mrdome

4 minutes ago, micmichd said:

I believe in social security. About every German that works has a social health insurance, and they should pay the medical cost - whether the patient is in Germany or in Thailand. If the guy in question never had any health insurance, then he should be treated like any German at home: the welfare office should pay. 

This is the legal situation, if he doesn't have a pension. It appears unclear at this point if he has one or not. If he does not or it's not sufficient, then there is (only) welfare - "Sozial-Hilfe":

https://dejure.org/gesetze/SGB_XII/24.html

In general, Germans living abroad are not eligible for "Sozial-Hilfe". So, somebody would have to prove in a rather bureaucratic process that he is too sick to return to Germany.

It used to be the case that you were eligible but then this happened: A 64 year old nick- named "Florida Rolf" by the yellow press, unable to work due to sickness, lived in FL with the explicit approval of the German welfare office, received $ 1605 per month and word got around to the yellow press. You can imagine how they ran with that story of a social parasite. The government quickly acted and changed the law and since January 1st '04, this is the new rule.

Just to add some numbers to here, in 2002 exactly 0,025% of all welfare recipients lived abroad or exactly 959, among them many old NS survivors and incarcerated but many pensioners who had moved to Thailand.

So, they all had to come home when the law was changed, which cost a fortune in repatriating them plus many were now eligible for higher payments at home due to the higher cost of living index and the whole campaign ended up costing the government significantly more than if the law hadn't been changed and the whole issue simply let be. However, the yellow press had moved on by then thinking they had achieved the opposite.

http://www.berliner-zeitung.de/kultur/medien/bild-kampagne-gegen--florida-rolf--hinterhofwohnung-statt-miami-beach-3114432

44 minutes ago, micmichd said:

Why should he go back to Germany? 

It's cold there, the natives are not friendly, and they don't like people like him. Medical care in Thailand is at least as good as in Germany, and it's cheaper. 

Germany should change her laws so Germans in exile get social health care. 

I'm not saying he should go back to Germany but if you don't have $$ to pay for your basics you generally have no business burdening the locals with it.

I sure hope I will always have enough should my health decline.

I don't totally agree. Those who really want to come to Cambodia are happy to transfer in BKK, KUL, SIN, SGN or wherever (KUL has so far worked best for me when flying in from the US west coast). After all, it's never been an issue for European tourists wanting to visit Indonesia and other countries in the region or Australia/New Zealand.

Anyway, the number of flights keep rising, just this year so far, ANA has started from NRT (although not really bookable via the UA website for some strange reason. Plus Emirates and Air Asia's new route to Sihnaoukville.

My research brought me to these previous high rise fires all sharing one common thing:

Topic: High-Rise Fire - Aluminum Composite Cladding

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1801571

Clearly, this material is highly unsafe.

2 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Does this space age tech include fire sprinklers? 

Very limited use as the fire spread via the outside of the building in this case, the heat breaking the windows, flames sucked into each floor and consuming it from all sides. I've seen the developer state that the aluminum composite cladding was not a point of concern to their knowledge - insane! Anyone can see that it was highly flammable. I've never seen a comparable fire in an apartment building and the fact that the tenants talked about an impeding fire disaster just a few months ago makes this especially tragic.

I've also never seen a residential building with sprinklers inside the actual apartments - does this exist anywhere?

First place for the definition of "I was unclear on the concept", here comes this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/donald-trump-voter-shocked-husband-deported-mexico/

4 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Do you think it is correct to legally force private businesses and individuals to do things which go against their conscience?

[Obviously, we are not talking about drunk, misbehaving/breaking the law customers, so let's get that out of the way from the start.]

Not sure if you have thought this all the way through because at the end of your thinking stands discrimination as prohibited by law, for example, "we don't serve/rent to, etc. ... <insert skin color/minority of your choice>".

So, to answer your question, the right to not be discriminated against legally stands above that of the single business owner to select their customers.

Can you imagine if the London mayor (or Blair) had criticized Giuliani (or Bush) after 9/11?

That's a bit of a shocker, although Saudi Arabia is as black in that aspect as the kettle it's calling out.

Nevertheless, it's about time Qatar's dealings are exposed and discussed.

I have travel health insurance on every trip. One can only hope they will allow proof of that (not that I'm holding my breath).

5 minutes ago, Flustered said:

No Muslim can allow his daughter to marry a non Muslim.....Fact

A Muslim man can marry a Christian or a Jewish female (People of the Book)  but the children must be brought up in the Islamic faith.....Fact

Islam comes before country.....Fact

 

This is not integration, it is domination.....Fact

 

It does not stop there being any good Muslims, it just means that they can never integrate into another societies culture.

flustered, you are not talking about "integration" as most would understand it. Two married Muslim partners or a single Muslim person can be well integrated and there's plenty of those.

Can't really blame the individuals born into a Muslim family about the strictness of their religion.

I'm deeply saddened by it. I try to avoid being angry as it's such a destructive emotion.

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

 

... and the Liberal elite are blind to the fact that Muslims cannot and will not integrate with people of other religions. Their's is a religion of dominance, not peace. Further, Islam comes before country and that is the main problem.

Maybe one should think a moment before making such sweeping statements.

Obviously, you don't know every single Muslim living outside of their home country. I can assure you if you bothered to investigate, you could find plenty integrated.

