Non-OA health insurance Chaeng Wattan madness

[TerraplaneGuy]

2 hours ago, EricTh said:

 

...

 

Is it possible for the insurance company to add a few days backwards ? or must the insurance policy be exactly one year, no less and no more?

 

I doubt they can do that, but I'm going to ask Aetna if they can do  something similar (and along the lines of TallGuyJohninBK's thought):  increase the OPD coverage on the remainder of my existing policy so I can show Immigration that I'm already covered at the required level.  Since it's only 20 days (and only upping coverage from 35K to 40K) they shouldn't charge much for that.

Edited January 22, 2020 by TerraplaneGuy

[Caldera]

This is really as dumb as it gets. Not only didn't they grandfather in people who applied for a Non-OA years ago, now based on this report and a previous one they also effectively expect them to have insurance for the remainder of an extension that was already granted and is about to expire. The mind boggles.

 

Personally, I think changing to a Non-O visa - while tempting - will lead to a very short-lived victory for those who do it. Now that Thai immigration and insurance companies have created that nice little earner, does anyone really believe that they won't maximize the number of "customers" (victims) in the very near future? I bet it's just around the corner.

[TerraplaneGuy]

7 minutes ago, Caldera said:

...

 

Personally, I think changing to a Non-O visa - while tempting - will lead to a very short-lived victory for those who do it. Now that Thai immigration and insurance companies have created that nice little earner, does anyone really believe that they won't maximize the number of "customers" (victims) in the very near future? I bet it's just around the corner.

That's my concern and why I've held off on changing.  

[TerraplaneGuy]

9 minutes ago, Caldera said:

This is really as dumb as it gets. Not only didn't they grandfather in people who applied for a Non-OA years ago, now based on this report and a previous one they also effectively expect them to have insurance for the remainder of an extension that was already granted and is about to expire. The mind boggles.

 

.

What is particularly irrational is that they seem to think you need to have the insurance for the stub period (because without it you cannot apply for an extension) and yet they don't in any other sense require you to have that insurance; i. e. nobody says "you better get insured immediately, regardless of this extension stuff, because you have to have it now."  The reason, I suppose, is that even these dimwits know it's not a legal requirement if you're holding an existing extension/visa that was granted before the new regulation took effect.  So they were quite happy to watch me walk out, having rejected my application, knowing I did not have the insurance coverage.  Yet somehow they have no trouble imposing this fictional "requirement", applicable right now, when you ask them for an extension. 

[OJAS]

1 hour ago, Caldera said:

Personally, I think changing to a Non-O visa - while tempting - will lead to a very short-lived victory for those who do it. Now that Thai immigration and insurance companies have created that nice little earner, does anyone really believe that they won't maximize the number of "customers" (victims) in the very near future? I bet it's just around the corner.

But, playing devil's advocate (like I have done on another thread recently), why should the Immigration Bureau stop at extending the health insurance requirement to retirees with original non-O visas? Why not, for good measure, extend the insurance requirement to ALL non-immigrants aged 50+ regardless of their original visa type and current extension of stay reason (by including e.g. marriage) as well?

 

The good news, though, is that this would all necessitate a major rewrite of the existing Police Orders. But the bad news is that there may be some oik in the Immigration Bureau who is currently tackling this task with zeal and gusto as we speak (even at this late hour in LOS)!

[gk10002000]

8 hours ago, OJAS said:

But, playing devil's advocate (like I have done on another thread recently), why should the Immigration Bureau stop at extending the health insurance requirement to retirees with original non-O visas? Why not, for good measure, extend the insurance requirement to ALL non-immigrants aged 50+ regardless of their original visa type and current extension of stay reason (by including e.g. marriage) as well?

 

The good news, though, is that this would all necessitate a major rewrite of the existing Police Orders. But the bad news is that there may be some oik in the Immigration Bureau who is currently tackling this task with zeal and gusto as we speak (even at this late hour in LOS)!

