What's the deal with the O-A visa?

[Paulaew]

What's the deal with the O-A visa for retirement obtained abroad? Why does this visa have a health insurance requirement while the normal non-O visa obtained in Thailand has no insurance requirement? We all get sick eventually and require medical services.

 

When the O-A visa was introduced, it seemed like it was a precursor to requiring health insurance for everyone on a non-O visa. Maybe that was the government's plan, but it never happened (and let's hope that continues). But the end result is that holders of O-A visas are treated unfairly.

 

Why would someone bother getting an O-A visa? They can just enter Thailand on a tourist visa or visa-exempt entry and then apply for a normal non-O visa.

 

Paul Laew

[overherebc]

Maybe? if you're a single pensioner you can get the one year OA before you arrive in Thailand?

Is a single pensioner more likely to be unable to take care of themselves? I don't know.

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by overherebc

[DrJack54]

27 minutes ago, Paulaew said:

Why would someone bother getting an O-A visa? They can just enter Thailand on a tourist visa or visa-exempt entry and then apply for a normal non-O visa

Because the money is not required to be kept in a Thai bank and they would not need to attend immigration in Thailand. 

 

That is a major issue for some folk for various reasons.

The non O-A can give a 2 year stay.

Despite the cost of the useless insurance it still has appeal to some people.

 

[Guest TerryS123]

For me, I didn't want to move my money to a thai bank. I was going to get health insurance whether it was required or not. Gives me two years to decide if I want to stay longer or not. 

[tonray]

Just now, TerryS123 said:

For me, I didn't want to move my money to a thai bank. I was going to get health insurance whether it was required or not. Gives me two years to decide if I want to stay longer or not. 

The problem is extensions have same requirements as O visa retirement holders...but get tagged with additional insurance. My guess is the ministers have no working knowledge of the extension process/requirements and only saw that OA visa holders not required to have money here, hence insurance. Reality is law being applied inappropriately due to their ambiguous orders and this is Thailand....nobody is going to tell their boss (Minister level) that they need to change it.

[overherebc]

3 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Because the money is not required to be kept in a Thai bank and they would not need to attend immigration in Thailand. 

 

That is a major issue for some folk for various reasons.

The non O-A can give a 2 year stay.

Despite the cost of the useless insurance it still has appeal to some people.

 

No money needed in the bank the main reason then. That fits.

[DrJack54]

1 minute ago, overherebc said:

No money needed in the bank the main reason then. That fits.

Yes obviously.

Also that group clearly chooses not to use an agent to obtain a non O and extension as that pathway also would not require money to be kept in Thai bank.

[ubonjoe]

39 minutes ago, Paulaew said:

When the O-A visa was introduced, it seemed like it was a precursor to requiring health insurance for everyone on a non-O visa.

The insurance requirement for it did not start until 2019 and the OA visa has been issued since the early 2000's.

They chose the OA visa to have the insurance since it is only issued by embassies and official consulate in your home country or country of legal residence and it is a multiple entry visa.

In my opinion they chose it since they consider those holding them as not having strong ties to Thailand and are more likely to bail out of the country to dodge paying a hospital bill.

[Whale]

The current visa section actually works very well on paper if you ignore the extension of stay processes/requirements. Its the extension of stay that makes it all muddy.

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

41 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The insurance requirement for it did not start until 2019 and the OA visa has been issued since the early 2000's.

They chose the OA visa to have the insurance since it is only issued by embassies and official consulate in your home country or country of legal residence and it is a multiple entry visa.

In my opinion they chose it since they consider those holding them as not having strong ties to Thailand and are more likely to bail out of the country to dodge paying a hospital bill.

“Not having strong ties”?  Non O Ext of Stay-1 year Non OA 1 year?  Both allow 1 year stays.  No one is guaranteed to have any visa extended.  Many of us who have lived in LOS for years know or knew of people who lived in LOS for years and have invested money in condos and vehicles who are still treated like they just “got off the boat”.  The only foreigner who actually has “strong ties” is someone who has Thai Citizenship or Permanent Residency.  All others in LOS are here on a year to year basis without guarantees.   It does not matter how I feel about the country or the people the government makes it difficult to establish or maintain “strong ties”.  This is one of the reasons I have always gone through the OA Visa as apposed to the O Ext of Stay route.  Treat me like a long term visitor then I will behave like a long term visitor who obeys the laws, respects the customs and treats the people with kindness.  

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

“Not having strong ties”?

That can be financial ties such as owning a condo and etc.

Having a Thai family here as well is strong ties.

Would either of the above just pack there bags and leave the country to avoid paying a hospital bill?

The OA insurance requirement has been discussed ad nauseum in other topics staring in 2019.

[sqwakvfr]

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That can be financial ties such as owning a condo and etc.

Having a Thai family here as well is strong ties.

Would either of the above just pack there bags and leave the country to avoid paying a hospital bill?

The OA insurance requirement has been discussed ad nauseum in other topics staring in 2019.

