CaptHaddock

The traffic jam problem in Bangkok is not a behavioral problem and cannot be fixed by improved enforcement. The problem is that Bangkok does not have enough road area. In other major cities, like New York and Tokyo, the total surface area that comprises roadways of all kinds ranges from 22% to 28%. In Bangkok road surface area is about 13% of the total surface area of the city. No matter how diligent the cops become at handing out tickets that isn't going to add a square inch to the road surface area.

Bangkok could do what Paris did in the 1850's and New York did in the 30's and 40's: tear down whole neighborhoods and turn them into highways or boulevards. That's not going to happen, fortunately. Rather than increase traffic they should reduce it, for instance, by taxing entry of cars into the city. The resulting tax revenue could be used to subsidize public transit.

The only other approach is to build public transit faster and more extensively than they are already. In Beijing, which has an extensive subway system, they lowered the price of a ride to increase subway utilization and reduce traffic.

The printing on the stickers wears off over time. Better to buy a dual Thai/Roman keyboard, either usb or wireless.

sumaa.net

Well, of course. My friend's outpatient care was covered by Part B and his medicine, or most of it, was covered by Part D. But you've dodged the question which is concerning whether Part A only covers nursing as you previously stated. For him, it covered the complete cost of his hospitalization and surgery.

I could be wrong. I am trying to make sense of the absurd American system as much as anyone else. My reasoning is this:

1. I read many places that Medicare ends up covering only half of actual costs. Your friend's experience is the only counter-example I have ever encountered.

2. Therefore many people buy additional insurance plans like Medigap or Medicare Advantage. There wouldn't be a market for such services if major surgeries, which are the big ticket items, were fully covered by A, B and D.

3. I look in vain in descriptions of the coverage provided by Part A for services provided by surgeons and anesthetists. The usual short description of Part A is "hospital services." But when you get those big surgeries the doctors in the room send you separate bills, because they are not employees of the hospital usually. Their services are not billed by the hospital and presumably therefore not "hospital services."

Here is the most detailed itemization of Part A coverage that I have found. Doesn't mention surgeons or anesthetists. Nor does it mention diagnostic tests such as CAT scans, MRIs, endoscopies, etc.

So, my expectation is if such services are not explicitly identified in coverage descriptions it is because they are not covered.

https://medicare.oneexchange.com/medicare/part-a

Medicare Part A helps pay for the care you receive as a patient in a hospital or a skilled nursing facility with some limitations. It also helps cover hospice care, some home health care, and inpatient care in a Religious Nonmedical Health Care Institution, but you must meet certain conditions to get these benefits.

If you stay in a hospital, Medicare Part A will pay for:

• Semi-private room
• Meals
• Regular nursing services
• Drugs
• Supplies and equipment
• Physical therapy
• Medical social services

This includes inpatient care you get in critical access hospitals, acute care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, long-term care hospitals, inpatient care as part of a qualifying research study, and mental health care. Medicare Part A will pay for inpatient mental health care in a psychiatric facility. You can have this coverage for up to 190 days in a lifetime.

If you stay in a hospital, Medicare Part A will not pay for:

• Private duty nursing
• A television or telephone in your room
• A private room, unless medically necessary
• Personal care items

If you stay in a skilled nursing facility, Medicare Part A will pay for:

• Semi-private room
• Meals
• Skilled nursing and rehabilitative services
• Drugs
• Supplies and equipment for use during the SNF stay
• Rehabilitation services, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech therapy services
• Medical social services
• Other services and supplies (only after a related three-day inpatient hospital stay)

If you receive blood in a hospital or skilled nursing facility during a covered stay, you may have to pay for the first three pints of blood you receive in a calendar year. In most cases, the hospital gets blood from a blood bank at no charge, and you won't have to pay for it or replace it. However, if the hospital has to buy blood for you, you must either pay the provider costs for the first 3 units of blood you get in a calendar year or have the blood donated by you or someone else.

