jas007

There are some interesting threads over on X. Some people are suggesting that Mangione was the fall guy, that he'll somehow commit "suicide" ion prison, and that there's more to the story than meets the eye. The murdered CEO was under investigation and others could have been implicated in the process. More than a few important people.

Supposedly, wine priced at lease than 1000 baht is not taxed. Not that you can find fine wine at those kind of prices, but you can try.

According to some of the AI people, in a few short years robots will be doing a lot of the work and real people won't have anything to do except whatever they want to do. That sounds crazy, but maybe it's possible?

Some people can think of better ways to spend 30 or 40 minutes. Plus, I'm not sure how you calculate the potential aggravation factor. Knowing, me, I could go through the process to that point and find out I missed something and need to start over. That's not going to happen. My agent looks everything over in the first place. All I have to do is pay some money and not worry about it.

What's the corruption? A person meets all the criteria. Absolutely. So what if they pay an agent to do the legwork?

I'm not sure about that. I've done this myself and I've used agents. On and off since 2006. I'm sure I did it myself the first time. Anyway, I'd probably pay the 20,000 if I was a Newbie, just to avoid the hassle. I'm not sure what the point would be for me to actually do it myself. I'm pretty much past the point in my life where I want to put up with mental aggravation, and 20,000 isn't that much.

If anyone needs an education on this, I suggest they spend a day outside in the hall at the entrance to the emergency room at Pattaya City Hospital. They seem to have a steady stream of patients in and out with injuries from motorcycle accidents. And those are the lucky people who don't die at the scene.

There's an agent on Soi Post office that I've used. Maneerat. The cost is 8,000 baht for what you describe. That's me. as well. I have the money in the bank, I just don't want the aggravation associated with trying to do it myself. To me, it''s worth the money.

I wasn't trying to condemn a "flawed" system. I was simply responding to a post someone made about typical delays at the register. I could tell similar stories about people who get in line at the grocery store, and then finally get out their checkbook to write a check for the total. By the time some of those people fish around in their purse for their checkbook, write the check, annotate the check in the check register, and subtract the total from their supposed balance, they've wasted everyone's time. And that's the case if we assume the check wasn't written on a bank in Outer Mongolia, in which case the store manager will quickly be involved in a shouting match with the customer, all while there are 10 people in the line waiting to buy whatever. Or the people with multiple coupons, some of which have probably expired. And then there's an argument about those. So no, I don't have a problem with a cashless banking system. But I also think there's a place for cash and I think there's room for improvement. As for using Apple Pay to pay? I even had a problem with that one day. We finally got it to work. I think that day there was some sort of a worldwide outage in the Apple Pay system.

"At least for now.." Supposedly, this new chip could provide a means to "brute force" its way past the traditional encryption of the blockchain. That's been a concern for years, but now it may be possible. Anyway, although I do have some Bitcoin and some other cryptos, I haven't actively followed the space e lately. Assuming the concern is valid, have they now developed any additional layers of protection over and above the traditional passwords?

You're right, but you also miss the point. It's not only about "cashless." We use that all the time. What it's about is that technology has now advanced to the point where data from different sources can be connected, analyzed, and utilized instantly. They can now condense you and your entire life into a profile. You're no longer a person. You're a person with a rating. You're a person they can control. You're a person that can be included or excluded from society instantly. That's the danger.

It happens all the time to me. I'm at the convenience store just trying to pick up a few things and the person in front of me at the register spends five minutes trying to open their banking app. Or they can't make it work with the card reader at the register. Or, they want to argue with the cashier about why it should work but it doesn't. Usually, it's tourists and the communication with Thai cashiers isn't so good to begin with.

I'm not sure if there' a connection or not, but along with the recent UFO hearings and disclosures, we're seeing an apparently huge uptick right now in fleets of "drones" all around the world. Over cities, over military installations. They're everywhere, and they're not trying to hide. Whatever they are, I have the feeling we're likely to find out soon. Perhaps they're earth based military craft of some sort. Chinese drones? Russian drones? Drones belonging to the USA? Or perhaps, they really are from another planet or another dimension.

Those are some of the worries, to be sure. And we're already seeing some aspects of this pay out around the world in different ways and in different countries, especially in the totalitarian regimes. China has a social credit scoring system they seem to be rolling out to control not only access to the banking system, but to other aspects of life, as well. In Canada, look what they did to the truckers they didn't like. Even in the USA, some banks are beginning to use the banking system as a political control tool. I'm not sure what's going on in Australia and the UK, but my guess is hasn't been good lately, based on some of what I've read online. The COVID pandemic and the response to it is another example. In the USA, they were developing "Health Passports" or whatever they called them. Your vaccination status would be entered into the system, along with, presumably, other medical records. Didn't get your jab? No school for you. No job. No going out to eat. Stay in your house or else! So while cashless banking and payments is convenient, it's just a step or two away from totalitarian control. Fortunately, Trump won the election in the USA. Not a good thing for the Globalists and their dreams. Not a good thing for the New World Order. I'm a little worried by Trump's apparent embrace of cryptocurrencies, but we'll see how that plays out. He says there will be no Central Bank Digital Currency, and yet he's all on board with the cryptos? Personally, I don't see the Globalist agenda getting much traction in the near future. At some point, people will have had enough. That's already happening. Americans want to be Americans. Russians want to be Russians. The French people want to be French, and so on. Nothing wrong with that. Anyway, all the fears may be overblown, at least for the near future. Cash isn't going anywhere. How would the underground economy operate? What about all th poor people in the world who have not access whatsoever to banking or digital payment systems?

