Policy change to Non Imm O-A (Long stay) ‘retirement visa’ allows foreigners to self insure

[Yellowtail]

Just now, jesimps said:

I think you also have to provide proof that you've been turned down by an insurance company here on grounds of age, previous serious illness etc which could be the fly in the ointment.

Showing you've been turned down should be no problem for people that have actually been turned down "...on grounds of age, previous serious illness etc...", should it? 

 

It may be a problem for cheaters that want to pretend they can't buy insurance when they really just don't want to pay for it. 

[Swiss1960]

1 hour ago, pvdb64 said:

i still think one need to have a very good reason to block 100K euro of assets for a one year trip

Who is talking about a one-year trip (except you, I mean)? The vast majority of foreigners will extend their O-A visa, because they want to live here. And many foreigners already have investments in Thailand, mostly condos or houses, so the new option to self insure by showing assets could benefit those who already have these assets but can't get insurance due to age or health restrictions. 

[EVENKEEL]

16 minutes ago, ChrisY1 said:

I think the under the table visa system is becoming more popular....

Again I think there's a method to the madness of the new rules. We simply call them (Immigration) stupid but are they?? They know the more crazy they make getting a visa the more apt we are to use an "Agent"

[EVENKEEL]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Showing you've been turned down should be no problem for people that have actually been turned down "...on grounds of age, previous serious illness etc...", should it? 

 

It may be a problem for cheaters that want to pretend they can't buy insurance when they really just don't want to pay for it. 

Or how about those of us who already have a good health ins from our home country and don't need a BS policy from Thailand.

Edited February 1, 2022 by EVENKEEL

[JimHuaHin]

I am in agreement with many of the previous comments.

 

One notes from the conclusion of the full article:

 

"The requirements regarding self insurance are as follows:

3) In the case of risk groups who are totally or partially denied insurance purchase by
the company, they shall have additional documents as follows: ..."

 

Thus, my interpretation is, if one is "partially denied insurance" due to a/some pre-existing condition(s), as many of us older people (I am 66 years young) are, one can keep one's existing "insurance which provided inpatient cover up to 400,000 baht", and provide "evidence of a bank deposit or assets totalling 3 million baht", without the need of upgrading one's existing insurance to Baht 3 million.

 

Does this seem a valid interpretation?

 

Although I believe that some form of health insurance is essential (and many here may disagree), the restrictions on health insurance imposed by Thai Immigration - only from a dozen-odd designated Thai companies, excluding all foreign company coverage, as well as those farangs who have Thai spouses and are covered by thier spouse's health insurance programme) - are unrealistic and seem aimed at forcing older middle and working class retirees out of Thailand.

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

That is quite an interesting development. However, the main question now is, how do foreigners show that they have 3 million in assets? From the article:

"documents demonstrating properties, bank deposit, health insurance or others whose coverage shall not less than 3 million THB in total in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Immigration Bureau."

How do you value houses that officially are in your wife's name, or in a company name, or where you have leases? I am lucky to have health insurance, but nevertheless, the issue is interesting for me too.

If you're married and own a home, it's legally half yours, yes? Also, I don't think you need insurance for a marriage visa. 

 

If you own a long term lease or usufruct, they have value, yes?

 

If you own a company that has value, you should be able to show that value. 

 

None are as easy as showing a passbook or letter from the bank, but all are certainly doable.  

[Oxx]

It seems to me that there's a problem with having to get a letter of insurance being denied.  Insurance companies can offer insurance at exorbitant rates, perhaps "we'll cover you for 3 million baht if you pay 3 million baht a year".  This isn't a denial of insurance, and so won't allow the individual to self-insure.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Or how about those of us who already have a good health ins from our home country and don't need a BS policy from Thailand.

As this is for "A  Non-Immigrant “O-A” (Long Stay) visa is typically obtained from a Thai Embassy or Consulate overseas and should not be confused with the annual retirement extension (often erroneously referred to as a ‘retirement visa’), which is obtained an immigration office in Thailand..." the overseas Thai embassy or consulate will likely accept legitimate insurance from your home country that covers you in Thailand just like they accept evidence of overseas financials. 

