JCauto

12 hours ago, tuktuktuk said:

I don't see it quite that way.  Sure there's always some greed at work, but without the profit motive we'd have nothing.  We don't want doctors and hospitals that are paid like teachers and auto mechanics.  Insurance companies are just going along for the ride.  We enabled them.  You're just placing a bet that says your health will be worse than what your premiums represent.  Just like Vegas, they win or they wouldn't exist.  For most of us our health is good enough that we'd be better off without insurance.  What started the spiral was managed care.  Insurance companies were put in the position of trying to reduce the overall costs.  The approach was to negotiate.  Hospitals doubled their prices so they could be cut in two and everybody thought it was a win.  The problem is that somewhere along that road we lost track of cost, price and value.  I don't know if there's a way back, but letting government fix it has got to be the worst of all worlds.

I can understand that this idea has been drilled repeatedly into the heads of every American from birth, but actually it's not true - there ARE things that exist without the profit motive. One of those things in more socialized countries is healthcare. Often there's still an element of private sector and the profit motive, but this is always a small minority of care in these countries. (BTW in my opinion this is a good thing as it provides more options and it demonstrably hasn't resulted in negative impacts on the system as a whole). So yes, we have healthcare that is primarily (and sometimes completely) devoid of a profit motive. And within those systems, there are numerous well paying jobs for nurses, doctors and other healthcare practitioners. No, they don't pay the same amount that doctors get in the USA, but doctors here do quite well. 

So there's actually quite a lot of evidence that government-run and -managed healthcare works quite well with or without a profit motive from dozens of countries which are Western democracies with market economies. In fact, these healthcare systems are providing better health outcomes for the population as a whole at a far lower cost and this is not even in dispute. Yes, you CAN get better high-end healthcare in the States, but you have to pay for it yourself. So while the best level of care is available in the USA, it's not generally available, it's only there for that small sector of the population who can afford it or the high-priced insurance plans that enable it.

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Yes, it's always "deeper" when it's your position.

We who are against socialized medicine believe it's worse for society and the economy. I think putting people under the care of the government is pretty heartless.

I'm not for doing nothing, I'm for getting rid of it. Why do you not care about the millions of people whose insurance turned to crap? Why do you not care about the millions of people that got their hours cut back to part time? Why do you not care about all the working families that are paying thousands a year more for health care?

Where are you from? Where I come from we have plenty of entrepreneurs and lots of opportunity, and have had for a long time without the ACA and socialized medicine.

We also enjoy a high standard of living, and live longer than most any other industrialized nation, when you account for deaths related to recreational and industrial accidents.

 

You characterized my position incorrectly so I provided you with some depth. You have also done so with yours, so thanks for that. I find it particularly frustrating when people don't attempt to argue their positions and instead just toss out red herrings and ad hominems, which as you know is the general way these debates go on the internet.

In regard to your second point, about doing nothing, in my opinion leaving 14-24 million without health care is a significantly worse situation than making those who have it more expensive or lower quality. You feel otherwise, but you haven't provided any remedy for those people. What is it they're supposed to do, just die? Instead they end up with all the negative consequences before they get to the point where they end up in the emergency room uninsured at which point all the costs are then shifted back onto you, the taxpayer, anyway. So that's a poor economic choice if your major concern is the costs for those people ending up on your plate - it happens anyway, so you should be in favour of reducing those costs. The best way is to ensure they get decent low-cost preventive care as early as possible. Without any insurance, that won't happen. I also note that you didn't address the economic point I made in regard to personal bankruptcies and lack of workplace mobility and incentives for entrepreneurship.

I'm from Canada, where we have managed to use the power of government and universal healthcare enrollment for example to negotiate far lower costs with Big Pharma for access to the same medicine you get in the States but for a fraction of the cost. This was something Trump campaigned on as well, and that he promised to resolve. Yet, amazingly, there was nothing - nada, zip, zilch, bupkis - in their proposed healthcare plan that did that despite his claims of great dealmaking prowess and promises to hold Big Pharma to account. Why? Well, when the private sector DISTORTS the market, then the capitalist solution does not provide the greater good. I personally am an entrepreneur so have a pretty reasonable understanding of how the private sector economy functions. If the private sector could do a better job as they inevitably claim they can, then they would already have done so. Instead they've just taken the easy way out and captured their congressmen to do their dirty work for them and game the system.

Standards of living are subjective, but Canada places above the USA regularly whenever anyone attempts to do so. I don't believe your claims of life longevity withstand serious analysis. You can't just dismiss "industrial accidents" as incidental - both health care and workplace safety standards come into play here, and our "socialized" countries have those standards. And I'd be pretty surprised if USA recreational deaths are higher than elsewhere. Why would that be the case?