I thought it was OK, but then again, I don't usually drink that kind of tea, so for all I know, there are other kinds I. might prefer.

I don't remember. I hadn't had tea in a long time and I just picked them up, I guess. I'm sure I didn't think about it at all.

So an additional Thai law focused on compliance with its International obligations for reporting tax information. Doesn't really conflict with the tax treaties, but rather a banking obligation and a requirement for anyone wanting an account at banks that demand the report. Maybe Hart just figures that's between the bank and its customers. You may be right, though. Maybe he doesn't understand the ramifications, as nearly all expats in Thailand who are or will be tax residents will have a Thai bank account.

Perhaps he is aware of that? That's my guess. Thai tax law is just that. Thai tax law. That doesn't mean that an International Treaty doesn't mean exactly what it says.

Even if they are "not for profit," their prices are still skewed by market costs across the system. For example, if they don't pay RNs the going rate, they'll find themselves with a shortage of nurses. If they don't fairly compensate their staff physicians, they'll find themselves with a doctor shortage. And you can bet they don't get any charity from the drug companies. So it all factors into their accounting. And even then, what other factors are in play? In large part, it's a tax thing. Or rather, the tax set-up is all part of the larger game. Non profit hospitals operate as 501(c)(3) entities under the tax code.. Donations to the hospital are tax-deductible. In exchange, the hospitals must agree to provide certain free care services and so on. In short, the government has attempted to regulate the system, in part, through the tax code. Unfortunately, the resulting medical care still costs plenty and more than it should. Everybody still makes money.

Even those aren't free.

Heavily regulated? Are you kidding? Some aspects, are, to be sure. Medicare, for example. It's more or less a creature of regulation. So much regulation that the system barely functions as intended. And the rest of the system pays the price. As for the financials of public companies being public knowledge? So what? That's the way it works. Might affect the stock price, but that's a good thing, to a degree. Perhaps such companies will learn to operate more efficiently if they know the results will show up on the bottom line and boost executive compensation. But maybe not, if it only works to increase corporate greed and hurts the patients as a result. In any event, comparing Starbucks to medical care is a stretch. One is. a necessity, the other, a luxury. No one needs to go to Starbucks.

Some industries are regulated. Electric utility companies, for example, are usually privately held businesses. Their rates are regulated so as to allow for a fair return on capital. Or at least that's the theory. It seems to work better in some states than it does in others. Regulate medical care in a similar fashion? That would mean set prices for medical procedures and for drugs. Not quite a similar situation, though. And electron running through power lines is the same as every other electron, without distinction. But medical care? How would you account for factors that are difficult to measure? Take heart surgeons, for example. Some are highly skilled and at the top of their profession. Others may sometimes be on the verge of losing their license. Should we pay both doctors the same for the same procedure? Should we pay for mediocrity, only? You get what you pay for. In other words, you'd end up with a medical system that's only mediocre. Given the current structure of the political system, making those kinds of changes would likely prove impossible. The drug companies have too many lobbyists. The AMA has lots of lobbyists. The hospitals and other care facilities have lobbyists. And congress doesn't seem to care about its constituents. Only those making big campaign contributions.

Personally, I've never had any kind of denial for any kind of health insurance claim. I can't say that I've had any major claims, though, until recently in Thailand, where my Geo Blue carrier paid 471,000 baht for eye surgery. Even at that, the Blue Cross Blue Shield company ultimately paying the claim probably wasn't too bothered by what would about br a claim amounting to around $14,000. In the US, that's peanuts these days. Nor can I remember any member of my family ever having any kind of health claim denied. I used to see cases, though, years ago and in another life, at the federal court level. Insurance companies using revery trick in the book, including hired medical experts, to try to weasel out of legitimate claims. And the insurance companies weren't about to pay those claims unless some court made them. Truly despicable treatment of sick people.

I bought these at the Tops Daily store:

In my mind, "for profit" is fine so long as it emerges from an arms length transaction not entered into under duress. For example, if a billionaire wants to hire a private physician to be at his beck and call 24/7, then why not? On the other hand, if Mr. Middle Class is crossing the street and gets run over by a motorcycle, does that person have any real choice as to whether or not he wants medical care? It's more like "give us your money, or else." I realize that may be extreme in the USA in case of an emergency and the need to medically stabilize the patient, but generally, that's how it works. You pay if you make an appointment with a doctor, and you pay if you want your meds from the drugstore. Otherwise, you take your chances.