richard_smith237

Agreed... I think thats always a risk.. Once a policy is put in place, there are those who will try and game the system... That said: with 36 Million Visitors projected - the income from a 300 baht scheme would still be 27x the existing medical cost burden - I don't think that many people have accidents to warrant there being any financial burden concerns. Another idea floated was that if a visitor can show they have insurance, then they don't need to pay the 300 baht 'entry tax' - but that could add practical complexities. I don't actually think the potentail issues with such systems are impacted by money - but more so the actual practicalities of such a system. The New Digital Arrival Card - could be the prefect 'place' to pay for the entry fee removing potential holdups else where. All of this could be combined with a nationwide ban on dual pricing - which would be a win win IMO.

The response from the cat place is nothing short of absurd. It seems rooted in the ridiculous assumption that every foreigner is a transient tourist likely to abandon a cat. One can only wonder at the logic behind such a profoundly foolish reaction from the cat place. I'm not even convinced this reflects an actual policy; rather, it appears to be the product of one individual's utterly blinkered mindset, incapable of seeing past their own irrational bias. As maddening as it may be, sometimes there's nothing for it but to shake your head and walk away. In this case, you simply had the misfortune of encountering an unfiltered, unadulterated fool.

Why? If someone plans to stay for a few months, they should not rely on visa exemption - opting for an METV. Is that really too difficult to understand? Rational individuals don’t require strict enforcement consistency to recognise which visa is appropriate for a straightforward, uncomplicated stay. As always, the real issue - at least for the most part - lies with those attempting to exploit the system. They’re the ones complaining about inconsistent enforcement, having failed to "get lucky" in their attempts to bypass the rules.

Yeah, I’d agree that there’s a 'distribution' of funds issue and, of course, practical challenges... But let’s not kid ourselves – the complaints about the cost burden of tourism are nothing more than a drop in the ocean compared to the flood of income tourism brings in. As I said earlier – a modest 300 baht arrival tax to cover medical fees in government (not private) hospitals would be a brilliant idea... (practicalities of collecting said amount aside). Or, better still, just forget about it and openly welcome tourists. More tourists means more spending, and that medical cost burden is already being dwarfed by the tourism income projections for next year.

Having a chip on both shoulders doesn’t exactly scream “balanced opinion,” does it? Full of flaws, sweeping generalisations and stereotypes, you’ve become the very embodiment of the boomer stereotype... quite comical, really. You’re just laying bare your true feelings – you were first, so obviously, no one else could possibly match your greatness... its a bit sad.

I don't think that's the objective. It's certainly not enough money if it is. It's not insurance. They're trying to recoup the costs of those foreigners who can't or won't pay after they've been treated. Last I heard, it was to the tune of 400 million baht a year. Which is a drop in the ocean compared to the two following metrics: - Income to Thailand from Medical Tourism (2024): US$ 15.4 billion - Income to Thailand from Tourism (2024): US$ 48.45 billion Medical cost burden of tourism is 2.6% of income from Medical Tourism Medical cost burden of tourism is 0.8% of income from total Tourism Reports often complain about the costs while omitting a balanced comparison with income and the overwhelming positives to the economy that tourists bring.

When caught for drink driving, speeding.... is your excuse, but others do it too ??? Hopefully that highlights the basic flaw in your logic that 'other countries do it do, as some form of justification for something that even Thailands Tourism Minister sees as wrong....

Agreed... I think the tourist surcharge is a good idea... especially if it contributes to insurance to cover hospital fees for tourists who get injured while here... And of course, eradicate dual pricing. Thailand income from Tourism at approx US$48 Billion is approximately 70% of the revenue generated by Thai Income Tax (US$ 68 billion) .... when placed in perspective - Tourists already contribute significantly to the Thai economy - the extra squeeze of dual pricing is clumsy.

It’s interesting how you can attack another poster, but then suddenly get defensive when someone calls out your vapid toxicity. And to top it off, you have the audacity to tell others what they can and can’t comment on. You forget that this is a public forum, and everyone has the right to voice their opinion - yet you think you can insult someone and expect private dialogue in public... you're delusional !!! At least it seems you’ve managed to learn the word ‘unhinged’ – well done on the self-improvement.