In some circumstances, Medicare Part A will pay for home health care after a hospital stay or after leaving a skilled level nursing facility:

• Reasonable and medically necessary part-time or intermittent skilled nursing care and home health aide services
• Physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology that are ordered by your doctor and provided by a Medicare-certified home health agency
• Medical social services, such as rides to doctor appointments or home inspections to ensure your home is suitable to live in with your condition
• Durable medical equipment (such as wheelchairs, hospital beds, oxygen, and walkers) and other medical supplies

If you have a terminal illness and receive hospice care, Medicare Part A will pay for:

• Physician care
• Nursing care
• Counseling, including bereavement counseling
• Medical social services
• Physical, occupational, and speech therapy
• Home health aide and homemaker services
• Drugs for symptom control and pain relief
• Respite care for five days or less to provide relief for the patient's caregiver

Hospice care is usually given in your home (which may include a nursing facility if this is your home). Hospice care doesn't cover room and board unless the hospice medical team decides that you need short-term inpatient stays for a level of care you can't receive at home. Medicare Part A also covers some short-term hospital and inpatient respite care (care given to a hospice patient so that the usual caregiver can rest).

CaptHaddock: A friend of mine had a bypass operation in Southern California which was very well covered by Medicare Part A. What reference do you have for saying that Part A only covers nurses? I've never heard that before.

I believe that there is an open enrollment period each year for Medigap programs. If there is a penalty for not having enrolled in a Medigap program for a period of time while having part B, could you please state the reference? I think that the enrollment rules are prescribed by Medicare rules, not the insurance company rules.

Regarding the 10% penalty for not enrolling in Part B while overseas, we are not taking about a great deal of money. If your premum is $120, enrolling 10 years late would make it $240.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

If Part A alone covered a bypass then people would not be buying Parts B, D, and Medigap or Medicare Advantage.

Yes, that's a special exception from the Part B late enrollment penalty for a particular type of expat, but there's no exception for expats generally.

As to Medigap,

"The best time to buy a Medigap policy is during your 6-month Medigap open enrollment period, because you can buy any Medigap policy sold in your state, even if you have health problems. This period automatically starts the month you're 65 and enrolled in Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance). After this enrollment period, you may not be able to buy a Medigap policy. If you're able to buy one, it may cost more. During open enrollment. Medigap insurance companies are generally allowed to use medical underwriting to decide whether to accept your application and how much to charge you for the Medigap policy. However, if you apply during your Medigap open enrollment period, you can buy any Medigap policy the company sells, even if you have health problems, for the same price as people with good health."

https://www.medicare.gov/supplement-other-insurance/when-can-i-buy-medigap/when-can-i-buy-medigap.html#collapse-2283

Nonetheless, you might still have a guaranteed right to buy a Medigap policy after that period if you fall into one of these exceptions, or if you live in a state with more liberal rules on guaranteed acceptance:

https://www.medicare.gov/supplement-other-insurance/when-can-i-buy-medigap/guaranteed-issue-rights-scenarios.html

Further, if you're applying late and don't have a guaranteed right to buy a Medigap policy, an insuror can still agree to sell you a Medigap policy, though perhaps at a higher rate.

Hmmm. That's looks less than definitive for the case of expats since the carriers exclude us from buying Medigap policies because of lack of residency. For other policies such as Part D and Medicare Advantage we have an eligible period after returning than US residents do not have.

Generally, the govt is not going to penalize us for not buying something that we are not allowed to buy. It could be hard cheese for us that we fall between the cracks of the govt and the insurance carriers, but I would need to see that case addressed directly before I could be convinced.

I agree, but my point was to raise the issue that it seems we're not very clear on how the various private insurers actually define in their Medicare policies what they consider to be "residency." I suspect the actual policies have some language about that -- I just don't know what it is. But I'd like to know...

If you know their precise definition, it might be possible for someone to conform their circumstances to fit/meet that specific definition.

I doubt very much if their policies spell out precisely what constitutes residency. The number of non-residents who would like to buy their policies must be vanishingly small.

But it still comes down to, for purposes of this subject ALONE, what does it mean to be a resident of a particular state? And the issue/answer isn't necessarily going to be the same as requirements for voting or DLs or other governmental things.

