Stopped at Phuket immigration due to health insurance requirement

[westsail]

I obtained a Non- OA multi entry visa from the embassy in Washington, D.C. in June, 2019.

I entered Thailand from the U.S. first in July and again in December after the new law went into effect.  No questions were asked about health insurance when I passed through Phuket immigration on December 14,  but when I reentered again from Cambodia on December 31st I was asked if I had Thai Health insurance.  I said "no".  The immigration officer told me to wait a minute while she went to talk to someone else.  She came back in a few minutes and told me to follow her to the back office.  When I got there they looked over my passport and visa, talked it over among themselves, and told me I would be given 30 days to obtain insurance and report back to them.  However, a few minutes later after more huddling they told me that they would let it go this time since I obtained my visa before the new law went into effect, but I would need to get health insurance when my current visa expired.  I'm not sure if they meant the original expiration date in July, 2020 or the extended date I received the first time I reentered from the U.S..  I was so glad to get out of there I didn't want to ask any more questions.

I had been wondering how they would handle a situation like mine, and I had been monitoring TV hoping someone else would report their experience.  Since I got thru immigration with no questions or problems the first time I reentered after the new law went into effect I thought I was safe.  Apparently it depends on where you reenter and who is on duty at the time.

 

 

[DrJack54]

Thanks for your report. 

Put in simple terms it translates to Thai passport control and immigration offices have no idea what they are doing. Along with that the complete failure from authorities above to clarify what is actually required makes them a laughing stock.

Welcome to thailand.

[richard_smith237]

37 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Thanks for your report. 

Put in simple terms it translates to Thai passport control and immigration offices have no idea what they are doing. Along with that the complete failure from authorities above to clarify what is actually required makes them a laughing stock.

Welcome to thailand.

 

In this case it also makes them somewhat flexible... as they could easily have blocked the Op’s entry in to Thailand based on the point that he is entering on a Non-Immigration O-A Visa without proof of insurance. 

 

It looks like they were reluctant to reject the Op while at the same time unsure what to do without a set precedent. 

[DrJack54]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

In this case it also makes them somewhat flexible... as they could easily have blocked the Op’s entry in to Thailand based on the point that he is entering on a Non-Immigration O-A Visa without proof of insurance. 

 

It looks like they were reluctant to reject the Op while at the same time unsure what to do without a set precedent. 

Think there is set precedent. I recall stuff up regarding this very point early doors. Some folk with O-A were being given only visa exempt entries. Then it was "cleared up" and were being corrected to 12 month permission of stay. 

Just another example of one hand not knowing what other is doing. Fairyland.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

45 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Thanks for your report. 

Put in simple terms it translates to Thai passport control and immigration offices have no idea what they are doing. Along with that the complete failure from authorities above to clarify what is actually required makes them a laughing stock.

Welcome to thailand.

 

I believe, there was a very similar post by a member who had arrived to Swampy lately with a pre-insurance requirement O-A. He had had prior entries under the O-A without being bothered about insurance, but then suddenly was pulled aside on his latest entry. Same follow us to the back office routine. He said his visa predated the requirement. They said insurance was required. Went back and forth, back and forth, and in the end, if I recall the post correctly, another supervisor finally relented at least for that entry.... But no promise for the future.

 

As the OP's account seems to confirm, the issue of pre-insurance policy O-A entries right now seems to be a mine field of doubt and uncertainty when dealing with Immigration.

 

[jacko45k]

9 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Thanks for your report. 

Put in simple terms it translates to Thai passport control and immigration offices have no idea what they are doing. Along with that the complete failure from authorities above to clarify what is actually required makes them a laughing stock.

Welcome to thailand.

They got it right in the end, and added a few warnings just to cover their errors and red faces. 

They said 'when the current Visa expires insurance would be required', well sort of, but no issues when one continues with the latest Permission of Stay and keeps it alive with re-entry permit(s). 

[jimn]

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

In this case it also makes them somewhat flexible... as they could easily have blocked the Op’s entry in to Thailand based on the point that he is entering on a Non-Immigration O-A Visa without proof of insurance. 

