I am struggling to fully understand the dogmatic which underlies non-o, non-oa and non-ox visa category: if non-oa and non-ox are NOT SUB-categories of non-o but separate own categories of visa, then one could apply for a non-o visa based on retirement and by this, maybe, "escape" the insurance requirement which sounds odd to me. Also if non-oa and non-ox are NOT SUB-categories of non-o, then you would have with non-o and non-oa two (partly overlapping) visa categories for the same purpose (retirement). This sounds also odd to me. Maybe I misunderstand something here? Perhaps someone could explain this to me?

...makes you wonder why they implement this new rule for o-a only then...why not retirees in general...either under o or o-a??????

Interesting point! Why would then not just every retiree who is unable or unwilling to take out an insurance switch from o-a to o!? Problem solved. What is the disadvantage of having an o visa vs an o-a visa?

@James *******

got it. thanks.

@James *******

Only if someone does an extension (after ) for the first time or also if I am going to do my regular annual extension...I think for the third time or so sometime soon?

@Tod ********

IC. Thank you. At least I know now that I am not alone with my confusion. Feeling better already. 😂😅

I am getting confused: is the health insurance only needed for the initial o-a visa needed or also when holding an o-a visa already and doing annual extensions in thailand!? maybe i misunderstood but i believe first it was said that only for the initial visa the insurance is needed and now it changed to both?

@Khun *****

what has immigration to do with a work permit application? I am lost...