News Forum - Decision on Hua Hin Hospital “dual pricing” case set for next week

[Faraday]

Iesus Christus....calm down please!

[Stonker]

3 minutes ago, Soidog said:

This is a good illustration of why I ignore you @Stonker. You spend all your time picking out the things which are perhaps technically incorrect, or a small lapse in accuracy with what people say. You deliberatly choose to ignore the sentiment, even though you yourself are subject to the same problems and discrimination by being a foreigner in Thailand. This is not a court of law. It’s a forum where members like to pass casual comments or pass on experience or ask questions and give opinions, perhaps even vent a little frustration. Your attempts to derail and nitpick is what gets boring. You are clearly an intelligent guy who is well read and enjoys doing his research. You hold many valid points worthy of reading, but get missed by your antagonistic tone. Why can’t you put it to a positive good and inform people in an engaging fashion rather than thinking you are some enlightened Perry Mason. 
 

This forum could be all the better for your input if you simply chose to make your points less aggressively. There’s simply no point in being right if no one is listening. 
 

Im making an effort here Stonker to appeal to another side of you which I hope exists? If not then fine. 

You mean you want me to pretend that what you say is fine although "perhaps technically incorrect, or a small lapse in accuracy" when it's uninformed, bigoted, entitled rubbish?

... and if I do you'll stop these tedious posts telling me I'm Mr Nasty, usually with a childish little jibe thrown in, and that's why you're not going to respond, when the all too obvious reality is that you're incapable of justifying anything you say so want to be left alone to say it unchallenged?

Get real.

[Stonker]

16 hours ago, Soidog said:

Agreed. It seems fairly obvious and reasonable to me that you should pay the same price for the same services. I guess the only situation where it can get complicated is where one group supplement a service via other means, such as taxation. 

You mean like this???

[Soidog]

5 hours ago, Stonker said:

You mean you want me to pretend that what you say is fine although "perhaps technically incorrect, or a small lapse in accuracy" when it's uninformed, bigoted, entitled rubbish?

... and if I do you'll stop these tedious posts telling me I'm Mr Nasty, usually with a childish little jibe thrown in, and that's why you're not going to respond, when the all too obvious reality is that you're incapable of justifying anything you say so want to be left alone to say it unchallenged?

Get real.

I give up with you now @Stonker. I wasn’t just referring to myself when I made what I hoped you would see as helpful and constructive comments. Clearly I was wrong. But never mind and I’ll leave you to live with yourself. Have a nice day and best of luck to you. 

[Marc26]

22 hours ago, Soidog said:

Agreed. It seems fairly obvious and reasonable to me that you should pay the same price for the same services. I guess the only situation where it can get complicated is where one group supplement a service via other means, such as taxation. 

Well that is a pretty big distinction since that is what is being argued in this court fight

 

A guy who has no status in the country thinks he deserves subsidized health services that citizens enjoy 

[Marc26]

9 hours ago, Soidog said:

In regards to this particular case I’m sure the Dutch guy will be unable to prove his case. Many people who have commented here support him for a number of reasons. The key reason being that Thais do discriminate against foreigners. While it may well be true that other countries health care systems and large education systems charge differently for services; and health care is at the centre of this particular case, it’s hard to overlook the blatant discrimination that exists in Thailand. 
 

As a foreigner I would have no problem paying a higher price for health care if I deliberately jumped on a plane and travelled to Thailand for treatment. I would know this before I left and it would be a deliberate act. Equally, if I was in Thailand on holiday I should have health insurance which would take care of my costs. But if I live in Thailand on a retirement visa, married to a Thai or possibly (possibly) even an annual visa, I would not expect to pay more. The same goes for university tuition. This is a deliberate act to travel for the service.  

It’s also true that many other countries have dual or tiered pricing for healthcare. However, I know for a fact, that if you were a Thai on holiday in the U.K. and fell ill or in an accident, you would be admitted to hospital, treated and allowed to leave. You may (may) be asked to pay and if you could they may accept the payment. If on the other hand you said you didn’t have the money or provide the slightest excuse then you would be allowed to leave. 
 

