Integrity Legal: Cases of Non-O extensions requiring health insurance

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If there is one thing I have learned about businesses in my 50 years of working for them and associating with them, it is that the ones who are honest, above board and don't bend data and information to suit their book are as rare as unicorns.

Not just in Thailand.

Back in the Uk I was once taken to court by "The Law Society" ..... and they lost.

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

I'm not relying on reports that extensions were rejected because of lack of insurance.

I imagine these blokes have more pressing matters than reporting their woe to Thai Visa -- like, out looking for a wife -- or maybe a lawyer.

 

I've never heard of this lawyer before, so not sure what his business model is.... probably solving run-of-the-mill visa problems. As for class action size events, like this insurance mess, I'm sure he doesn't have any horsepower here. So why a denied Non Imm O person would seek his help seems like a non starter to me. Same logic for not soliciting such persons. If, indeed, he is -- I'll revert to my customary disdain for lawyers.

 

Meanwhile, it doesn't hurt to listen to his speeches and evaluate his logic. And that he's looking at the Tricare issue can't hurt, tho' not sure where he realizes any profit from this.... not really a pro bono situation.

 

Sorry his doom and gloom about all retirees eventually being hit up for insurance doesn't provide warm fuzzies. But, maybe it's time for all to consider alternatives, if you haven't already.

 

 

 

[JustAnotherHun]

I'm very sure that sooner or later the requirements for O will be the same as O-A and that a health insurance will be required.

Hopefully the Immigration will accept foreing contracts which are far more worth than the now accepted c.rap. But as far as I know Thai buerocracy I doubt it.

Hard times to some of us.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by JustAnotherHun

[JimGant]

30 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Sounds like nonsense to me.

O-A VISA entry is for 1 year

Non Imm O entry is for 90 days

Completely different VISAs

By golly you're right. But subsequent one year retirement extensions emanating from both types of visas, now expired, are identical. How about dem apples?

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, JustAnotherHun said:

I'm very sure that sooner or later the requirements for O will be the same as O-A and that a health insurance will be required.

Hopefully the Immigration will accept foreing contracts which are far more worth than the now accepted c.rap. But as far as I know Thai buerocracy I doubt it.

Hard times to some of us.

 

I hope you're wrong but I fear you're right!

Also considering it's now clear that Vietnam is off the realistic list of Plan B countries for retired expats here. 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, JimGant said:

By golly you're right. But subsequent one year retirement extensions emanating from both types of visas, now expired, are identical. How about dem apples?

Exactomundo. 

[JimGant]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Also considering it's now clear that Vietnam is off the realistic list of Plan B countries for retired expats here.

Why is that -- I must of missed something?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I don't get the part of the lawyer's comments where he seems to be saying the type of visa/extension the health insurance mandate is supposed to apply to is unclear in terms of O vs O-A... The Immigration police order on that subject regarding retirement extensions seems pretty clear to just apply to O-A.

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Exactomundo. 

I don't know, I never do extensions as I can't tolerate Chiang Mai Immigration.

I guess if you live in a different immigration region the process might be more palatable to you.

 

But,

I just get new VISAs outside of Thailand (OK, so I have to leave every 90 days).

No inches of paperwork, no financials, no queues, no TM30s, no 90 day reporting, no surly Thai immigration officials.

Edited January 26, 2020 by BritManToo

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Why is that -- I must of missed something?

30 day visa runs for everyone on tourist visas. There never has been a retirement visa there. Most so called retirees there are on tourist visas or fake business visas. No long term retiree is going to accept 30 day visa runs for the rest of their life and those on business visas based on deception have no long term security.

[BritManToo]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

30 day visa runs for everyone on tourist visas. There never has been a retirement visa there. Most so called retirees there are on tourist visas or fake business visas. No long term retiree is going to accept 30 day visa runs for the rest of their life and those on business visas based on deception have no long term security.

If I were to live there, I'd open a little bar or guesthouse and get a legit business VISA.

Nothing expensive or requiring a large startup, just hoping to break even, may be even get free accommodation out of it.

It's really easy to start a business in Vietnam.

 

Or marry a local girl, then it's a 5 year VISA for $50.

 

or you can teach English, very easy to get a work VISA, met plenty of guys who teach English for a few hours a week.

Edited January 26, 2020 by BritManToo

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

If I were to live there, I'd open a little bar or guesthouse and get a legit business VISA.

Nothing expensive or requiring a large startup, just hoping to break even, may be even get free accommodation out of it.

It's really easy to start a business in Vietnam.

 

Or marry a local girl, then it's a 5 year VISA for $50.

I don't know about how easy it is to do business there but yes there are options like that. However I think most people formally retiring don't want to start any kind of local business. I and a lot of other people have been looking at Vietnam as a potential "easy" Plan B retirement option to Thailand. It has never really been that and now even less so. Oh well! (Cambodia still is but it's Cambodia.)