I believe the original order used words like "... all long stay expats..".   So I believe as you suggested that at some point, insurance will be mandated for all long stay expats, which will cover several types of visas and extension reasons, marriage, retirement, dependent, etc.  Retiree probably the first target just due to the age, but why they targeted OA and not others stands out as very strange.  What is so special about starting off with an OA from one's home country?  Maybe as some have suggested this is just an experiment, fact finding, see how the IOs like or handle it, see how the expats deal with it, see how the insurance companies handle it,  etc.  Get feedback and sadly still draw irrational conclusions.

[Mike Teavee]

17 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

So I'm trying to understand the practical impact of this... for folks with O-A visa extensions of stay requiring insurance (and they DO require insurance, BTW...)

 

AFAIK, I've heard that some of the Thai insurers are willing to write policies for that month or weeks stub period, at a prorated premium amount, and then have the full year follow-on policy that matches one's extension period...

 

And if someone was able to do that with their Thai insurer on the front end for the first time, then I think they'd be OK for future cycles, as their annual insurance period would match their annual extension period... and they could apply to Immigration early because they'd already have valid insurance in force each successive year.

 

If it were me, I would either go down the Non-O route (no guarantees insurance won't become a requirement in the future) OR apply for a 1 month pro-rated insurance policy to take me to my extension date, that way I could then get into yearly cycles of renewing the insurance & extension 30 days early whilst still getting the full 12 months as previously. 

 

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Mike Teavee

[mokwit]

44 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

"... all long stay expats..".   So I believe as you suggested that at some point, insurance will be mandated for all long stay expats, which will cover several types of visas and extension reasons, marriage, retirement, dependent, etc.  Retiree probably the first target just due to the age, but why they targeted OA and not others stands out as very strange. 

Some merit to the idea that it was because OA holders not mandated to have funds in Thailand - Imm has never stated that the need for a by coincidence 400k year round with O/800k but it could be why not applied to 'O'. Alternatively, it could be that Imm saw that applying this to OA was the quickest and easiest way to be seen to be complying with Cabinet directive without huge increase in workload/pushback from more foreigners. If so they may do nothing if the Cabinet says nothing further on this or it could still be that O is next.

[Momofarang]

12 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

I don't wish to keep sticking nose in but I have one question. 

Cannot folk that originally entered Thailand on a Non O-A see the writing on the wall. It's obvious. O-A is history. 

Many folk here eg USA and other countries you can obtain good health cover. 

Why subject yourself to this Thai useless health insurance. Change to Non O based on retirement or whatever. Simple. F em

And what makes you so sure that Non O for retirement, and possibly marriage, will never be affected by this health insurance nonsense? Those people on Non OA who are getting insurance now might end up being the wise ones. Remember we aren't getting any younger, the insurance you get today might become impossible to get in a few years time.

[4MyEgo]

14 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

I wondered the same since it's hard to see why they would be so worried that the first minute is not covered, if they apparently don't care about the last.  I thought of raising it with the Supervisor but given the way she kept arguing in circles and ignoring the plain logic of my position made me conclude it would be a waste of time.  So to answer your question, no there are none.

Can you fill in the blanks please; didn't want to lose f--e

[stouricks]

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 The curious part is, the TM7 form doesn't have the year term prepopulated. It asks the applicant to fill in the requested term. Obviously, everyone always writes one year or 365 days, I'd assume. I've never thought of a situation where you might want to write 360 days or such.... until now.

 

This year it is 366 days.

[rwill]

Perhaps a solution to this is to get your insurance company to change the dates of the policy to the date you will go back in to apply for the extension.  You will then be covered from that day on.  But they will not give you a full years extension and only allow it to the end of policy date.  So your extension date will change for future years.  From that point on it should be no problem as both dates will be the same.

 

(I just extended in Ratchaburi yesterday.  I had my insurance date the same as the extension date.  Worked fine there.)

Edited January 23, 2020 by rwill

[pookondee]

11 hours ago, Caldera said:

This is really as dumb as it gets. Not only didn't they grandfather in people who applied for a Non-OA years ago, now based on this report and a previous one they also effectively expect them to have insurance for the remainder of an extension that was already granted and is about to expire. The mind boggles.

