Baloo22

"Obama’s pledge that ‘no one will take away your health plan" , By Glenn Kessler

"The Pinocchio Test

The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed — that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not.

The president’s statements were sweeping and unequivocal — and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency.

The president’s promise apparently came with a very large caveat: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan — if we deem it to be adequate.”

Four Pinocchios"

The answer to an indoor ant infestation is Boric Acid. I just removed an infestation from my apartment. For those in Chiang Mai you can go to a chemical supply shop located on the south side of Suthep Road right about here. I walked in and spoke with one of the staff. I mentioned Boric Acid and show him กรด BORIC and the man knew exactly what I was talking about. 90baht for one kilo. (which would be enough for a several appartments/condos).

I mixed a batch of ant-killer goo/paste with 2parts Boric acid, 2 parts regular sugar, and 1part water. Went a little high on the water but that did not seem to matter. Just made it more of a syrup rather than a paste. Stirred well for about 10 minutes. Placed several small dabs down on some plastic from a store packaging box and placed it down near where the ants were active. Did not take their scouts 15min to find the stuff and before long bunches were feeding and taking it back to their nest. Went on for about 24 hours and then stopped. It's been 48hours and I do not see any ants around. Victory !!

Boric Acid is a low-level poison. Just ensure that small kids or pets are not going to pick it up and eat it. It seems that the secret is to get the poison into the nest and to the queen. Kill off her and the nest dies. Whey you spray and kill the 20-30 ants that you see, you are only getting the scouts and workers. The queen pumps out replacements for them every day. With this method you are using the scouts/gatherers to bring the boric acid into the nest and to the queen.

Ants eating the mix. Ants taking the mix home to the nest. This nest was, apparently in the wall in the hong-nam.

/

Take a look at this daffy and delusional democrat trying to shift the blame of these massive policy cancellation from Obamacare to "Capitalism".

What a loon!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVMsXXaDMVA&fmt=18

"ObamaCare Was Built On Web Of Lies, Paternalism", Investor's Business Daily

Hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters went out to people who had been assured a dozen times by the president that "if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. Period."

The cancellations lay bare three pillars of ObamaCare: (1) mendacity, (2) paternalism and (3) subterfuge.

Those letters are irrefutable evidence that Obama's repeated you-keep-your-coverage claim was false.

Read more at the link on the deceit and ineptitude of Obama and his administration on this Obamacare fiasco.

well that's karma for you..god help these folk when they get old and sick a few years down the line.

The USA has existing Medicare for the age 65 plus.

But what happens if you have the misfortune to be sick, poor and let's say 55...?

The Medicaid program is for the poor and the indigent.

Medicare, enacted in 1965 by Democrats in control of the Congress and the White House, is for persons aged 65 or older. Medicaid, enacted in 1965 by Democrats in control of the Congress and the White House, is for the poor and the indigent. Neither program is sufficient or adequate.

Worse yet, private doctors and private hospitals daily swindle their way through both programs in fraud and abuse since the laws were enacted. This is documented and well known. The fraud and abuse issue is visited and revisited by the Congress and the White House, but the doctors and hospitals have powerful lobbies and lawyers that protect them.

ObamaCare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, begins effectively to address both the inadequacy of Medicare and Medicaid, and the swindling of the taxpayer by so many doctors, hospitals and providers which participate in either program, Medicaid especially. And to protect the patients.

Do doctors and hospitals swindle and scam medicare and medicaid? Sure it occurs. Fraud and abuse has occurred in the past and will occur in past. That is what auditors, investigators, the FBI, and Federal prosecutors are for.

Your statement that Obamacare will address these problems is nothing but nonsense propaganda. Your Obamacare will do nothing to stop this nor to "effectively to address both the inadequacy of Medicare and Medicaid, and the swindling of the taxpayer by so many doctors, hospitals and providers which participate in either program, Medicaid especially."

Exactly. That's why the status quo wasn't acceptable. The fight for a truly decent civilized and affordable health care system in the USA ain't over by a long shot. Obamacare is a starting point which may yet be shot down by the obstructionists

You say "Obamacare is a starting point...". Pearl Harbor was a starting point also! And, hopefully, Obamacare will be "shot down" / stopped by the obstructionists Peoples representatives in the House fueled in the rage of the American people against this disgusting and corrupt abortion.

What we need is a common-sense approach with honest leader explaining the approach to the American people. For example, start with a medical program that is already working. Move the eligibility age for Medicare down to age 55. Have a trial period for 3-4 years so that problems that come about may be identified and fixed. Then lower the eligibility age to 45 and do the same process. Do a gradual process that allows you to fix problems as they occur. A program like this uses a large part of common sense and would be accepted by many citizens.

Have a president with some integrity and respect of the American people explain the program to the people. And do not make such blatant and knowing lies to them such as Obama has made. Do not lie to the American people with "if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan. Period.". And do not then brag about your "Obamacare" while millions are being forced off of the medical plans that they wanted to keep.

looking forward to them paying tax... a vile greedy company,selling rubbish.but thats my opinion only...since they were exposed in the uk..they have lost a lot.and also there reputation ,makes me a happy bunny..

