Krataiboy

DTAC boss Amanda Reich may be right about consumers being "data hungry". If they're smart, they'll be equally hungry to learn about the health risks associated with the powerful new 5g technology.

Explanatory video and article: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-5g-revolution-millions-of-human-guinea-pigs-in-big-telecoms-global-experiment/5677203

52 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

What absolute tosh. 

What a tribute to free speech that is.

(Bit naughty, though, cherry picking bits of what I said and using out of context. You don't work for the BBC, by any chance?).

3 hours ago, 4evermaat said:

 

 

 

Well, would you look at that.....  TVF actually seemed to have already seen the numerous amount of panic that ensued since the first article on the subject and wrote an article to explain what many tried to do so individually but are routinely drowned out by speculation and superstition:

 

 

I know, I know.  It's confusing.  It's misworded.  Thailand hates western expats. Et. al 

 

I didn't even know this article existed until a few minutes ago.  Yet several of us were able to draw the same conclusion.  Anyway, good luck.

Thanks, 4evermatt. I attempted to access this article yesterday, but the link wouldn't work.

It indeed asserts that medical insurance is to be made mandatory only for those of here on O-A visas obtained outside Thailand. If this is correct, it is hard to see how penalising such a relatively small section of the expat population will significantly reduce the alleged widespread abuse of the Thai public health system.

There is a more than a hint of bet-hedging, too, in the article's penultimate paragraph: "But it should be stressed that we are still awaiting clarification from Immigration regarding the interpretation and implementation of the new mandatory health insurance rules, including who exactly is affected (my italics).

It ain't over, for me at least, till the fat immigration lady sings.

6 hours ago, Basil B said:

Don't forget the US politicians in the pockets of the NRA and their sponsors.

 

  https://www.quora.com/What-evidence-supports-the-claim-that-the-NRA-is-a-virtual-subsidiary-of-the-gun-industry

. . . or that the US is a virtual subsidiary of the military/industrial complex.

2 hours ago, 4evermaat said:

 

Actually, all of the articles made it quite clear that it only affected those wanting to obtain a non O-A visa based on retirement only.   The latest article says that the changes may take effect in July.    I think even @ubonjoe has clarified this.  

 

The confusion comes when these news/announcement threads come with 100+ subsequent pages of replies spewing panic, speculation, etc as to what changes may be next.

Nothing to do with yearly extensions. . . 

Hopefully, this is correct. But it would be helpful get a simple, clear statement to this effect from Thai Immigration. They must be aware of the confusion and alarm in the expat ranks.

15 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

I struggle to understand all the figures given in this article ??

Mainly:

Surely that is fully incorrect. I would bet tens or hundreds thousands at max, no?

The figures make no sense unless, in addition to O-A visa holders, they also include long-stay foreign residents who, like myself, are granted annual extensions on the grounds of "retirement" (written above the current renewal stamp). Originally, I was here on a marriage visa, but changed the purpose of my stay after divorcing.

The compulsory insurance net being cast at brutally short notice by Thai Immigration will be largely ineffectual if it fails to snare those who arguably impose the biggest strain on the already-creaking Thai healthcare services. I am talking about frail and elderly pensioners on fixed, inflation-eroded incomes who cannot afford private hospitals or PMI.

What more obvious target to be fleeced or sent packing could there possibly be for the xenophobes in high places?

Despite the reassurances from numerous ThaiVisa posters to the contrary, official pronouncements are confusing and seem to blur any distinction between O-A visa holders and those on yearly "retirement" extensions.

Immigration has publicly acknowledged legitimate concerns over the fate of expats unable - for whatever reason - to obtain the mandatory new insurance cover. Yet no official alternative has as yet been offered to simply showing them the door.

One obvious solution, surely, would be to permit "uninsurables" to keep a fixed lump sum in a Thai bank deposit account specifically for their healthcare needs.

Failing this, the thud of bodies falling from high-rises in Pattaya and other popular falang retirement cities is likely to become deafening.

A classic case of Problem Reaction Solution 

Problem Reaction Solution (Latin: Ordo ab Chao) is a mass mind control system. It is used to make changes to the law that the citizens would not accept otherwise. - Wikipedia

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Does any sane person think that is a realistic goal or if it is even possible in 10 years?

 

Ocasio-Cortez does, which tells us (and hopefully the US electorate) all we need to know about her state of mental health.

Biden his time.

5 hours ago, Kenny202 said:

I know someone who contracted it. Its much more prevalent than what you realise here, paricularly in the villages. Really though there is no reason to die from it anymore. The meds they have now practically reduce symptoms to zero and a normal life can be led. Thais get free meds, although often they dont adhere to them. They feel good right? Theyre not sick. Costs a farang I beleive around 10k thb a month for meds

Will the insurance policies all we retirees are now supposed to invest in cover these meds?

1 hour ago, Huckenfell said:

Well said Krataiboy.  This is exactly what is facing so many of us. In my last post i am asking for someone with the ability to post a petition for Thai immigration.

