountable  (particularly when you exam the cost for health insurance, particularly for us ancient farts).

 

But, we keep going round and round with the same suggestions, on these multitude of related threads. Preaching to each other, as doubtful any Thai with decision making authority is getting any feed back from these threads. Has the Malaysian example even been looked at by the Thais? Sad to witness a wannabe first world country stuck in third world mindset.

I think they did look at the Malaysian system - and they tried to match it - but they didn't take away all the cr**.  The Thailand Expats costs to retire here are more now more up front than Malaysia, because of the Baht.  But they did not take away annual extensions, 90 day reporting, TM30s, dual pricing, PR options etc etc etc.  

[SoonOh]

I am single on O-A. My friend is married but still on O-A and thinking about switching to non-O based on marriage. The only benefit is that we do not have to pay extra for Thai insurance. We do not like to live Thailand every 90 day to satisfy non-O requirements and we do not know when Immigration will impose mandatory insurance on non-O. My married friend does not know how long marriage will last and does not want to beg wife for assistance with each extension renewal. 

[ubonjoe]

2 hours ago, SoonOh said:

We do not like to live Thailand every 90 day to satisfy non-O requirements and we do not know when Immigration will impose mandatory insurance on non-O.

No need to leave the country every 90 days if you change the reason for your 1 year extension of stay based upon retirement to one based upon  marriage.  You are mixing up a multiple entry non-o visa issued by a embassy or consulate with a extension of stay issued by immigration.

[steve187]

3 hours ago, SoonOh said:

I am single on O-A. My friend is married but still on O-A and thinking about switching to non-O based on marriage. The only benefit is that we do not have to pay extra for Thai insurance. We do not like to live Thailand every 90 day to satisfy non-O requirements and we do not know when Immigration will impose mandatory insurance on non-O. My married friend does not know how long marriage will last and does not want to beg wife for assistance with each extension renewal. 

not much of a marriage if he has to beg for a few hours to help him stay in the country, to support her financially.

 

no switching visa's required, just the reason for etension from 'retirement' to 'married'

 

is the insurance for non imm 'O' visa's on the cards ?

if so will it effect 'married' extensions?

 

your crystal ball needs to be put to use

Edited January 3, 2020 by steve187