And so exactly when did the Crown Prosecutor/Revenue Service, or whatever they call it over there in UK, bring Starbucks into court and when was Starbucks convicted of violating British tax laws and tax evasion??

Oh wait. That was right at half-past never! Since Starbucks DID NOT violate British law.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

As far as I know you're right that they didn't break any laws. The same with Amazon, Google ect although I believe there was an investigation into Google as some of their practices looked as if they might have been illegal. Not sure what the outcome was.

You could argue about the ethics of some of the practices used to avoid tax but they aren't usually illegal. In the end it was threats to their reputation that brought about some change although there will need to changes to tax laws to sort this all out but I think that it's a very complex and time consuming job.

What amazes me is that Starbucks produces something that apparently tastes like shit, paddy water, mud or engine degreaser ect. but never tastes like coffee but millions worldwide pay large amounts of money for it.

Are they just brilliant or are their customers stupid. Either way it's pretty astounding.

The key point being that if the citizens of UK were upset at the legally allowed amount of taxes that Starbucks was paying, they should be screaming at their Ministers of Parliament, not at Starbucks. Neither an individual nor a company like Starbucks has any legal or ethical obligation to pay more taxes than they law requires them to do.

As far as the taste of Starbucks coffee; People have widely varying tastes in coffee and opinions on what is "good coffee" for them. Apparently, millions of people have determined that they like the taste of Starbucks coffee and it's the right coffee for them. And those millions have decided to spend their money to buy it. I don't have a problems with people paying their own money to drink Starbucks coffee. I don't have a problem with those that choose to drink other brands of coffee either.

Of course, we will shortly have the usual gaggle of ThaiVisa wannabe-coffee-snobs and self-anointed coffee experts jumping out of the bushes to tell us how bad Starbucks coffee is and what coffee we are supposed to be drinking!

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

The high standards of providing products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for Starbucks to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Starbucks certainly knows much more about the subject than you. Proven success!

As far as your sideways snark "Not paying taxes..."; That's just more "<deleted>" from the from the talk-out-of-your-arse crowd.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Ah Baloo22, could it be that you have a "Vested Interest" in Starbucks? Are they paying you BIG BUCKS????

Nope! I have no "Vested Interest" in Starbucks! And, they are not paying me so much as one satang.

What a load of crap from just another American multinational. They have to defend their standards. And which standards are that? The standards of malversation? Not paying taxes, underpaying staff and selling coffee in China that is twice as expensive as in the US?

The high standards of providing products (coffee, tea, and others) and services that people like enough for Starbucks to grow into over 19,000 stores in 62 countries. Starbucks certainly knows much more about the subject than you. Proven success!

As far as your sideways snark "Not paying taxes..."; That's just more "<deleted>" from the from the talk-out-of-your-arse crowd.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Since landing in Thailand 15 years ago, Starbucks has opened over 150 branches.

Looking forward to when they will start serving coffee.

looking forward to them paying tax... a vile greedy company,selling rubbish.but thats my opinion only...since they were exposed in the uk..they have lost a lot.and also there reputation ,makes me a happy bunny..

And so exactly when did the Crown Prosecutor/Revenue Service, or whatever they call it over there in UK, bring Starbucks into court and when was Starbucks convicted of violating British tax laws and tax evasion??

Oh wait. That was right at half-past never! Since Starbucks DID NOT violate British law.

Starbucks in Britain followed the applicable tax laws. Period! That's the important point. No individual or corporation is legally or ethically required to pay any more taxes than they are required to by law. That is exactly what Starbucks did in Britain. Nothing legally or ethically wrong with it at all.

Tax evasion is an individual or business performing illegal acts to evade paying legally required taxes. Acts such as not reporting income, misreporting types of income, claiming deductions that are not valid, etc. Starbucks in Britain DID NOT do any of this.

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally does go into a courtroom it will be "Well, you let all these other people use your logo!" Starbucks does not just have a legal right to protect their property (logo), they have a responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that the legal and marketing people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of the other Starbucks thread.

If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Another point would be, why does it make a difference if the thief is small time or big time; you have still been robbed. Let me personalize it for you. Would it make a difference to you and your family if a poor thief with six children to feed robbed your house or a gang of professional thieves robbed your house? You suffer a loss in both cases. With your logic, you would let the poor thief off with no punishment (and even allow him to reoffend) and prosecute the professional gang. What would your family (stockholders), that your are responsible to, say about your generous spirit?

<snip> ...trademark violation is much more damaging to a company to ignore, than copyright violations. Why do you think Starbucks is spending so much money on these two 'little' guys? Why do you think they are willing to accept so much bad publicity. It is because they HAVE to. They have spent millions building their trademark and have stockholders' investments to protect. It would be corporate malfeasance to not protect their trademark.Here's the difference. If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo. <snip>

The keyword still is "perspective".