[TigerandDog]

23 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

What an idiotic statement. The thread is about the insurance requirements that older expat could not get, as the majority of Thai insurances throws them out at a certain age. 

Actually it's a very logical statement. Those that already struggle to meet the 800k requirement will more than likely have next to no chance of meeting the the additional cost involved for the 3 million baht ( whether it be self insurance, assets etc ). So I'm inclined to agree. The number of cheats that have to resort to the use of an agent to do their annual extensions should decrease significantly IMHO.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, Oxx said:

It seems to me that there's a problem with having to get a letter of insurance being denied.  Insurance companies can offer insurance at exorbitant rates, perhaps "we'll cover you for 3 million baht if you pay 3 million baht a year".  This isn't a denial of insurance, and so won't allow the individual to self-insure.

It doesn't say you have to get a letter from every insurance company. 

 

When buying private insurance, people at high risk should have to pay more than people at low risk. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, TigerandDog said:

Actually it's a very logical statement. Those that already struggle to meet the 800k requirement will more than likely have next to no chance of meeting the the additional cost involved for the 3 million baht ( whether it be self insurance, assets etc ). So I'm inclined to agree. The number of cheats that have to resort to the use of an agent to do their annual extensions should decrease significantly IMHO.

Except that the thread is not about getting an extension of stay, it's about getting a visa. Did you read the article? 

[hakancnx]

And no word of extension for the OA-visa. Will this requirement follow as it did last time.

Only OA-retired extensioners need insurance....!

[Swiss1960]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If you're married and own a home, it's legally half yours, yes? Also, I don't think you need insurance for a marriage visa. 

 

If you own a long term lease or usufruct, they have value, yes?

 

If you own a company that has value, you should be able to show that value. 

 

None are as easy as showing a passbook or letter from the bank, but all are certainly doable.  

That is the big question, what will the Thai authorities accept and what not... only time will show, right now, it is just a statement thrown out by somebody, but not yet based on any laws or regulations.

 

And with regards to marriage, two points:
a) it depends whether your initial Visa was an O or O-A Visa - the latter requiring insurance. And to be honest, I am expecting the Thai government to announce that in the future, insurance coverage will be necessary for ANY kind of long-stay Visa.

b) Right now, everybody entering Thailand needs insurance, no matter the type of Visa or married or not. That is why many older people, who now reside in Thailand on a non-O basis and do NOT need insurance, will NOT be able to leave Thailand and come back, because they can not get insurance for re-entry based on their age.

[tonray]

Just now, hakancnx said:

Only OA-retired extensioners need insurance....!

We are a scurrilious bunch...always plotting to defraud local hospitals. Why I was just thinking about getting a liver transplant and then doing a runner just because my OA visa gives me special privileges.

[portlandtree]

1 hour ago, Iknow said:

Looks like a few retirees won’t be returning to Thailand due to these regulations, often the Baht 800,000 deposit requirement was a struggle to meet !

Still wonder what exactly is the $800,000B deposit for, why to keep the poor backpackers (nomads) out???

[wwest5829]

Granted, it has been over a decade since I obtained my O-A Visa through the Royal Thai Consulate in Chicago. I recall that to qualify, I had to submit a police report to assure I was a US citizen without a police record. I had to submit a medical form with a doctor certifying I was not bring dread disease into Thailand. And, I had to submit documentation showing I was financially secure and would not become a burden on the Kingdom of Thailand. No problem for me and, at the time as in today, I think most reasonable requirements. The financial security was established by submitting a copy of my retirement account balance, plus the qualified Social Security monthly income amount I would be receiving. Yes! For the first time in my life I was a "millionaire" ... well in Thai baht! This was my understanding as to the requirements Thailand demanded to allow me to retire in Thailand. I am saddened that, as I age, changing requirements (health insurance) has caused a threat to my wellbeing in the Kingdom. Having a heart attack, a stent placement and two angioplasties in 2015, I demonstrated my ability to pay the 411,000 baht cost without issue while not being required to buy insurance that does not cover pre-existing conditions (so I deal with the 11,400 baht premium cost as an additional cost without benefit for me nor the payment of any health costs for Thai medical institutions. If establishing the financial ability to "self insure" on the same basis as my original financial requirement, I would think that would answer to Thai payment concerns. I do encourage Thailand to work diplomatically to allow US retirees on Medicare, to receive the same ability to have medical care extended as that enjoyed by full US military retirees. Beneficial for US retirees and for promoting Thailand as a recognized healthcare provider (already recognized for US military medical care).

