Doc says I require multifocal lens - I'm not so sure

I am sure that there is no way you would require them. Keep it simple is my opinion and you could go and get another opinion?

 The POD F is the Finevision trifocal which provides better intermediate and near vision than a monofocal lens would. The tradeoff is added expense, and an increased risk of problematic halos at night, and reduced vision in dim light (due to the fact that the light is split into 3 different focal points: distance, intermediate and near). Unfortunately some people get problematic halos even with a monofocal, no lens yet is perfect, but the risk is higher with a trifocal. Most people are happy with them. There are other trifocals on the market, including the new Alcon  Panoptix which was recently approved in Europe, I don't know about Thailand, and the only article I'd seen giving details on it suggests it might be a slight improvement on the existing ones, a bit better intermediate. 

In my case a bit over a year ago I actually traveled from the US to Europe to get a new lens which still isn't  approved here, the Symfony lens which isn't a multifocal but a new class of "extended depth of focus lens".  Since I had my surgery at age 52, I decided I'd have a few decades to live with the result so it was worth some more effort. I was diagnosed at age 49 with a problem cataract, and gave up waiting for the US to approve a trifocal, and by then the Symfony had come out and I got that instead of a trifocal.  

The Symfony has a risk of problems like halos that is comparable to a monofocal (though some people get them even with a monofocal, no lens is yet perfect), and contrast sensitivity (low light vision) comparable to a good monofocal.  It typically provides good distance&intermediate vision, and a decent chance of good near, a majority don't need reading glasses but some do. I have almost 20/15 distance vision, and 20/25 at my best near. Unfortunately at the time I didn't get micro-monovision (setting one eye slightly nearer, but not enough to impact stereopsis much) which might provide slightly more near. On average the studies show the trifocal has better really close up vision and the Symfony is better at intermediate. 

The Crystalens, labeled an accommodating lens (though there is debate over whether that is how it works) also has low risk of halos and provides good distance with likelihood of good intermediate, and a bit higher risk of neading reading glasses for near than the Symfony, but  a minority only get similar results to a monofocal (I've not seen a good figure, I've seen guesses by some docs of 10-15% but I hadn't hunted for an accurate study based  figure), and there is a slightly higher risk of some complications (like something called z-syndrome, which is rarer with the newest model and perhaps not a concern).

The problem with a monofocal is that if both eyes are set for distance, most people need reading glasses both for intermediate distance for a computer and for near (or progressive glasses to handle both, or multifocal contacts). A tiny minority can do some reading without correction, but that isn't something to count on since the vast majority can't.  It is possible to use monovision with monofocals to get more near, which many people are very happy with.  That sets  one eye to focus best at distance, and one eye to focus at intermediate or near. Most people adapt well to monovision, but how much varies with the person. Ideally they'd have people test it with contact lenses before their cataracts get to bad, but most don't. In my case when I hit presbyopia I wore contact lenses set for monovision at first, but then later on switched to multifocal contact lenses which I prefered.  I discovered that suddenly the world seemed more 3D closeup, since when using monovision I was mostly using one eye for near and that had reduced steropsis, 3d perception. Many people may not notice or care. The fact that I liked multifocal contacts   led me to initially figure I'd risk a multifocal (and then went for the Symfony when it came out).  

Monovision likely doesn't cut down on intermediate steropsis much, but full monovision (say -1.75D) might a bit.   I appreciate the fact that with the Symfony when I'm hiking/running on a rocky/icy trail that I have good 3D perception of the trail ahead of me and where I need to place a foot. I don't know if monovision would have reduced that.  There are some studies suggesting in the elderly that there may be some slightly increased risk of falls with monovision, and falls can be a problem when people get older. I also figured that this way if I ever have some eye health problem in one eye, I'd still have a decent range of vision with the other without glasses. I figure micro-monovision of perhaps -0.5D or -0.75D might be something I'd risk, perhaps a laser enhancement sometime.

In case anyone is interested, the cost from this hospital (Thailand)  is $2,100 for monofocal, $3,000 for multifocal. One eye.I will go for monofocal.