Will Thai Health Insurance be mandated for O Visas and Extensions

[AussieBob18]

Many people thought that the recently implemented mandatory Health Insurance rule for O-A (Retirement) Visa would only be applied to new entries into Thailand after 1 November 2019.  But as some of us predicted, it has been applied to O-A Visa Extensions as well.  So here is the question - will Thai Health Insurance be mandated for 12 month O Visas and 12 month Extensions in the future - by the end of 2020.  Yes or No.

 

I say Yes - and I am prepared to be publically wrong.  Anyone else?

 

I decided not to do a Poll as it is anonymous.  Anyone else willing to go on the record?

 

Yes or No??

 

[DrJack54]

What's a 12 month O visa.

Have they done away with the 90 day non o imm.

[ubonjoe]

18 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

What's a 12 month O visa.

Have they done away with the 90 day non o imm.

I think he was referring to a multiple entry non-o visas validity.

[gt162]

Yes, I Think O-A is first phase and Non O is 2nd phase later on.

[DrJack54]

3 minutes ago, gt162 said:

Yes, I Think O-A is first phase and Non O is 2nd phase later on.

So your including non o based on marriage, parent of Thai child etc. 

The whole box and dice?

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

What's a 12 month O visa.

Have they done away with the 90 day non o imm.

No they have not. 

The key issue here of course is whether people on existing retirement extensions based on original O visas will be required to eventually have the insurance under the same terms as OA people. 

 

I think probably so but hope not! 

[Jingthing]

26 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

So your including non o based on marriage, parent of Thai child etc. 

The whole box and dice?

The OP is very clearly about RETIREMENT! 

[Gweiloman]

Does anybody know or would be willing to hazard a guess as to how many non O A based on retirement there were and the same for non O? 
If the numbers were 50/50, then I would say that there is a likelihood that the insurance requirement would be imposed as well. On the other hand, if it was say 10/90, then it would be an altogether different kettle of fish. The fallout would be much higher and more public. 

[DrJack54]

44 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The OP is very clearly about RETIREMENT! 

I was quoting someone other than the OP and was asking him a question.

Get over trying to control threads. Also what's with the capitals. Is that a code for yelling! 

Might add I'm still confused about op post. Read ubon reply where he "thinks" the OP was referring to multi entry non o visa. 

Where do I get one of those based on retirement.

Edited December 27, 2019 by DrJack54

[thequietman]

18 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

I was quoting someone other than the OP and was asking him a question.

Get over trying to control threads. Also what's with the capitals. Is that a code for yelling! 

It is, and you can report him for that if you so wish. As they say ..up to you. ????

Edited December 28, 2019 by blackcab
Bold font removed. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording

[steve187]

I don't think it will, but if it does that's a whole lot of hurt for a whole lot of people.

[AussieBob18]

3 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

So your including non o based on marriage, parent of Thai child etc. 

The whole box and dice?

Me too - any 12 month Visa/Extension - any age

[DrJack54]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The OP is very clearly about RETIREMENT! 

Have a read of post #12 from op

I choose not to use capitals.

[AussieBob18]

Dont get me wrong - I most certainly hope not - but I am interested in TV members opinions as to whether they think that the Thai Immi/Govt will extend the current O-A Visa/Extension requirements for Health Insurance to all 'long term' Visas/Extensions.  Apologies for the confusion.  To expand the point - I think it is the uncertainty that is causing much concern - and making people think about leaving and others think again about coming.

 

 

 

[oldcpu]

I am hoping that if the decision is made to expand the Health Insurance requirement to One-year extensions for Type-O Visa, that some improvements are made in the Health Insurance verification.  

 

For improvements, I am thinking along the lines of in addition to the current list of Thai government approved insurance companies, I would like to see:

• selected Thailand Hospitals allowed (for a nominal fee paid by the Visa Insurance holder) to verify the person's International Insurance (for all cases - such as whether it be from an International Insurance company, or a another country's health care) , and if the Thai mandated 400k/40k level is reached, then the selected/approved Thailand hospital provide the Visa holder a certified (on a Thai government approved form) a 1-page document, that can be taken to Thai Immigration as proof of adequate insurance
• self insurance system setup for those who want to 'self insure', where one can deposit some TBD amount (1-million baht ?? ) in a fixed account in a Thai bank (probably separate from the nominal 800k for a Type-O/OA visa), and then that deposit be adequate for proof of self insurance (possibly with some other administration needed).  For other administration?  Maybe a 'power-of-attourney' for emergency need to be granted to some Thai approved organisation for cases where the self-insurance holder is not able to pay the bill due to injury (maybe to a hospital, or lawyer, with contact information on some approved Thai self-insurance card (again for another nominal fee)). That contact info (of the power-of-attourney holder) could also be entered into a Thai database accessible by Thai hospitals.

