Stopped at Phuket immigration due to health insurance requirement

[richard_smith237]

13 hours ago, jimn said:

On 1/4/2020 at 7:34 PM, 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.

It seems they were unsure as to whether or not he should have had ‘insurance’ when entering on an O-A visa. 

The Ops Visa predated the regulation. One officer was unsure, questioned the Op, the issue was pushed up the chain. The decision was made by more senior Immigration officers that as the his visa predated the change in regulations the Op was permitted entrance without the requirement for insurance. 

 

I don’t see what was wrong here other than a misunderstanding from the initial Immigration officer raising the question. 

 

In the past I have experienced a junior officer not fully understanding the rules: 

I wanted to enter on my Elite Visa as my Extensions of Stay based on WP was expiring the following day - the Junior Immigration Officer was insistent that he stamped me in for one day. I asked for a senior officer who corrected the mistake. 

 

These junior immigration officers are inexperienced and don’t always know the regulations. In this case it was sorted out fairly by a senior officer which shows flexibility and awareness of the initial mistake / misunderstanding. 

[Peter Denis]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

...

I don’t see what was wrong here other than a misunderstanding from the initial Immigration officer raising the question. 
...

These junior immigration officers are inexperienced and don’t always know the regulations. In this case it was sorted out fairly by a senior officer which shows flexibility and awareness of the initial mistake / misunderstanding. 

OP wrote > 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. 

= = =

If IO would have apologized for their 'misunderstanding', then I would agree there was little wrong, and just a mistake by a not well-informed immigration officer, and luckily caught in time.

But in this case, they told OP 'they would let it go this time' as if they were doing him a favor!

Everybody makes mistakes, no big deal when corrected, but then selling BS to save face is absolutely wrong.

Note: And I wonder how many Newbies (or even long-term stayers) - that are not fully familiar with OP rules - are subject to these 'misunderstandings', and suffer the consequences.

 

[jimn]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

If IO would have apologized for their 'misunderstanding', then I would agree there was little wrong, and just a mistake by a not well-informed immigration officer, and luckily caught in time.

But in this case, they told OP 'they would let it go this time' as if they were doing him a favor!

Everybody makes mistakes, no big deal when corrected, but then selling BS to save face is absolutely wrong.

Note: And I wonder how many Newbies (or even long-term stayers) - that are not fully familiar with OP rules - are subject to these 'misunderstandings', and suffer the consequences.

Exactly right Peter. That was the point I was trying to make with @richard_smith237

[Just Weird]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:39 PM, 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.

They weren't wrong, at all.  After consultation, they stamped him in without insurance explaining that it was not necessary because his visa was obtained before the regulation was in effect but it would be required with a new visa. 

[Tchooptip]

22 hours ago, chang1 said:

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

My next extension will be the last day of next July.

[Just Weird]

On 1/5/2020 at 1:49 PM, Peter Denis said:

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

Those were the OP's words, that doesn't sound like the sort of English expression an IO at the Cambodian border would use.

[Just Weird]

21 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

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

Health insurance is not required for retirement extensions.

[Just Weird]

12 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

It seems they were unsure as to whether or not he should have had ‘insurance’ when entering on an O-A visa. 

The Ops Visa predated the regulation. One officer was unsure, questioned the Op, the issue was pushed up the chain. The decision was made by more senior Immigration officers that as the his visa predated the change in regulations the Op was permitted entrance without the requirement for insurance. 

 

I don’t see what was wrong here other than a misunderstanding from the initial Immigration officer raising the question. 

 

In the past I have experienced a junior officer not fully understanding the rules: 

I wanted to enter on my Elite Visa as my Extensions of Stay based on WP was expiring the following day - the Junior Immigration Officer was insistent that he stamped me in for one day. I asked for a senior officer who corrected the mistake. 

 

These junior immigration officers are inexperienced and don’t always know the regulations. In this case it was sorted out fairly by a senior officer which shows flexibility and awareness of the initial mistake / misunderstanding. 

So much sense in one post, as usual, but still some posters refuse to acknowledge what actually happened to the OP in their desire to have a bash.

[Peter Denis]

57 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Health insurance is not required for retirement extensions.

 I have to admit that your username is very accurate to describe the incorrect statements you are making. ????

[Just Weird]

36 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

 I have to admit that your username is very accurate to describe the incorrect statements you are making. ????

If you say so.

 

If you could point out the "incorrect statement" I will apologise if I've misinformed anyone but bear in mind that I renewed my retirement extension very recently.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Just Weird

[Andrew Dwyer]

19 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

If you say so.

 

If you could point out the "incorrect statement" I will apologise if I've misinformed anyone but bear in mind that I renewed my retirement extension very recently.

Are you saying that you extended your permission to stay based on retirement ( originating from an OA visa ) and were not required to produce evidence of the mandatory health insurance ?

 

If so, that is great news for many ( including myself) .

Could I ask which IO this was please ?

[DrJack54]

1 hour ago, Just Weird said:

If you say so.

 

If you could point out the "incorrect statement" I will apologise if I've misinformed anyone but bear in mind that I renewed my retirement extension very recently.

Could start with post #37. Note you quoting a member clearly stating extensions (based on retirement) to non O-A. 

You only asked for 1. Across threads I suggest many.

Edited January 6, 2020 by DrJack54

[Peter Denis]

23 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

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).

>> Both statements have been confirmed in hundreds of posts on the Forum.

 

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Health insurance is not required for retirement extensions.

47 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

...

If you could point out the "incorrect statement" I will apologise if I've misinformed anyone but bear in mind that I renewed my retirement extension very recently.