 

Personally, I think changing to a Non-O visa - while tempting - will lead to a very short-lived victory for those who do it. Now that Thai immigration and insurance companies have created that nice little earner, does anyone really believe that they won't maximize the number of "customers" (victims) in the very near future? I bet it's just around the corner.

I agree there would be a slight possibility of that,

 IF there was a large increase in people applying for the visa and getting the insurance.

 

But I would guess the numbers are actually plummetting and they will see the insurance thing is scaring people away in droves.

[Thaidream]

The absurdity of this is beyond comprehension. First of all the OP is on a valid extension and did not need insurance for the current extension stamped in his passport.  He is merely applying early for his NEXT extension and clearly meets the requirements.

 

IMO this is a complete lack of understanding the police order by the Immigration Department.  I hope the OP writes a letter to his Embassy outlining the absurdity of this situation with an Info copy to  the Head of Immigration at Soi Suan Plu as well as the  Ministry of  Health.

 

While I do think their overeall plan is to stop issuing any O Visas for retirement or conversions of O for retirement purposes and force  anyone who wants to continue on retirement to get an O-A their actions will end Thailand as a retirement spot.  Any thinking person will never fall for the  scam of having to buy a worthless policy at inflated prices to retire in Thiland.

 

The only way to stop this nonsense is to be proactive and write to our Embassies in the hopes they can push the Thai Government to at least  rethink any further discrimination against foreigners.

 

IMO- the change in the law/policy is illegal and a violation of the Thai Constitution by making  a law expost facto - applying it to anyone currently on an O-A date prior to 31 October 2019.  The law change/policy never existed  prior to 31 October 2019 and should not be applicable.

[TerraplaneGuy]

54 minutes ago, rwill said:

...

 

(I just extended in Ratchaburi yesterday.  I had my insurance date the same as the extension date.  Worked fine there.)

Did you go in on the extension date or in advance?  And if in advance, did you already have insurance at the required levels?  

[mokwit]

They seem to be interpreting things to force people off visas - this, and

did I understand correctly that some offices are requiring proof of 65k every month from overseas from months that predate the announcement of policy change date.

Edited January 23, 2020 by mokwit

[TerraplaneGuy]

16 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The absurdity of this is beyond comprehension. First of all the OP is on a valid extension and did not need insurance for the current extension stamped in his passport.  He is merely applying early for his NEXT extension and clearly meets the requirements.

 

IMO this is a complete lack of understanding the police order by the Immigration Department.  I hope the OP writes a letter to his Embassy outlining the absurdity of this situation with an Info copy to  the Head of Immigration at Soi Suan Plu as well as the  Ministry of  Health.

 

While I do think their overeall plan is to stop issuing any O Visas for retirement or conversions of O for retirement purposes and force  anyone who wants to continue on retirement to get an O-A their actions will end Thailand as a retirement spot.  Any thinking person will never fall for the  scam of having to buy a worthless policy at inflated prices to retire in Thiland.

 

The only way to stop this nonsense is to be proactive and write to our Embassies in the hopes they can push the Thai Government to at least  rethink any further discrimination against foreigners.

 

IMO- the change in the law/policy is illegal and a violation of the Thai Constitution by making  a law expost facto - applying it to anyone currently on an O-A date prior to 31 October 2019.  The law change/policy never existed  prior to 31 October 2019 and should not be applicable.

I agree totally and might write a letter once the dust settles.  Apparently the Immigration people do not feel confined to the letter of the law (and even the letter of the law, they misread).  When I kept pointing to the English translation of the regulation, which THEY handed to me, to show them that the requirement was for the upcoming extension not the present, they would barely look at it.  They would just recite their fictional requirements.  When I asked "where did you get that from?" they said they had had "big meetings" with various government departments.  In other words, they seem comfortable imposing requirements cooked up in meetings that simply aren't in the law.  This is the familiar problem in Thailand, weak rule of law.   What they are doing here is even worse than making a law apply ex post facto (which of course is wrong), because their improvised requirements are not even law.  Presumably the Police Orders are law because the police are authorized by legislation to proclaim them.  But additional "rules" devised in smoke-filled rooms, unpublished and with no formal authorization, are not law.  

