Your Thoughts On This Thailand'S Pr And Naturalisation Policies.

[Arkady]

Having said all that, I've always been of the view that spouses and dependents should be granted, subject to character assessments and financial stability on application automatic residency and work rights. And a path to citizenship, eventually (and all that entails).

Again however, the current system for male spouses, while clunky, isn't too overbearing. In fact it is a red-herring. 40,000K a month is a pretty low threshold needed, and even if the requirement wasn't there, you'd be stupid to try and live in Thailand anyway on any less, especially when you are supporting someone.

This is an interesting point that needs to be considered in conjunction with retirement visas, if they are to be considered at all, since many retirees are married to Thai citizens. Currently there is a simple formula that applies a 50% discount to most financial requirements for those married to Thais, e.g. marriage extensions, fees for PR, salary required for citizenship, but no special rights were accorded to men married to Thai women, until the 2008 Nationality Act gave them the right to apply for citizenship without PR and (theoretically) without knowledge of the Thai language. However, I do not read into this a change of thinking in the direction of giving more rights to settlement short of citizenship to those married to Thais, as I think that amendment to the Nationality Act was made purely on constitutional grounds (and probably quite reluctantly) to reduce discrimination against Thai women married to foreigners. Thai men have always been able to get citizenship for their foreign wives on relatively easy terms and there was obviously no interest in eliminating this right.

On your second point, the B40k per month minimum salary for men married to Thai citizens is not always directly comparable to retirement or marriage extension requirements. Because of the archaic wording and concepts behind the Nationality Act, the related ministerial regulations can only consider income from a profession excercised in Thailand (same for PR under the Immigration Act), whereas income from offshore can be taken into consideration when applying for extensions. Therefore, it is possible for some one with an offshore income of, say B200k per month, or even substantial onshore investment income, to come to Thailand and take a semi retirement job on a modest salary and even Immigration will permit this for certain combinations of nationality and profession. For citizenship only the Thai salary will be considered and this is difficult to change. However, there is a question of how long the Interior Ministry might take to consider the citizenship application of a male without PR married to a Thai with a salary of B40k per month. Even the best qualified candidates who already had PR before the 2008 amendment waited for at least three years and quite a few waited for over 10 years.

That's why I say I doubt that they appreciate the economic benefits. You are right Kuhn A ... There is no Thailand Retirement Authority (TAR) with offices in Gibraltar and Cabo San Lucas (Mexico) to lure all those retirees to the Kingdom... If Immigration wants to know exactly how many retirement extensions have been issued that would be easy enough to do.

You make many goods points, however I tire of the attitude on TV.com that those in charge -- to be polite-- are misguided ... trying to improve the situation is fine without 'what they don't realize'-type posturings.

I am not quite sure exactly what is meant by 'what they don't realize' -type posturings but I suspect TV's income is directly related to the robustness of the debates which increases hit rates and that it might go bust pretty quickly if the threads were reduced to the level of being fawningly respectful of anything to do with the establishment.

Unfortunately, there is no Thai Retirement Authority (TAR) competing for ad agency wooden spoon awards, while busily squirreling tax payers' money into tax havens around the world following the egregious model of the TAT or any think tank about what to do with foreign retirees. However, there is a huge raft of temporary legislation relating to the 2 million or so registered and unregistered migrant workers which usually comes out in separate drafts specifically for Burmese, Cambodian and Lao workers. There is an interesting article in today's Bangkok Post which cannot be linked here that makes the point that the government's drive to control the migrants through nationality verification and registration is actually raising the self-confidence of the legitimate migrant workers, who now have passports and alien ID cards, and encouraging them to demand more rights and respect as human beings from the government. Since we were earlier discussing economic value added, this situation is the direct result of the catastrophic failure of successive Thai governments to plan for higher value added industries and improve the quality of the Thai work force, as Korea, Taiwan and Singapore did in the 70s. Instead we have a loser's makeshift policy of trying to keep the sunset industries alive on life support, using migrant labour comprising over 5% of the work force and rising, without regard to the economic and social costs.