 

It looks like they were reluctant to reject the Op while at the same time unsure what to do without a set precedent. 

Sorry Richard I do not see your point here. The OP obtained his visa in Washington, D.C. in June, 2019. This is 4 months before the October 31st implementation. In this case there is absolutely no requirement to prove he has insurance. Immigration were not somwhat flexible, they were clearly wrong.

[DJ54]

Recommend get dome lottery tickets

[Thingamabob]

5 minutes ago, jimn said:

Sorry Richard I do not see your point here. The OP obtained his visa in Washington, D.C. in June, 2019. This is 4 months before the October 31st implementation. In this case there is absolutely no requirement to prove he has insurance. Immigration were not somwhat flexible, they were clearly wrong.

No, they were right. They let him enter.

[jimn]

4 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

No, they were right. They let him enter.

Yes I agree, but he should not have been stopped and questioned in the first place. 

Edited January 5, 2020 by jimn

[Peter Denis]

2 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

No, they were right. They let him enter.

They were dead-wrong.  There was absolutely no reason to harass him, as his Non Imm OA Visa was issued before Oct 31, 2019. 

And the BS that they 'would let it go this time' is pure face-saving <deleted>.

[chang1]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

They were dead-wrong.  There was absolutely no reason to harass him, as his Non Imm OA Visa was issued before Oct 31, 2019. 

And the BS that they 'would let it go this time' is pure face-saving <deleted>.

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

[Max69xl]

8 minutes ago, chang1 said:

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance even when enter the country after that date. It's not up to the immigration officer and different interpretations. This is old news and have been discussed here at TV many times. 

[Peter Denis]

3 minutes ago, chang1 said:

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

Appreciate your response, written from a Western law-abiding and consistency-of-procedures point of view, but it denies the thai reality.

Which is that there is very little consistency in how rules are interpreted and enforced between immigration border-points as well as immigration offices.

In this particular case there isn't even any rule, just a decision from the IO Big Boss to end the chaos at the Airports where people were denied entrance on their pre Oct 31 issued Visa for not having health-insurance.

So mid November after 14 days of absolute chaos, the top IO declared that health-insurance is not required when entering or re-entering Thailand on an OA Visa issued before Oct 31, and this has been followed since then with relative little bloopers.

A simple announcement, but as in the case of the OP, it seems that message hasn't yet trickled down completely to all immigration officers.

 

Also nobody will deny the fact that it is wise to be well-covered health-insurance wise, in case you are stricken by accident/illness when staying in Thailand.  But the bogus thai-approved health-insurance scam, for sure isn't the way to realize that goal. 

[Peter Denis]

5 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance even when enter the country after that date. It's not up to the immigration officer and different interpretations. This is old news and have been discussed here at TV many times. 

HI Max69xl, can you provide me with a copy or link to the amended PoliceOrder.  Thanks!

[Capt Rob]

21 minutes ago, chang1 said:

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

Here is another case history - returning via BKK to CNX 27th November with a ( predated October 31st ) OA with multiple re-entry.

Denied at BKK due no Thai medical insurance, accepted a 30 day tourist to make flight connection etc,

Three visits to CMI got the visa accredited but now require further re-entry stamps each time I leave Thailand ???

"Tried" a letter to Thai Embassy Australia asking for refund of THB 3800 re-entry - basic response ( not surprised ) we do not refund visa fees, I replied not visa but re-entry permit - no response ( and waiting . . . . . . . . . . ).

Clearly at this stage we OA's will need to swap to a 'O' visa if 'we' qualify, to squeeze past the medical insurance issue.

Edited January 5, 2020 by Capt Rob
typo

[fordguy61mi]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

They were dead-wrong.  There was absolutely no reason to harass him, as his Non Imm OA Visa was issued before Oct 31, 2019. 

And the BS that they 'would let it go this time' is pure face-saving <deleted>.

I live close to the US-Canada border and I've been stopped and my car searched for no other reason than some young kid with a new badge wanted to. Wrong or right never enters the picture. Countries do what they want at their border, and you’re at the mercy of immigration officers if you want to get in. It’s not just Thailand. It doesn’t matter how wrong it is. You can’t do anything about it.