Now, compare that to the kiosk staff at the Grand Palace or at a Thai national park where they will keep you waiting all day if you try to make the point you are a expat not a tourist and the price differential is 10-15 times Thai price. It not even a reasonable 3-4 times the price as we see in U.K for something large like university fees.  Then of course we have the 2 or 3 times the price even for essentials such a food in restaurants. You would never see that for people based on the nationality or skin colour. Yes, some seaside holiday areas in the U.K. push up prices and add a little 10-20% discount for people they see day to day living in the town. But this applies to people from the U.K. as well as foreigners. It’s discrimination and wrong, but it isn’t racial discrimination which is abhorrent. 
 

While I think this Dutch guy is on a hiding to nothing, especially if the hospital has a published price list showing tiered pricing, many of the more general points by some people on this thread have deliberately missed the underlying reason why most support this guy. 
 

I don’t mind paying more for preplanned health and university. I totally object to paying more for emergency health care, taxi fares, entrance to beach’s, national parks, museums, temples, clothes, motorbike hire, drinks and food prices, it is utterly disgraceful behaviour from the Thais and if this case does nothing else but raise a little awareness, then good luck to the guy. 
 

To defend the Thais on this as @Stonkerseems to want to do is to condone the discrimination rampant in Thai society. Which incidentally,  plays out to wider social issues such as corruption and discrimination based within their own people. Shame on you! 

A person on a marriage/retirement visa has willingly chosen to live in a country where they have no status

 

But you are arguing those people, who chose to live with no status, should then enjoy the same benefits that citizens get?

 

Sorry but that makes no sense at all

[Soidog]

1 hour ago, Marc26 said:

A person on a marriage/retirement visa has willingly chosen to live in a country where they have no status

But you are arguing those people, who chose to live with no status, should then enjoy the same benefits that citizens get?

Sorry but that makes no sense at all

No I’m not arguing that point at all. I’m simply saying that Thailand should perhaps rethink these things given treatment of their nationals in many western countries would be different and should also rethink the “status” of people who retire or marry one of their nationals? The irritation this case is causing is not on the specific of this particular case; which I’ve already said I think he will lose on, it’s more to do with the generalised double pricing for many services in Thailand. I’ve already said that if tiered pricing is clearly posted prior to hospital treatment then he has very little to argue his point with. The thread expanded to discuss more general double pricing in Thailand. Scope creep is often a problem with threads on casual forums such as this. 

So to be clear:

Will he lose this case? Yes. 
Should Thailand treat retirees better? Yes.
Should Thailand stop dual pricing for Thais and non-Thais for things like entrance to national parks and temples? Yes. 
Will they change anything? No.  

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Soidog said:

I give up with you now @Stonker. 

Splendid.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

I'm simply saying that perhaps Thailand should rethink these things given treatment of their nationals in many western countries would be different and should also rethink the “status” of people who retire or marry one of their nationals? 

But what you're simply saying simply isn't true.

As you've been shown, repeatedly, those on identical visas in Western countries are either given identical treatment and charged the full price for medical treatment, for example in Australia, or charged 50% more in England.

If you disagree, give an example of those on the same visa in any Western country where Thais get better treatment, with some evidence.

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

... and should also rethink the “status” of people who retire or marry one of their nationals?

But most Western countries don't give those who retire there any "status " at all as they don't have retirement visas or visa extensions for retirement - and the "status" of those who "marry one of their nationals" is seldom any better, generally with no right of residence or with much higher income requirements for residence so worse, and with similar requirements for residency or nationality.

If you disagree, name any where the "status" is any better, with some evidence.

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

The irritation this case is causing is not on the specific of this particular case; which I’ve already said I think he will lose on, it’s more to do with the generalised double pricing for many services in Thailand.

What "irritation" is the case causing?

To who?

The case has had minimal interest anywhere except in local expat news.

1 hour ago, Soidog said:

Should Thailand treat retirees better? Yes.

It would be nice, but from a Thai perspective - why?

Thai retirees in the West are either treated similarly or not allowed at all, so there's no reciprocity, and it would be unlikely to encourage any more to retire here apart from the freeloaders who contribute nothing.

So - why?

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

Should Thailand stop dual pricing for Thais and non-Thais for things like entrance to national parks and temples? Yes. 
Will they change anything? No. 

For once we're in agreement - but I'd include all the Western countries that also have similar dual pricing - some far worse - which you've ignored, which will also not change anything.

Feel free to respond to anything, with some verifiable evidence - or, as usual, to find an excuse not to.