[Zack61]

2 hours ago, Card said:

Overseas or Thailand it seems 

That was my take too 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

That is the big question, what will the Thai authorities accept and what not... only time will show, right now, it is just a statement thrown out by somebody, but not yet based on any laws or regulations.

 

And with regards to marriage, two points:
a) it depends whether your initial Visa was an O or O-A Visa - the latter requiring insurance. And to be honest, I am expecting the Thai government to announce that in the future, insurance coverage will be necessary for ANY kind of long-stay Visa.

I assume most married people are on O. If they do make it a requirement, hopefully they will accept Thai social medicine.  

 

5 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

b) Right now, everybody entering Thailand needs insurance, no matter the type of Visa or married or not. That is why many older people, who now reside in Thailand on a non-O basis and do NOT need insurance, will NOT be able to leave Thailand and come back, because they can not get insurance for re-entry based on their age.

Are you saying that to get a non-O visa at a Thai consulate in another country you have to show proof of coverage? Or do you just have to show the BS covid insurance? 

 

I imagine anyone married that leaves and comes back in would likely come in on a non-O or visa-exempt.  

[Gottfrid]

2 hours ago, Oxx said:

Unless they've changed the rules, Amex requires that you pay the money back.

Oh, you are totally right. No changes there, my friend. I think you have forgotten something, though. Maybe you do not remember that paying of a credit is done in smaller parts, while the person with no credit has to pay all in one chunk. Please do not apply for a bank job in the near future.

 

4 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

How do you value houses that officially are in your wife's name, or in a company name, or where you have leases? I am lucky to have health insurance, but nevertheless, the issue is interesting for me too.

I will explain that to you, with a return question. How do you value anything as your private asset, that you do not legally own or have your name on? I assume the baht fell down now?

[1duckyboy]

"These criteria are amended to solve the problem of insurance purchase that may occur
and to raise the standards of the screening of non-Thai nationals who intend to enter Thailand."

 

The quest for quality retirees continues.

[Swiss1960]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I assume most married people are on O. If they do make it a requirement, hopefully they will accept Thai social medicine.  

 

Are you saying that to get a non-O visa at a Thai consulate in another country you have to show proof of coverage? Or do you just have to show the BS covid insurance? 

 

I imagine anyone married that leaves and comes back in would likely come in on a non-O or visa-exempt.  

Married people can only get Thai social medicine under VERY limited circumstances, like the wife is working for government. Most married retirees (like me) can NOT, as the wife is not in a scheme that would include the husband.

 

Most married people who leave and come back do this on a re-entry permit based on their extension of stay based on being married with a Thai national, this has nothing to do with visa-exempt of non-O.

 

The Covid insurance must have a value of 50K USD, must cover the full span of your stay in Thailand (that is to the end of your current extension of stay). That can be a significant cost factor on one hand AND - if you are really elderly - you might not even get the Covid insurance from Thai companies, they do NOT have to offer it to you.

[Swiss1960]

9 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

I will explain that to you, with a return question. How do you value anything as your private asset, that you do not legally own or have your name on? I assume the baht fell down now?

There are many assets with my name on it, be this shares of companies registered in the DBD database or motor vehicles in the DLT database or condos in the Land office... the question is, how will the Thai authorities value these assets. 

 

Just because you don't know how to legally own things in Thailand, does not mean that I and others don't...

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

Married people can only get Thai social medicine under VERY limited circumstances, like the wife is working for government. Most married retirees (like me) can NOT, as the wife is not in a scheme that would include the husband.