 

Good idea. We should also start lobbying our respective governments to start batting on behalf of us "uninsurables". The idea of having lump sum in the bank in lieu of insurance cover, floated by the Thai immigration spokesman, is obviously worth pursuing.

13 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

Jail for a month for dealing drugs? What is he going to get for rape? 500 baht and a wai?

Under Thai law, a rapist can get anything from four to twenty years jail and a fine ranging from 8,000 to 40,000 baht. 

Having just come out of jail, and the victim being a white tourist, one might expect this guy to have the book thrown at him.

Many long-stay foreigners in Thailand are, like me, either too old and infirm to get private medical cover - at any price.

Unless the Thai authorities fail to implement the suggested alternative of a deposited lump sum in lieu of potential medical care, the only alternative for some of us will be to up sticks and go.

Is this really what the government wants - particularly considering how many of us are supporting Thai families and making a substantial contribution to GDP?

Retirees unable to buy medical insurance are caught between a rock and a hard place, forced to pay as private patients in Thailand, yet often denied state healthcare in their own homelands.  

The "uninsurables" among us are praying the Thai government will accept a lump sum of cash in the bank as an acceptable alternative for visa purposes. There is, however, another option immigration bosses might consider.

Why not let the unlucky few who seem to have fallen through a crack in official policy, pay to become temporary members of the Thai state health scheme for the remaining few years of  their lives?  They could be asked to contribute an age-related joining fee plus an annual premium to get the same treatment as Thais.

This would be a win-win situation, generating much-needed upfront funding for the creaking Thai health service  (a worthier cause, arguably, than any insurance company) while providing some peace of mind for a particularly vulnerable minority.

The alternative, for many of us "uninsurables" is unthinkable.

Surely, not even the most hard-hearted government would wish us to abandon our Thai families - a wife and five children in my case - and the country we have learned to call home.

6 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

Geez seriously??

Kind of pushing things isn´t it?

 

This thread will go on for many pages with 99% of the attacks on the Government, ins. companies and immigration.

Very naive and not real.

 

The fact is this had been talked about for several years do to the irresponsible, low life expats who do not pay their hospital bills.  That is the truth but all the BS will continue....

 

 

 

I'd love to know who all these expats are who supposedly get treatment at Thai hospitals and do a bunk without paying the bills. In my experience over many years, a Thai hospital simply won't let you leave until the bill has been paid.

One hte last occasion I stayed in a Thai government hospital, they insisted my wife wait by the bed I had occupied until I had returned with proof that I had handed over the cash.

I suspect this new ruling has less to do with the strain imposed on the Thai health service by falangs bilking the system than seizing an opportunity to squeeze more cash out expats, all of whom Thais assume are stinking rich.

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

You almost got there and nearly put forward a decent enough example of the  'arbitrary banning of free speech' but they are not being banned because they put forward controversial viewpoints (as there are still plenty of others on FB who still do this) but rather they 'promote or engage in violence and hate and spread misinformation' which has been in Facebook terms of service from the beginning. 

FB, Twitter, Instagram and the likes are commercial businesses and as such can ban whoever they so wish from THEIR platform as much as any business can pick and choose their customers (within the law). My post was in reply to another poster attempts to virtue signal these people as paragons of upstanding right-wing values when in reality they are two bit conspiracy theorists, racists, misogynists, Islamophobes and on occasions have incited their 'followers' to violence. This by any decent societies standards should be unacceptable and certainly shouldn't be given the size of platform that the likes of FB, Istagram etc offer.

And I didn't mention Tommy Robinson as we are talking about those banned in America but for you to use him as some sort of warrior of free speech demonstrates more about you than it does anything else.

In your own words, Tommy Robinson . . .  "alias Stephen Yaxley Lennon, EDL founder and right-wing extremist thug, convicted felon, and hate-spewing Islamophobe" (which is all true thank you) got banned from Facebook  and I quote 'for opinions that amount to hate speech that in turn may intimidate certain groups in society and for posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims.' 

No one is stopping free speech until that 'free speech' turns into 'hate speech' which could (and often does) have serious consequences for those it is aimed at.  

There are laws covering libel, slander, incitement to violence, hate speech etc which apply equally to all forms of communication in a free society.

These should be enforced when necessary, but otherwise social media should be as free from restrictions as is Hyde Park's legendary Speaker's Corner (or was in the good old days when I would alternately jeer and josh a succession of extremist nutters).

Unfortunately, the term "hate speech" is being systematically stretched to cover any verbal or written statement which causes offence, in particular to certain minority groups who are adept at playing the victim card.

This phenomenon, together with the cloud of political correctness which hangs over the western world, is having a chilling and potentially extremely damaging effect on civil discourse - the effects of which I outlined in my last posting.

We must defend free speech, which includes - whether it makes us comfortable or not - the right to offend. That is why the billionaire bosses of social media platforms - the greatest opinion moulders on the planet - must be persuaded to ditch their silly rulebooks and follow the law of the land.

Whether or not you or I agree or disagree with Tommy Robinson or any of the other banned bloggers is irrelevant. They have a right to say what they think. We have a right to tell them they are talking out of their asses. The alternative is bunkers and violence.