Edited January 23, 2020 by TerraplaneGuy

[Pib]

20 hours ago, OJAS said:

Not terrified but more likely a bunch of sadists, I strongly suspect, who have derived (and are no doubt continuing to derive for the rest of the day at least) considerable psychopathic satisfaction from hassling you with their inexcusably heinous actions.

 

If your appalling experience does not represent a strong case for Chaengwattana to be added to the forever-lengthening list of rogue offices when it comes to retirement extensions, then I don't know what does.

 

@Pib and @TallGuyJohninBKK - this thread will probably be of considerable interest to you both (as well as to many others).

For me, I'm currently on an O-A retirement extension of stay good to later this year.  Come extension time I'm either going to switch to a "marriage" extension of stay since I have one each Thai wife for many decades....and I confirmed face-to-face with a CW immigration officer a few weeks ago insurance would not be required with a OA marriage extension of stay....OR, I'm just going to dump the OA by doing a border run without reentry permit to kill-off the OA and then do an Exempt to Non-O conversion at CW.  I may even decide to do a several day trip to Savannakhet to get a Non-O outright.   

 

While just switching from a retirement to marriage extension of stay on my current OA would be the easiest, however, more-and-more each day I'm leaning towards just dumping the Non-OA and switching to a Non O which will then also give me the flexibility of a retirement or marriage extension of stay with no insurance---or at least until Thai immigration possibly moves the goal posts again.

 

[roath]

16 hours ago, BritTim said:

Is there a chance that immigration would then object that you do not have a policy for the whole period of your extension (you would not be covered from (09:00-23:59 on the last day)? If they want to be stupid, are there any limits?

Just looking at my car policies and they both start at 1630pm so seems to be a common start time for Thai policies. In the UK, typically, the policy would start at 0000am so no confusion as to dates etc. 

[Sumarianson]

What a runaround. I feel so sorry for you. They do not apply logic in Thailand. "Jobs worth hat" due.

[fulhamster]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

The only way to stop this nonsense is to be proactive and write to our Embassies in the hopes they can push the Thai Government to at least  rethink any further discrimination against foreigners.

 

Waste of time with the British Embassy

[oldcpu]

51 minutes ago, Pib said:

For me, I'm currently on an O-A retirement extension of stay good to later this year.  Come extension time I'm either going to switch to a "marriage" extension of stay since I have one each Thai wife for many decades....and I confirmed face-to-face with a CW immigration officer a few weeks ago insurance would not be required with a OA marriage extension of stay....OR, I'm just going to dump the OA by doing a border run without reentry permit to kill-off the OA and then do an Exempt to Non-O conversion at CW.  ...

 

I am in similar situation with a Type-OA visa and a Thai wife, albeit not yet on my 1st extension.  My current OA is still valid until end-next month.  I have some trips in/out of the country planned/upcoming during the 1st year of my 'permission to stay' on my Type-OA and if necessary I could use one of those to cancel my 'permission to stay' and then attempt a re-entry to Thailand on a 30-day-Visa exempt, followed by a Type-O visa application, followed by a one-year extension justified by marriage on the Type-O visa.   I hope it does not come to that - and I plan to see how long I can keep my Type-OA visa for (with future extensions based on marriage).

 

I read that the Thailand Health Insurance implementation affecting the "Type-OA" visa applicants/holders/extensions, was to be a trial, and I'm hoping in the future (as part of the "trial" assessment) that the Health Insurance verification criteria is improved, to assist both Thailand and those who already have excellent health insurance and those with adequate funds for self insurance.  I believe there are excellent ways to do such that are not difficult and would benefit Thailand , but who knows?  ... I guess time will tell.