Immigration policy for this large population of migrant workers that is growing in numbers and vociferousness is likely to be a major priority over foreign retirees in the coming years. Perhaps policy makers will ultimately decide to acknowledge the retirees as immigrants and regulate them accordingly. On the other hand they may prefer to continue to turn a blind eye, as Jazzbo hopes, and leave them with status akin to tourists who can be squeezed out at any time through an unsuccessful extension application, rather than give them specific rights as residents.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

It isn't a matter of fawning, Kuhn A. -- it is just that they are in charge; you aren't...

If the Thai IMM policy makers are so oblivious to what would really be in the Kingdom's best interests, maybe those best interests as YOU see them have not been packaged properly by those who might have some influence on such misguided persons whose policies are now configured -- in your humble opinion -- to have Thailand remain an Asian backwater.

As far as long-term alien resident rights in Thailand go, the #1 volume poster on the ThaiVisa Finance Forum refers to US Government officials as 'our jailers' who deny US citizens their fundamental Constitutional Rights so I guess you cannot win.

BTW as far as robust debates go I would say the attention span of the average TV reader is about 2 sentences ... and they are far more interested in how to comply with the IMM regulations as they exist today rather than your robust opinion on what you think the regulations should be ...

Edited December 17, 2010 by jazzbo

[jayboy]

It isn't a matter of fawning, Kuhn A. -- it is just that they are in charge; you aren't...

If the Thai IMM policy makers are so oblivious to what would really be in the Kingdom's best interests, maybe those best interests as YOU see them have not been packaged properly by those who might have some influence on such misguided persons whose policies are now configured -- in your humble opinion -- to have Thailand remain an Asian backwater.

As far as long-term alien resident rights in Thailand go, the #1 volume poster on the ThaiVisa Finance Forum refers to US Government officials as 'our jailers' who deny US citizens their fundamental Constitutional Rights so I guess you cannot win.

BTW as far as robust debates go I would say the attention span of the average TV reader is about 2 sentences ... and they are far more interested in how to comply with the IMM regulations as they exist today rather than your robust opinion on what you think the regulations should be ...

Arkady can and no doubt will speak for himself, but I think you have completely missed the point.It is not a question of what we as foreigners think the regulations should or should not be.In brief an anachronistic situation has developed where a very large number of foreign retirees on modest incomes, and on short term visas have settled permanently in the Kingdom.There was no government policy directive underpinning this and the Thai authorities have regulated with a light hand but on an ad hoc basis.Given the rapid economic and social transformation of Thailand it is logical that a long hard look at this sector will be undertaken.It cannot be ruled out that such an overhaul would involve a very substantial increase in financial criteria.This is not just speculation:the trend is already there to see - for example the large increase in fee for successful PR applicants (and these are people who unlike most retirees are well educated and relatively well off).

[Jingthing]

OK, I am back. Can't help myself, sorry.

What trend? The trend on the macro level has been the OPPOSITE of what has been suggested.

Remember the limitations on use of 30 day visa free entries/tourist visas during a six month period?

GONE.

Now if you like you and have a fat passport you can fly in and out every 30 days for a new stamp, no questions asked and/or combined with TRs, of any entry number you can manage to get, for years and years. That in itself represents a very significant liberalization. Remember before the liberalization, those pesky limits were established (the day counting nightmare) and now back to normal. I doubt we have anyone here smart enough to understand the inner workings of the policy makers on the most recent liberalization, but again, the macro trend is one of opening, NOT closing.

Remember before ED visas when there was no practical way for someone under 50 without a Thai spouse to live here for years?

ESTABLISHED.

People can read the tea leaves as they like but the changes in recent years have most definitely been a liberalization of the possibilities for long stay, rather than a restriction.

I have no doubt there will be future changes, but I reject the concept that there is strong evidence of a current or recent tightening. Au contraire, gentlemen, au contraire.

I admit my bias openly. I LIKE the open visa policies here and I like that they are open to middle class foreigners. I think more countries should have that; it's a wonderful progressive thing.

Of course it could be even more progressive, but you can't have everything. For example, why can't long stay visa holders own a small piece of land for a private house, why can't retirement visa holders be allowed to legally teach English, why can't retirement visa holders have any defined path towards permanent residence if that's their desire?