[Smithydog]

I live in Thailand with my Thai family. Doing so, like anywhere else has its good and bad. Personally, I love to save money where I can.

But the reality is, my family life means we travel as a family and see "tourist" attractions together. I have been to National Parks etc where I have been charged for entry but my Thai wife and Thai daughter have not. My wife has argued this with officials at the location and said how wrong it is and I just usually pay.

Why. I want to see it and if that costs just me a fee rather than all three I am okay with that. From my needs, with a family, there is a reasonable chance that if I had to pay for all three of us, then the total cost may actually end up being higher! After all, it all comes out of my wallet.

But I understand the desire for others to challenge it for their own advantage and perspective and of course I will take advantage of any price drops achieved, thanking those who have done it. After all, I have done the same for others across my life, but feel I have used up most of my quota of will to fight.

I have personally experienced price variation in most of the countries I have been fortunate to visit. (50+ so far and hope to keep counting). Some hide it better than others through flashy promotional campaigns designed to attract locals. I would say however, that only Indonesia (in particular Bali) has had a level as visible as Thailand. But there are still countries to visit!

 

[Stonker]

30 minutes ago, Smithydog said:

I would say however, that only Indonesia (in particular Bali) has had a level as visible as Thailand. But there are still countries to visit!

You've not been to Venice, then?

[Smithydog]

11 minutes ago, Stonker said:

You've not been to Venice, then?

Only when I was 7 years old and in those days I didn't worry about prices....that was mum and dad's job!

But I have no doubt there are countries where dual-prices occurs and others where it may not, that I haven't been to.

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Smithydog said:

Only when I was 7 years old and in those days I didn't worry about prices....that was mum and dad's job!

But I have no doubt there are countries where dual-prices occurs and others where it may not, that I haven't been to.

You should have been in Cambodia with the UN ..... words fail even me 

[AussieBob]

On 9/26/2021 at 5:43 PM, Stonker said:

No, @AussieBob, absolutely no - race and ethnicity is fundamentally NOT what "nationality" is, either by legal definition or by rational thought, although it may play a part in the national character.

If it were, you couldn't be "Aussie Bob" as only aboriginals could be Australian, the Queen couldn't be British as she'd be forever a German, Sir Mo Farah would still be Somali, etc.

As well as looking at the definitons of race and ethnicity, maybe you should have checked Merriam-Webster's definition of nationality, particularly on national status which is the key point here.

So if he was a  'black' foreigner not a " 'white' foreigner" you think he would have been charged less??? 

Oh please ...

Thais are Tier 1, with full subsidy / discount, anyone from Laos would have been charged less than him but more than Thais as they are on Tier 2 for hospital charges, with a lower discount /  subsidy, like Cambodians, Burmese and Vietnamese, due to reciprocal agreements, while other foreigners (dependent on visa, not nationality / race / ethnicity) are Tier 3 or 4 with less and no discount / subsidy.

All Thailand did with the increases to charges in 2019 was to bring itself in line with what other countries such as Australia were already doing - except leaving hospitals the option to continue to subsidise foreigners.

Foreigners visiting Australia, including Thais, are  ALREADY "charged a higher fee for any Govt medical services that they are provided"!!!

Australia only gives emergency Medicare cover to visitors from eleven other countries with whom it has a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement (RHCA), which doesn't include Thailand, and even that's only for emergency / essential treatment. Everyone else pays in full!

https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/servicesandsupport/overseas-visitors-and-healthcare

"Fair's fair and all that" ???

How can the exact same thing, even down to RHCAs, be "fair" in Australia, but not "fair" in Thailand?????

Lets agree to disagree on all that. 

[AussieBob]

On 9/26/2021 at 6:07 PM, Stonker said:

I have - absolute hypocrisy at its height.

They complain about dual pricing here in Thailand, for example with health care, but say nothing about the exact same thing in their own countries - in Australia with Medicare which charges the exact same full price for foreign visitors (the direct equivalent to Tier 4 charges here) while England takes it a stage further and charges foreign visitors not just the full price but 150%!

So you're happy to pay to support him as you think it could bring down dual pricing charges for expats by a few baht, but you're not happy to pay if it puts up health charges by hundreds of thousands or millions of baht for expats, which is a far more likely outcome?

