jayboy

A widely held view, but in fact incorrect.

Your statement is partially correct but contains inaccuracies and oversimplifications: Coverage Breakdown: The claim that “virtually everyone” without employer coverage is on government plans is false, as 10.2% have private direct-purchase plans, and 7.7% are uninsured. The percentages (20% Medicaid, 20% Medicare, 54% employer-based) are close but slightly off (18.9%, 18.9%, 53.7%). The remaining 6–8% includes both uninsured and privately insured individuals, not just the uninsured. Affordability and Bankruptcy: The government’s role in private insurance costs is overstated; systemic factors like provider prices also drive costs. Self-employed individuals who skip insurance are at risk of bankruptcy, but no data isolates them as the primary group. Emergency care is guaranteed, but non-emergency care is not. Asset protections exist but vary by state, making the claim about homes and vehicles partially true. Remaining Population: After 53.7% (employer-based), 18.9% (Medicaid), and 18.9% (Medicare), about 8.5% remain, including 7.7% uninsured and 10.2% with direct-purchase plans, with some overlap.

The U.S. system excels in innovation and specialized care but struggles with coverage gaps, affecting millions uninsured or underinsured. European systems prioritize equity and preventive care, though they may face challenges like longer wait times for non-emergency procedures. Overall, the average American faces greater financial barriers to health care compared to their Western European counterparts.

Let's not compare our health care system to that of the Americans, Let's compare it much more relevantlyto our European neighbors who enjoy, on the whole, much better facilities and outcomes than we do.Our performance on cancer, strokes, heart attacks and longevity compares very badly.Yet any criticism of "our NHS" is regarded as treacherous.

Well deflected.

Who exactly are these right wing transgender hate mongers? I am sure there are many prejudiced people out there but how exactly is that "right wing"? J.K Rowling is often singled out as a transgender hate monger.Yet the accusers have never once been able to produce an example of her alleged wrongs I wish more people on this issue had the intelligence, grace and humanity of Eddie Izzard: “I don’t think J.K. Rowling is transphobic. I think we need to look at the things she has written about in her blog. Women have been through such hell over history. Trans people have been invisible too. I hate the idea we are fighting between ourselves, but it’s not going to be sorted with the wave of a wand. I don’t have all the answers. If people disagree with me, fine, but why are we going through hell on this?”

Why?

Because it's very misleading/inaccurate.Grok reveals - Assessment Accuracy of the Tweet Attribution: The tweet quoted matches the content reported in multiple sources, and it is plausible that Haraguchi posted it on May 19, 2025, based on citations from X and web reports. Validity of the Claim: While Haraguchi’s claim about spike proteins in his cancer cells is documented, the assertion that this proves the vaccine caused his cancer is not supported by rigorous scientific evidence. The claim is based on an unpublished analysis, and no peer-reviewed studies confirm a causal link between mRNA vaccines and cancer. The scientific community, including Japan’s health ministry, maintains that mRNA vaccines are safe and effective, with rare side effects that do not include cancer. Critical Considerations: Haraguchi’s claims align with his broader anti-vaccine activism, which has drawn both support and criticism. The lawsuit from Meiji Seika Pharma highlights the contentious nature of his statements, and fact-checking organizations like Reuters and Science Feedback have debunked related claims about vaccines causing widespread harm. Conclusion The statement about Haraguchi’s tweet and his claim of developing cancer from COVID-19 vaccines is partially correct in that it accurately reflects his public statements and the content of his May 19, 2025, tweet. However, the claim that he “has the evidence to prove” the vaccine caused his cancer is unsubstantiated without peer-reviewed data. The scientific consensus does not support a link between mRNA vaccines and cancer, and Haraguchi’s claims should be viewed critically in light of his advocacy and the lack of published evidence. For further details, you may refer to Haraguchi’s X account or await the publication of his promised research paper, though no such paper is available as of now.

No it's not.I regularly transfer funds from my UK to my Thai bank using the UK app on my phone. Occasionally the process takes place the same day, though more often funds received the following day.Rates are competitive and the Thai bank calls me to confirm exchange rate.I can't actually see how the process could be improved

Can you be a bit more specific? Were the questions related to you in particular or were they the kind that might be asked of any foreign customer? The reason I ask is that I know several Krungsri customers and nobody has received such an inquiry.

What evidence did Krungsri want and when did they ask for it? I've heard nothing. Many thanks

Possibly because it is horse medicine, and the crazies go for it like moths to a flame. Based on government views and reputable academic studies, the consensus is that ivermectin is not effective for treating or preventing COVID-19. Here’s a clear summary: Government Views: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that ivermectin is not authorized or approved for preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Clinical trial data do not demonstrate effectiveness, and taking large doses can be dangerous, potentially causing nausea, seizures, or death. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends against using ivermectin for COVID-19 outside clinical trials, citing inconclusive evidence from 16 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with very low-certainty data on reducing mortality, hospitalization, or clinical improvement. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has noted increased ivermectin prescriptions and poison control calls due to misuse, reinforcing that it lacks proven benefits for COVID-19 and may cause harm. Reputable Academic Studies: The PRINCIPLE Trial (University of Oxford, 2024) found ivermectin reduced symptom duration by about two days (from 16 to 14 days) in a largely vaccinated population but did not significantly reduce hospitalizations, deaths, or long-term outcomes, concluding it offers no clinically meaningful benefit. The ACTIV-6 Trial (2023, JAMA) showed that ivermectin at 600 μg/kg daily for 6 days did not improve recovery time compared to placebo in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A Cochrane Review (2022) concluded there is very low-certainty evidence on ivermectin’s impact on mortality, hospital admission, or viral clearance, with no reliable support for its use. The PLATCOV Trial (2023, eLife) found ivermectin had no significant antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, with viral clearance 9.1% slower than in controls. A meta-analysis (2022, Clinical Infectious Diseases) noted that earlier claims of survival benefits were heavily reliant on poor-quality or potentially fraudulent studies, with no significant effect when only high-quality RCTs were considered. Counterpoints: Some earlier studies, like those cited by the FLCCC Alliance, and observational data from regions like Peru and Brazil suggested potential benefits, such as reduced case counts after ivermectin distribution. However, these studies often had methodological flaws, lacked randomization, or were retracted due to ethical concerns (e.g., Elgazzar study). Conclusion: The overwhelming evidence from high-quality RCTs and authoritative health bodies (FDA, WHO, CDC) indicates that ivermectin does not provide meaningful benefits for COVID-19 treatment or prevention. Its use is not supported outside clinical trials due to insufficient efficacy and potential risks.

Carefully chosen words but an act of colossal political stupidity nonetheless. Sofia Patel, the Labour Party’s head of operations, posted on LinkedIn (since deleted) that nearly 100 current and former Labour Party staff were traveling to battleground states like North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia to campaign for Harris. Patel offered to "sort housing" for volunteers, which sparked controversy and a complaint from the Trump campaign alleging foreign interference.

Yes, the vast majority who have regular jobs and barely feature on this forum.They can be distinguished by their work permits, not living in Pattaya, their lack of tattoos, membership of the British Club or RBSC. They don't feed off gormless tourists/ low grade "residents" like most of your 10 categories.Better educated and higher salaried too.

Careful now.Some might say that's essentially the AN demographic. I could not possibly comment.