--What if you have a U.S. mailing address only?

--What if you live in the U.S. 3 months and Thailand 9 months?

--What if you divide your time 6 months in the U.S. and 6 months in Thailand?

And how's the insurance company going to know, one way or another, anyway, as long as you pay your premiums, respond to their requirements and mailings, and seek medical treatment when needed in the U.S.?

Just asking...

For example, when I signed up for private life insurance before I moved here, the insurer sent a nurse to my home for a routine physical check, and that included verifying my address and wanting to see a copy of my driver's license confirming my address.

I suspect, none of that kind of thing occurs with the private Medicare insurance add-ons.

Well yes, but it is apparently the insurance company that sets the standard for what constitutes residency, not the IRS or the ACA, for instance. Standards may be inconsistent and vary over time without notice, for example.

If you were to attempt to defraud the insurance company they could be in a position to rescind your policy when you make a claim. Although a lot of their opportunities for rescission, of which they were very fond, were eliminated by the ACA, a fraudulent claim of residency might still enable them to cut you off at the knees. The very possibility of losing your insurance just when you need it, effectively defeats the whole peace-of-mind purpose for buying insurance in the first place.

As to the likelihood of being found out and penalized, I have no idea, but the possibility alone would be enough to dissuade me. YMMV.

No, just being a returning expat alone will not qualify you for guaranteed late enrollment in a Medigap policy. You need to qualify under another exception, which usually requires you to show you were covered by other health insurance after age 65. Alternatively, you can postpone enrollment in Part B until you return to the U.S., since you have a guaranteed right to enroll in a Medigap policy within six months after you first enroll in Part B. But then you may have to pay increased Part B premiums as a late enrollment penalty.

To repeat, the details count, and overlooking them can be expensive.

Do you have a reference for that?

My understanding is that since Medigap is an insurance company product, each carrier would only cover you if you live in their service area so expats are not eligible to buy it, just like Medicare Advantage. Therefore, since we cannot buy it, we are not penalized when we do buy after returning to the US.

In order to avoid the late enrollment for Medigap until the conditions above, we would have to expose ourselves to late enrollment penalties for Part B, unless we were excluded from such penalties by virtue of participation in a qualifying alternative insurance plan. Doesn't seem consistent, but not impossible.

For example here is an excerpt from Aetna's page on its Medicare Supplement product:

You can apply for an Aetna Medicare Supplement Plan^SM insurance policy, underwritten by Aetna Life Insurance Company (Aetna), if you are:

1. A resident of a state where the policy is offered; and

https://www.aetnamedicare.com/plan_choices/supplement_eligibility.jsp

Isn't there a steep penalty or higher price if one did not sign up for medicare or buy one of the "optional" coverages, Plan B or something like that when first eligible? I am not there yet but I am 58 and look into the future now and than and something like that is sticking in my mind

Only Part B penalizes you if you sign up later than age 65. If you return to the US after having residence abroad you then have a two-month window during which you are eligible to sign up for any of the other Medicare plans (Medigap, Medicare Advantage, Part D, etc.) without exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

Don't forget the 10% per year premium penalty for not signing before your 66th birthday

In other words you have a year to sign up and since you pay part B monthly (deducted from your social security check) you can save yourself 11 months of payments by signing up right before your year is up and not incur the 10% penalty. Bottom line if you put it off till you really need it, it can end up costing a lot more than the current $104.90 minimum

For returning expats, that 10% penalty per year for not signing up at age 65 only applies to Part B. For Medicare Advantage, Medigap, Part D, and the rest, an expat returning to establish residence in the US does not have to pay a penalty and his or her pre-existing conditions will not be excluded. The returning expat has a 2 month window of eligibility after returning to avoid penalties and exclusions.

If your assumption that the capacity to produce venom comes with little or no biological cost were true, then it would indeed follow that we would expect venomous species to dominate, perhaps overwhelmingly. Since the observed data is that most species of snake are non-venomous, then it follows logically that you should question your assumption, to wit, venom production probably has significant biological costs associated with it, even if it is difficult to observe the actual biological costs directly.