There’s nothing wrong with making observations or holding opinions. Thailand, like every country, isn’t perfect. For most of us, the overall experience is a clear net positive – but that doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t discuss the negative aspects. Open discussion is healthy, especially when it's done in good faith. I’ve spent my entire adult life here, and I’m more than comfortable discussing all facets of life in Thailand – both the wonderful and the frustrating. What does get tiresome, however, is the attitude from some long-term expats who seem to believe that tenure alone gives them exclusive rights to pass judgement. As if anyone who hasn’t "put in the years" is somehow less entitled to voice an opinion. It’s a delusion of seniority that adds nothing constructive to the conversation.

Wrong, does not always work. Correct - it won't work in National Parks (i.e. Koh Samet) and it won't work in hospitals that have dual pricing policies.

In the end, it all comes down to the overall experience. I doubt many people would avoid Thailand solely because of dual pricing. But what can happen is a gradual erosion of goodwill - a sense that the country's attitude towards tourists is shifting in a less welcoming direction. Dual Pricing, though seemingly minor in isolation, contribute to that impression. They subtly shape the tone, encouraging other businesses to follow suit under the assumption that such behaviour is acceptable. So yes, on their own, instances of dual pricing may seem insignificant. But when they become part of a broader pattern - a series of little slights or signals - they risk becoming the final straw. It’s death by a thousand cuts. We’re seeing a similar situation unfold in Japan. Tourism policy is changing, and over the last decade, I’ve noticed a marked shift in how tourists are perceived. There’s a growing weariness among some locals. While over-tourism is a valid concern, it’s jarring to see a country promote itself as a tourist haven, only to implement official policies - including dual pricing - that suggest otherwise. I used to visit Japan every year, but I’m now in no hurry to return. That shift in attitude has had an effect.

Whats the betting that these 'cheap back-packers' have a higher weekly spend than this fool above....

Same here... While some forms of dual pricing may be difficult to completely eliminate and avoid, it’s usually easy enough to shrug it off and carry on without dwelling on it. That said, when the issue arises in public forums like this, it presents a worthwhile opportunity to voice a firm stance and draw attention to the inherent flaws in pricing policies based purely on nationality. No one appreciates being exploited. For many visitors, such practices leave a bitter aftertaste - and for some, it’s enough to deter them from returning. This is where I believe Thailand’s current state-sponsored dual pricing policy is fundamentally misguided. The country’s tourism economy leans heavily on repeat visitors. If anything, Thailand should be doing all it can to value and encourage their return - not alienate them. To do otherwise is poor business sense.

No... The sign is simply a poor illustration that women cannot go topless or naked, and males cannot go naked. Existing Beach wear - Shorts, Bikini etc remain perfectly acceptable... exactly as common sense would suggest.

Two people are caught sunbathing in the noddy and this triggers a crack-down ??? While I agree that the tourist should have been told in no uncertain terms to cover up correctly, the announcement of a crack-down seems an almost xenophobic over-reaction based on faux-outrage... ... there are far greater crime concerns than someones failure to dress appropriately.

You don't get the most thumbs down because your comments are different.... Different but intellectually astute comments on here are often yield a positive response... No... its not because your comments are different... you get the most 'thumbs down' because your comments are unhinged... and you are still blind to this.

Bloody whinging and whining foreigners, want to change Thailand. I like it the way it is, leave things alone. For God sake, it's a little bit of money So, by that logic, I assume you’d be fine with paying dual prices for a beer, a meal, hospital care, hotel stays, expressways, taxis, and so on? When the government endorses dual pricing, it sends a clear message to all Thai businesses: it’s open season on foreigners. That kind of message naturally leaves a sour taste. While the higher entry fees at national parks may seem trivial, they’re just the tip of the iceberg. Dual pricing in hospitals, for example, is not just unfair - it’s shameful. Its good to see that some senior figures in Thailand are starting to recognise the flaws in a pricing system based on nationality. It damages the country’s image and erodes trust. Taking steps to end dual pricing, and acknowledging that scams exist and should be addressed. This signals a more mature, forward-thinking attitude. For once, it’s refreshing to read an article that stands up for tourists and expats, instead of painting us as the problem.