[Thaidream]

1 hour ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

I agree totally and might write a letter once the dust settles.  Apparently the Immigration people do not feel confined to the letter of the law (and even the letter of the law, they misread).  When I kept pointing to the English translation of the regulation, which THEY handed to me, to show them that the requirement was for the upcoming extension not the present, they would barely look at it.  They would just recite their fictional requirements.  When I asked "where did you get that from?" they said they had had "big meetings" with various government departments.  In other words, they seem comfortable imposing requirements cooked up in meetings that simply aren't in the law.  This is the familiar problem in Thailand, weak rule of law.   What they are doing here is even worse than making a law apply ex post facto (which of course is wrong), because their improvised requirements are not even law.  Presumably the Police Orders are law because the police are authorized by legislation to proclaim them.  But additional "rules" devised in smoke-filled rooms, unpublished and with no formal authorization, are not law.  

Completely agree with your sentiments.  I know what a hassle this muat be and no need for it at all.

 

The reason i urge anyone who has problems of this nature or even those who are affected by laws that are not explicit; applied retroactively and generally unfair and unequal to write to our respective embassies; the Head of the Immigration Bureau and the Minister of Public Health is that they are the basic forms of contact that we as longsyers have.

 

If no one ever conveys the sbsurdity of these situations or the basic unfairness of a law that is applied retroactively- the powers in charge will assume they can carry on as normal and evereyone is happy.  They will then move on to attempt to apply this insurance debacle across the board.

 

I have already written the US Embassy twice on this  very subject and they keep stating they are in touch with the Thai Government and have sent a diplomatic note. At least that lets the Thai Government know  that there is diplomatic interest in what is happening.

 

My best to you- let us know how it turns out.

 

[Caine]

Though titty, wise up they don't want you obviously another mug who's burnt his bridges. This the tip of the iceberg thousands to follow.

[jacko45k]

So if extending on an O-A at CW you have to renew on the same day the previous extension ends... or accept an extension of less than a year to match your insurance.? This is madness. 

It really means people have to dump the O-A permission and extension and get a regular O. 

[tomacht8]

Not everyone will have the nerve to keep walking through this ill-considered, narrow-minded, bureaucratic visa jungle. Thailand will get the receipt slow but steady in the form of fewer permanent and repeat visitors. 

This group of visitors in particular spreads their money widely among the Thai population, in contrast to the all prepaid china bus tourists.

Edited January 23, 2020 by tomacht8

[mokwit]

They have yet to make the connection between number of 6 month plus property rentals and difficulty in staying 6 months plus, due to visa policy. People coming here to stay a few months or years were providing buoyancy to the rental market which is now gone.

[jacko45k]

9 minutes ago, mokwit said:

They have yet to make the connection between number of 6 month plus property rentals and difficulty in staying 6 months plus, due to visa policy. People coming here to stay a few months or years were providing buoyancy to the rental market which is now gone.

Seems that they can mover over to AirBnB.

[Martyp]

The OP’s situation is all a little confusing but in my situation my extension expires November 19th. My new Pacific Cross policy goes from January 1, 2020 to January 1, 2021. I have an insurance certificate. If I renew my policy again for January 2021-2022 and get my insurance certificate before I apply for my extension on November 19 (or before) then I will have two insurance certificates covering this year and the next year. I should be OK, right? If so then this may be the timing to make this work.

 

This obviously doesn’t help the OP who doesn’t have a valid certificate now and has already purchased next years insurance.  It may also be difficult for people traveling and living here part time.  However, if you are planning to purchase now it may be a strategy to discuss with your insurance agent. It wasn’t a strategy on my part. The timing just worked out that way. My problem may be trying to renew my insurance 3 months early. 

[Mike Teavee]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

So if extending on an O-A at CW you have to renew on the same day the previous extension ends... or accept an extension of less than a year to match your insurance.? This is madness. 

It really means people have to dump the O-A permission and extension and get a regular O. 

At worse only for the 1st year as in subsequent years you would renew your insurance 30 days before it expires & then do your extension, that way you will have a policy covering the 30 days & a new policy for the next year. 

 

E.g. If I had insurance running 1st Jan to 31 Dec 2020 & renewed my extension today, I could extend up to 31 Dec 2020 then on 1st Dec renew my insurance to 31 Dec 2021, when doing the next extension I would show insurance (current policy) to 31st Dec 2020 & another Policy showing insurance from 1st Jan to 31st Dec 2021.

 

Not ideal, but that's how things are.... at the moment ???? 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Mike Teavee