[chang1]

45 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Appreciate your response, written from a Western law-abiding and consistency-of-procedures point of view, but it denies the thai reality.

Which is that there is very little consistency in how rules are interpreted and enforced between immigration border-points as well as immigration offices.

In this particular case there isn't even any rule, just a decision from the IO Big Boss to end the chaos at the Airports where people were denied entrance on their pre Oct 31 issued Visa for not having health-insurance.

So mid November after 14 days of absolute chaos, the top IO declared that health-insurance is not required when entering or re-entering Thailand on an OA Visa issued before Oct 31, and this has been followed since then with relative little bloopers.

A simple announcement, but as in the case of the OP, it seems that message hasn't yet trickled down completely to all immigration officers.

 

Also nobody will deny the fact that it is wise to be well-covered health-insurance wise, in case you are stricken by accident/illness when staying in Thailand.  But the bogus thai-approved health-insurance scam, for sure isn't the way to realize that goal. 

I had pointed out how fluid the rules are and are enforced. This is why I would bring information about the update and any insurance (even if not approved) to help point the IO to a decision that is in my favour and not let him drift to a decision that is not.

So the IOs were trying to enforce a rule that had been overruled. Now we enter the grey area, the OP is in, of an extended visa - was that covered in the update? 

I agree about the "scam" insurance. 

[Tchooptip]

1 hour ago, Max69xl said:

The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance even when enter the country after that date. It's not up to the immigration officer and different interpretations. This is old news and have been discussed here at TV many times. 

"The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance" 

It is not what was told to me in Samui, My OA visa is from 2013 an and I was told I will need an insurrance for my next extension in July!

[chang1]

2 minutes ago, Tchooptip said:

"The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance" 

It is not what was told to me in Samui, My OA visa is from 2013 an and I was told I will need an insurrance for my next extension in July!

Did you mention the bosses update or is it because you have already extended the visa?

[jesimps]

1 hour ago, chang1 said:

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

Even if you were fit and healthy, had enough money in the bank to cover any eventuality and didn't want to waste loads of dosh every year on buying insurance which you would probably never use and which more than likely wouldn't cover you anyway? Up to you.

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, Tchooptip said:

"The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance" 

It is not what was told to me in Samui, My OA visa is from 2013 an and I was told I will need an insurrance for my next extension in July!

Health-insurance is NOT required when entering / re-entering Thailand on an OA Visa issued before Oct 31, 2019.

Health-insurance IS required when applying for an extension of stay based on an original OA Visa (even dating from yesteryear), for reason of retirement (it is NOT required when applying for an OA extension for reason of MARRIAGE).

 

[Peter Denis]

20 minutes ago, jesimps said:

Even if you were fit and healthy, had enough money in the bank to cover any eventuality and didn't want to waste loads of dosh every year on buying insurance which you would probably never use and which more than likely wouldn't cover you anyway? Up to you.

I am fit and healthy, but I am also well covered health-insurance wise for any accident/illness eventualities that might happen while living in Thailand.

But I would NEVER subscribe to the bogus health-insurance scam that is now imposed when applying for an extension of an OA Visa for reason of retirement.  The thai-approved health-insurance policies accepted by IO, are not only exorbitantly expensive but they are basically worthless for any serious incident (coverage capped at 400K), leading to a false sense of security by those that subscribe to it.

Better to take the easy road to convert to a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, that does not require this scam insurance, and use the money saved to get decent insurance (if you are not already insured yet).

[Suradit69]

20 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

 

Just another example of one hand not knowing what other is doing. Fairyland.

Can you just imagine if some western country's government clowns appeared as confused in interpreting the effects  and implications  of  some new legislation or policy ... for as much as a few months?

 

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by Suradit69

[jimn]

3 hours ago, chang1 said:

I have not seen what the rules are so may be way off here.

IOs can use their discretion on how rules are followed so can harass anyone they want and can interpret the rules as they want but obviously cannot go too far. 

I would have thought that the date of entry trumps the date that the Visa was issued.

