Longwood50

I think it is just like the hotels and tourist attractions. They know they are not impacting the Thai's and that they are collecting tax revenue from foreigners. The cost of beer in Thailand is about the same as the USA. The cost of liquor is typically cheaper but wine is as much as 3-4 times as expensive. It can't be based soley on the alcohol content or the price since Scotch here is about the same as the USA. They must have a much higher tax rate on wine versus hard liquor. I have yet to find a modestly priced Australian Red Wine that is any good. There are a couple from Chile that are drinkable but hardly what you would call excellent. So, I buy a bottle on occasion and some beer and say it is just one of the nuances about living in Thailand. Conversely the car insurance here is dirt cheap compared to the USA which surprises me given that cars are noticeably more expensive than the USA and I have driven throughout the world and I have found no more harrowing place to drive than Thailand.

I have never been told or read that "most people don't like it" It is often quoted as an option when doing a search for Lasik or Cataract surgery. Years ago, I wore contacts and lost one. I went to my opthamologist for a replacement and at that time asked him if there was anything I could do for reading close up since when wearing contacts I could not read close up. He laughed and said, you have already found the solution. Wear only 1 contact lens. I did that for years. Now you don't have as good a depth perception as with two eyes fully corrected. However the trade off is I don't need reading glasses. Of the two I prefer not having to drag around a set of reading glasses 100% of the time. Also for driving during the day I wear no glasses. At night I have a set of glasses to correct both eyes plus reduce night glare so that issue is easily mediated. You can not have the difference between the two eyes too great or yes you will have sensory problems. I am a +1.25 in one eye and a -.25 in the other. I would suggest that not everyone might be able to accomodate and to test it before comitting to monovision. Have contacts or glasses with 1 eye corrected for distance and the other corrected only enough to still allow you to read. Try them for a few days, it does take for some people a few days to adjust, just like progressive lenses take a few days for your brain to adjust. If you find monovision is not a problem for you great. If you are experiencing sensory problems then obviously decline it.

This is the promotion. I can only guess that Bangkok Hospital that owns Jomtien Hospital is trying to promote it. It could aslo be that Bangkok Hospital is trying indirectly to compete against other providers that are offering services at lower prices without damaging its pricing structure. So you offer the same product with a different name " Jomtien Hospital" and you keep your premium pricing at Bangkok and some will not recognize they are the same. Anyway it is the same doctors that practice at Bangkok Hospital, you even go to Bangkok Hospital to have the Zeiss machine calculate the lens power. It is the same lens choices and Jomtien Hospital is brand new. Far better than the typical hospital back in the USA in terms of amenities. Includes all the pre and post op checkups, and all the medications. I was very pleased. I opted for mono vision with one eye slightly undercorrected and one fully corrected. So I no longer need glasses. The undercorrected eye is still better vision than previously but I can read with no problems. The fully corrected eye allows me to see distance. Your brain automatically grabs the image through whatever eye is giving you the clearest image. I did the same thing years ago with contact lenses. You can try for yourself with contacts now with one corrected for distance and one for reading and see how you tolerate it. Most don't have a problem. https://www.jomtienhospital.com/en/enjoy-life-with-clear-sight.html

I am aware of that. However a person can have a car inspected and determine if the car has been repaired. If it has, the interested party will either not want, or ask for a price reduction. If you note a good number of the advertisements here in Thailand specifically state no accidents, no flood damage. They would not do it if buyers did not care if the car had previousy had damage that was repaired. I know I have purchased a car here and one seller refused to let me have it inspected. I knew then the car was likely a salvage that had been repaired. Any body shop can immediately tell if a car has had repair work done on it.

Oh so a damaged car in the USA is different than a damaged car in Thailand. WOW who could have guessed.

Not sure why there should be a limit, you can clearly see riding in the bed of a pickup truck provides far more protection than on a motorcycle here in Thailand

Perhaps it is just me but does the health minister ever talk to the Justice minister.