Those are just ideas - and can likely be improved on.

 

I'm hoping such possible improvements are considered, prior to any expansion of the Health Insurance requirement.

[DrJack54]

Just now, AussieBob18 said:

Dont get me wrong - I most certainly hope not - but I am interested in TV members opinions as to whether they think that the Thai Immi/Govt will extend the current O-A Visa/Extension requirements for Health Insurance to all 'long term' Visas/Extensions.  Apologies for the confusion.  To expand the point - I think it is the uncertainty that is causing much concern - and making people think about leaving and others think again about coming.

 

 

 

Steve post #11 makes good point. The effect if that ever happened would be catastrophic for many.

Personally I don't believe it will spread to non O based on whatever. 

Thinking it was never planned to include folk here on extensions with long expired O-A visas. Time will tell.

[emptypockets]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

The OP is very clearly about RETIREMENT! 

Nonsense, read it again. He mentioned OA retirement visas then mentioned O visas. No mention of retirement O visas.

[baansgr]

Only a matter of time. Providing policies are available for all at reasonable cost its not a bad thing

[Peter Denis]

Being the Eternal Optimist, I don't think IOs will enforce the health-insurance requirement also on Non Imm O - retirement Visas (nor phase them out completely).

Also given the authorities desire for affirmation of all their successes, it is tell-tale that they are very very quiet on that front.  So they are well aware of the train-wreck they created with this 'pilot-project'. 

A further disastrous roll-out will probably result in some heads on the chopping block so letting it fizzle out quietly is probably the best strategy for saving-face. 

[emptypockets]

Just now, baansgr said:

Only a matter of time. Providing policies are available for all at reasonable cost its not a bad thing

And that is the crux of the matter. What is a reasonable cost versus the risk of a payout?

Would you be willing to pay for all of my medical bills until I die? What would you charge me for the risk that you might spend more on my medical bills than I would ever pay you?

 

Extrapolate that to all  people of every age group and you could figure out a good balance of young healthy people versus older high risk people and  still have a good probability of keeping premiums low and still make money. Now cut out all of the national residents of all ages and only include foreign residents over the age of 50. Do you think you could still keep the premiums low? Or reasonable as you called them?

As much as we want them to be, insurance companies are not charities and are there to make money. They have some pretty good algorithms to measure the risk/reward ratio too.

[from the home of CC]

hypothetically imo I believe they would go after any agent extensions prior to the proven financed  O visa simply because there's more chance of  those folks being underfunded in a health emergency since the stated fund status is bogus..

[utalkin2me]

Yes, 100% without a doubt, it will be a requirement for o's. You heard it here first. 

[Lacessit]

Who knows? I have plan B in place. There's a Thai family who will hurt worse than me if it happens.

I guess there will be scare threads like this around for the next couple of years.

[ballpoint]

The way I understand it, as explained to me by an immigration agent, the 400,000 baht you need to keep in the bank under the terms for a Non-O retirement extension serves the same purpose as the 400,000 baht inpatient insurance required for the OA.  It's no coincidence that the (meagre, in my opinion) figure is the same in each case.  Anyone under a Non-O extension who doesn't have medical insurance, and can't cover the cost of treatment, would have the 400,000 baht to fall back on - either for treatment here or to be used for evacuation, and then would be unable to get a new extension, which is really what they want.  No doubt I'll be attacked for saying this, but I agree with them.  Anyone here long term who is unable to cover the costs of emergency medical treatment - either by insurance or savings, should really be returning to their own country.

 

[EricTh]

1 hour ago, AussieBob18 said:

Dont get me wrong - I most certainly hope not - but I am interested in TV members opinions as to whether they think that the Thai Immi/Govt will extend the current O-A Visa/Extension requirements for Health Insurance to all 'long term' Visas/Extensions.  Apologies for the confusion.  To expand the point - I think it is the uncertainty that is causing much concern - and making people think about leaving and others think again about coming.

 

Immigration is trying to close all the past loopholes eg.

 

1. Declaring false affidavits by Americans, British and Australian. This loophole is not plugged for other nationalities yet.