[BritManToo]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

I don't know about how easy it is to do business there but yes there are options like that. However I think most people formally retiring don't want to start any kind of local business. I and a lot of other people have been looking at Vietnam as a potential "easy" Plan B retirement option to Thailand. It has never really been that and now even less so. Oh well! (Cambodia still is but it's Cambodia.)

I'd be OK marrying a local.

There's almost as many single mom's in Vietnam as there are in Thailand.

Edited January 26, 2020 by BritManToo

[Jingthing]

Just now, BritManToo said:

I'd be OK marrying a local.

Don't rub it in. 

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The Immigration police order on that subject regarding retirement extensions seems pretty clear to just apply to O-A.

As the lawyer points out, and as I've discussed in post #15, the term "Non Imm O-A" has become a catch all term for one-year permissions of stay based on retirement, i.e., you have to be over age 50, have the necessary financials, a can't work (i.e., be 'retired'). Sadly, however, catch all terms aren't very helpful when writing a law that demands specifics. I just wonder if things are clearer with this law written in Thai...... probably not.

 

However, it does seem that one year permissions of stay based on marriage, and thus the insurance requirement, are NOT covered by the catch all phrase "Non Imm O-A" visas, which clearly are specific to retirement situations.

Edited January 26, 2020 by JimGant

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, JimGant said:

As the lawyer points out, and as I've discussed in post #15, the term "Non Imm O-A" has become a catch all term for one-year permissions of stay based on retirement, i.e., you have to be over age 50, have the necessary financials, a can't work (i.e., be 'retired'). Sadly, however, catch all terms aren't very helpful when writing a law that demands specifics. I just wonder if things are clearer with this law written in Thai...... probably not.

 

However, it does seem that one year permissions of stay based on marriage, and thus the insurance requirement, are NOT covered by the catch all phrase "Non Imm O-A" visas, which clearly are specific to retirement situations.

That post surely isn't just down to Leo.

Must be something else with that level of confusion.

[Maestro]

53 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

That post surely isn't just down to Leo.

Must be something else with that level of confusion.

 

Confusions arise because quite often one person uses a specific term to mean one thing, another person uses the same term to mean another thing, and occasionally a third person uses the same term to mean a third thing. The term "O-A visa", and variants of it, is a good example as it he has been used to mean

1. non-immigrant visa category O-A, ie issued by a Thai embassy or consulate; or
2. permission to stay received from an immigration official upon entry into Thailand with a non-immigrant visa category O-A; or
3. one-year extension of stay based upon original entry with a non-immigrant visa category O-A

Another interesting variation is the person who, then unmarried, originally entered with a non-immigrant visa category O-A, got repeated extensions of stay for the reason of retirement (retirement extensions), later married a Thai national but continued with retirement extensions and now erroneously believes that he has what he and some others on this forum call a non-O visa or a non-O extension.

[jacko45k]

18 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

Issue is that he says he has personally dealt with people who were initially on Non O (not non O-A) who were seeking extensions and that these individuals were required to have health insurance. We have not read anything yet on TV about this. In fact, many have posted that this was not required when they renewed recently. 
Who would you believe?

I can see this happening.... surely one would not visit a lawyer or Visa outfit unless they had such concerns. Also the numbers quoted are 'multiple', could be as few as 2. Someone nervous asks an immigration officer, or maybe a student at the entrance desk, and gets wrong information. Off they go to visit a lawyer. At the moment I believe many many Non-Imm-O retirement extension applicants are being processed without needing insurance, I was, so why are we getting concerned here?

[pmarlin]

Leave it to a lawyer to read into something and find something that is just not there and change the intent of a law. Funny that no one has posted this problem on this forum where they needed insurance when extending a NON O

[delgarcon]

19 minutes ago, pmarlin said:

Leave it to a lawyer to read into something and find something that is just not there and change the intent of a law. Funny that no one has posted this problem on this forum where they needed insurance when extending a NON O

I agree totally, his take on the situation is confusing and for the moment requirement for Thai insurance is not! It's clear that if you have a non O visa insurance is not required and I don't believe that there have been multiple cases of extensions to non O visas being refused because of lack of insurance.

[Mango Bob]

This is the same lawyer that had a video here a few months ago that he believed Tricare would be approved for use here to cover Non O/A for insurance.  That was the last thing I heard about that subject.

[Roy Baht]

Integrity Legal responds:

 

 

[DrJack54]

I couldn't finish watching. I was laughing too much. Needed that with week a bad news.

 

[smedly]

On 1/26/2020 at 2:00 PM, Jingthing said:

Not that I'm aware of.

However it wouldn't shock me if it has happened.

But if so, that still wouldn't mean it's something that most people on O based retirement extensions should really worry about.

I'm neutral on whether this requirement will be expanded to O based extensions. Logically I see no reason why it won't be eventually but as most realize, logic isn't a big factor here.

