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

[khunPer]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

What these people don't seem to understand is that those making rational decisions on where and how to retire cant do that on constantly changing requirements. People coming in on one set of rules need to . at the very least. have these rules grandfathered in. 

I don't understand why they can not device a fair system where long term residence can buy into the Thai national health care system, as many countries do, then if said expat desires additional insurance he/she can purchase supplemental insurance in the private sector .

A win win situation for both the Thai system that has another stream of income, and the expat that has a minimal health care safety net. 

Nothing has changed with the normal non-immigrant type-O visa and the annual extensions based on retirement.

 

The O-A type visa are for the those that apply for a one year stay from abroad, and keep their savings abroad instead of in a Thai bank deposit or showing month income transferred into Thailand. The self-insurance is just a wished for extra benefit for those that have difficulties in obtaining a heath insurance for various reasons.

[Bogbrush]

3 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

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"

Hands up how many immigration officers have an agent as a brother-in-law?

[Raphael54]

Another day, another idea, often crazy. 
For me and my non-Thai wife it means (3,000,000 + 3,000,000 + 800,000 + 800,000) or 7,6 million THB in the bank instead if the 1,6 million right now.

 

I have had enough.  We have decided to go back to my home country in Europe.  Living there is easier, especially for rich retirees.  Those so-called "rich retirees" whom the Thai government says to attract can be choosy.  Why should they want to retire in a politically troubled country where  they cannot speak their mind, where the government had not been very hospitable to them during Covid and where the paperwork will distract them from enjoying retired life.
 

[CRUNCHER]

Hopefully they will extend this to Non-O retirement/marriage.  It would solve a lot of peoples problems.

[Bogbrush]

I wonder how many people are missing the irony concealed in this post; it wasn’t a few years ago when everybody was complaining about the 400,000/40,000 local insurance requirement, calling it “trashy”, “useless”, “waste of money”, and followed by the statement “I have a very good overseas policy, why can’t I use that instead?”

 

Well, to supposed great relief, the Thai government has now condescended for all these overseas policies to be capable of utilisation instead of the local variety. Unfortunately the cheers and jubilations at this announcement seem to be drowned out by more moans that “er, actually I don’t have an overseas policy/it’s too expensive/I’m too old.” Amazing how the posters dynamics change whenever the Thai government rules do…

 

We then drift into uncharted territory regarding the self insurance with either cash or assets of 3 million Baht. Somewhat predictably, there is not too much comment on the cash aspect but many posters have referred to the fact that they have a house or condo and will presumably use that as collateral. Leaving aside the issue that many of these properties will be in the wives names -who might well show a marked reluctance to hand over the necessary permission to dispose of the property in part or in whole to pay for their spouses heart bypass - how will the collateral help? All hospitals invariably want the cash up front, and are hardly likely to wait 3 to 4 years before the patient can dispose of his property.  Can he raise a mortgage? Can he pay the mortgage? The opportunities for financial ruin and personal disaster are endless…

 

it will be interesting to see how things pan out, won’t it?

[Whale]

Anyone with an ounce of sense retired already here will just move to the O. How can one route be so easy and the other a hurdle of paper.

[CFCol]

7 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.

The3 million baht refers to the inpatient insurance cover and has nothing to do with property or money in bank.

[Harveyboy]

6 hours ago, Oxx said:

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

then its not insurance its a loan...not the same eh

[Jack Hammer]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

Indeed that is the main point but with go fund stuff and people not being able to pay there will be resistance in letting insurance go. You read from time to time foreigners not being able to pay and I can see how that irks Thais and Thai hospitals. Its the fault of those guys skipping out on bills that we are in this mess.  (people might say its not but im sure it is) 

 

I think your spot on with your remark. 

All would be ok if foreigners were charged the same rate as Thai nationals for hospitalisation 

[Swiss1960]

22 minutes ago, CFCol said:

The3 million baht refers to the inpatient insurance cover and has nothing to do with property or money in bank.

You are also one of those <forbidden expression> who writes without thinking and does not even bother to read the article. You just made a fool out of yourself. 

The article is about having 3M in assets when you are denied insurance!!!! It has ALL to do with property or assets in bank!!!

 

Quote from the article that you did not read:
"In order to solve the issue, information released by the Ministry of Public Health confirms that applicants for Non Imm O-A (Long stay) visa who are denied insurance can now self insure. However, they must be able to show evidence of a bank deposit or assets totalling 3 million baht. That’s in addition to the 800,000 baht they need in the bank to meet the initial financial requirements in order to be granted a Non Imm O-A (Long stay) visa."

 

Jesus... make sure such people don't have children... 

[flexomike]

2 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Non O visa can be for various reasons, OA visa is only for retire.

The idea is retirees have insurance.