Okay, but the trouble is that we know that some snakes are producing bucketloads of venom - the various shows in Bangkok and in other places see them milked constantly. I know they'll (probably) find it a lot easier to get plenty to eat, so it might be true that there's a big biological cost, but given the volume of cells involved I find it hard to believe that it's more of a cost than normal cell turnover in the rest of the body.

We're also left with the interesting fact that quite a lot of venomous and non-venomous seem uncannily alike. You can argue that there are only so many ways of being, or they had a common ancestor (maybe even one that was venomous) and losing venom was an evolutionary strategy, maybe because of the biological cost.

But you could question your assumption and contemplate my solution to the conundrum. Maybe there isn't a particularly large biological cost - making 4 grams of venom is no more difficult than replacing 4 grams of liver tissue - but being venomous increases your chances of getting your head smashed in.

It's a bit like being a wolf. Wolves are aggressive and chocolate labradors are cuddly. Ever looked at the relative numbers? Cuddles is the dominant strategy

Well, my intuition is that venom is costly to produce, not cheap. I can't find any research estimating the biological cost of venom production in snakes, but I did find a quote from a study on the metabolic cost of sperm production in Japanese macaques. I think it is reasonable to expect that venom and sperm might have similar costs, say, within an order of magnitude. The important point here, and one that I think you missed, is that you have to scale the product by the size of the animal producing it. Four grams is not much for a 180 lb. human. The highly venomous coral snake in the US weighs about 10 lbs. I don't find the weight of a venom injection, but of other species the range looks like from 10 mg to 90 mg per bite. Since biological cost is relative to the biomass, it is going to be more costly for a small animal like a snake than for larger mammals like humans. Also, reptile have lower metabolic rates than mammals so the cost for them of producing anything is higher.

But back to the Japanese macaques. The cost estimate for sperm production for Japanese macaques is from 0.8% of the basal metabolic rate to 6.0% So, let's say 1%. Now one percent is a lot in the competition for survival. All species are at all times engaged in the tradeoff of costs for benefits. 99% or more of all species are extinct, from which we can conclude that small differentials in either costs or benefits add up over time. As Branch Rickey once said, "Baseball is a game of inches."

As to the likelihood of human extermination as an element of selection pressure, it is possible, but I would not expect it to be large compared to habitat loss, for example. Dogs, horses, and other domesticated species have been selectively bred by humans for thousands or tens of thousands of years, which is to say that their reproduction has been completely controlled for that time. But not snakes.

Here is the abstract from:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16467956?dopt=AbstractPlus

You don't need to be a US resident to enroll in Medicare, just a Social Security recipient. I enrolled through the US Embassy in Japan where I am a permanent resident. I had to sign a document acknowledging that I would need to return to the USA to be treated. Residence is a non-issue. Once you return to the US, you will obviously be residing in the US.

I don't understand why Medicare Parts A & B would not cover major surgery costs. A Medicare Advantage program would cover more costs but would not be cost effective and besides, I don't think that you can enroll in an Advantage program if you live outside of the USA because the cost of the programs is based on Zip Codes. Check online.

How older people (65+) can cover their medical costs in Thailand has been discussed exhaustively and the answer is always to self-insure. Catastrophic illness must be paid for out-of-pocket here but in cases where you are well enough to travel on commercial air, it might be feasible to return to the US for treatment if you have Medicare Parts A & B. A will cover hospitalization and B will cover outpatient costs. Maybe not all but a major portion.

It is not necessary to be a SS recipient to sign up for Medicare. I am not receiving SS benefits currently, but have enrolled in Parts A & B both of which are available to expats.

What parts or plans did you sign up for at the US Embassy in Japan? Are you military or US govt employee? The rules may be different for them. Do you maintain a US residence?

Part A covers hospital service including nurses, but not doctors. Part B is outpatient care. So, for a major surgery, for example, those two parts alone would not cover the cost of the surgeon or anesthetist or the costs or drugs, which are covered in Part D.