Those making the elitist arguments, in my view, are similarly biased AGAINST the more open policies, but I feel they are not being honest about their real biases, and presenting their views as objective. Yet when you look at the actual evidence of trends, as I have presented here, their arguments fall apart. Their predictions may or may not come true, but they are most certainly not supported by any conclusive evidence.

Also note -- the fact that Malaysia has indeed thrown out middle class retirees is not really evidence that Thailand will do the same.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Jingthing

[Arkady]

It isn't a matter of fawning, Kuhn A. -- it is just that they are in charge; you aren't...

If the Thai IMM policy makers are so oblivious to what would really be in the Kingdom's best interests, maybe those best interests as YOU see them have not been packaged properly by those who might have some influence on such misguided persons whose policies are now configured -- in your humble opinion -- to have Thailand remain an Asian backwater.

As far as long-term alien resident rights in Thailand go, the #1 volume poster on the ThaiVisa Finance Forum refers to US Government officials as 'our jailers' who deny US citizens their fundamental Constitutional Rights so I guess you cannot win.

BTW as far as robust debates go I would say the attention span of the average TV reader is about 2 sentences ... and they are far more interested in how to comply with the IMM regulations as they exist today rather than your robust opinion on what you think the regulations should be ...

Arkady can and no doubt will speak for himself, but I think you have completely missed the point.It is not a question of what we as foreigners think the regulations should or should not be.In brief an anachronistic situation has developed where a very large number of foreign retirees on modest incomes, and on short term visas have settled permanently in the Kingdom.There was no government policy directive underpinning this and the Thai authorities have regulated with a light hand but on an ad hoc basis.Given the rapid economic and social transformation of Thailand it is logical that a long hard look at this sector will be undertaken.It cannot be ruled out that such an overhaul would involve a very substantial increase in financial criteria.This is not just speculation:the trend is already there to see - for example the large increase in fee for successful PR applicants (and these are people who unlike most retirees are well educated and relatively well off).

Very aptly put Jayboy.

Jazzbo's comments are not particularly lucid but the regarding the general point about economic and social planning, I think Thailand's natural resources and tourism attractions have made it easy for the policy makers to be lackadaisical. Korea, Taiwan and Singapore had no such luxury and would be in deep sh#t today, if their planners hadn't had the foresight that they did. Tertiary level education has increased significantly in Thailand in the last 20 years with the mushrooming of private unis competing for customers but without any planning as to what sectors need the human resources. The result is a large number of social science grads who can't speak English and are qualified to sell mobile phones in department stores until they get too old to look the part any more. I believe that proper planning in the 70s and 80s would have led to better opportunities for ordinary citizens and the lack of this has produced the lopsided growth and social divisions we see today. Just looking at the virtually stagnant real wage growth of recent years, while real economic growth has continued around the long term trend line, it is obvious that the result of clinging to low value added industries and importing sweated foreign labour has increased factor income to capital significantly at the expense of factor income to labour. This formula is not sustainable and long term trend growth will eventually slow just at the time when the politicians are trying to pacify the dissatisfied populace with Western style welfare policies that the economy will not have grown fast enough to support.

This all may be good news to foreign retirees, as it might help put off the evil day when the policy makers will address the issue of regulating foreign retirees and it also helps keep the internal demand pull element of inflation down, preventing Thailand from pricing itself out of the retirement market too quickly. As Jaybo has pointed out, I am not making suggestions as to how immigration regulations should be amended for retirees. Although it wouldn't effect me directly, I don't want friends on retirement or marriage visas to suddenly disappear and not all of my friends are wealthy. Thailand has a history of leaving old regulations in place for many years until they are completely out of date (look at the number of offences in the Penal Code that are punishable by a fine of B1,000 or two years in jail) and then suddenly bringing them up to date in one go. A few years ago the minimum salary to apply for Thai citizenship was B7,000 a month which not nearly enough even to get a work permit. Then it was revised up to B80,000 a month. As Jayboy mentioned, the fee for PR was recently increased by nearly four times. Going back further, the fee was increased 100 fold from B4 to B400 in 1952 when the government introduced the quota of 100 per nationality, effectively halting Chinese immigration in its tracks.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

but I think you have completely missed the point... Did you ever get around to making a point?