I see.

Courts can only apply the law, not make it. That's for governments.

Hopefully, though, discrimination will indeed become illegal one day - but shouldn't those countries who can most afford it start to set an example first, instead of just telling others to do so?

Again - I disagree but understand your point of view.

 

[AussieBob]

On 9/26/2021 at 6:25 PM, Soidog said:

You should be by this guys side in court @AussieBob. I get tired of people trying to claim Thais aren’t discriminating against people because of race or colour of their skin. They are most definitely doing this. The fact they rely on foreign tourism so much makes it all the more disgraceful. I doubt that will keep Stonker quiet on the subject, but miracles happen. Great post

Thanks mate.  I have agreed to disagree with Stonker as it is obvious his views are very 'strong' and we will not be able to bridge that divide.

[AussieBob]

On 9/26/2021 at 7:19 PM, Soidog said:

In regards to this particular case I’m sure the Dutch guy will be unable to prove his case. Many people who have commented here support him for a number of reasons. The key reason being that Thais do discriminate against foreigners. While it may well be true that other countries health care systems and large education systems charge differently for services; and health care is at the centre of this particular case, it’s hard to overlook the blatant discrimination that exists in Thailand. 
 

As a foreigner I would have no problem paying a higher price for health care if I deliberately jumped on a plane and travelled to Thailand for treatment. I would know this before I left and it would be a deliberate act. Equally, if I was in Thailand on holiday I should have health insurance which would take care of my costs. But if I live in Thailand on a retirement visa, married to a Thai or possibly (possibly) even an annual visa, I would not expect to pay more. The same goes for university tuition. This is a deliberate act to travel for the service.  

It’s also true that many other countries have dual or tiered pricing for healthcare. However, I know for a fact, that if you were a Thai on holiday in the U.K. and fell ill or in an accident, you would be admitted to hospital, treated and allowed to leave. You may (may) be asked to pay and if you could they may accept the payment. If on the other hand you said you didn’t have the money or provide the slightest excuse then you would be allowed to leave. 
 

Now, compare that to the kiosk staff at the Grand Palace or at a Thai national park where they will keep you waiting all day if you try to make the point you are a expat not a tourist and the price differential is 10-15 times Thai price. It not even a reasonable 3-4 times the price as we see in U.K for something large like university fees.  Then of course we have the 2 or 3 times the price even for essentials such a food in restaurants. You would never see that for people based on the nationality or skin colour. Yes, some seaside holiday areas in the U.K. push up prices and add a little 10-20% discount for people they see day to day living in the town. But this applies to people from the U.K. as well as foreigners. It’s discrimination and wrong, but it isn’t racial discrimination which is abhorrent. 
 

While I think this Dutch guy is on a hiding to nothing, especially if the hospital has a published price list showing tiered pricing, many of the more general points by some people on this thread have deliberately missed the underlying reason why most support this guy. 
 

I don’t mind paying more for preplanned health and university. I totally object to paying more for emergency health care, taxi fares, entrance to beach’s, national parks, museums, temples, clothes, motorbike hire, drinks and food prices, it is utterly disgraceful behaviour from the Thais and if this case does nothing else but raise a little awareness, then good luck to the guy. 
 

To defend the Thais on this as @Stonkerseems to want to do is to condone the discrimination rampant in Thai society. Which incidentally,  plays out to wider social issues such as corruption and discrimination based within their own people. Shame on you! 

Well said mate - a great overview of the reality of living long-term in Thailand and being treated as a 2 week tourist. I quietly suffered that too mate, and it was that TM30 're-imposition' by the Junta, and the fining of Expats when a hotel did not report their visit, that was the last straw for me.  I will never forget when the Head of Immigration in Bangkok attended a Forum with the Foreign Journalists  Association (I know a lawyer that was an organiser). When it was explained to him how it was wrong that Expats were being fined because Hotels did not lodge TM30 reports, but Expats could not lodge anything themselves. He was an arrogant xenophobic ahole and he replied: "That is the Law". The Junta ended up dropping that discriminatory and xenophobic 'punishment', but they never apologised or admitted any fault.  By the time they dropped it I had already lodged the application for my Thai wife to Migrate to Australia. We left the same month it was approved. 