Great idea as only retires get sick

[WingFat]

When I lived and worked in Thailand for 6 years (with a bonafide Thai Limited Co and work permit), I had several million in THB in a Thai bank with the main reason that if I needed extensive medical care for whatever reason, I had the juice to pay for it. I also had a substantial amount in overseas bank accounts if the THB funds ran dry. If one desires to live overseas, I believe one must be set up to weather the storms life tends to throw at us and not become a financial burden to someone else or another country.

[Gottfrid]

4 hours ago, Swiss1960 said:

That is exactly what I am talking about... how do they value my assets... and yes, a crypto wallet IS an asset, at least according to the tax authorities who have no whatsoever problem to assign a value to every single asset I have... the question is, does immigration do the same or not. 

Probably like I posted in the first sentence of the post you just quoted.

[Captain Monday]

Brilliant.

 

Thai O-A visa  poxy Thai insurance problem, solved. 

[Chiang Mai Will]

I gave up on the bold-italic-underlined bit:

 

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: (1) the letter of denial [(1.1) if the denial is issued in Thailand, follow the criteria, but (2) if it is done in foreign countries, coordinate with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the applicant’s country to sign the notary by the authorised person] (2) 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.

 

The UK Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. As the majority of civil servants in the UK don't want to go back to the office and want to keep working at home I wonder what the chances are of raising one to "coordinate with to sign the notary by the authorised person" -- whatever that means?

 

My wife is Thai and we own property in CM.  My chances of obtaining ordinary travel insurance (78 this year with early but treatable cancer) are pretty dismal/expensive/impossible.  We spend money when we return to the L-of-S but we won't be returning -- in a hurry!

[Road Warrior]

do i understand correctly --!!!  if have 3 million bht in bank NO MED,INSURANCED NEEDED ?????

[Terry2905]

I fail to comprehend this?

 

Non o-a visa holders now need to show either health insurance cover for a minimum of 3,000,000 baht, or proof of assets of a minimum 3,000,000 baht. Yes?

 

Non o visa holders only need to show 800,000 baht in a Thai bank.

 

I fear that this is only a pre cursor, and that all retirement visas will soon need the 3,000,000 baht, either health insurance, or assets?

 

With the cheapest 3,000,000 baht health insurance that I have been quoted being 120,000 baht per year, that is beyond a lot of people's budget!

 

Time to jump ship before my next non o extension, because I am convinced that we are next!

 

One only has to read the banter, that Thailand only want rich foreigners, to realise that those of us who have been unlucky in life, and not have 3,000,000 baht lying around, are not welcome here!

 

The Philippines here I come! Only need to deposit 300,000 baht in the Philippines government bank account (with pension income), or 600,000 baht with no pension income! And no stupid 90 day reporting!

[robblok]

8 hours ago, sirineou said:

What these people don't seem to understand is that those making rational decisions on where and how to retire cant do that on constantly changing requirements. People coming in on one set of rules need to . at the very least. have these rules grandfathered in. 

I don't understand why they can not device a fair system where long term residence can buy into the Thai national health care system, as many countries do, then if said expat desires additional insurance he/she can purchase supplemental insurance in the private sector .

A win win situation for both the Thai system that has another stream of income, and the expat that has a minimal health care safety net. 

Right but what is fair, i mean if your an older foreigner you are probably going to cost the Thai taxpayer a lot of money. So what is a fair buyin ? 100k 200k 500k ? 

 

Just remember in your most productive years with least disease you did not pay a thing, and now when your old when your going to need it you buy in. So the buy in might be a lot higher then you think. 

 

But i understand the idea and would not be opposed to it. But like i said what is a fair buyin. 

Edited February 1, 2022 by robblok

[losername]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

You read from time to time foreigners not being able to pay and I can see how that irks Thais and Thai hospitals. Its the fault of those guys skipping out on bills that we are in this mess. 

I would really like to see the statistics on this.  Is it really us old guys with pre-existing conditions who cost the Thai health authorities big money or is it the young adventurous tourists on motorbikes, with no insurance, who cannot meet their hospital bills?  This new policy offers a solution to the former but is that really the group that costs the money?

[simon43]

[quote]

How do you value houses that officially are in your wife's name, or in a company name, or where you have leases? 

...

[/quote]

 

Well, then they are not your houses!!  They are owned by your wife or a company, or you only lease them.  Same as in any other country ????

[CartagenaWarlock]

11 hours ago, USNret said:

Must these assets be in Thailand? Can they be overseas? Considering that many O-A applicants don’t yet have a Thai bank account, showing the assets in Thailand can be problematic when you visit a Thai embassy overseas. 

MY guess is if you want a subsequent extension, it must be in Thailand. If you want the visa, it should be in the country where you get your visa (generally your home country).

[CartagenaWarlock]

4 hours ago, Bogbrush said:

have a house or condo and will presumably use that as collateral.

I only know in The USA, a house or condo is almost like cash and and lenders are willing to offer cash as loan in a very short period (sometimes in a week). I doubt a house or condo in Thailand is like cash and banks are willing to offer loan easily. 

