3 minutes ago, robblok said:

So a loss of 450 million baht (pure loss)

Vs 2 trillion spend (not pure profit). Nice to make figures look better for the expats but one should look at the PROFIT made not turnover. 

If you want to be pedantic, you should take it up with the so called "journalists" at Pattaya Mail. But before doing so perhaps rethink your numbers. You called it "pure loss", but is it? There's a massive difference between actual loss and billed loss, particularly when you're talking about dual pricing in hospitals for foreigners.

Just now, jwest10 said:

You are very well versed up amd living in the UK.

He lives in Thailand.

7 minutes ago, Salerno said:

If you want to be pedantic, you should take it up with the so called "journalists" at Pattaya Mail. But before doing so perhaps rethink your numbers. You called it "pure loss", but is it? There's a massive difference between actual loss and billed loss, particularly when you're talking about dual pricing in hospitals for foreigners.

I like to put things in perspective, because this is just not right. To compare turnover with loss is not correct. 

Your point is also well taken that billed loss might not be the actual loss. You were the one quoting it and you know better too. 

 

But sure im all for paying 100-500 bt extra and not have this stupid rule. 

17 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

The end of Thailand as a retirement destination???? Why would you think that. Almost nothing has change for people that wish to retire. It´s most bad for the ones that wish to travel for only 1 or 2 weeks.

People forget that many here have family that are very  much loved and looked after as much as possible with a home, car and yes just about everything provided for in as much as how much one can and we have all not got pots of gold but these things never get taken in to consideration and just the financials with staying here and find it amazing not able to be put on the family healthe policy which has been tried several times, Why apart from a money grab!!!

3 minutes ago, robblok said:

You were the one quoting it and you know better too. 

I was quoting it purely for the alleged losses figure to compare to 2013 (hence bolding the figures), not the gumph around it.

2 minutes ago, Salerno said:

I was quoting it purely for the alleged losses figure to compare to 2013 (hence bolding the figures), not the gumph around it.

Understood, no problem.

17 minutes ago, Salerno said:

He lives in Thailand.

I was told yesterday he/she? lives in the UK and never travelled outside????
Perhaps wrong who knows anyway lol

Yes love to pay extra 100-500 bt but the losses they are talking about are small compared what they could be if they NOW let people in without health insurance. Because the risk of getting sick is a lot higher because of covid. So these figures would jump if people had no insurance.

 

Lets hope that this mess gets changed or that they make the rules easier for us who do have insurance. 

42 minutes ago, delgarcon said:

great idea, let's all get Comfortably Numb!

Yeah dunno what retirees are worried about if you wanna come here and stay, stay or go somewhere else where's the problem.

If someone here left Thailand to visit there home country at the beginning of the pandemic and find it expensive to come back then wait longer or be expected to pay more. 

3 hours ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

I agree with some of what you said, but you think an expat should be allowed to live here on 300-400 baht a day?

 

That seems ridiculous if you ask me.

 

An expat should be able to live a comfortable, moderate life, not a life of poverty.

 

There is a reason there are so many jumpers here in Pattaya.

A lot of expats run out of money or their income streams do not keep pace with inflation.

Of course an expat should be allowed to live on 300 baht a day if they so wish, just as long as they are covered in the event of hospitalisation. I have zero sympathy for any that are not.

The day someone can tell me how much I have to spend per day is the day I end it, as the world really will be in the toilet, IMO.

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Im just <deleted> off because I do have insurance always had and a good one too, but these rules make it hard for me anyway as i pay yearly for it. So it will never match my travel dates. Meaning I have to change my policiy with every trip (hassle)

 

All this because of those ************ who thought insurance was not needed and got in trouble. 

 

 

If your insurance is yearly and renewed yearly how on earth can it effect your traveling

you are insured year round so it matters not when you leave or return

 

you could in all reality do you return  thai pass whatever its called before you left Thailand

 

 

9 minutes ago, poohy said:

If your insurance is yearly and renewed yearly how on earth can it effect your traveling

you are insured year round so it matters not when you leave or return

 

you could in all reality do you return  thai pass whatever its called before you left Thailand

 

 

What I have heard is that your insurance validity has to match when you enter Thailand. So i pay in january for the whole year. Now if i go out of Thailand in februari and go back in march. My insurance would be 3 months short (so i might have to pay them 3 months have a new policy). 