When the Visa was issued, does it not have some wording like "must comply with legislation on date of entry"?

As immigration rules change frequently, I am not surprised that officers follow different rules around the country and when challenged need to try and find the latest updates.

Personally if I was in the OPs position I would try to find what the  relevant rules about this are and bring a copy of them, in Thai, before risking crossing the border or trying to extend the visa. At least it would show he was trying to follow the rules.

Also I would not contemplate going to LOS without health insurance (been hospitalized twice in 20 years and known many others who have had problems) so would always be able to show something. Not so hard for me, for a few more years, as I have never stayed more than 4 months at a time. 

Good effort but as you said you could be way off and you are. The insurance only applies to Non OA visas issued, this is key, after 31st October 2019. I would have thought you would have seen the rules before commenting.

I do agree with you however about getting travel insurance, but in this case OA visa holders are being forced to take out worthless Thai insurance policies and that is what all the fuss is about in the many many threads on the issue. Have you been hibernating?

[Max69xl]

3 hours ago, chang1 said:

I had pointed out how fluid the rules are and are enforced. This is why I would bring information about the update and any insurance (even if not approved) to help point the IO to a decision that is in my favour and not let him drift to a decision that is not.

So the IOs were trying to enforce a rule that had been overruled. Now we enter the grey area, the OP is in, of an extended visa - was that covered in the update? 

I agree about the "scam" insurance. 

"Now we enter the grey area, the OP is in, of an extended visa - was that covered in the update?"

You'll need a health insurance when applying for a 1 year extension (based on an O-A Visa). That's quite clear. The amended police order in November was just about the date when the O-A Visa was issued, before or after October 31 2019. 

[jimn]

8 hours ago, Tchooptip said:

"The amended police order states that O-A visas issued before October 31 2019 doesn't need a health insurance" 

It is not what was told to me in Samui, My OA visa is from 2013 an and I was told I will need an insurrance for my next extension in July!

You are talking about extensions of stay obtained in Thailand based on an original OA VISA maybe issued years ago. We are debating here about new OA visas issued in home country before and after 31st Oc 2019. Dont confuse the two totally separate issues.

[jimn]

9 hours ago, Capt Rob said:

Here is another case history - returning via BKK to CNX 27th November with a ( predated October 31st ) OA with multiple re-entry.

Denied at BKK due no Thai medical insurance, accepted a 30 day tourist to make flight connection etc,

Three visits to CMI got the visa accredited but now require further re-entry stamps each time I leave Thailand ???

"Tried" a letter to Thai Embassy Australia asking for refund of THB 3800 re-entry - basic response ( not surprised ) we do not refund visa fees, I replied not visa but re-entry permit - no response ( and waiting . . . . . . . . . . ).

Clearly at this stage we OA's will need to swap to a 'O' visa if 'we' qualify, to squeeze past the medical insurance issue.

Well then you have been totally stiched up, unless your visa has expired and you are into the 2nd year. When was your OA visa issued? Its important to know because if your visa has now expired you would need re entry permits to keep your permission to stay valid.

[jimn]

8 hours ago, chang1 said:

I had pointed out how fluid the rules are and are enforced. This is why I would bring information about the update and any insurance (even if not approved) to help point the IO to a decision that is in my favour and not let him drift to a decision that is not.

So the IOs were trying to enforce a rule that had been overruled. Now we enter the grey area, the OP is in, of an extended visa - was that covered in the update? 

I agree about the "scam" insurance. 

The police order was not overruled, just ammended to clarify what they originally meant to implement. The IO's were wrong, full stop. Please stop trying to justify there actions.

[jimn]

9 hours ago, fordguy61mi said:

I live close to the US-Canada border and I've been stopped and my car searched for no other reason than some young kid with a new badge wanted to. Wrong or right never enters the picture. Countries do what they want at their border, and you’re at the mercy of immigration officers if you want to get in. It’s not just Thailand. It doesn’t matter how wrong it is. You can’t do anything about it.

Agreed, but a set of rules still needs to be adhered too. The officers at immigration were wrong and ill informed.