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Why all the hate? You think socialized medicine is going to help more than plot hurts, I think it will hurt more than it helps. I don't hate you because your opinion differs from mine.

I get it, people want to feel good about themselves and they don't really care about the consequences. To them, it's the thought that counts.

 

No, it's deeper than that. We in favour of socialized medicine believe that it's better for society AND the economy. The fact is that your view of just repealing and not doing anything about it explicitly says "I don't mind that 24 million fellow citizens don't have health care and I don't care that they will therefore die earlier than they should and suffer far more than they should". That's pretty heartless. It also says "I don't comprehend that people dependent on employer-provided insurance have reduced opportunities for upward mobility and to take a chance and become entrepreneurs, and that people without sufficient health insurance go bankrupt and that this is the single largest reason for personal bankruptcies that throw people into poverty and keep them there". That shows a lack of understanding of the economy. Put them together and you perhaps understand why people get upset about flippant statements about important issues that discount people who are less fortunate than you are.

On 3/25/2017 at 3:27 AM, impulse said:

 

And Trump knows that system so well, I'm hoping he becomes the poacher turned gamekeeper once he gets his footing to reform it- or at least start the reforms.  

 

It's early enough in the game that I'm still hoping his ego won't allow him to go down in the books as just another knob who threw the American people under the bus (again).

 

Early indicators aren't favorable, but I live in hope...

Well, early indicators are that his MO is to find people who are fundamentally opposed to the mission of whatever the agency is and then put them in charge with a team of like-minded saboteurs. To imagine that he would take one of the fundamentals of his business (suing other people) and make that no longer viable is well beyond fantasy. He has only one interest, that's himself, and anything that furthers that interest is the only thing he wants. Tort reform is the opposite of that.

18 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It wasn't Trump's bill. It was the GOP's bill, so it was they that blew it. Sure, Trump promised reform, and he pushed for it, but it wasn't up to him, in the end. 

People will blame him, but that is because they hate him.

The body that will come off worst in the real world is the GOP. They railed against it for 7 1/2 years, and when they got the chance to change it, failed big time.

No, people will blame him because he kept going to rallies and saying on camera that he was going to repeal and replace that law, that it would be "easy", that he'd do it "immediately" and that the replacement plan would be "terrific", would cover "everybody", that "nobody would lose coverage" and that it would be "cheaper and better health care", and that he would "negotiate better deals with Big Pharma". This is all on camera, and said multiple times to his own constituents.

So every single thing he told them turns out to be untrue (surprise). And everything he thought turns out to be false (surprise). And now you're surprised that he's getting blamed? Tell me, did you think that the proposed plan (which Trump endorsed and pushed hard to get passed) would have met Trump's promises? If Trump meant what he said, then why was he willing to go to the wall for this plan that would clearly put 14-24 million people out of health care and which would eliminate all the basic provisions that the Obamacare plan had?

As for the GOP,  they spent 8 years trying to prevent anything Obama did from happening, and being quite explicit about it. I suppose that must be very difficult to do, because rather than using those 8 years to build consensus among their own people and craft a replacement plan that proves the private sector approach to health care could work and then sell it on its merits to the public, they were revealed to have nothing in their back pockets, no consensus, and no serious plan that would do what they said and just tried to use the opportunity to kill health care and give the rich a massive tax cut. So yes, the GOP have been revealed to be exactly what we "Libtards" have been saying all this time. How do you feel about their performance?

18 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

I dug around but found nothing. Can you provide links to these video's. I want to see why a white supremacist would be 'siege ceiling' a man of colour. I assume you have watched the video concerning the OP above?

Of course he won't, because like much of the "news" stories and other lies that have proliferated throughout this election there's not a speck of truth to it. Note that a few posts down someone doubles down on this with another BS post about Communists supposedly cheering for Clinton with, yet again, no link. Idiocracy rules.

I thought the Trump voters were tired of political correctness and the pathetic need of today's "soft" generation to have "safe spaces". Yet the tough culture warrior Mike Pence, advocator of policies like pray-away-the-gay can't hack a respectful expression of concern from the gay people he went to see on Broadway? Isn't that cute!

While I care about climate change (I have children), I am a scientist/engineer so I'm also aware that the infinitesimal change provided by switching to a cleaner car would be miniscule in its effects. However, I still think people should do what they can, as it's the collective effort of humanity that has led to the anthropomorphic change we're already experiencing.