Jazzbo's comments are not particularly lucid ... but unlike yours they are brief.

[Arkady]

OK, I am back. Can't help myself, sorry.

What trend? The trend on the macro level has been the OPPOSITE of what has been suggested.

Remember the limitations on use of 30 day visa free entries/tourist visas during a six month period?

GONE.

Now if you like you and have a fat passport you can fly in and out every 30 days for a new stamp, no questions asked and/or combined with TRs, of any entry number you can manage to get, for years and years. That in itself represents a very significant liberalization. Remember before the liberalization, those pesky limits were established (the day counting nightmare) and now back to normal. I doubt we have anyone here smart enough to understand the inner workings of the policy makers on the most recent liberalization, but again, the macro trend is one of opening, NOT closing.

Remember before ED visas when there was no practical way for someone under 50 without a Thai spouse to live here for years?

ESTABLISHED.

People can read the tea leaves as they like but the changes in recent years have most definitely been a liberalization of the possibilities for long stay, rather than a restriction.

I have no doubt there will be future changes, but I reject the concept that there is strong evidence of a current or recent tightening. Au contraire, gentlemen, au contraire.

I admit my bias openly. I LIKE the open visa policies here and I like that they are open to middle class foreigners. I think more countries should have that; it's a wonderful progressive thing.

Of course it could be even more progressive, but you can't have everything. For example, why can't long stay visa holders own a small piece of land for a private house, why can't retirement visa holders be allowed to legally teach English, why can't retirement visa holders have any defined path towards permanent residence if that's their desire?

Those making the elitist arguments, in my view, are similarly biased AGAINST the more open policies, but I feel they are not being honest about their real biases, and presenting their views as objective. Yet when you look at the actual evidence of trends, as I have presented here, their arguments fall apart. Their predictions may or may not come true, but they are most certainly not supported by any conclusive evidence.

Also note -- the fact that Malaysia has indeed thrown out middle class retirees is not really evidence that Thailand will do the same.

I don't think you can read the scrapping on 30 day visas as an intended liberalization. It is more likely that the policy was poorly thought out and impractical. At the height of this policy Immigration queues at Swampy which are normally bad enough were terrible, as harassed Immigration officers scanned through passport stamps, counting on their fingers. It also created a poor welcome to well off visitors from the region who spend short holidays in Thailand as often as they can, not to mention frequent business visitors.

ED visas are not a new phenomenon. Visas for study purposes are mentioned in the original 1927 Immigration Act. You are wrong anyway. There was, indeed, another visa in the recent past that under 50s without Thai spouses could use to stay with or without working, if they invested B3 million including condos. Even though it attracted people wealthier than the average retiree, it was scrapped, as it was thought to be attracting undesirables who were either working illegally or, worse still, involved in crime. ED visas have always been intended for bona fide students and I wouldn't be surprised to see Immigration refusing to extend them in future to students who study Thai for years without gaining any educational credentials or even being able to write their names and addresses in Thai.

Saying that you would like to be able to own land and work part time is an argument in favour of a Malaysian style solution. Even that scheme doesn't provide a route to permanent residence. Having an occupation in Thailand has been enshrined in the Immigration Act as a prerequisite for PR since the 20s and I don't see this changing. If it ever did, it would probably require a very large investment. Regarding land ownership, the 1999 Land Act already permits you to own a rai of residential land, if you invest B40 million (excluding the investment in property). If that law were to be amended, it is more likely that the minimum investment would be adjusted upwards for inflation, rather than reduced to suit retirees living on basic state pensions.

The Malaysia My Second Home programme didn't drive out the foreign middle class retirees because they didn't have easy retirement visas or a substantial retirement community before that. If 12,000 have already been approved, that seems to account for a significant proportion of the applications for long term residence in Malaysia in recent years and is probably regarded as a success by the Malaysian planners who were obviously not going for the mass retirement market. Anyway compare the statistics for long term residence applications approved in Thailand which was only about 350 a year until 2006 and only 7 in total since then with a quota of zero for 2010 applications.

