O-A extension, why need insurance?

[Chiller]

I’m sure the original intention for insurance was only to cover all entries to Thailand under the duration of the actual O-A visa, ie, up to 2 years of stay if timed accordingly. The reason being there was no requirement to show money in a Thai bank account, therefore the authorities introduced this rule as an alternative ‘safety net.’  

 

However as we all know in order to extend the period of permission to stay under the “retirement category” we also need to show either the required funding in the bank, or the monthly transfers, exactly the same as those who are extending their stay based on a Non-O visa. The only difference being is they are not required to show any insurance. This clearly does not make any sense at all?!

 

It seems obvious to me that the original idea for insurance has been completely misinterpreted by the authorities, as what did make some sense in terms of the real reason for this has also been allowed to drift into a negligent, pointless and inequitable requirement, creating two distinct groups of “retirees” who are now treated quite differently without any justified reason. 

 

With the insurance requirement for O-A extensions set to dramatically increase later next year what are the thoughts of launching a legal challenge against this nonsensical discrimination?!’

[DrJack54]

Do you have a question apart from launching a legal challenge.

Good luck with that plan.

When it's possible to exit and reenter Thailand you can switch to non O..

Edited December 4, 2021 by DrJack54

[Chiller]

3 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Do you have a question apart from launching a legal challenge.

Good luck with that plan.

Yes my question is asking for thoughts on this subject.  

[ThailandRyan]

If you believe what you have written, well then I wish you the best of luck fighting the good fight.  Eventually as things have been said it will be possibly rolled up to all classes of Visas as far as the extension of stays go.  It is already necessary to have a 50K USD policy as well as covering Covid to enter the country.  Talking with many others they believe this is here to stay no matter what class of Visa you have.  Even the Non O needs to have the 50K insurance to enter Thailand, once that Visa is up to be extended it does not require the insurance, as of yet. 

[DrJack54]

3 minutes ago, Chiller said:

Yes my question is asking for thoughts on this subject.  

Think the thoughts would be universal.

The insurance should not be required for extensions from a non O-A. 

 

[david555]

Because initially the non o-a had different advantages as having the money in their home bank ?

Or having the advantage to make from 1 year  2 years if cleverly doing a border run ( impossible now ) 

 

So why the difference .... i guess because the non "O" started under different obligations as must  having the 800K  on a THAI bank... and extending after 1 year , so no cleverly option for a automatic second year ... ????

I think they respect the original requirements for  "o" up to now .... but i expect sooner or later  they become same obligation ...... forget making the attention on comparing  to result  in no insurance any more ????

 

"comparing goes for worse not for  the better .....( idle hope ????) "

[ThailandRyan]

However, just this past June the Cabinet passed a new law making it a requirement for all Expats to have insurance.

 

"All foreigners living in Thailand as non-immigrants will in the future have to prove they have insurance coverage of at least US$100,000 (three million baht) against Covid-19. The proposal was approved in principle by the cabinet yesterday and Traisuree Taisaranakul, deputy spokeswoman for the government, said it would apply to all holders of the one-year, non-immigrant visa (NIV). NIVs are awarded in four categories: marriage, work, business and retirement…Ms Traisuree said that since the cabinet had approved the new rule in principle the next step would be for the Immigration Bureau to publish full details and make it official. The Foreign Affairs Ministry will also work to improve the NIV application procedure while the Public Health Ministry and the Interior Ministry will be in charge of modifying related regulations and telling the public about them…"

[Jingthing]

Asking why on visa rules is a path to insanity. The rational response is am I am able and/or willing to jump through the latest immigration hoop.

[david555]

27 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

However, just this past June the Cabinet passed a new law making it a requirement for all Expats to have insurance.

 

"All foreigners living in Thailand as non-immigrants will in the future have to prove they have insurance coverage of at least US$100,000 (three million baht) against Covid-19. The proposal was approved in principle by the cabinet yesterday and Traisuree Taisaranakul, deputy spokeswoman for the government, said it would apply to all holders of the one-year, non-immigrant visa (NIV). NIVs are awarded in four categories: marriage, work, business and retirement…Ms Traisuree said that since the cabinet had approved the new rule in principle the next step would be for the Immigration Bureau to publish full details and make it official. The Foreign Affairs Ministry will also work to improve the NIV application procedure while the Public Health Ministry and the Interior Ministry will be in charge of modifying related regulations and telling the public about them…"

Curious to know which minister  shall get HIS procedure to become the rule ..... competing  on each other .....let us hope they take a long time for that  ....????