What I find disgusting with VW/Audi is that they basically recognized the marketing benefits from using cleaner "greener" technology so decided to appropriate the market with fake green products. It's basic fraud, and not just run-of-the-mill switching of the pricetag or labels fraud, but a dedicated company-wide effort involving people from management, through marketing and sales, through engineering and testing. That's astonishing and points to some serious ethical issues at any company that would set out to do this. Not just morally though, it shows an astonishing lack of common sense - look at what they risked versus what the potential reward was, and look at what the likelihood that this fraud would be found out would be (hint: practically 100%). That demonstrates very poor judgment at all levels. Do you really want to buy a car from a company that has such structurally unsound decision-making and management? I sure don't.

If the court doesn't want to see the letter, it will just put it aside by the waste bucket. I once went to Thai Imm (after losing a passport and then applying for a new one). I had a letter from my consulate (which took me days to get and 1,000's of baht in expenses) which I handed over to the top Thai official. He took a half-second glance at it, and rudely set it aside with a frown, as if it meant nothing.

The letter from the lawyer re; the KT case: will it be translated to Thai? Thai officials won't spend one second trying to read anything in English.

In the bigger picture: Thai officialdom (including the PM and justices and RTP) don't want to deviate from their ironclad plan: to scapegoat the B2 and continue to insist on zero mention of the Headman's people. The appeal process will result in scrapping the death penalty for the B2, but will instead keep the scapegoats in jail for a long time.

Was your letter (the one the official discarded) also translated into Thai?

To put this in proper context, Brave Sir Robin has managed to am-scrae every single time the poop hits the fan, always with a different excuse each time. Meanwhile, his number two is on the lam INSIDE the country and number three is the only one in the party's leadership with balls - ironic because she's female. Note how the one time she stood up to Hun Sen and went to prison she both gained enormous sympathy for the CNRP AND eventually Hun Sen backed down having been given one of the few political beatings he's taken in the last forty years.

But yes, Brave Sir Robin is no coward!

Bravely bold Sir Robin
Rode forth from Cambodia
He was not afraid to die

Oh, brave Sir Robin
He was not at all afraid
To be killed in nasty ways
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin

He was not in the least bit scared
To be mashed into a pulp
Or to have his eyes gouged out
And his elbows broken
To have his kneecaps split
And his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled
Brave Sir Robin

His head smashed in
And his heart cut out
And his liver removed
And his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped
And his bottom burnt off
And his penis split and his...

"That's... that's enough music for now, lads."

Brave Sir Robin ran away
(No!)
Bravely ran away away
(I didn't!)
When danger reared its ugly head
He bravely turned his tail and fled
(No!)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
(I didn't!)
And gallantly he chickened out

Bravely taking to his feet
(I never did!)
He beat a very brave retreat
(All lies!)
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!
(I never!)

The rules of present day diplomatic immunity are found in the Vienna Convention. There is nothing in the treaty that prevents one's country of citizenship from prosecuting a citizen by the country's authorities.

Sally is described as a Cambodian staffer that infers seh is a Cambodian citizen. I don't believe a Cambodian can have diplomatic immunity within Cambodia.

You'd be wrong. In fact, the CNRP politicians who are being arrested ALSO have immunity according to the constitution. The CPP just don't care about the actual laws, they're making it up as they go along.

Have a pension for the dark skin farm girl

Sorry if I had a good laugh at this one as it's bad form to mock other's English mistakes. But this one is so good I couldn't resist.

What you meant was "I have a penchant for the dark-skinned farm girls." The funny part is that if you do, then you more than likely ARE providing a pension for them.

I've never in all my years and travels come across such an inept and useless group of individuals. Besides collecting money, what are these clowns good at?

Making cheese, wooden shoes, speedskating...look, the Dutch can be a bit "straightforward" at times, but I don't see them as being much more inept than any other Europeans.

Lots of men on here posting about how this sociology experiment really isn't a problem. I would like to see a poll what actual women think about this issue. I think that would be interesting.

Actual, biological women are the people who will be most impacted by this. It seems a very cavalier attitude to state that it shouldn't be an issue, when it's not even remotely an issue for you.

And to further this point, I think it's quite interesting that so many gay males are strident supporters of this experiment. I would posit that this is quite probably due to the fact that the majority do not have wives, girlfriends or daughters. If they did, I imagine they would view this through a different prism. And yes, I know that they might have mothers and sisters and other women they care about, but more often than not, these are not women they feel "responsible for".