Or if you worked in Thailand prior to retiring in Thailand, which many do.

 

If they do make insurance compulsory, they could well make social medical available to long term stays for several thousand a month. 

 

4 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

Most married people who leave and come back do this on a re-entry permit based on their extension of stay based on being married with a Thai national, this has nothing to do with visa-exempt of non-O.

Well if they're on an OA it might be in their best interest not get the reentry permit, and get a new O, yes? 

 

4 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

The Covid insurance must have a value of 50K USD, must cover the full span of your stay in Thailand (that is to the end of your current extension of stay). That can be a significant cost factor on one hand AND - if you are really elderly - you might not even get the Covid insurance from Thai companies, they do NOT have to offer it to you.

I had to buy covid insurance last time I came in (got stuck in the US) and it was available to everyone. Only had to transfer the money, I think it was like $600 a year. 

[flexomike]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Where does it say it has to be blocked? 

 

At the Thai consulate in Los Angeles, to satisfy the financial requirement  ($15,000?) you only had to show a print out of your bank statement. 

what about the required funds for insurance coverage?

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

There are many assets with my name on it, be this shares of companies registered in the DBD database or motor vehicles in the DLT database or condos in the Land office... the question is, how will the Thai authorities value these assets. 

I assume only real assets would qualify, so vehicles would likely be out. The company's audit should value the company, the condo/home values would be registered. 

 

6 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

Just because you don't know how to legally own things in Thailand, does not mean that I and others don't...

Exactly

[tomazbodner]

4 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

That is quite an interesting development. However, the main question now is, how do foreigners show that they have 3 million in assets? From the article:

"documents demonstrating properties, bank deposit, health insurance or others whose coverage shall not less than 3 million THB in total in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Immigration Bureau."

How do you value houses that officially are in your wife's name, or in a company name, or where you have leases? I am lucky to have health insurance, but nevertheless, the issue is interesting for me too.

if in wife's name or company name, it's not officially yours, so it's worth nada.

[Enzian]

9 minutes ago, 1duckyboy said:

The quest for quality retirees continues.

And at the same time they keep doing things which push us in the direction of using agents out of necessity or desperation or frustration. I'd guess half of those who use agents for their extensions do so because they simply can't put together that much cash at once, hardly what they would call quality guys (but maybe fun guys). Truly schizophrenic. To ever get my respect this country would have to do away with agents, but then some of my friends would be gone.

I started reading this thread because I thought there might be evidence they were rationalizing the requirements and might be going to simplify and join O and O-A (tho I'm happy with my Non-O). And not be moving toward new insurance for Non-O. Fat chance.

[Gottfrid]

7 minutes ago, Swiss1960 said:

There are many assets with my name on it, be this shares of companies registered in the DBD database or motor vehicles in the DLT database or condos in the Land office... the question is, how will the Thai authorities value these assets. 

 

Just because you don't know how to legally own things in Thailand, does not mean that I and others don't...

What is your problem. I quoted a post that asked how to value something that was not in their own name. NEVER, posted that I do not know how to have things in my own name. Please tell me what you are on about or do not understand, and I will help you on the right path.

As for another thing, they will probably not want to have the assets bound up in a house, as the money need to be ready and available. And, after that go on with shares in companies. What guarantee of value is that. The company can be gone tomorrow. The stock exchange can limit or stop trades with certain assets. That value has no guarantee at all. I am pretty sure you will try to tell us that your crypto wallet should be called an asset. ????????????????

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, flexomike said:

what about the required funds for insurance coverage?

Unless you can find a sponsor, you'll have to come up with those on your own. 

 

I bought covid insurance from a Thai company (Luma?) without any difficulty while I was in the US. 

[Swiss1960]

1 minute ago, tomazbodner said:

if in wife's name or company name, it's not officially yours, so it's worth nada.

Another one who knows nothing... if a house is in your wife's name, it is yours 50% during divorce (if bought while married) and 100% if the wife dies and there is no will saying otherwise... same with land in my wife's name... the only restriction is then, that I have to sell it within a years time. 

 

So much for nada, you ignorant