RocketDog Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 OP : You are way behind the curve on this topic with your questions, reasoning, and accusations. This ship sailed months ago. Suck it up or spit it out, your choice, but deal with it yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glegolo Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 1 hour ago, wwest5829 said: I am only addressing one point here. I entered Thailand upon on an O-A Visa for retirement in 2011. That Visa was issued through the Royal Thai Consulate in Chicago, USA. In applying I had to submit the required health form from my Doctor, a police clearance showing I had no criminal record and my financial documentation confirming I had sufficient funds to support myself in Thailand. My point being, that I had to submit the same financials as an O Visa holder would need to demonstrate. It is nice that my post is being quoted a number of times.. But to answer you and the others about that you have submitted the very same documents/demands in your home-country as we are doing here in Thailand, so it is not fair. I can tell you as follows. I was only trying to tell you guys my own thinking about the way the goverment guys are thinking in all this here. Everybody in Thailand employed or not employed by the state/goverment knows way too well, how easy it is to fake any paper at all. But I think that they think that it is even easier to fake them abroad then it is in Thailand... So O-A-guys coming to Thailand is being treated with suspicious eyes what regards the financies I think... That is how I believe their mind works... Sorry if my english is not clear enough to be understood. glegolo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianezy0 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 (edited) 53 minutes ago, SammyJ said: that's news to me--maybe it has always been this way, but most friends i know who kept the OA did not have to deposit funds--had you already used two years or one on the OA? Almost 2 years (22 months). They gave me the form to go back after 3 months to show I still had over 800k remaining in the bank. I think this is the point of this thread. It doesn’t seem right that an O and O-A visa holder should be trsated differently with regard to health insurance. But, I see your pount on the initial 2 years. Edited October 9, 2020 by ianezy0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilly07 Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 OA multi equates to 2yr non financial border bouncer and very little control by immigration. O equates to in country extensions with full financial monitoring and full control by immigration. What isn't explicable is why OA retirees are given priority over Os returning to Thailand and embassies preferring to issue OAs Unless it is the cash rich insurance scammers wagging the dog! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim P Posted October 9, 2020 Share Posted October 9, 2020 Most I know on Non O retirement are using agents because they can`t meet the financial requirements, hence they can`t afford full insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacko45k Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 23 hours ago, ianezy0 said: Almost 2 years (22 months). They gave me the form to go back after 3 months to show I still had over 800k remaining in the bank. I think this is the point of this thread. It doesn’t seem right that an O and O-A visa holder should be trsated differently with regard to health insurance. But, I see your pount on the initial 2 years. This point was well discussed here last year, and many felt the same way, why should exactly the same extension have differing requirements depending on the Visa that started it. Many, myself included, did not believe it, and felt the rule was being incorrectly worded or interpreted. Wrong we were. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheryl Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 None of us knows why the latest list of people allowed in includes retirees on O-A or O-X but not O. It could be as simple as an oversight. These decisions are made by a committee, not Imm. They may have simply decided to let in retirees, asked someone (perhaps at MFA) what type of visa that is and been told O-A/O-X. Which are indeed the only type of new retirement visas many Embassies will issue. There is no point in speculation about reasons and the problem with doing so is that the speculations tend to become enshrined as fact, there are a lot of expat myths that began like that. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mlkik Posted October 10, 2020 Share Posted October 10, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Sheryl said: None of us knows why the latest list of people allowed in includes retirees on O-A or O-X but not O. It could be as simple as an oversight. These decisions are made by a committee, not Imm. They may have simply decided to let in retirees, asked someone (perhaps at MFA) what type of visa that is and been told O-A/O-X. Which are indeed the only type of new retirement visas many Embassies will issue. There is no point in speculation about reasons and the problem with doing so is that the speculations tend to become enshrined as fact, there are a lot of expat myths that began like that. I wish youur post was the only reply and then the topic closed as you have given the perfect response. Heres to hoping us with Non O extensions can return soon! Edited October 10, 2020 by mlkik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now