Of course, all of the above is just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Well, you know you just invalidated your own opinion with that statement. But indeed, if this were an issue that would affect women so much more, and they felt strongly opposed, then I would expect we'd see a number of them opining similar to you here. But you don't even though there are plenty of women who post on thaivisa. Hence one might conclude that it's not a major issue for them. I of course would be happy to hear their opinions on this though. Any women here care to offer whether they feel it would be unsafe, uncomfortable or otherwise an issue for them (or not) to share a bathroom with a transgendered individual born male but who identifies, dresses and undergoes surgery because they identify as a woman?

As a non-gay male with a wife and daughter, I can state that I have no problem with transgender women sharing the same bathroom as they do. My daughter has no issues with it either, nor does my Cambodian wife.

A few points in response to the old white (and black) guys club, many of whom it would appear came over here on military service and decided to remain stuck in time and place while the rest of the world moved forward:

1. No, you're not seeing a trend towards reclaiming the USA of the 1950's. In fact, you're observing the polar opposite, the decline of the old white power due to an unstoppable force that is out of your control - demographics. The baby boomers are coming to an end as is their world. Take comfort in your surroundings in Thailand with the acceptance that the only constant is change as the Buddhists like to say.

2. Yes, anyone who is in favour of equal rights for the LGBT community is obviously gay. Na na na na naaaaaaaaaaaaaaa naaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Seriously? That is the level of your analysis? Must have hit the bottle early today.

3. No, it was not the LGBT community who are advocating that they have their own bathrooms. That's what is known as a "Red Herring". The LGBT community simply wish to go to the toilet that best represents their gender. They are not doing this for kicks, as there have been more arrests of people who write legislation like this for sexual harrassment than there has been for LGBT people, a remarkable thing given the numbers of LGBT people versus the numbers of legislators.

4. Does anyone actually think that someone would go through the surgery, the pain, the humiliation and the enormous amount of hassle required to change their gender in order to have a perv at girls (or boys) in the toilet? Really?

5. I don't know how people who prattle on endlessly about "freedom" reconcile this supposed core tenet of their beliefs with the inevitable desire they seem to have to control other people's private lives through legislation.

Apropos of nothing in particular, I think Catlin Jenner should be the next leading role in American Horror Story, in the vein of Jessica Lange. She'd be a huge ratings draw, although I'm not certain what her acting ability is.

It's pretty damn good in my opinion - she acted like a man for something like 60 years including winning an Olympic Decathlon medal!

A simple solution is to have their own restrooms!

Unfortunately, that's not good enough for them.

The agenda driven activists wills say, "oh, it's too expensive" or "oh, it's just not practical" but this is all just a ruse. Tell them that you're going to fund it privately and you can bet they'll turn it down because of some half baked understanding of the term civil rights.

Okay, as you're either not bright enough to understand or so blinded by hate to understand, I'll explain it for you.

Option 1: Don't pass this new law.

Consequences: Legal - zero. There have been zero reported cases of harassment in public bathrooms by transgendered people. Not passing a law against a crime that has never been committed has zero impact.

Economic - zero. There will be no major impact on the economy since no changes have been made and anyone who would refuse to do business in the state because of the problem of young girls/boys being harassed in public bathrooms does not exist.

Option 2: Pass this new law.

Consequences: Legal - enormous. You can expect this to be a perpetual lawyer money-spinning machine as the court cases against this proliferate and bounce between the state and federal courts. This will result in large costs to taxpayers to fund something that affects nobody and will result in nothing useful. In addition, it's almost certain to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Economic - enormous. There are already billions of state funding for education that will be removed. Similar to what happened in North Carolina, there will be boycotts by companies who will not shoot movies, will move their head offices, etc. This will negatively impact the state and no additional business is likely to be generated by "pro" bathroom segregators whose own businesses would be boycotted outside of the state if they were to publicly support this bill.

Option 3 - OP Suggestion to Require Public LGBT Bathrooms.

Consequences: Legal - This would be far-reaching and a heavy imposition on everyone living in the state. The requirement would likely have knock-on effects on the building codes such that every building that exists and that will be constructed would have to change their designs to accommodate extra bathrooms, no doubt to a level of availability equivalent to non-LGBT people. You can expect a spate of lawsuits against any business who doesn't accede to the heavy burden this new law would place on them.

Economic - This would impose a significant cost and large hassle on EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS in the state who would have to either construct new bathrooms specifically for the small numbers of LGBT people there or allocate some of their existing bathrooms for the purpose. The costs for this would run into the billions for sure, as businesses either have to move premises simply to gain additional bathroom space to comply with the law or have to construct new ones. Oh, not just businesses by the way, also government buildings etc.

So, let's see, which choice to make here? Come on up-country_Sinclair, I know you can do it!

Seems to me that if business is slow, the less ethical lawyers who set up these nominee companies will surely see an alternative income generating scheme via cooperating with the police to set up their clients in return for arranging for the problem to go away or to simply get additional work representing the people they set up in the first place.