>> Would be GRAND News if indeed you were not required to meet the health-insurance requirement when applying for an extension of stay based on an original OA Visa for reason of retirement.

And if so, which IO?

But most probably, you extended either

- from a Non Imm O - retirement Visa, or

- from a Non Imm OA Visa for reason of marriage.

In those cases it is NOT required to meet the thai-approved health-insurance requirement.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 1/5/2020 at 5:14 PM, 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!

 

There's an apparent difference between two different situations:

 

1. Someone now trying to enter Thailand on an O-A visa issued BEFORE the insurance requirement took effect, but still using that visa as the basis for their entry.  This group, Immigration supposedly is not enforcing the insurance rule against, though actual implementation has varied. (But of course they would be enforcing it against O-A visas issued AFTER the insurance req. took effect).

 

2. Someone with an already expired O-A visa issued prior to the insurance requirement who subsequently has been obtaining annual Retirement extensions of stay from Thai Immigration based on that past O-A. This group, AFAIK, most Immigration offices DO seem to be enforcing the insurance rule against, in part, because it was specifically amended into the provisions for retirement extensions -- but not into the rules for O-A based marriage extensions.

 

Edited January 6, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[gk10002000]

So is their any national guidance or clarification in writing that says future or upcoming OA visa retirement EXTENSIONS will require Thai insurance?  Not talking about what some local immigration offices have apparently at times requiring.

Edited January 6, 2020 by gk10002000

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

So is their any national guidance or clarification in writing that says future or upcoming OA visa retirement EXTENSIONS will require Thai insurance?  Not talking about what some local immigration offices have apparently at times requiring.

 

[richard_smith237]

11 hours ago, jimn said:

13 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

If IO would have apologized for their 'misunderstanding', then I would agree there was little wrong, and just a mistake by a not well-informed immigration officer, and luckily caught in time.

But in this case, they told OP 'they would let it go this time' as if they were doing him a favor!

Everybody makes mistakes, no big deal when corrected, but then selling BS to save face is absolutely wrong.

Note: And I wonder how many Newbies (or even long-term stayers) - that are not fully familiar with OP rules - are subject to these 'misunderstandings', and suffer the consequences.

Exactly right Peter. That was the point I was trying to make with @richard_smith237

 

Ok, I get that...  But are we really going to expect anyone in Thailand in such a position to even ‘admit a mistake’ let alone ‘apologize for a mistake’ ???

 

So... is this thread about immigration making a mistaken then correcting it, or about immigration not being able to make an apology and some posters not having sufficiently thick skin and getting a little upset that there was no attempt to make and apology?

 

Face saving is a national past time, but in the same situation would our own Immigration Officers (in our own countries) apologize?

 

While there are many opportunities to criticize how we are received in Thailand, I don’t think this is one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Ok, I get that...  But are we really going to expect anyone in Thailand in such a position to even ‘admit a mistake’ let alone ‘apologize for a mistake’ ???

 

So... is this thread about immigration making a mistaken then correcting it, or about immigration not being able to make an apology and some posters not having sufficiently thick skin and getting a little upset that there was no attempt to make and apology?

 

Face saving is a national past time, but in the same situation would our own Immigration Officers (in our own countries) apologize?

 

While there are many opportunities to criticize how we are received in Thailand, I don’t think this is one of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well that's very nobel of you. Fact is this thread along with many currently is about compulsory health insurance and in particular needing to be be from Thai companies. Yes it can be isolated to this particular individual experience. Look at bigger picture. I personally have extensions based on non o.

Easy to be relaxed about it when does not effect you.

However this is major issue for many.

It goes beyond this or that io making a mistake.

[Peter Denis]

9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

....

Face saving is a national past time, but in the same situation would our own Immigration Officers (in our own countries) apologize?

While there are many opportunities to criticize how we are received in Thailand, I don’t think this is one of them.

Let's agree that we don't agree.

And I don't think the OP was particularly thrilled with how IO handled this.

Quote > I was so glad to get out of there I didn't want to ask any more questions.

[oldcpu]

@ user westsail, thankyou for sharing your experience wrt Phuket immigration.

 

I live in Phuket and I found it of interest as your Type-OA Visa issue timing is similar to mine.  Mine was issued in Frankfurt Germany on 28-March-2019, and I entered Phuket Thailand in May-2019.   I plan to leave Thailand mid-Feb-2020, and return direct to Phuket (airport Immigration) on 1-March-2020.  Hopefully I will not have to prove Health Insurance then, and hopefully be given then a permission to stay stamped until late-Februray-2021.  

 

But it does read to me, based on your post, that dependent on the IO on duty, there could be confusion/complication on the IO's side wrt their interpretation of the immigration laws.  While I do have excellent health insurance, its not on the Thai immigration approved list of Insurance companies.

 

Further in my specific case, during the first 2 weeks of March-2020 in Phuket (assuming I entered on 1-March-2020 with no issues), I plan to apply for a re-entry on my permission to stay from my Type-OA visa (which will hopefully have been stamped with a permission to stay to late-February-2021).  Then in mid-March-2020 (before my Type-OA visa expires) I plan to leave Thailand and return to Thailand in mid-April-2020 based on the re-entry permit on my permission to stay until late February-2021.

 

Again, I hope no need to prove Health Insurance to Phuket Immigration IO when I enter in April-2020, but I suspect there could be confusion with the Phuket IO.  

 

I will be with my Thai wife, and do plan to bring proof of my existing health insurance (which is not on the Thai list), and have proof of our marriage, but none of that is part of the criteria for entering Thailand.  However if an IO is confused wrt requirements, then maybe having extra support/proof can help clarify.

 

I hope to read of other's experiences in this regard.

Edited January 7, 2020 by oldcpu