Anyone is capable of not paying hospital bills.  Just because one has a wife or kids in LOS does not preclude them from becoming a “runner”. I have been on an OA visa and subsequent extension for 6 years and have always had health insurance.  My point in the previous was about “strong ties”.  Money or lack of money could render :”strong ties” meaningless.  This would include family and/or financial ties.  Based upon this principle then all foreigners in LOS would eventually have to buy minimum coverage health insurance?  

[ubonjoe]

9 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Anyone is capable of not paying hospital bills.  Just because one has a wife or kids in LOS does not preclude them from becoming a “runner”. I have been on an OA visa and subsequent extension for 6 years and have always had health insurance.

People with firm reasons for staying here would make arrangements to pay the hospital bill instead of just packing their bags and leaving. Some may have savings to pay it or can arrange to make monthly payment to pay it off.

[arithai12]

22 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

“Not having strong ties”?  Non O Ext of Stay-1 year Non OA 1 year?  Both allow 1 year stays.  No one is guaranteed to have any visa extended.  Many of us who have lived in LOS for years know or knew of people who lived in LOS for years and have invested money in condos and vehicles who are still treated like they just “got off the boat”.  The only foreigner who actually has “strong ties” is someone who has Thai Citizenship or Permanent Residency.  All others in LOS are here on a year to year basis without guarantees.   It does not matter how I feel about the country or the people the government makes it difficult to establish or maintain “strong ties”.  This is one of the reasons I have always gone through the OA Visa as apposed to the O Ext of Stay route.  Treat me like a long term visitor then I will behave like a long term visitor who obeys the laws, respects the customs and treats the people with kindness.  

Actually, PR is also subject to some hurdles, like reports to the Police and unable to buy land. I don't consider extending my non-O Ret a particular burden, I have one month window and last time I was in-out in 25 minutes - after a while you learn what they want and even if it's "not guaranteed" I can't imagine why they would refuse it. If they did refuse it, there are other avenues.

I consider Thailand like my home, although not my country, and that is what suits me. I am able to own a condo, have a yellow book, pink card, DL, bank accounts, credit cards, I have had my phone number for almost 20 years, I do feel like a long-term visitor even with the yearly extension and the 90-day reports, and no need to be married to a Thai. The price: put 800k in a fixed deposit and forget about it. If I had to worry about that kind of money, I wouldn't have made the move in the first place. Same for insurance.

 

As for your last point, do you mean that having OA you don't obey laws and are unkind to others?

[Paulaew]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

No money needed in the bank the main reason then. That fits.

But if you're living here, you still need money to live. I spend about 1 million baht a year and I'm hardly a big spender. Are you worried that the Thai banks may fail?

 

I guess you could use a debit or ATM card to withdraw money from your home bank account for your monthly living expenses. But if the Thai banks actually fail, that may no longer work ...

 

Paul Laew

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, Paulaew said:

But if you're living here, you still need money to live. I spend about 1 million baht a year and I'm hardly a big spender. Are you worried that the Thai banks may fail?

 

I guess you could use a debit or ATM card to withdraw money from your home bank account for your monthly living expenses. But if the Thai banks actually fail, that may no longer work ...

 

Paul Laew

I'm not worried. Why should I be?

[Old Croc]

3 hours ago, overherebc said:

No money needed in the bank the main reason then. That fits.

Reasonable for newly issued O-As.

 

Where it stinks is that they added the insurance requirement to extensions of O-A visas issued well before this requirement came into being (no grandfathering).  Extensions that also require the money in the bank. A double financial obligation only for those with this visa class.  Combined with the timing of closed borders preventing easy travel out to change to an O.

Additionally, they demand the insurance be purchased from selected Thailand companies with rip-off rates and myriad exclusions.  A high level scam.

[sqwakvfr]

9 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

People with firm reasons for staying here would make arrangements to pay the hospital bill instead of just packing their bags and leaving. Some may have savings to pay it or can arrange to make monthly payment to pay it off.

This would include those who use the No Financials Visa Agents as well?  

[ubonjoe]

6 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

This would include those who use the No Financials Visa Agents as well?  

I did not take them into consideration when I wrote my post. I would say they would be the mostly likely to bail out since they would not have any money in the bank.

[EVENKEEL]

11 hours ago, TerryS123 said:

For me, I didn't want to move my money to a thai bank. I was going to get health insurance whether it was required or not. Gives me two years to decide if I want to stay longer or not. 

2 yrs only if you leave and return at the end of your first year. Then you have your second year.

[DrJack54]

17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

2 yrs only if you leave and return at the end of your first year. Then you have your second year.

Without splitting hairs you need to reenter while the non O-A visa is still valid. 

 

[EVENKEEL]

2 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Without splitting hairs you need to reenter while the non O-A visa is still valid. 

 

Right,

 

covid messed me up and had to extend showing 800K and Ins. An agent solved that.