Residence is definitely an issue. Here are the requirements per medicareadvantage.com to sign up for Medicare Advantage (Part C):

There are 3 general eligibility requirements to qualify for a Medicare Advantage plan

(Medicare Part C):

1. You must be enrolled in Original Medicare (Medicare Parts A & .
2. You must live in the service area of a Medicare Advantage insurance provider that is accepting new users during your application period.
3. You do not have End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD).

https://www.medicareadvantage.com/part-c/eligibility

Isn't there a steep penalty or higher price if one did not sign up for medicare or buy one of the "optional" coverages, Plan B or something like that when first eligible? I am not there yet but I am 58 and look into the future now and than and something like that is sticking in my mind

Only Part B penalizes you if you sign up later than age 65. If you return to the US after having residence abroad you then have a two-month window during which you are eligible to sign up for any of the other Medicare plans (Medigap, Medicare Advantage, Part D, etc.) without exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

Ah hah, so first learning for me is that I need to be able to show that I am "residing" in the US to use Medicare.

(I already have my Medicare card).

I guess I need to find out the legal definition of "residing in". Guessing the Medicare site will show that.

And yes, costs for operations etc. are a good deal cheaper here than in the US.

Short of a stroke or a heart attack, or a major injury from a car accident, I can't think of why I would be incapacitated but still needing medical treatment.

???

Just trying to understand what will make the most sense for me.

You may be able to maintain a US address that establishes residency, but if it is in a state that has an income tax you are likely to be establishing tax domicile in that state ipso facto, which would make you liable for state income taxes forever.

If you do not maintain a US residence and if you carefully avoid qualifying for tax domicile in the state according to the state's particular rules, then you will never have to pay state income tax again.

My earlier point on medical costs in Thailand is not that they are cheaper than in the US, which is certainly true, but that the same treatment in a Thai govt hospital will be much cheaper than in a Thai private hospital.

Each life form on earth has evolved and adapted to its own needs and environment.

Why not ask why Polar Bears are big, fierce and have white fur whilst the Hippopotamus, who is also big and fierce has no fur ?

Why do humans have differing racial characteristics ?

Why do big fish eat little fish ?

I think you're missing the point. There's a genus - snakes. Some have characteristic "x" and some don't. Basic evolutionary theory tells you that if something's a straightforward win it should spread. If it doesn't spread that's because i) it can't, or ii) there's a countervailing pressure in the opposite direction. So given that - you'd think - there isn't much of a price in being venomous, and there are obviously multiple routes to becoming venomous, and given that it seems to be useful, they should all pretty much be venomous. That tells you that in fact there has to be - despite appearances to the contrary - a pressure in the opposite direction. Being venomous has to have a cost attached to it. Someone suggested that it's a straightforward biological/calorific cost, but I find it hard to believe that that's true. My suggestion is that maybe being a threat to humans gets you killed, which is why "stand up and be seen, rattle and hiss" spread. It might also be why biologists are mistaken when they say "Non-venomous evolved to look like the venomous to avoid being messed with". Maybe, in fact, the venomous evolved to look like the non-venomous to avoid being killed.

If your assumption that the capacity to produce venom comes with little or no biological cost were true, then it would indeed follow that we would expect venomous species to dominate, perhaps overwhelmingly. Since the observed data is that most species of snake are non-venomous, then it follows logically that you should question your assumption, to wit, venom production probably has significant biological costs associated with it, even if it is difficult to observe the actual biological costs directly.

Snakes are of the order, squamata, suborder serpentes, that includes many families, each of which includes numerous genuses.

Most venomous species of snake use venom for predation, not defense. Their basic reptile strategy of ambush hunting would require camoflage coloring for most species.

She could also enter on her US passport subject to the same constraints as other US citizens.

If you are not legally resident in the US, you are not eligible to enroll in any Medicare programs except Part A and Part B. A & B alone are not sufficient to cover major surgery costs in the US.

Medical care in Thailand is availlable from both private hospitals and govt hospitals, where costs are much lower.

Congratulations, Jack, looks like every point in your post is flat wrong. Invective is a poor substitute for understanding.

