@Melissa ******

Go to Cambodia or Laos. Both next to Thailand and inexpensive to get in and out

@Frank *********

The USA has much more to protect. For those interested in far less complicating regulations, Cambodia is a far better option.

Thailand makes life so difficult for foreign tourists with these stupid regulations.

@Ray ********

Glai and glai for two things that mean the total opposite really irks me when I am trying to establish distances. Sitting in a restaurant ordering food and not having the waiter understand 'kaou' is another pet hate.

@Christine ********

Lovely Thai people in Patong?! If you think they are nice there, you need to check out how much nicer they are in most other parts of the country.

@Michael *******

You have to be prepared to wait for a table at some of the more popular Indian restaurants. It is a nice spot for dining outdoors.

@Michael *******

I second your recommendation. It's an Indian area and one of my favourite spots in Bangkok.

Off subject, but the dog park within Benjakitti was very disappointing and not a place in which I would bother walking dogs unless I lived next door. Concrete paths between impenetrable vegetation and filthy, smelly water, all in a very confined area. No off lead area but no shortage of officious notices.

@Paul *******

I understand very well your desire to live in Thailand versus the USA. If you have a 2 bedroom apartment with pool in Thailand you are obviously not on the poverty line. I am in a similar position as a 70 year old here who also has to make a decision to forsake the safety of a free healthcare system to take my chances with a system for which I would have to pay. It's not the 'dying prematurely' bit that worries me. It's having a stroke or heart attack in a foreign country and spending a huge chunk of my capital on hospital and medical care, while having no local personal support. Dying quickly whether prematurely or not would be the preferred outcome.

@Janin *****

Although the AIA one for over 70s has a low premium of slightly more than $2000 a year, the trade off is in the high excess which precludes insurance use for anything other than the most serious health incidents. And of course the problem has to be one that cannot be linked to a known condition.