A few years ago I could get the Thai Price on Samet (with my Pink ID card)... But no longer (the last couple of times I went)... When arriving on the 'normal / slow ferry'... we pay at the pier after alighting the boat and 'entering' - Koh Samet - the Park staff have been very clear... Foreigner price only.

https://www.timeout.com/london/news/londoners-can-get-50-percent-off-loads-of-the-citys-biggest-attractions-right-now-042924 took me less than a minute to find.. and probably less than the time it took you to type your “request” Thats not 'dual pricing'... Its resident discount: Thai's or any resident of London of any nationality can get the same discounts.... its not based on nationality alone.

..Because that won't spark a two-page debate about nationality - let alone the five or six pages we’ve seen in other threads. Forums like this are inherently Western-centric, and more precisely, tailored to an English-speaking audience; that is, people like us. Threads concerning an Iranian national simply don’t resonate in the same way or attract the same level of interest...

Whether French, Swiss, British etc... whenever there is a thread that announces the Nationality, then with a Name such as Alsawari, Farhadi, Al-Shammari.. etc... there's this on going debate about nationality... Its so obvious, its so clear I'm at a loss as to how some can be so deliberately obtuse. Nationality is clearly dictated by Passport - thats it, its a legal definition. People can have dual nationality, so someone can very easily Australian AND Iranain. Its also very clear that those with such names have Middle Eastern or North African origins. Its also very clear that there a clear pattern is emerging: - Arabs and North Africans - come to Thailand and ride in reckless manner showing off to their mates. - Westerners Passport holders Middle Easter and North African origins, also come to Thailand and ride in reckless manner showing off to their mates.

All valid comments and complaints: When renewing both my son's and my own passports last year, I encountered several minor yet frustrating issues. Firstly, in regard to your comment: “They rejected proof of address as it was in your name and not your daughter's.” For my son (under 16), proof of address in my name has always been acceptable. Perhaps the issue arose because your daughter is 16, in which case, proof of address might need to be in her name? - What did you end up using ? Regarding payment: I raised concerns about the practice of writing down our card details on paper, including the security code, as I believe this poses a security risk. A more secure method should be implemented. Despite my complaint, I had no choice but to comply. However, a few weeks later, I received an email stating that the payment was rejected (UK card), and I was subsequently directed to an online payment portal. This prompts the question: Why was this secure payment portal not utilised from the outset? Finally, my passport photo was also rejected, necessitating the mailing of another photo to the UK.

You’re like an arsonist complaining about the smoke. You claim to be outraged when others show unprovoked hostility towards me, yet you jumped into a conversation that had nothing to do with you, radiating hostility from the start. This isn’t new behaviour from you. You throw the first punch, then act scandalised when someone calls you out. If you can’t handle the echo, don’t shout into the void. If you're going to come at forum members with your usual hostility - often being the one to light the fuse, the don't play innocent victim after throwing the first punch, it doesn't quite sell. And that’s fine - engage as you like - but what’s telling is your complete lack of balance. Just like a couple of the usual suspects (and the forum knows exactly who), your contributions appear only when the target is a foreigner, never a Thai. The anti-foreigner bias isn’t just obvious, it’s borderline unhinged. You’ve seriously over-egged it. Most of us here have families and manage not to spiral into outrage over the trivial. You post as though the mere sight of a naked man and woman is going to leave children emotionally scarred for life. This kind of theatrical moral panic doesn’t make you look principled - just wildly out of touch and a bit desperate to score points that no one’s awarding.

Because the *other media sources scour social media for news to repost... Even though this story occurred last year, it was posted by the Twitter (X) account Red Skull on April 28... [*never AN News whose dedicated news team puts in the effort to deliver quality content from various recognised and reputable news sources*]