[HiuMak]

On 9/27/2021 at 2:45 AM, Marc26 said:

A person on a marriage/retirement visa has willingly chosen to live in a country where they have no status

But you are arguing those people, who chose to live with no status, should then enjoy the same benefits that citizens get?

Sorry but that makes no sense at all

I agree totally on this one for medical and hospitalization treatment. The Dutch is clearly not insured and chose to get treatment in Thailand for Cancer, thinking it would be cheaper in Thailand in a local price? What is he even thinking.

I do not think there is anything wrong with dual pricing for medical or hospitalization fees. In most countries, public healthcare is usually heavily subsidized by government. Imagine the costs of providing healthcare to the country which is enormous and it is an essential services. This includes costs of infrastructure, medical personnel, medication, equipments, etc.  Majority of the people who pay taxes to support the healthcare system are Thais. Even if I pay taxes in Thailand as a foreigner, I would not think that i will be entitled to this kind of benefit or I am being taxed to pay for the other group. Why? because I am not local Thais. Why would anyone think that a foreigner with no status can just step in and get free or heavily subsidized medical treatment in a foreign land. Why should Thailand equal the price of a foreigner to a citizen? The dutch should consider himself lucky when he is able to get treatment in Thailand and hopefully recover from his illness.

 

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, HiuMak said:

I agree totally on this one for medical and hospitalization treatment. The Dutch is clearly not insured and chose to get treatment in Thailand for Cancer, thinking it would be cheaper in Thailand in a local price? What is he even thinking.

I do not think there is anything wrong with dual pricing for medical or hospitalization fees. In most countries, public healthcare is usually heavily subsidized by government. Imagine the costs of providing healthcare to the country which is enormous and it is an essential services. This includes costs of infrastructure, medical personnel, medication, equipments, etc.  Majority of the people who pay taxes to support the healthcare system are Thais. Even if I pay taxes in Thailand as a foreigner, I would not think that i will be entitled to this kind of benefit or I am being taxed to pay for the other group. Why? because I am not local Thais. Why would anyone think that a foreigner with no status can just step in and get free or heavily subsidized medical treatment in a foreign land. Why should Thailand equal the price of a foreigner to a citizen? The dutch should consider himself lucky when he is able to get treatment in Thailand and hopefully recover from his illness.

If a Thai goes to a public hospital 

The hospital is not making money from that visit.

It is a cost to the government.

How can anyone be so ignorant not to understand that?

 

So why should a non-resident get that subsidized Healthcare

 

It is ridiculous to even think they should 

 

Hospitals have costs and they need to be paid for their services or they won't be around when we need them 

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Again - I disagree but understand your point of view.

Well, feel free to justify your own point of view and to explain why you find it acceptable for Australia to have a multi-tier pricing system based on nationality and residence for their health service but not acceptable for Thailand to do exactly the same, with an identical but far cheaper system, that also allows hospitals to frequently overlook any extra charge at their discretion.

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Well said mate - a great overview of the reality of living long-term in Thailand and being treated as a 2 week tourist. I quietly suffered that too mate, and it was that TM30 're-imposition' by the Junta, and the fining of Expats when a hotel did not report their visit, that was the last straw for me.  I will never forget when the Head of Immigration in Bangkok attended a Forum with the Foreign Journalists  Association (I know a lawyer that was an organiser). When it was explained to him how it was wrong that Expats were being fined because Hotels did not lodge TM30 reports, but Expats could not lodge anything themselves. He was an arrogant xenophobic ahole and he replied: "That is the Law". The Junta ended up dropping that discriminatory and xenophobic 'punishment', but they never apologised or admitted any fault.  By the time they dropped it I had already lodged the application for my Thai wife to Migrate to Australia. We left the same month it was approved. 

Two problems.

1. He doesn't live long term in Thailand.

2. The TM 30 was never "re-introduced" as it was never removed, and any fining of expats was very brief and very short-lived, and evidently never affected you.

If you prefer Aus, fine, but don't blame Thailand for your making bad decisions.

[Stonker]

1 hour ago, HiuMak said:

Even if I pay taxes in Thailand as a foreigner, I would not think that i will be entitled to this kind of benefit or I am being taxed to pay for the other group

Well said, @HiuMak, but actually a foreign taxpayer does get subsidised treatment at Thai state hospitals as they're Tier 3.