 

Its just annoying that there are new rules that make it harder. Now if they would just accept that i pay insurance every year and look at my insurance history and see it never lapsed. But i doubt they are that flexible.

 

Though there are reports that they are not that strict. 

1 hour ago, AhFarangJa said:

Exactly Harvey, I wake up each morning, it is a good day, and the glass is always half full........(but not for long.....)

The glass is Always full..............you just have to determine the ratio of liquid to gas.

[quote]

 When you reach that magical "use by" date set by insurance companys, and your of absolutley no value to them, and your policy is cancelled,  come and tell us about it, wont you, and join the  compulsory self insured brigade.

[/quote]

 

Huh, if you chose the right insurance policy in the first place, then the company legally can't cancel your policy, nor increase your premiums individually if you've claimed before.  They are stuck with you for life.....

1 minute ago, robblok said:

So i pay in january for the whole year. Now if i go out of Thailand in februari and go back in march. My insurance would be 3 months short (so i might have to pay them 3 months have a new policy).

sorry i am confused this makes no sense

Your insurance only has be up to the date of reentry permit so i really do not see a problem

At worst just amend ins policy to coincide with expiry date of visa 

never any more problems

3 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

did so here happily a long time before crooks stole the goverment and steered the country into a mire

There were problems brewing in latter days of Taksin regime. Abbasit was no friend despite we have him proper western education.

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course an expat should be allowed to live on 300 baht a day if they so wish, just as long as they are covered in the event of hospitalisation. I have zero sympathy for any that are not.

The day someone can tell me how much I have to spend per day is the day I end it, as the world really will be in the toilet, IMO.

I can easily live on personal expenditure of 300 baht a day or less depends on your needs,  my is beer. 

I'm registered at a govt hospital and go every 4 months for check up and take responsibility for my health myself. 

If my numbers up it's up I  just live every day and enjoy. 

Negative attitudes are never gonna help. 

3 hours ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Thailand will always be a retirement destination.

 

I think once the world is vaccinated and the cases of covid amongst the locals dissipates, things will almost go back to normal.

 

I have a feeling they may keep some sort of insurance requirement as it really saves their butt so they don't have to worry about medical free loaders.

 

There are a lot of expats that really cannot afford to be here.  So I think they want to prevent these types of people from moving here.  That is why they have the 800,000 requirement.

 

The recently announced they are looking into a 10-year visa for expats LINK..

 

This shows they are still trying to make Thailand attractive to expats.

 

Do you often come out with stuff as good as this PTMD. Worth following. 

A retirement destination will be a country which actually wants you to retire there, not just a country where you want to retire!

 

So it needs to encourage foreign retirees by offering:

- A long-term (at least one year) visa aimed at retirees

- A safe environment

- Benefits that locals get, such as free/reduced travel for pensioners etc

- A good local health system that foreign retirees can pay into

etc etc

 

Now, countries in the world which actually meet the above can probably be counted on the fingers of my 2 hands!!

 

Face the truth - most countries do not want you to retire there, unless you are rich and like to throw your $$$ around.  For us lesser mortals, the number of welcoming countries is small, and probably getting smaller every year.

 

Although I'm in the process of moving from Laos, (due to local police hassles over my ham radio hobby!), it was always my plan to move at 65/66 years old to a country which actually encourages British expats to retire their, and where the UK pension is pegged to annual increases.  My new destination will be either Turkey or TRNC (North Cyprus).  Thailand was never on my list of choices!

 

Update:  I should add that IMHO, Thailand is getting too expensive.  In TRNC, I'm looking at a new, 3-bedroom detached house with private swimming pool and sea views for 12,000 baht rent per month...

One could wax lyrical and say that any stage of life is a journey not a destination. 

I haven't retired I'm simply no longer employed.

It seems as though the government here believes that Thailand is this magical place that can dictate the type of retiree and tourists it wants.  The reality is that the retirees choose as do the tourists.  

I would caution them that their wish to restrict those who entry might just come true.  When and if that occurs I believe they will eventually come to realization that this transformation did not work out as they dreamed.  

Suddenly the banks are in financial trouble because money from foreigners is no longer on deposit there.  That is added to the billions of baht in foreclosed properties from rentals that no longer can make their mortgage payments since there is no longer a demand from retirees and tourists.  The condo market collapses and thai's and foreigners who borrowed can not or will not repay their loans because they owe more than the condo is worth.  The same will be true for single family homes as retirees all try to sell their property at the same time depressing the price not just for other retirees but for the Thai's also. 