Biased or not, I am just stating a case based on my over 20 years of experience of studying social and economic trends in Thailand and my readings of relevant documents in the original. You are free to disagree based on more emotional and superficial analysis and, believe it or not, I actually hope you are right.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Arkady

[supaprik]

renounce my Oz citizenship? ting tong..another joke from the land of jokes

[jazzbo]

I am just stating a case based on my over 20 years of experience of studying social and economic trends in Thailand and my readings of relevant documents in the original...

So WADR why are you stating the 'case' here where the odds are that no one in any policy making capacity will ever see it? ... or is this just your rehearsal space for your non-Walter Mitty diplomatic policy endeavors. I am a <deleted>' nobody but by virtue of my work here in Thailand I was able to assist in authoring an Article in the (most recent) Thai Constitution ... which turned out to be very lucid.

Edited December 18, 2010 by jazzbo

[samran]

Those making the elitist arguments, in my view, are similarly biased AGAINST the more open policies, but I feel they are not being honest about their real biases, and presenting their views as objective. Yet when you look at the actual evidence of trends, as I have presented here, their arguments fall apart. Their predictions may or may not come true, but they are most certainly not supported by any conclusive evidence.

Also note -- the fact that Malaysia has indeed thrown out middle class retirees is not really evidence that Thailand will do the same.

Elitist? Depends on your perspective I think...

My view in (sort of) a nutshell:

- Thailand should allow futher liberalisation of work permit to welcome skilled workers. If this means scrapping silly Thai to foreigner ratio's and paid up capital requirements, then so be it. Allowing foreigners to practice in up to this point restricted professions (eg lawyers.. jayboy). A win for increasing the productivity of the Thai economy. A predicatble path to residency and citizenship.

- Expanding 'work and holiday' visa arrangements for under 30's- ideally to help fill skills shortages in English Language teaching, other areas which might require English speakers (hospitality). Given these are typical reciprocal agreememnts, it would be a win for under 30's Thai's to have the chance to live and work legally overseas for a year.

- Automatic work and residency rights for spouses and dependents, with a predicatble path to citizenship.

Are the above elitist? Hardly. And are they OPEN? Very.

What I find elitist, frankly, is the view that one should be able to move to another country based on the fact that they have enough money in their pockets. That somehow money grants them rights above others.

People who generally think this are those born in countries, where, had they not had the fortune to be born on that soil probably would not met the critieria to independently migrate there. But, having the fortune to be born there, and derived the economic advantages granted to them from that, they then have the gumption to expect that other 'lesser' countries should welcome them with open arms.

People who once they arrive, apart from their (usually) middling retirement incomes, add very little else to their new host country.

And, then to expect you'll be granted residency and citizenship? C'mon! .....

That, I find, is elitist.

Give me a Burmese migrant worker who is going to help build Thailand over a pensioned off farangland middle class retiree, anyday.

Edited December 18, 2010 by samran

[Arkady]

Post deleted by Arkady

Edited December 18, 2010 by Arkady

[Arkady]

I am a <deleted>' nobody but by virtue of my work here in Thailand I was able to assist in authoring an Article in the (most recent) Thai Constitution ... which turned out to be very lucid.

That’s great that you managed to co-author a single article and thought your contribution to it was lucid but what did you mean by this?

If the Thai IMM policy makers are so oblivious to what would really be in the Kingdom's best interests, maybe those best interests as YOU see them have not been packaged properly by those who might have some influence on such misguided persons whose policies are now configured -- in your humble opinion -- to have Thailand remain an Asian backwater.

As far as long-term alien resident rights in Thailand go, the #1 volume poster on the ThaiVisa Finance Forum refers to US Government officials as 'our jailers' who deny US citizens their fundamental Constitutional Rights so I guess you cannot win.

And this?

So WADR why are you stating the 'case' here...

Edited December 18, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

That's great that you managed to co-author a single article and thought your contribution to it was lucid but what did you mean by this?

What I meant was that as each single article of the 2007 Thailand Constitution was drafted by a sub-committee, I was asked to assist one of those sub-committees which I did and my contributions are evident in the final Article language ...

I would think after 20 years of studying socio-economic conditions in Thailand and how they relate to various government policies and legislation that you would have some tangible contribution to report other than to say you post your observations here on ThaiVisa.com. Maybe you should try nailing a manifesto on someone's door like Martin Luther?