Tier 1 is Thais with a full subsidy, Tier 2 is nationals from neighbouring countries with a reciprocal agreement who get a slightly reduced subsidy, then Tier 3, then non-resident foreigners who haven't contributed who pay a full (but very reasonable) price.

That could hardly be fairer, but for the entitled fairness isn't even a consideration - only unjustified entitlement.

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, AussieBob said:

He was an arrogant xenophobic ahole and he replied: "That is the Law". 

What else do you think he should have said that wouldn't have made him  "an arrogant xenophobic ahole" in your view?

He was a serving police officer whose job was to uphold the law, not to pass comment on it or ignore it.

Had he made any other comment in a similar position in Aus he would, quite rightly, have found himself out of a job - but because he's Thai, saying it in Thailand, that makes him "an arrogant xenophobic ahole".

No bias there .....

[Soidog]

7 hours ago, AussieBob said:

Well said mate - a great overview of the reality of living long-term in Thailand and being treated as a 2 week tourist. I quietly suffered that too mate, and it was that TM30 're-imposition' by the Junta, and the fining of Expats when a hotel did not report their visit, that was the last straw for me.  I will never forget when the Head of Immigration in Bangkok attended a Forum with the Foreign Journalists  Association (I know a lawyer that was an organiser). When it was explained to him how it was wrong that Expats were being fined because Hotels did not lodge TM30 reports, but Expats could not lodge anything themselves. He was an arrogant xenophobic ahole and he replied: "That is the Law". The Junta ended up dropping that discriminatory and xenophobic 'punishment', but they never apologised or admitted any fault.  By the time they dropped it I had already lodged the application for my Thai wife to Migrate to Australia. We left the same month it was approved. 

Thanks for the feedback @AussieBob  I recall the changes to the TM30 reporting. It was nothing more than a rounding up of expats and a way to make them feel uncomfortable. While I don’t blame you in migrating to Australia, the sad truth is that this is exactly what they wanted. ( not just you Bob ) Put simply, the only foreigners they want in Thailand are two week holiday makers spending as much money as possible and a very small selection of experts to teach their kids and manage their football teams! Unfortunately this won’t change anytime soon and the “battle” to simply reside and spend your monthly income without being any drain on local resources will continue. 
 

Ive no doubt these comments will attract the usual BS from people claiming this is no different to places like the U.K. U.S or Australia, but the situations are totally incomparable. While the hoops you need to jump through maybe just as plentiful to enter western countries, the rewards and the way you can be a more integral part of society are much higher. There are also countless options to stay for longer periods for example in the U.K. from 6 months to 2.5 years. Numerous ways to enter and study or work in the U.K. doing normal jobs and not limited to a very small number of jobs. I could go on at length highlighting the very obvious difference in ATTITUDES and hence POLICIES  towards foreigners living and working in the U.K. compared to Thailand.  

It’s reasonable to say that if you want to get married to a Thai national and have a reasonable income (65,000 baht/month) and be prepared to have the 90 day shake down and annual checks, then you can live in Thailand relatively easily. Though remember this. People often call it a “marriage visa”. It’s not a marriage visa. You are being allowed to extend your stay from your Non-O visa on the grounds of marriage.  You must be married and prove you are married. The equivalent route in the U.K. is referred to as the “Family visa” (a proper visa) and specifically includes “partners” with options to include children of those involved. No such open minded option is available in Thailand. Although some of the qualifications to get long term visas such as a family visa are not without hoops to go through, this because as I’ve mentioned already,  having gained one, you have so many normal and inclusive rights. After 5 years on such a visa you can apply for permanent residency. On a Thai Non-O extension to stay based on marriage, all it allows you to do is stay. If you and your wife have a small shop )your wife owns it not you), you could be in trouble simply for helping move a few boxes (that’s working!).

Also bear in mind that should your Thai spouse die before you do, perhaps having lived together for 30 years, you can not extend your visa based on marriage. Your best hope is to extend on the basis of retirement. So if you have used the 400,000 baht route to stay, you’ll suddenly need to find another 400,000 (Now there’s compassion for you!)

Like I say, I could write a 200 page document on the difference, but any level headed and fair minded person will already know what I’m talking about. 
 

Oh, and finally, to loop back to the main thread. If you are on a U.K. family visa you won’t have to pay more in hospital and you won’t have to pay more for your trip to a museum, national park, car hire, food, drink, clothes, house rent, etc etc etc …….