[ubonjoe]

23 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

However, just this past June the Cabinet passed a new law making it a requirement for all Expats to have insurance.

That was false info posted on news website that was  later removed.

It is only for OA visas and it started in October of this year for a new OA visa. On September 1st of next year it will start for extension of a OA visa entry based upon retirement.

[david555]

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

That was false info posted on news website that was  later removed.

It is only for OA visas and it started in October of this year for a new OA visa. On September 1st of next year it will start for extension of a OA visa entry based upon retirement.

Thanks UBJ as i started worry that they would catch me even for that on my momentary running non "o" which is my last done one , as leaving Th. ....

I don't like to be beaten just before the finish line ...????

[Airalee]

15 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That was false info posted on news website that was  later removed.

It is only for OA visas and it started in October of this year for a new OA visa. On September 1st of next year it will start for extension of a OA visa entry based upon retirement.

I was required to provide proof of insurance when extending my Non-O extension based on retirement at Changwattana back in mid October.  They wouldn’t even accept a copy of the letter from the insurance agency (Pacific Prime)…had to be the original.

[david555]

2 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I was required to provide proof of insurance when extending my Non-O extension based on retirement at Changwattana back in mid October.  They wouldn’t even accept a copy of the letter from the insurance agency (Pacific Prime)…had to be the original.

And in August when extending my Non "O" ret. ext.  at Jomtien it was NOT asked .....

So at good old Thai Immigration tradition  all offices , or desk or even officers  can be different at any given moment ????

[Airalee]

12 minutes ago, david555 said:

And in August when extending my Non "O" ret. ext.  at Jomtien it was NOT asked .....

So at good old Thai Immigration tradition  all offices , or desk or even officers  can be different at any given moment ????

Yup.  So basically, the “official” rules as stated by the experts here mean nothing.  If you happen to draw the short straw on the day of extension, you lose.

[david555]

1 minute ago, Airalee said:

Yup.  So basically, the “official” rules as stated by the experts here mean nothing.  If you happen to draw the short straw on the day of extension, you lose.

You are always at their mercy .... but mostly not far out the general rule ...... just a bit beside it ????

[DrJack54]

32 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I was required to provide proof of insurance when extending my Non-O extension based on retirement at Changwattana back in mid October.  They wouldn’t even accept a copy of the letter from the insurance agency (Pacific Prime)…had to be the original.

What insurance? Insurance is not required for extensions from non O. 

 

[hereforgood]

3 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

What insurance? Insurance is not required for extensions from non O. 

 

Apparently it was in his case

[DrJack54]

9 minutes ago, hereforgood said:

Apparently it was in his case

He did not outline clearly the circumstances.

All I can possibly come up with is that the renewal of extension was early after a reentry and they wanted to see the 50k policy that he would have needed for entry.

Apart from that insurance is NOT required to obtain an extension from non O.

(STV an exception).

Edited December 4, 2021 by DrJack54

[hereforgood]

2 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

He did not outline clearly the circumstances.

All I can possibly come up with is that the renewal of extension was early after a reentry and they wanted to see the 50k policy that he would have needed for entry.

Apart from that insurance is NOT required to obtain an extension from non O.

(STV an exception).

Yes I understand I follow you and I know you're knowledgeable on these immigration issues. But unfortunately offices it seems are allowed to make their own rules in some cases but like you say it hasn't been completely explained

[DrJack54]

5 minutes ago, hereforgood said:

But unfortunately offices it seems are allowed to make their own rules in some cases

Very true and makes immigration bit of a joke.

Funny that posters trying to give advice need to ask "which immigration office".

You would think rules should be universal. Often not so. 

Edited December 4, 2021 by DrJack54

[Airalee]

6 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

He did not outline clearly the circumstances.

All I can possibly come up with is that the renewal of extension was early after a reentry and they wanted to see the 50k policy that he would have needed for entry.

Apart from that insurance is NOT required to obtain an extension from non O.

(STV an exception).

Didn’t leave the country,  nothing to do with Covid insurance.  I clearly outlined the circumstances by saying I was renewing my non-O visa based on retirement at Changwattana and the immigration officer asked for my proof of insurance and that I had to hand over the original and not the copy I had made.  No more, no less.

 

You can huff and puff about what is required or not.  I’m just saying that when I went in October for my annual extension it was required.  YMMV

[tonray]

5 minutes ago, Airalee said:

and the immigration officer asked for my proof of insurance and that I had to hand over the original and not the copy I had made.  No more, no less.

Since the O Visa extension has never had an insurance requirement, how was it you were ready with insurance papers and copies ? Are you sure you did not have an OA visa and we're extending that ?