[tandor]

6 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Non O visa can be for various reasons, OA visa is only for retire.

The idea is retirees have insurance.

...so you have no idea either.

[Flink]

It still makes me chuckle that, with or without the need for health insurance, they demand that you have 800,000 baht in a Thai bank every time you renew. There are countries out there (mainly in S. America) where proof of a lifetime pension of over $900 a month is all that is required to get a 2 year retirement visa with:

        no 90 day reporting

        the ability to get permanent residency after your 2nd renewal

        the ability to  own land and property

Can't see, particularly as things stand at the moment, what makes Thailand feel it is worth so much more than those places.

[khunjeff]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

Right but what is fair, i mean if your an older foreigner you are probably going to cost the Thai taxpayer a lot of money. So what is a fair buyin ? 100k 200k 500k ? 

 

Just remember in your most productive years with least disease you did not pay a thing, and now when your old when your going to need it you buy in. So the buy in might be a lot higher then you think. 

 

But i understand the idea and would not be opposed to it. But like i said what is a fair buyin. 

Exactly. Whenever this issue comes up, there are always lots of posters here saying, "they should just let us join the social insurance system for 500 baht a month, problem solved".

 

I understand that most of them come from countries with socialized medicine where they've never seen a medical bill and have no idea what health care actually costs, and good for them if that's the case. But realistically, the cost of unsubsidized coverage for a cohort of people, all over age 50, with a variety of pre-existing conditions, who have never paid into the system during their young and healthy years, will be high - shockingly high to those who imagine it can be done for 500 baht per month. It can certainly be done, but it would come at a very high price.

 

2 hours ago, losername said:

I would really like to see the statistics on this.  Is it really us old guys with pre-existing conditions who cost the Thai health authorities big money or is it the young adventurous tourists on motorbikes, with no insurance, who cannot meet their hospital bills?  This new policy offers a solution to the former but is that really the group that costs the money?

Realistically, there isn't a major issue at all - the insurance requirement is a solution in search of a problem. Even if you believe all of the bleats about foreigners running away from medical bills - and I don't - the sum total of allegedly unpaid bills, for tourists and long-term residents alike, only came to something like $10M USD prior to Covid. (It should be noted that most of those bleats came from a single executive at a single hospital on a single island.) That amounted to about 10 baht per visitor, which the government wants to "solve" with a tax of 300 baht per visitor. Do the math.

 

As others here have observed, you basically can't get expensive treatment in Thailand without pre-payment, a day by day top-up of your balance, or a guarantee from an insurer. The unpaid bills that we read or hear about typically result from either emergency treatment given after a terrible accident where medical ethics prevent denial of care, usually to a tourist (and often resulting from poor judgment involving motorbikes, jet skis, and the like) - or from end-of-life treatment given to an oldster who enters the hospital with enough money, but whose funds run out before he dies.

 

Those cases are unfortunate, but are also rare. Unlike the impression given by the government and media here, foreigners do not frequently run out on bills, mostly because it's not really possible. More often, they just skip necessary treatment because they're afraid it will cost too much.

[robblok]

17 minutes ago, khunjeff said:

Exactly. Whenever this issue comes up, there are always lots of posters here saying, "they should just let us join the social insurance system for 500 baht a month, problem solved".

 

I understand that most of them come from countries with socialized medicine where they've never seen a medical bill and have no idea what health care actually costs, and good for them if that's the case. But realistically, the cost of unsubsidized coverage for a cohort of people, all over age 50, with a variety of pre-existing conditions, who have never paid into the system during their young and healthy years, will be high - shockingly high to those who imagine it can be done for 500 baht per month. It can certainly be done, but it would come at a very high price.

 

 

I come from a country with socialized medicine, that does not mean I can't think or understand how the system works.

 

You pay in it during your working life and at first you pay more then your ever get from it then at some age that changes. Not in all cases of course but in general. That is how the system works basically. Though in general the young pay for the old as most of these systems were set up at a certain point without everyone having paid into it. 

 

I think a lot of people just don't have an accounting background, so they are not versed in stuff like this. Just like I am not versed in other stuff like all the technical stuff. Think most here are from a more hands on background. So its not so strange that most don't seem to understand. 

 

Im pretty sure that most Thais (and for good reason) would oppose for Thais shouldering the financial burden. They hardly give their own population a good healthcare system and now there would be extra cost. 

 

Can't blame them.

 

 

[scubascuba3]

A lot of people getting excited but this is mostly irrelevant as most people have non imm O visas so can already self insure so calm down

[EVENKEEL]

If I didn't have a good health plan from my home country that covers me in Thailand I'd be shopping for a Thai plan regardless of Visa requirements.

Edited February 1, 2022 by EVENKEEL

[CRUNCHER]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

A lot of people getting excited but this is mostly irrelevant as most people have non imm O visas so can already self insure so calm down

Good news.  I was not aware of that.  Could you expand please? Thanks.

[Morty T]

Changed today, changes back tomorrow.