A few points.

1. The sample size is fine, presuming that the samples were randomly selected and represent a statistical cross-section of the population.

2. That presumption is likely not met, seeing as NIDA the pollster set up their own booth actually within the protest site prior to the present government's establishment, indicating a strong connection to and bias towards one side in a highly polarized society.

3. The government explicitly stated that poll results that reflected poorly upon the government's performance or individuals involved therein would not be allowed to be published. This means that any polling, regardless of whether the pollster is independent or not, is completely without merit or benefit since by law only positive results can be published and we cannot even hear about negative ones.

So yes, this is just another attempted spin job by the government's preferred doctors. That even they are indicating a significant drop in satisfaction and support demonstrates that the more sensible of those who supported the current situation are having second thoughts. That alone should give some pause to the djjamies of this world. But of course, it won't.

I fully support the right of Americans to form well-regulated militias armed with single shot muzzle-loaded muskets to provide additional security in the States as was the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. What this has to do with the current situation and the thousands of incidents and hundreds of thousands of people who die in the USA from handguns and various other modern weapons is beyond me.

By your logic, all laws made after muzzle loaders should be void.

All you keyboard whiners should get a life, grow a tomato and keep

your stress down. If you can't vote in the US, who gives a crap, fix

your own house.

rice555

No, by my logic, when technology changes then laws adjust to ensure that the intent of the original law is maintained. You know, like all the other amendments that have occurred since God hisownself passed the US Constitution down to Thomas Jefferson on two tablets carved in stone and Republican Jesus added the 2nd Amendment. At least that seems to be a common perception among the tea party-guns-Jeebus crowd that you no doubt are a card-carrying member of.

And thanks for your concern, but my stress levels are fine. When I get a bit uptight, I just look at the demographic statistics that tell me that your kind are going the way of the Dodo and will soon be a footnote in the history pages.

I fully support the right of Americans to form well-regulated militias armed with single shot muzzle-loaded muskets to provide additional security in the States as was the purpose and intent of the Second Amendment. What this has to do with the current situation and the thousands of incidents and hundreds of thousands of people who die in the USA from handguns and various other modern weapons is beyond me.

He said he was certain no Thai would be so cruel to carry out the deadly attack on their fellow countrymen.

Awesome how ignorant and xenophoebic some people can be ... Is this loonie not aware that shooting, stabbing and rapes thai against thai happens on a daily basis ... just look at how they kill each other, drunk driving, in the traffic mayhem

How would he be aware of that? It's not like he's the Chief of Police or something...

I think what HS was thinking boils down to "ah yes, here's the latest American Ambassador telling me all about change in Cambodia yet again, must be about the 10th one since I've been PM or have I missed someone?".

He could indeed lecture many a politician or diplomat about "change" and how to cope with it because he's been doing so for 30 years and remains, still, in power in a democracy. Not many who can say that really.

Now, before those of you whose spittle is already making your keyboards slippery, this is not an ode to HS nor is his continuance in power something that I approve of or revel in. It's just fact. He's played more politicians from Thailand, the USA and elsewhere than anyone I can think of and look! He's still there and still at it. Why wouldn't you want to be lectured on Machiavellian politics by the day's leading practitioner?

Completely stupid rule, why cant they just inforce the fact that you must be over 18 to buy alcohol, and heavily fine anyone breaking the rule. This means students will ride their bikes EVEN more dangerously to get out of the 300 mtr zone. We had government officials come into my restaurant yesterday and tell me to run my alcohol stock down as we are inside the 300 metre zone of a tech college, in Chaiyaphum. I measured it yesterday and i make it 327 metres. If anyone can recommend a good lawyer i would like to know please.

Go to Google Earth (load it onto your computer if you don't have it) and zoom in to your location at a scale that still shows the school. You can then measure it quite accurately. You can back up the measurements by taking a GPS to the location and staying there for a while and recording the location data as a track. Just make sure that the datums match. You can take the center of that cloud of points and use it as strong evidence that the Google Earth image is accurate. You can show the distances on the map using Google Earth as below.

Then you have evidence that you can print and show them and you're in the clear.

Yes, because taking away guns is taking away freedom! But using government resources to spy on your citizenry to "identify potentially violent people" is not taking away freedom.

Actually, I can quite easily identify potentially violent people. Here's my survey.

1. Do you own or possess a gun?

If you answer "yes", then you're a potentially violent person.

Now it's true, even if you don't own a gun you can be a potentially violent person. But you're far less likely to do anything other than end up in the local clink after some punch-up at the bar.