1. The SE tax "penalty" is not 15%, but half of 15% since the self-employed person pays the employer contribution to SS and Medicare as well as the employee portion, which all employees pay.

2. Neither Warren Buffett nor his secretary are self-employed so the SE tax does not account for any difference in their tax brackets.

3. The OP who teaches at a school in Thailand is not self-employed and not liable for the SE tax. Unless his employer is a US corporation he is not liable for the payroll tax either and will therefore earn no SS credits for his employment here.

4. A US citizen can establish foreign residency for IRS and Obamacare purposes either by being outside of the US for 330 days of the year or by establishing tax domicile in another country. Since the OP pays income taxes in Thailand he qualifies under the second of these two alternate methods of establishing foreign residency.

The OP probably does not owe any US taxes because of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, but he should bring his filings up to date and should probably retain a US-based accountant to assist in dealing with the IRS.

1. As a self-employed person, you pay double what an "employed by a boss" person pays from their paychecks.

2. Buffet pays this tax on only the first $115K of his income - a tiny portion of his income. His secretary pays it on All of his/her income. Yes, as an "employed by a boss" person, the secretary only sees the 1/2 stolen* directly from her paycheck, not the other 1/2 stolen* from her employer, before-hand.

3. AFAIK, every American Citizen is required to pay this tax on every dollar from the first, to the 115,000th dollar they make - regardless of where it comes from. I would love to be wrong about this, so please provide links to statutes / evidence to the contrary. I am not sure if a double-taxation arrangement provides an offset to the person employed in Thailand, but I believe that would only cover the "income tax" section of their taxes (as with the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) - not the 15% tax which is in addition to the income tax.

4. Glad to hear there is a 2nd option to avoid the Obamacare armed-robbery handout to the Insurance Cartels. How long does it take to establish a 'tax domicile"? Glad the OP has an "out," in any case. Care is much better in Thailand (unless you are an American multi-millionaire), and provided at a fraction of the cost.

I use the word "stolen," above, because this tax applied only on lower incomes, masquerades as some sort of "savings for retirement" system, when it is actually just a Ponzi Scheme. There is no savings - no account - and the age for which one "qualifies" to get back their stolen loot, can be changed. Talk now is that "75 years old" is a reasonable compromise for "younger workers," since we might survive until 80 in our wheelchairs - some "retirement" to look forward to.

You'll want to think twice before using the phrase "AFAIK" since you know so little. Almost everything here is wrong again. But you are evidently beyond correction.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Unless you are "self-employed" - for which there is a special penalty of 15% levied on your first dollar up to about $115K - and only up to that point. This tax is only on poor and middle-class level of income, and it does apply to ex-pats.

This is one reason why Billionaire Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage in tax than his secretary. The other reason is that most of his income is "capital gains" (not requiring any "work" be done) which is taxed at 1/2 the rate of income which people trade the very hours of their lives to receive.

Including "Penalties and Interest"? Those add up fast. I pay the USA's tax-mafia primarily because I want to have a valid passport - but I don't kid myself about what it is - a Mafia Racket that transfers money to well-connected cronies. The "penalites and interest," plus armed-collection agents, are perfect representations of mafia-behavior.

Not any more. Too many of their citizens were revolking citizenship, so they recinded that law. Creating "Balikbayans" was counter-productive. Another poster mentioned China - not surprising, as the USA now closely resembles what was taught (in govt school) about the "bad ol" USSR and Communist China.

US citizens not retired living in Thailand with a family, and working as a Teacher for the last 15 years or so, earning a good salary paid by a Thai school is required to file and pay annual US taxes?

Unlikely any "income" taxes, given the rate of pay. But since the school is not paying into the US system, possibly 15% from the first baht as a penalty for not working for a US-employer and wandering off on the tax-farm to which your birth condemned you.

That Social Security Number is your cattle-ear-tag. Projected-thefts from unborn tax-cows is the basis of the federal debt, used to give massive sums to crony-crook interests. Ths is why they get so anxious about low birth rates, and open the floodgates to mass-immigration, rather than allowing us to benefit from the increase in natural-wealth of our nation per-person which lower populations enable (if we had a right to our shares of our nation's natural resources). How else to keep the Ponzi Scheme going?

