@Tod ********

ขอบคุณมาก (แบบเหมือนเดิม) 🙃

Oh, I see now. I just conflated the 2 types because that’s what they do at the Chicago consulate website description. Well, other than the “O-A” in parenthesis...

@Tod ********

I DO qualify. Why wouldn’t I? So, now that I’ve ruled out a TV, what are the pro/cons of these 2 non-O’s...?

@Tony *******

I don’t- but it still seems like the best way to handle it with my circumstances.

@Jeremy *******

Yeah, it IS easier to get initially, but I don’t really need a lot of multiple entry options since I’ll be bugging out every 6 mos, anyway.

No, l just clicked on it by mistake! Ouch- I don’t think I’ll be applying for that one any time soon... 😀

Still- if you could prove coverage... I know, I know- their rules.

Oops! I guess that’s why I never saw it before! ^|^ But, geez- if I DID want an X visa, is there a way to wave that requirement if you can prove foreign coverage?

Thanks, Tod! Hey what’s this I’m just now seeing about a Thai health insurance requirement? My US-based insurance works in Thailand. Should I start a new post to ask this?

Well, in this scenario I’m not seeing the need for multiple re-entry. Couldn’t I just stay in-country and pay for 2 60 day extensions?

Thanks. I guess what I’m asking is, are there any drawbacks to getting one as opposed to the other if I know with certainty that I’ll be staying in each country 6 months. I guess the tourist visa will use up a bit more space on the passport (if I do it a few years), but the upside seems that it’s cheaper (in the short run). I’m trying to see if I’m missing something important.