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

Ive no doubt these comments will attract the usual BS from people claiming this is no different to places like the U.K. U.S or Australia, but the situations are totally incomparable.

Only because you don't want to compare them whenever you're presented with any facts, and instead opt for your normal line of half-truths, apples and oranges, and direct and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts 9and I'm being as polite with this as I can be).

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

There are also countless options to stay for longer periods for example in the U.K. from 6 months to 2.5 years. Numerous ways to enter and study or work in the U.K. doing normal jobs and not limited to a very small number of jobs. I could go on at length highlighting the very obvious difference in ATTITUDES and hence POLICIES  towards foreigners living and working in the U.K. compared to Thailand.  

Just as there are numerous ways in Thailand.

True, though,  "very obvious difference in ATTITUDES and hence POLICIES  towards foreigners living and working in the U.K. compared to Thailand"   -  the UK's "hostile environment" policy, deliberately intended to make life unpleasant for would-be immigrants, spells them out!

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

It’s reasonable to say that if you want to get married to a Thai national and have a reasonable income (65,000 baht/month) and be prepared to have the 90 day shake down and annual checks, then you can live in Thailand relatively easily.

Accurate as ever - that's what's need for a Retirement Extension of Stay. For a Marriage Extension, you only need half of that. Try doing that in the UK, where you need a proven income of more than double that.

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

The equivalent route in the U.K. is referred to as the “Family visa” (a proper visa) and specifically includes “partners” with options to include children of those involved.

With each child increasing the salary required - the first by an additional 170,000 baht, and each additional one by another 110,000, and a mandatory requirement for each applicant to speak, read and write the language which, fortunately for many, is not a requirement in Thailand.

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

After 5 years on such a visa you can apply for permanent residency.

Not true. Without indefinite leave to remain you can only stay in the UK for a maximum of two and a half years, and the maximum you can extend your visa for is once, for 28 days - and the visa application from outside the UK will cost you 70,000 baht (plus the same for each child).

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

After 5 years on such a visa you can apply for permanent residency. On a Thai Non-O extension to stay based on marriage, all it allows you to do is stay.

Again, unsurprisingly, totally untrue. You can apply for permanent residency in Thailand in exactly the same way as in the UK, but after only 3 years on a Non-Immigrant Visa with annual extensions.

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

If you and your wife have a small shop )your wife owns it not you), you could be in trouble simply for helping move a few boxes (that’s working!).

Exactly as it is in the UK, where a Family Visa does NOT give you permission to work until you either have Indefinite Leave to Remain or a separate Work Permit.

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

Also bear in mind that should your Thai spouse die before you do, perhaps having lived together for 30 years, you can not extend your visa based on marriage. Your best hope is to extend on the basis of retirement. So if you have used the 400,000 baht route to stay, you’ll suddenly need to find another 400,000 (Now there’s compassion for you!)

You would automatically become eligible for a retirement extension, which seems perfectly reasonable.

The UK has a similar policy where if your spouse dies your Family Visa is automatically cancelled and you need to apply for a Bereavement Visa. The application fee is a further 110,000 baht, plus 110,000 baht for any dependant previously included on the Family Visa for which you will have paid 70,000 baht, as will any dependant on it.

That's another 110,000 baht each because your spouse died.   Now there's compassion for you, UK style!

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

Like I say, I could write a 200 page document on the difference, but any level headed and fair minded person will already know what I’m talking about. 

I'm sure you could , but I'm equally sure it would be as wildly inaccurate and totally untrue as you have been so far - unless, of course all the links I've given to the facts on the UK. Gov websites are wrong.

4 hours ago, Soidog said:

Oh, and finally, to loop back to the main thread. If you are on a U.K. family visa you won’t have to pay more in hospital and you won’t have to pay more for your trip to a museum, national park, car hire, food, drink, clothes, house rent, etc etc etc …….

.. and, inevitably and unsurprisingly, totally untrue. A Family Visa does NOT entitle you to NHS coverage at all and you will be liable for 150% of the full cost in England (only 100% in Scotland) until and unless you are ordinarily resident and have leave to remain. Unless, of course, the NHS are wrong.

It would be funny if you weren't so badly and so easily obviously wrong.