Note that the 330 days rule applies to the "Obamacare" law, which forces us to buy lousy forms of health-insurance from mafia-style crooks. Most Americans forced into bankrupcy by medical debts had so-called "insurance" when they got sick. Try paying 30% of $300,000 on a gross-income of $30K / yr (pre-tax), and the math problem becomes obvious.

Congratulations, Jack, looks like every point in your post is flat wrong. Invective is a poor substitute for understanding.

1. The SE tax "penalty" is not 15%, but half of 15% since the self-employed person pays the employer contribution to SS and Medicare as well as the employee portion, which all employees pay.

2. Neither Warren Buffett nor his secretary are self-employed so the SE tax does not account for any difference in their tax brackets.

3. The OP who teaches at a school in Thailand is not self-employed and not liable for the SE tax. Unless his employer is a US corporation he is not liable for the payroll tax either and will therefore earn no SS credits for his employment here.

4. A US citizen can establish foreign residency for IRS and Obamacare purposes either by being outside of the US for 330 days of the year or by establishing tax domicile in another country. Since the OP pays income taxes in Thailand he qualifies under the second of these two alternate methods of establishing foreign residency.

The OP probably does not owe any US taxes because of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, but he should bring his filings up to date and should probably retain a US-based accountant to assist in dealing with the IRS.

It matters whether the OP views this decision as investment-like, i.e. the goal is to maximize the expected payout, or insurance-like, i.e. the goal is to avoid the worst-case scenario, which for a retiree is to be both old and poor. In my view decisions about pension options are definitely insurance-like. As with insurance generally, we are willing to take some loss, payment of a premium, for example, to reduce the worst-case scenario, such as the house burns down. From an insurance perspective the break-even period to take the higher immediate payout, an investment concern, doesn't matter.

I am not at all worried about inflation in the near term since persistently low inflation or even mild deflation is a bigger risk while we remain in the shadow of the 2008 global financial crisis. However, we cannot be sure that higher inflation will not return at some point in our future. If inflation were to climb, especially if it were persistent over time, the value of OP's pension could easily fall to the point of threatening his standard of living. And he would be out of options at that point as far as the pension income is concerned.

The longer the term of the pension the greater the risk of a ruinous period of inflation. If the OP's wife is younger than he the term of the pension could be substantially longer than his own life, in which case protection from inflation would have even more value.

Although he doesn't say so, it appears that the OP's retirement resources as they stand now, are adequate for a good standard of living here in Thailand. If that is indeed the case, why jeopardize the purchasing power of his pension just to increase disposable income in the near term?

So, I would recommend declining the offer.

For the American military adventures actually winning the war does not seem to be as important as just spending all that money.

Producing venom is not getting something for nothing. The biological cost is sufficient that some venomous species make efforts to conserve venom. For instance, it is more dangerous to be bitten by an immature fer de lance than an adult because the adults conserve venom by injecting less of it. Some previously venomous species of snakes have lost the ability to produce venom as their prey species have changed. The very fact that venoms are not universal implies that there is indeed a biological cost involved. In biology everything has a cost. It's just harder to observe such costs.

Lactose tolerance also incurs costs. For example, lactose tolerance is associated with higher incidence of celiac disease. Lactose tolerance developed with the agricultural revolution as the reduction of meat in the diet meant that farmers had to get vitamin D from a new source, milk.

It would be very foolish to rely on the condo management to keep your computers secure. It's not their problem. It's yours.

The most efficient solution would be for the OP to get a router that can connect as a wifi client to the insecure wifi network. That router also runs a vpn client to some vpn service. All of his devices connect to his own router using either wifi (with WPA security) or cable. Now his traffic is secure and there is a firewall between his devices and the condo wifi network. I don't use the the condo wifi, but do have this setup with a DD-WRT router and Witopia VPN service. Setting this up will be beyond the OP's ability, but if he has a friend that knows about networks this is what he should ask for.