And this? Your are concerned about rights of the alien in Thailand ... On ThaiVisa.com Finance Forum the #1 volume poster writes about the Constitutional rights of the American citizen being denied in America...is there some Bill of Rights for a non-Thai citizen in Thailand? ... I spend time assisting Thai citizens to realize their full 'guaranteed' rights in Thailand.

Edited December 18, 2010 by jazzbo

[Arkady]

I would think after 20 years of studying socio-economic conditions in Thailand and how they relate to various government policies and legislation that you would have some tangible contribution to report other than to say you post your observations here on ThaiVisa.com. Maybe you should try nailing a manifesto on someone's door like Martin Luther?

How do you know what I have or haven't done over the last 20 years?

It seems that the discussion about retirees is too emotional to continue. Those who don't or won't need retirement visas to stay in Thailand and can therefore think about the issue objectively, such as Richard, Samran and myself, are attacked as elitist or irrelevant even for just expressing views of what we think is likely to happen in the longer term, regardless of whether that is what we are advocating or not. I sympathise with those who feel so threatened about the prospect of one day not making the cut for their annual extensions that they can't think rationally about this issue.

[jazzbo]

I don't have the slightest idea about what you have or have not done; all I know is that if you have done something you sure have done your best not to mention it in your extended verbiage... personally I have no great concerns one way or other as regards long-term stay in Thailand; there are many ways to skin that cat.

Edited December 19, 2010 by jazzbo

[Arkady]

I don't have the slightest idea about what you have or have not done; all I know is that if you have done something you sure have done your best not to mention it in your extended verbiage... personally I have no great concerns one way or other as regards long-term stay in Thailand; there are many ways to skin that cat.

Good. Keeping skinning your cats and making incoherent comments about your diminutive achievements.

[jazzbo]

Thank you ... I am humbled such an accomplished person such as yourself would spend time to someone of such diminutive achievements... you are the only person who -- while many disagree my comments -- considers them incoherent ... maybe that says more about you than myself. Personally, I would prefer to be called 'emotional and superficial' ...

Edited December 20, 2010 by jazzbo

[Arkady]

In an article in Phuketwan yesterday, the chief executive of the Phuket Provincial Administrative Organization, Paiboon Upatising, is quoted calling for visa rules for retirees to be amended to require them to have compulsory medical insurance to prevent them from taking up beds in public hospitals that they are unable to pay for. He said that public hospitals in Phuket have had to treat at least 40 ailing foreign retirees without payment in 2010. Khun Paiboon further claimed that many foreign retirees living in Thailand are virtually penniless and just borrow the necessary B800,000 to make their annual visa extensions. He plans to take the matter up with the Phuket governor and the provincial assembly with a view to passing a recommendation to the Interior Ministry to amend visa rules for retirees to prevent them from consuming scarce state medical resources that are intended for Thai citizens.

The article also said that honorary consuls in Phuket have previously suggested insurance should be compulsory for visitors without specifying whether they meant retirees in particular, as they are apparently sick of dealing with problems like tourists refusing to pay for medical treatment after their numerous motorcycle accidents. The journalists seemed to suggest that these broader suggestions by consuls have not been taken up in the past due to fears of making Phuket less competitive as a tourist destination.

Please note that I am not implying that I agree or disagree with Khun Paiboon's suggestion for amending retiree visa regulations. So please refrain from flaming. I just post this for information.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Arkady

[jazzbo]

In terms of any revision to retirement policies, there are many -- on the contrary especially Americans -- who may choose long-term stay in Thailand because health insurance is available at reasonable cost. Lest the gentleman now refer to me as one of the 'penniless' I will note I have maintained a BUPA Platinum Policy for the last 7 years.

[Richard4849]

I find Khun Paiboon's suggestions entirely reasonable.