Add to that  the hospitals who service the retirees and now have fewer high paying patients.  I am sure the airlines who service those retirees for trips back to their home countries will only see a "modest" reduction.  Lets not forget that it will only have a modest impact on the number of government employees at places like the immigration departments as now they will only have to deal with a handful of "elite" retirees instead of lots of the commoners. 

Yes, it will transform Thailand but I suspect it will not be as envisioned  as the never never land that those who are proposing the measures have in their dreams. 

Correct me if I am wrong:

With an O visa, even though insurance is not required like O/A.

You still need the 50K insurance the whole year or your duration  unless you do not plan to travel outside Thailand, kind of of like your re-entry permit where you purchase (3900 baht) when you renew your extension.

 

So insurance is always available for over 70 years old cause i cannot imagine there were be no tourist over the age of 70  years old. Come in as tourist and reapply to O every time or keep a  year 50K insurance which for your visa ext O  stay

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, simon43 said:

A retirement destination will be a country which actually wants you to retire there, not just a country where you want to retire!

 

So it needs to encourage foreign retirees by offering:

- A long-term (at least one year) visa aimed at retirees

- A safe environment

- Benefits that locals get, such as free/reduced travel for pensioners etc

- A good local health system that foreign retirees can pay into

etc etc

 

Now, countries in the world which actually meet the above can probably be counted on the fingers of my 2 hands!!

 

Face the truth - most countries do not want you to retire there, unless you are rich and like to throw your $$$ around.  For us lesser mortals, the number of welcoming countries is small, and probably getting smaller every year.

 

Although I'm in the process of moving from Laos, (due to local police hassles over my ham radio hobby!), it was always my plan to move at 65/66 years old to a country which actually encourages British expats to retire their, and where the UK pension is pegged to annual increases.  My new destination will be either Turkey or TRNC (North Cyprus).  Thailand was never on my list of choices!

Thought Turkey or Cyprus are frozen places now. 

1 minute ago, Alotoftravel said:

With an O visa, even though insurance is not required like O/A.

It is my understanding that you are not required to have the $50,000 insurance for the 0 visa.  If however you travel outside of Thailand and return, you need the $50,000 insurance covered through the expiration date of your extension.
Upon expiration you could again extend the 0 visa with no insurance. 

So what the policy really does is it forces those on 0 visa's to have insurance if they travel outside of Thailand and return. 

5 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Thought Turkey or Cyprus are frozen places now. 

I haven't seen snow for 20 years.... looking forward to cross-country skiing ????

18 minutes ago, poohy said:

sorry i am confused this makes no sense

Your insurance only has be up to the date of reentry permit so i really do not see a problem

At worst just amend ins policy to coincide with expiry date of visa 

never any more problems

That is what i am talking about having to amend the insurance policy each time i travel instead of just paying by year and not looking back. Its ok if you go somewhere incidentally but if you travel more frequently it will become a pain in the ass. 

4 hours ago, Robin said:

and now I see rumours

You can see rumours? And at such a distance?

 

Don't get yourself in a snit until after the rumours vanish in the wind as most do 

 

Things change - that's just life - eh? 

most certainly

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

That is what i am talking about having to amend the insurance policy each time i travel instead of just paying by year and not looking back. Its ok if you go somewhere incidentally but if you travel more frequently it will become a pain in the ass. 

I think we are at cross purposes 

 

My retirement visa  has expired on 5 August for 8 years

so if i wanted yearly insurance which i haven't i would arrange ins to that date or as near as possible as a one off

 

So then  My reentry permit I would always be admitted until 8 august 

As would  insurance be always valid to that date

Everybody happy

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, poohy said:

I think we are at cross purposes 

 

My retirement visa  has expired on 5 August for 8 years

so if i wanted yearly insurance which i haven't i would arrange ins to that date or as near as possible as a one off

 

So then  My reentry permit I would always be admitted until 8 august 

As would  insurance be always valid to that date

Everybody happy

 

 

 

 

Ah i get you, sorry I am on an elite visa, each time I enter i get a full year. So that is my problem. I get how it works for retirement visa. Its just a bit different for elite. Will probably be on retirement in a few years.