[DrJack54]

13 minutes ago, Airalee said:

You can huff and puff about what is required or not.  I’m just saying that when I went in October for my annual extension it was required.

I was being polite. Your account has issues. One more time.... insurance is NOT required for extension from non O.

Just to add I have never even read a report remotely to match your experience.

BTW, I also did my annual extension at CW on Nov 2. 

Is your prior visa a non O-A. 

Did you call for a supervisor.

Have you done an extension at CW previously. Let's stick to facts.

[Airalee]

49 minutes ago, tonray said:

Since the O Visa extension has never had an insurance requirement, how was it you were ready with insurance papers and copies ? Are you sure you did not have an OA visa and we're extending that ?

Because I always read about immigration officers changing the rules to suit their whims.  Every time I go I bring far more than necessary up to and including my original chanote and copies, copies of my condo purchase agreement etc.  I hand them the whole stack of papers and let them take what they want/need/require and they hand back the rest.   When the officer (this time) got to the copy of the letter from the insurance agency stating that I had insurance, she asked for the original.  And yes, I’m quite sure that I have a Non-O and not an OA.

 

I’m not trying to state that it is a requirement or that what they did was correct, but I don’t really like trying to argue with immigration officers.  And no, I’m not dressed inappropriately (Khakis and a Polo button down) nor unbathed/unshaven/dreadlocks/long hair etc. 

 

Like I said…I guess this time I just happened to draw the short straw.

[Airalee]

52 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

I was being polite. Your account has issues. One more time.... insurance is NOT required for extension from non O.

Just to add I have never even read a report remotely to match your experience.

BTW, I also did my annual extension at CW on Nov 2. 

Is your prior visa a non O-A. 

Did you call for a supervisor.

Have you done an extension at CW previously. Let's stick to facts.

I gave you the facts.

 

My visa is a Non-O.  

 

No, I didn’t call for a supervisor.  
 

Glad your renewal went smoothly.  Mine did too but as I said before…the rules were different for me that time.

 

And yes, I’ve done extensions at CW before.  Insurance wasn’t required at that time.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Airalee

[tonray]

2 minutes ago, Airalee said:

Because I always read about immigration officers changing the rules to suit their whims.  Every time I go I bring far more than necessary up to and including my original chanote and copies, copies of my condo purchase agreement etc.  I hand them the whole stack of papers and let them take what they want/need/require and they hand back the rest.   When the officer (this time) got to the copy of the letter from the insurance agency stating that I had insurance, she asked for the original.  And yes, I’m quite sure that I have a Non-O and not an OA.

 

I’m not trying to state that it is a requirement or that what they did was correct, but I don’t really like trying to argue with immigration officers.  And no, I’m not dressed inappropriately (Khakis and a Polo button down) nor unbathed/unshaven/dreadlocks/long hair etc. 

 

Like I said…I guess this time I just happened to draw the short straw.

Yeah...the mistake was handing them something not explicitly required. And I made no commentary about your attire.

[Airalee]

2 minutes ago, tonray said:

Yeah...the mistake was handing them something not explicitly required. And I made no commentary about your attire.

I know you didn’t make a comment about my attire…but I’m sure you have seen the assumptions come up on Thaivisa when people have talked about issues with immigration before.

 

I have always handed them things that are explicitly not required and they sift through them and hand back what is not needed.  This time was different.  I expected to get the letter back rather than being asked for the original.  Last time, it was handed back.

[Kopitiam]

25 minutes ago, Airalee said:

I know you didn’t make a comment about my attire…but I’m sure you have seen the assumptions come up on Thaivisa when people have talked about issues with immigration before.

 

I have always handed them things that are explicitly not required and they sift through them and hand back what is not needed.  This time was different.  I expected to get the letter back rather than being asked for the original.  Last time, it was handed back.

So, you are making up your own rules and put the blame on the IO.

[chicowoodduck]

Time for my nap…call me when all the dust has settled….????????????????

[easydoor]

Mister Koeler,

The answer is very easy:

for Non O-A: you must give the financial proof in your HOME country, This means: nothing says you have money in Thailand. In case you get sick and need a stay in a hospital.... where wille be the warranty you will be able to pay?

In case a Non O: there is a warranty you have money in Thailand, 800k on a Thai account or enough income each month, also on a Thai account.  In case you cannot or you don't pay a hospital bill, they easy can confiscate your Thai account, something they cannot do or will be much more difficult to do  in another country.

So easy is the answer, and it has nothing to see with discrimination.