I don't know if Thailand insurance pays for diminished value or not in the USA they do. One way or another common sense says if a buyer is looking at two cars, identical in all respects except one has been in an accident and the other is factory original if the price is the same, you are going to take the one that has never been damaged. That is no different than if you have two brand new items but one is a floor sample, and the other in the box, you expect some sort of a discount for the fact the package has been open. But with an accident, it can look repaired but no matter how good the repair is, it will never be the same as if it has never been damaged. Then there is the unknown factor. The buyer not being able to ascertain how well the repairs have been made will demand a discount to offset the uncertainty.

No "not my opinion" the opinion of the insurance industry. Even for the car that has been repaired the owner has suffered a loss because the resale value is less. I personally have gotten a payment above the repair, plus loaner car for a door that had to be replaced. Not even remotely the damage done to this persons vehicle. I know personally if I had a car that had been in an accident, I either would not purchase it, or I would ask for a bigger discount. The quality of the repair is an unknown hence buyers will ask for a discount.

No, the fact is that the car in "identical condition" that has not been repaired is worth more than the one that has.

Well the insurance industry disagrees with you. I know I had just a door replaced and got a brand new door, repaired at an Authorized BMW repair facility and got an extra $500 just by asking. I would have fought for more, but I was in the process of moving here to Thailand. I know this, if I was searching for a car, and it was determined the car was in an accident, I would either not purchase the car or ask for a significant discount. With repaired cars no matter "how well" you "think" the repairs are they really are an unknown so the car loses value.

Do you secretly work for Joe Biden as his speech writer. You have two cars both identical mileage identical condition. One has been in an accident and repaired, the other has never been in an accident and the price is the same. WHICH ONE DO YOU PURCHASE The fact that the damaged one is repaired at a dealer versus non dealer shop is irrelevant.

<removed> Now ask yourself if you have two cars with identical mileage and condition and one has been repaired and one not which one would you purchase assuming the price is the same.

Irrespective of how well the repair shop can repair the car it is now a repaired vehicle. The value of her car went down. Also from the pictures this is not a door dent. It appears the car suffered significant damage. I would not want it back after being repaired. She also faces the liklihood that even after repairs she will have to go back to correct whatever defects remain after the repair. Hard to get a badly damaged car with all the defects correct the first time. Bottom line, she entrusted them with a car that had zero damage. She is owed back a car with zero damage. There should not be a problem locating a virtually identical car with the same or lower mileage and for the dealership to repair the car and sell it. They will then take the loss in value rather than her.

Normally insurance covers you to be put in the same position you were prior to a loss. So no enrichment but also no loss. It would seem reasonable for her to state that returning a badly damaged car that has been repaired is not the same as one that has never been in an accident. A reasonable demand would be for her to request that the dealership give her as close as possible an identical car with the same mileage in the same condition as hers was prior to the accident and for them to provide her with a loaner car and some money to reimburse her for her inconvenience. The dealership should certainy have not have a great deal of difficulty finding a 18 month old car with similar mileage.

Now that is just not true and non-sensicle. Most people do not carry guns either openly or concealed. Are there areas of the USA that are unsafe, absolutely. I worked for a bank headquartered in Detroit, Michigan and there were areas of the city where you would not want to venture. Conversely some of the suburbs of Detroit are extremely beautiful and safe. As to gun violence, the vast majority of it is centred in the major cities, urban areas and is drug related. If you removed the gun deaths from cities including but not limited to New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Los Angeles the USA instead of having one of the highest rates of gun violence would have one of the lowest. Just like most countries and major cities, there are areas that are beautiful, safe, have good schools, and you can leave the home with its doors unlocked. Other areas, even the police are are afraid to enter because of the danger in those areas. America stretches 4,262 KM from coast to coast and 2,546 KM from north to south. You can't portray what is happening on Kensington Ave or for that matter narrowly focus on any region and say that is typical of the USA. Is healthcare more expensive. Yes. Are other things cheaper, Yes. Is the average person wealthier and with its tougher the enviornmental, zoning laws and no garbage on the streets enforcement generally better than Thailand, Yes. Just like you can not compare the quality of life for someone who has an oceanfront home in Phuket to one who has a one room shack in the slum areas of Bangkok you are mistaken if you believe the Hamptons in New York is anything like Kensington Ave. in Philadelphia.