If someone opens a SHOP, with chairs and muffins and plasters it with a copy-cat starbucks- logo....fine! Sue his @$$ off!

Push carts?

Seriously?

Seriously?

You still don't get it ???

Read it again !

BM Rametindallas explained it very well:

"If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand."

"If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo."

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally does go into a courtroom it will be "Well, you let all these other people use your logo!" Starbucks does not just have a legal right to protect their property (logo), they have a responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that the legal and marketing people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of the other Starbucks thread.

If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Another point would be, why does it make a difference if the thief is small time or big time; you have still been robbed. Let me personalize it for you. Would it make a difference to you and your family if a poor thief with six children to feed robbed your house or a gang of professional thieves robbed your house? You suffer a loss in both cases. With your logic, you would let the poor thief off with no punishment (and even allow him to reoffend) and prosecute the professional gang. What would your family (stockholders), that your are responsible to, say about your generous spirit?

<snip> ...trademark violation is much more damaging to a company to ignore, than copyright violations. Why do you think Starbucks is spending so much money on these two 'little' guys? Why do you think they are willing to accept so much bad publicity. It is because they HAVE to. They have spent millions building their trademark and have stockholders' investments to protect. It would be corporate malfeasance to not protect their trademark.Here's the difference. If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo. <snip>

I have flown with EVA Airlines several times from west coast USA to Bangkok. I have no complaints. Been very satisfied with their flights and service. Like DarloKnight said, they have backseat screens that you can use to watch a selection of movies and TV shows. Also, they have a program that lets you track your flight's progress and flight info.

I flew with EVA air in 2010. A round-trip ticket Seattle-->Taipei-->Bangkok with an "open" return good for six months. When I decided my return date, I just called their Bangkok office and arranged the exact flight. In 2011 I did a one-way flight with EVA Seattle-->Taipei-->Bangkok. In 2013 I did a one-way flight with EVA Bangkok-->Taipei-->Seattle and a one-way LAX-->Taipei-->Bangkok.

Flying from both Seattle and LAX , I liked that they had flights leaving in the middle of the night. Then a short 3 +/- hour (nice airport btw, very well done) wait in Taipei, and then fly into Bangkok arriving around mid-day. I like arriving at that time period. I've never had a long wait for Immigration or baggage at those times. And, at those times, it's been easy trips into the city via the Airport Rail Link.

Thank you witawat, no fiction and this my first ever post on thaivisa

Codswallop. I know a phony when I see one. Plus your writing style is eerily similar to several other clearly obvious troll posts under other names that have appeared here. I won't go looking for them as you're not worth the effort.

So, now you're ThaiVisa's master detective. Sherlock Holmes and Dick Tracey all rolled into one!

“Phuket doesn’t have a big mafia problem,” Gen Ong-art said.

He doesn't have a big problem with it since he is already a member of Thailand's largest criminal "mafia" gang!

Another good stop while you are in Bangkok is the Snake Farm and Museum of the Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute of the Thai Red Cross. Part of the Institute specializes in the husbandry of venomous snakes, and the extraction, and research of snake venom. Also, the production of snake anti-venom for many species. The Snake Farm serves as an educational organization about snakes for the public, tourists, government and private organizations, schools and universities in order to understand snakes habits and to improve attitude on snakes.

They have a really well-made and well maintained museum with live snake displays and other educational exhibits on snakes. The displays have both Thai and English explanations. Very well done! There is an entrance on Rama 4 road not far from Lumphini Park. Google Map location for Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute - Snake Farm

Also, the Snake farm staff demonstrates venom extraction and snake handling for public on:

Monday – Friday (except extra holidays.)

11.00 AM Venom extraction.

2.30 PM Snake Handling and taking a picture with tame snake.

Weekends and extra holidays.

11.00 AM Snake Handling and taking a picture with tame snake.

If you want to see the Snake handling display, I would recommend grabbing a cola/ice tea/water, etc, and grab/claim the front seats at 2:00pm for a good rest break until the show starts.

Eva Air has a very flexible return policy. Used to be 6 months with a Economy Delux booking...not sure if still true but worth checking out.

I flew with EVA air in 2010. A round-trip ticket Seattle-->Taipei-->Bangkok with an "open" return good for six months. When I decided my return date, I just called their Bangkok office and arranged the exact flight. Just took a quick look at the Online Reservation system and did not see any option for it there. I did find "For wait-list bookings and itineraries with open dates, please contact our reservation office." on this page. So you may need to contact them by phone to do it now.

I've done five flights Bangkok<-->USA and I have been very satisfied with EVA Airways. Flying from Seattle, I liked that they had flights leaving in the middle of the night. Then a short (3 hour +/-) (nice airport btw) wait in Taipei, and then fly into Bangkok arriving in mid-day. I've never had a long wait for Immigration or baggage at those times.

They obviously didn't interview any Burmese, Cambodian or Laos workers.

Sent from my SM-N900 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

When I saw the headline "Foreign workers say Thailand is tops", I wondered; Did the survey include many of the Burmese or Cambodians working on the fishing boats?