6 hours ago, stephenterry said:

And I hope Brexit will indeed resolve that issue. No need to pander to EU legislation. Freedom of movement is a pre-terrorist ideology - nowadays not appropriate.

Wow! Just wow!  Haven't seen anyone demand such a rigorous limitation of everyone's rights before. Looking at the past though, I think you will find that that won't help 100% either - you are fooling yourself and are obviously not an expert.

(What will be left of the) UK as a big data driven transparent citizens & restricted freedom of movement police state - what a nightmare vision!

7 hours ago, Grouse said:

I disagree. Enough pussy footing around now.

 

We need draconian measures to clamp down on these people and encourage them to leave.

 

[...]

 

When they resort to killing our children, their whole community must understand our wrath and take the consequences. 

First of all, my thoughts go out to all the victims and their relatives of this horrible cowardly crime.

Who is the "them" you are referring to here though?

If it's the misguided terrorists or wannabe's, I doubt that's going to work, as they will hide their true intentions.

3 minutes ago, Flustered said:

What you and others fail to see is that if the arms order did not go to America, it would go to France or Russia or China or some other country where there would be no control over what was sold or how they are used.

 

Or are you happier with Saudi starting up an arms relationship with France, Russia or China? Saudi Arabia will get the arms it wants, if not from America then from someone else.

No, I did not fail to see this, I anticipated that point in fact.

My personal point of view is yes, let them buy from someone else. That is the only morally sound position (as I don't believe a 'weapons in exchange for reforms' deal would ever work). Just because we see ourselves as the good guys, won't mean that this deal will automatically become more ethical. Nobody killed through a US weapon has ever praised it for that fact, I dare say!

Let me add a big one on top: The West should stop buying their oil as well and become energy independent. However that would mean change and someone in the WH who doesn't hate facts and science.

On 5/21/2017 at 2:03 PM, Flustered said:

Obama was cold on it and as has been reported today on the various news programs, it would never have happened under the Obama/Hilary regime. 

 

OK, I just gotta say it. Muslims are dangerous in the eyes of many Trump supporters and should all be kept outside of the US. Still if you pointed out that all those countries where Trump has business ties (and whose citizens had actually been involved in terrorism in the past) were excluded from the travel ban, there was almost no reaction. Trump voters love everything he does and just drop the unsavory stuff under the table.

Now some of you guys applaud this arms deal, not giving a damn where and against whom some of these weapons will be used and what kind of people the Saudis are.

Well, here's a reminder:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/07/saudi-arabia-threatened-to-break-relations-with-un-over-human-rights-criticism-in-yemen/

If you sell arms to a country like this, you become an explicit partner in its actions. That Saudi Arabia has been a particularly fertile breeding ground for terrorists has been well documented.

So, there is no reason to applaud anything here.

Trump has a screwed up relationship with all things Muslim that is driven by greed, power & money and as a result there will be more fighting and deaths in the Middle East, the propping up of a regime that shouldn't be and young men who see no other way out but to choose jihad. This is the road to hell.

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Doesn't say what you claim it says.

Mumpel seems to base it on Trump's own tweet, which is quoted at the end of the CNN article.

Sorry, Mumpel, of course Trump has a big motive to make this sound like benign info sharing when the heat's on him like Mecca in July.

On top of that, his history of blatant lies make his own tweets & statements inadmissible in these discussions.

8 hours ago, Penicillin said:

....and last week Phnom Penh was such a great place to invest.

A. it's not just PP, it's the whole country - the economical indicators are clear, Cambodia is a powerhouse in that aspect.

B. Long term vs. short or medium term investment - obviously one's focus should be on the medium to long term.

C. this too shall pass. I asked around, neither Okhnas nor international investors are very much concerned by the upcoming election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu15XOF-ros

5 hours ago, Gandtee said:

I prefer the male jelly babies because you get an extra bit

I have a comeback for that but i don't want to get suspended

Great news and Destiny1990, you have to give them more credit than that.

I would not eat this, it's almost disgusting, actually (and I don't use that word very often).

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

trump had it right in the campaign when he said his supporters would be totally OK with him just shooting random people on the streets. So what true believer trumpists say now to defend the clown president is irrelevant. 
Get real now. He ran on health care for all and now he supports paying for massive tax cuts for the richest by kicking off the poorest and sickest from health care, and most trumpists are STILL on board and still defending trump. Basically the legislative equivalent of shooting people on the streets. For trumpists it's a cult of personality thing like many authoritarian movements in history that usually end with blood in the streets.

Thank you, Jingthing - this sums up the madness and fact twisting so nicely. Trump supporters feel giving in or considering that things aren't going well for him even a little bit means losing terribly. There is no point anymore to even have a discussion as there is no more effort to reach common ground; it's simply an evasion game (such as one poster backhandedly expecting the 45th to describe his own security breech in detail! Simply crazy!).

57 minutes ago, riclag said:

I don't like politicians ,especially what they have done to divide and manipulate us.I like to see Ted Nugent,a true patriot replace Mr. Trump after his 8 years are up.    

That's the craziest idea I've heard this week so far.

Some folks will differ with you on the meaning of "true patriot" - I know I do - or how being just that would by itself qualify one for the office of POTUS.