Actually the reverse is true. The Biden Administration will likely approved it because it its close ties to its Chinese benefactor.

I don't know if they did. All I can say is that I have a US Passport card. To date, the only thing I have found that it is acceptable for is to fly domestically in the USA. Hardly what I think is a worthwhile reason to have one.

So let me understand a rationale to have it is that it is not very significant if you lose it. I have found you can use it as ID to board a plane and that is about it. That is not true if it is an international flight. Given that a drivers license or state issued ID does the same thing, I am at a loss to determine of what real use the passport ID other than it weighs down my wallet to carry it but empties my wallet of $65 USD.

I wonder about this as well. I was told that in order to transfer a car book that the owner of the car had to by physically present. Now if the parties were married a different story since the surviving spouse would inherit the car. But it would seem that two people not married would have difficulty in establishing that the surviving one had a right to owneship of he car and I was told a will in Thailand means nothing as it relates to tranferring a car book.

Yes if you are applying for the book and card the card reduces the number of dollars in your wallet by $35. If you apply for just the card it reduces your wallet by $65 Other than the dollar reduction the card is of no use. I have one.

The trouble is that the birds seem to relish roosting on the car when it is not covered. The car cover is dry, we don't put it on the car if the cover or car has water on it. It just seems to thin from the enviornment.

I purchased a car cover from Toyota for my Corolla Cross. It is the typical silver fabric but of better quality than the cheap 200 - 500 baht models. I paid 2,200 baht for it. The vehicle is parked under a roof in a parking area adjacent to the home. It is now 10 months old and started to shred. It is as if the sun has thinned the material but as said it is out of the sun. I am wondering if anyone knows of a top quality car cover that lasts and where to go to purchase one.

That is Rubbish. If anyone had a legal obligation it was the Mayor of Washington DC. She had control of 3,500 police who are trained, equipped, and available to quell 'CIVIL DISTURBANCES" There is also 3,400 Capital Hill Police specifically charged with protecting the Capital. Again they are trained for civil not military engagements. So somehow this force of 6,900 was insufficient, and only Trump calling out the military was the appropriate response. This was not a militia it was a group of citizens. Trump does not control the police, he only has some control over the National Guard. The National Guard is a part time force scattered throughout Washington DC. It is also "illegal" to call out the military against civilians unless it is deemed to be an insurrection. You had 5 people who were found to have guns. You had somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 protestors. Hardly an insurrection. Had Trump called out the National Guard these January 6, hearings would be about his overstep of power and use of military force against civilians. The last time the national guard was called out was under George Bush in 1992. So in 30 years no civil disturbance was somehow so severe that it warranted calling out the National Guard but now suddenly this one is. Trump offered to send National Guard troops to cities in the past to quell violence. In each case the mayors and/or governors rebuffed his offers. The disturbances in places like Minneapolis, Detroit, Seattle, Los Angeles, etc were must larger, more violent, deadlier and lasted longer. Pelosi herself stated it was improper for Trump to dispatch federal troops against civilians. This is nothing but a dog and pony show designed to continue to try and sling mud and hope some of the mud sticks. It is no different than when Trump stopped flights from China to impede the spread of Covid and was chastized for discrimination and being xenophobic and then later blasted for not doing enough soon enough to stop the spread of Covid. D&&mned if he did, d&&mned if he didn't.

Nope, I bought a new car, opted to go direct for my insurance rather than through the dealer. The dealer gave me a 20,000 baht discount not to take the insurance.