There is a reason why it doesn't apply to "O" extensions as explained by Immigration a few weeks back - primarily the financial requirements in Thailand and the retention of 400k baht in your bank account which is equal to the cover provided by "OA" visa's obtained outside Thailand 

 

The OP may be the known interpretation many have reported here of trying to obtain a 12 month extension "in Thailand" based on an OA visa obtained outside Thailand - the requirements for 12 month extension for "OA" are identical to an "O" based visa

[smedly]

On 1/26/2020 at 4:43 PM, Jingthing said:

So again some people here are explicitly accusing this lawyer of intentionally lying about something that he doesn't think actually happened for purposes of drumming up business. OK. Wow. I think that's extreme. Again, my impression is that he's a visa guru who is sincere, although not always perfect. There are no visa Gods. 

I don't think he is lying - I think he is confused or dealing in half truths 

 

see my above post 

 

Type "O" ext does not require insurance because we have financials "in Thailand" that we are being forced to maintain equal to the "OA" mandatory Insurance cover

 

Yes there is a grey area when applying for a 12 month ext based on an "OA" visa 

[smedly]

On 1/26/2020 at 10:17 PM, Maestro said:

 

Confusions arise because quite often one person uses a specific term to mean one thing, another person uses the same term to mean another thing, and occasionally a third person uses the same term to mean a third thing. The term "O-A visa", and variants of it, is a good example as it he has been used to mean

1. non-immigrant visa category O-A, ie issued by a Thai embassy or consulate; or
2. permission to stay received from an immigration official upon entry into Thailand with a non-immigrant visa category O-A; or
3. one-year extension of stay based upon original entry with a non-immigrant visa category O-A

Another interesting variation is the person who, then unmarried, originally entered with a non-immigrant visa category O-A, got repeated extensions of stay for the reason of retirement (retirement extensions), later married a Thai national but continued with retirement extensions and now erroneously believes that he has what he and some others on this forum call a non-O visa or a non-O extension.

555 - couldn't have put that better myself lol

 

time to shut this thread I think because the most prolific posters don't actually know what they are talking about and this topic has been done to death several times already

[Tagaa]

4 hours ago, smedly said:

 

 

Type "O" ext does not require insurance because we have financials "in Thailand" that we are being forced to maintain equal to the "OA" mandatory Insurance cover

 

Yes there is a grey area when applying for a 12 month ext based on an "OA" visa 

Your assertion that O holders have "financials in Thailand" leads one to believe that you and possibly others believe that OA holders don't have financials in Thailand. I have an OA visa that has been extended 13 times and I can assure you that the IO insists on seeing the letter from my Thai bank and my bank book to extend my OA visa.

 

I am also curious why Thai Immigration believes that people on O & O marriage visa would not need insurance. They live here 12 months a year, just as I do, so why do I have to have Thai medical insurance & they do not? I suppose it is because only farangs on an OA visa get sick & the others do not.

 

By the way, I already have health insurance from outside the country. It is a $1 million dollar policy. So what I will do this year is not renew my $1 million dollar policy (~ 30 million baht) and pay 3/4's the premium for a Thai policy that only covers 400,000 baht. If I get sick and the bills are higher than that, I guess they can just pound sand.

 

I will do one more visa extension this year and see what happens. If this idiocy continues from the Thai government & Immigration, I will be gone before my visa expires in 2021. In essence, taking my ball & going home. Needless to say, I will no longer contribute to the Thai economy & the Thai banking system will wave goodbye to my money as it is transferred back to the US. I do believe this is what will be my final outcome here in LOS.

Edited February 12, 2020 by Tagaa

[luckyluke]

I got a non-immigrant O in Vientiane something like 15 years ago. 

My extensions, based on retirement, have and still are obtained(last one last month) with no money in a Thai bank, neither a monthly transfer of 65000.

No need of insurance as well. 

I am Belgian. 

[jacko45k]

4 hours ago, smedly said:

Type "O" ext does not require insurance because we have financials "in Thailand" that we are being forced to maintain equal to the "OA" mandatory Insurance cover

 

Surely an extension on an O-A and an Extension on a O Permit have exactly the same financial requirements. The only difference is the O-A also requiring insurance for a retirement extension?

4 hours ago, smedly said:

 

 

time to shut this thread I think because the most prolific posters don't actually know what they are talking about and this topic has been done to death several times already

Yes.

 

 

[Peter Denis]

29 minutes ago, Tagaa said:

...

By the way, I already have health insurance from outside the country. It is a $1 million dollar policy. So what I will do this year is not renew my $1 million dollar policy (~ 30 million baht) and pay 3/4's the premium for a Thai policy that only covers 400,000 baht. If I get sick and the bills are higher than that, I guess they can just pound sand.

...

I sincerely hope that your statement above is meant as a sarcastic tongue-in-cheek comment...

Not renewing your superior health-insurance policy and trading it for the expensive MickeyMouse thai IO-approved bogus policy, would be one of the worst decisions you can make to deal with this mess.

 

FYI > attached a link to a sarcastic tread on the 'benefits' of the thai IO-approved health-insurance scam.