[tombkk]

In an article in Phuketwan yesterday, the chief executive of the Phuket Provincial Administrative Organization, Paiboon Upatising, is quoted calling for visa rules for retirees to be amended to require them to have compulsory medical insurance to prevent them from taking up beds in public hospitals that they are unable to pay for. He said that public hospitals in Phuket have had to treat at least 40 ailing foreign retirees without payment in 2010. Khun Paiboon further claimed that many foreign retirees living in Thailand are virtually penniless and just borrow the necessary B800,000 to make their annual visa extensions. He plans to take the matter up with the Phuket governor and the provincial assembly with a view to passing a recommendation to the Interior Ministry to amend visa rules for retirees to prevent them from consuming scarce state medical resources that are intended for Thai citizens.

The article also said that honorary consuls in Phuket have previously suggested insurance should be compulsory for visitors without specifying whether they meant retirees in particular, as they are apparently sick of dealing with problems like tourists refusing to pay for medical treatment after their numerous motorcycle accidents. The journalists seemed to suggest that these broader suggestions by consuls have not been taken up in the past due to fears of making Phuket less competitive as a tourist destination.

Please note that I am not implying that I agree or disagree with Khun Paiboon's suggestion for amending retiree visa regulations. So please refrain from flaming. I just post this for information.

I don't think anybody should be without health insurance. Locals are usually covered by the Social Security or the 30-Baht scheme.

Foreigners need to pay or be insured by their own. I do believe this is quite normal - Thai people won't even get a visa to Europe without an insurance certificate.

That said, no human being should be denied treatment because he is not insured. That would just be inhuman.

[Arkady]

I don't think anybody should be without health insurance. Locals are usually covered by the Social Security or the 30-Baht scheme.

Foreigners need to pay or be insured by their own. I do believe this is quite normal - Thai people won't even get a visa to Europe without an insurance certificate.

That said, no human being should be denied treatment because he is not insured. That would just be inhuman.

It seems that the Phuket public hospitals, at least,are indeed taking foreign retirees and tourists without funds for emergency treatment, although I don't know what quality of treatment they can expect. The quality of treatment that Thais receive under the gold card or Social Security is generally not that good anyway. As you get older finding medical insurance gets harder and more expensive. In some schemes you need to get in before you hit 65 to be allowed to pay the rapidly escalating payments thereafter. A policy from a Thai company at age 60 will probably set you back about B40k and may have a high exclusion. After 65 it is harder to enter a scheme at all. It is definitely something to take into account before taking the plunge to give up free national health care in Europe to retire in Thailand or elsewhere. Even though private health care is good value in Thailand, the bill for something major like a heart attack, for example, can easily run to a couple of million baht. Fortunately cremation is inexpensive and the British Embassy will reluctantly pick up the bill for Brits who have no known relatives.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Arkady

[tombkk]

I don't think anybody should be without health insurance. Locals are usually covered by the Social Security or the 30-Baht scheme.

Foreigners need to pay or be insured by their own. I do believe this is quite normal - Thai people won't even get a visa to Europe without an insurance certificate.

That said, no human being should be denied treatment because he is not insured. That would just be inhuman.

It seems that the Phuket public hospitals, at least,are indeed taking foreign retirees and tourists without funds for emergency treatment, although I don't know what quality of treatment they can expect. The quality of treatment that Thais receive under the gold card or Social Security is generally not that good anyway. As you get older finding medical insurance gets harder and more expensive. In some schemes you need to get in before you hit 65 to be allowed to pay the rapidly escalating payments thereafter. A policy from a Thai company at age 60 will probably set you back about B40k and may have a high exclusion. After 65 it is harder to enter a scheme at all. It is definitely something to take into account before taking the plunge to give up free national health care in Europe to retire in Thailand or elsewhere. Even though private health care is good value in Thailand, the bill for something major like a heart attack, for example, can easily run to a couple of million baht. Fortunately cremation is inexpensive and the British Embassy will reluctantly pick up the bill for Brits who have no known relatives.

I'm glad to hear that Phuket public hospitals take foreigners for emergency treatment.

But let me know about the insurance for 60+ retirees (I'm not in that age group yet, but hopefully will be at some time): "40k" is "THB 40k/year"? What does that cover?

I was offered Thai insurance before. Coverage was one or two million Baht per case. Heck, the first one or two million I can pay by myself, I need an insurance for when it gets really expensive! And then, suddenly Thai insurance companies are no cheaper than their European counterparts.