 

2. Increasing the number of months required to be deposited into Thai bank for retirement purpose for those using agents to borrow money and for those sharing the required amount.

 

3. Border/visa runners on tourist visa with the intention to stay long-term in Thailand.

 

4. If everyone on O-A visa just switch to O visa, then what's the point of introducing health insurance in the first place??? so this is another loophole.

 

Eventually this loophole will be plugged...

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by EricTh

[EricTh]

4 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

The way I understand it, as explained to me by an immigration agent, the 400,000 baht you need to keep in the bank under the terms for a Non-O retirement extension serves the same purpose as the 400,000 baht inpatient insurance required for the OA.

 

So you are saying that people on OA visa don't need to have at least 400K in Thai banks to get a retirement visa?

[Jingthing]

5 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Does anybody know or would be willing to hazard a guess as to how many non O A based on retirement there were and the same for non O? 
If the numbers were 50/50, then I would say that there is a likelihood that the insurance requirement would be imposed as well. On the other hand, if it was say 10/90, then it would be an altogether different kettle of fish. The fallout would be much higher and more public. 

Yes.

I have an idea about that question.

See this POLL (which was not allowed to include comments).

People -- You can still vote in this poll!

 

Current results. Vast majority on O, not O-A.

 

 

Quote

 

1. For those currently staying here on annual retirement extensions, is your base visa O or O-A?

• O -- I am currently on a retirement extension and my base visa is O
   
  157
• O-A -- I am currently on a retirement extension and my base visa is O-A                  45

 

•  
   
   

 

Edited December 27, 2019 by Jingthing

[Dumbastheycome]

18 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

The way I understand it, as explained to me by an immigration agent, the 400,000 baht you need to keep in the bank under the terms for a Non-O retirement extension serves the same purpose as the 400,000 baht inpatient insurance required for the OA.  It's no coincidence that the (meagre, in my opinion) figure is the same in each case.  Anyone under a Non-O extension who doesn't have medical insurance, and can't cover the cost of treatment, would have the 400,000 baht to fall back on - either for treatment here or to be used for evacuation, and then would be unable to get a new extension, which is really what they want.  No doubt I'll be attacked for saying this, but I agree with them.  Anyone here long term who is unable to cover the costs of emergency medical treatment - either by insurance or savings, should really be returning to their own country.

 

I agree with you in some points but in the question of extending the insurance requirement to Non O is only part of the  issue. The way any Agent  can explain as you have stated would be reasonably as most here long term either Non O  or O A would historically have accepted as a due cause requirement that could cover many eventualities. But contrary to that reason is the fact that Agents have profitably provided  avenues  around the "actual" financial requirement in  many cases. Rather than  curtail that provision instead Thai Immigration have added a second  layer of  financial requirement that falls outside of  Agents  activities  and so nicely into the  hands of  Insurance Companies.

Consider the fact that a large number of people including  myself are also married but because of the relative simplicity of "retirement" versus "marriage" compliance in terms of  annual extension are faced  with a dilemma having chosen that option. Not forgetting that involves  not 400,000 but 800,00 Baht in the requirements for "retirement" even if married.

So for the moment there is a scramble  for  people such as myself to  change and acommodate to a Non O  marriage status which contrary to the claims of  justification actually lowers a financial commitment.

Even when Immigration is well  aware or  could require confirmation of  married status they have offered  no alternative avenue of discretionary consideration for those who are  married  but were initially here on Non O A status. So even for the  moment such as I can go through a process to circumvent the quite shameful profiteering  requirement of local Insurance if at some later  date it was extended further to all and any long stay conditions it  can be  very sure it will  cause serious repercussions on  family units. If not already.

I can agree that as  non Thai expats  should keep themselves in a position of personal security but when even if so do are constricted and confined to an extortional compulsory situation that under International convention regarding  Insurance may not  even be legal it is  a sad example for Thailand.

I have full Insurance  that is many times cheaper  and  many times  more extensive than that which is  being  required. So while I can agree that those who  can not honestly comply should depart I question why those who  can and do are  tarred with the same  brush?

 

[Jingthing]

As far as the question on this topic, there is also a POLL on the very same question:

 

 

[DrJack54]

20 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes.

I have an idea about that question.

See this POLL (which was not allowed to include comments).

People -- You can still vote in this poll!

 

Current results. Vast majority on O, not O-A.

 

 

•  
   
   

 

How is that remotely related to the OP.

Please explain. Actually skip it. I give up.