[Searat7]

In the 1/31 issue of Pattaya Mail  under Pattaya Legal Corner there is a Q and A stating there will be a new pilot program allowing those with 3 million of stocks, bonds and property to avoid the OA insurance requirement. This would apply to extensions and new applications. The effective date would be October 1 which is not good for me as I want to return July . Many details still need to be worked out but this is really great news if it goes through as stated.

[Searat7]

Q: What is your take on the recent announcement that retirees can self-insure?
You are referring to the recent announcement that, from October 1, applicants for the O/A retiree visa or extension of stay will be able to show 3 million baht in cash or property or bond holdings if they cannot find hospital insurance because of their age or health. I believe it is a sensible step forward as medical insurance is fast becoming essential worldwide because of the Covid legacy. But there are those who cannot be insured, usually because of age or their medical history. The question has to be asked – how will retirees pay for a medical emergency?

[Wake Up]

I like the O-A. Cost 200 dollars plus 50 dollar FBI background check and overnight mail costs back and forth. Usually lasts two years except for this yea with Covid travel issues. . 
 

I have health insurance yearly but it is not on the approved Thailand list.

 

 I do like the feeling of not owning anything here that I would be upset to leave behind. The O-A does feel to me to be more of a long term tourist visa because you do not have to go to CW. I know guys who get the O-A every two years and never have filed a 90 day report or been to CW. They get their multientry permit at Swampy and live in hotels or condos and never deal with immigration or agents in Thailand. 
 

yes they are suppose to file 90 day reports but they don’t. And no one has asked them to see the 90 day report anywhere in Thailand because they don’t go to CW ever. 
 

[Andrew Dwyer]

My take on the OA.

 

Got mine in 2016, the attraction was :

A 1 year multi entry visa, with a border hop shortly before that expired gave a further 1 year permission to stay.

The choice of where to keep any savings, Thai/foreign banks.

 

Now , with the mandatory health insurance since 2019 but more importantly the increased health insurance coverage, due to start Sept 2022, I am looking at dumping the OA ext with a view to obtaining an O visa and subsequent extension.

I consider the OA visa done and dusted.

 

Never once, despite some accusations, did I ever consider it a vehicle for dodging paying any hospital bills, have always paid any medical expenses promptly.

 

Would like to hear of any posters who have OA visa/extension, past or present, who chose this route as a way to dodge paying hospital bills ??

[wwest5829]

23 hours ago, Paulaew said:

But if you're living here, you still need money to live. I spend about 1 million baht a year and I'm hardly a big spender. Are you worried that the Thai banks may fail?

 

I guess you could use a debit or ATM card to withdraw money from your home bank account for your monthly living expenses. But if the Thai banks actually fail, that may no longer work ...

 

Paul Laew

I use the monthly 65K income from abroad method. My thinking is that my retirement funds are invested and managed, making income for me. Financially, better than parking 800K in a Thai bank.

[DrJack54]

15 minutes ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

 

Never once, despite some accusations, did I ever consider it a vehicle for dodging paying any hospital bills, have always paid any medical expenses promptly

Really good post.

This part about insurance I also agree with..

I remember clearly setting up to dump my Non O with extensions and move to non O-A.

Exactly at that time insurance was introduced.

Non O-A was a ripper visa for those that returned to home couple every couple of years.

Then also covid hit and so for me non O-A is a dead duck in the water.

The point is I never for one moment would have used it as a means to avoid medical bills. 

That's a lame argument in my book. 

[flexomike]

On 1/30/2022 at 8:11 AM, ubonjoe said:

The insurance requirement for it did not start until 2019 and the OA visa has been issued since the early 2000's.

They chose the OA visa to have the insurance since it is only issued by embassies and official consulate in your home country or country of legal residence and it is a multiple entry visa.

In my opinion they chose it since they consider those holding them as not having strong ties to Thailand and are more likely to bail out of the country to dodge paying a hospital bill.

If that is the case fine, but how about us who originally entered on OA visas way before this was implemented, should have been some grandfathering when they implemented this rule, I know, just leave the country and come back in visa exempt, but I will be 75 this year and with my luck if I did this they would change the requirement for all visas and extensions. I am living with it, it is what it is.

[biervoormij]

1 hour ago, Searat7 said:

Q: What is your take on the recent announcement that retirees can self-insure?
You are referring to the recent announcement that, from October 1, applicants for the O/A retiree visa or extension of stay will be able to show 3 million baht in cash or property or bond holdings if they cannot find hospital insurance because of their age or health. I believe it is a sensible step forward as medical insurance is fast becoming essential worldwide because of the Covid legacy. But there are those who cannot be insured, usually because of age or their medical history. The question has to be asked – how will retirees pay for a medical emergency?

Do you know if the "3 million baht in cash or property or bond holdings" would need to be held within Thailand?

 

It also states this is for people that cannot be insured. I am currently insured for my O-A extensions and not sure they can refuse my renewal. Does that mean I can not move to self insured when this new policy happens?