.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
To Sell Using A Real Estate Agent, And Pay 3%
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
1
-
-
1
Racism or "just" bad behavior at Pattaya City Hospital?
Change hospital. Always been treated well in hospitals in Pattaya and nongkhai. But had my wallet tapped up in one hospital in pattaya. wonder what one that was. -
1
Racism or "just" bad behavior at Pattaya City Hospital?
Let me start by saying that this does not apply to all staff. Most are very nice. I visit said hospital about every two months for refills on high blood pressure medication. About six months ago, when I was going to register, I was waiting in line. When it was my turn, the registrar looked up at me, pointed, and said, "Go and stand last in line". There were 8 to 10 Thais behind me. He refused to register me unless I waited until the Thais were registered. On November 14, it was again time to refill medicine. This is not a complicated procedure, the effective time from when I register until I receive and pay for the medicine is about 10 minutes, of which two to three are at the doctor's (the doctor asks how I feel and then signs the prescription). This time the registration and the nurse's questions went quickly. As usual, I was referred to "station 4", where I assume that what the nurse at the previous station wrote down on the registration is transferred to a database. I left my document in a basket in front of the two nurses and one of them picked it up. Wait she said, and I waited for five hours to be exact. In the meantime, they let about 50 people who had come after me, in to the doctor. I approached the nurse and asked what was going on, sit down and wait a moment she said. I waited another half hour, then I went to the other nurse and said, give me my document. In front of her was a stack of about 10 documents for the next round to be admitted to the doctor, but mine wasn't there. She knew, however, without asking me for my name, immediately where it was. It was alone about a meter from the pile where it should have been several hours earlier. I took the document and went out with the words. There are more and better hospitals in the city. It cannot be blamed on unfortunate circumstances. In both cases, everyone involved knew very well what they were doing. Many, both foreigners and Thais, that I have spoken to about these events say that they have similar experiences from the same hospital. 60 years ago, Pattaya was an insignificant fishing village, now, thanks to tourism, it is a big city. Before the pandemic, tourism accounted for more than 21% of Thailand's GDP and it still accounts for a high proportion of Thailand's income, not least thanks to the foreigners who are permanent residents here. Unfortunately, some of the staff and management of the said hospital don't seem to understand that without us, Pattaya would degenerate back into a fishing village, because just like there are other hospitals in Pattaya, there are other places that can offer the same thing as Pattaya, but with a friendly attitude ( I look forward to an explanation of the behavior from the hospital management). -
1
A Radical Experiment: How Elon Musk Could Shake Up Washington
The federal government is preparing for a major shift as one of Silicon Valley’s most renowned disruptors, Elon Musk, prepares to tackle bureaucracy at the highest level. President-elect Donald Trump announced that Musk would lead a new initiative called the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), intended to root out waste, fraud, and inefficiency across federal operations. The project is unprecedented, and questions remain about which parts of the government Musk’s new office will target and how seriously Washington will take the endeavor. Musk isn’t taking on this challenge alone. Joining him is Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech investor and outspoken MAGA supporter who recently ran against Trump in the GOP primary. Both Musk and Ramaswamy come from outside the D.C. establishment and bring a fresh perspective that has the potential to radically reshape federal bureaucracy. They plan to infuse their outsider mindset into the realm of government reform, approaching it with the same disruptive mindset that has shaped Musk’s ventures in technology and industry. Trump's announcement, shared on Truth Social, described the initiative in his characteristic grandiose terms, calling it potentially the “Manhattan Project” of the current era, with the power to “send shockwaves through the system.” Trump and Musk first publicly discussed the project during a live interview on X, where Trump had previously proposed cutting $2 trillion from the federal budget. The timeline or specifics of this proposed cut remain ambiguous; if it were to be achieved annually, it would mean substantial reductions that could encompass all non-entitlement spending, including even defense. The scope of such a cut would be unprecedented, raising questions about its feasibility and the extent to which Congress, including its more conservative members, would support such an ambitious goal. Musk’s influence in Washington, however, remains uncertain. While he has pledged to support candidates aligned with his views in upcoming Republican primaries through his political action committee (PAC), his early influence has shown mixed results. Notably, Musk’s preferred candidate for Senate majority leader, Rick Scott of Florida, lost out to Senator John Thune of South Dakota, a more established GOP figure. These early signs suggest that while Musk has the ambition to steer Congress toward his efficiency goals, his power to shape leadership decisions in Washington might be more limited than anticipated. Musk’s management style—famously intense and results-driven—could redefine federal oversight if applied broadly across government agencies. Known for his tough approach at X and Tesla, Musk is likely to push for similar stringent oversight in the federal sector. Environmental programs, labor initiatives, and spending on diversity, equity, and inclusion might all face scrutiny, given Musk’s prior public statements on such topics and his preference for lean, results-oriented budgets. Ramaswamy’s plans, meanwhile, are still developing. In a recent post on X, he announced a plan to crowdsource examples of government “waste, fraud … and abuse,” signaling that DOGE might actively engage the public in identifying areas for reform. This approach underscores the project’s outsider ethos, potentially inviting fresh perspectives on federal spending and encouraging public involvement in government oversight. While proponents of government efficiency may find the project intriguing, many remain skeptical. The scale of the proposed cuts and the radical approach Musk and Ramaswamy bring may prove challenging in a city where long-standing procedures and entrenched interests often slow down or block swift changes. For Washington, this venture represents a bold experiment, one that could transform federal bureaucracy—or falter under the weight of resistance from within. Based on a report by Politico 2024-11-15 -
0
The Guardian Steps Back from Elon Musk’s Platform X Amid Content Concerns
The Guardian has announced its decision to stop posting from its official accounts on Elon Musk’s social media platform X, citing increasing concerns over the platform’s content. Formerly known as Twitter, the platform’s environment and approach to content moderation, particularly during the US election cycle, prompted the news organization to reconsider its engagement. The Guardian stated that “the benefits of being on the platform formerly called Twitter were now outweighed by the negatives,” explaining that the platform now hosts “often disturbing content.” In a message to readers, the Guardian announced, “We wanted to let readers know that we will no longer post on any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X.” The Guardian had previously operated over 80 accounts on X, collectively followed by around 27 million users. Concerns over “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” have long troubled the Guardian regarding X, but the platform's handling of the US presidential election campaign brought their misgivings to a head. “This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism,” the Guardian said, adding that “the US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse.” The platform and Musk, who acquired it for $44 billion in 2022, have faced criticisms from anti-hate speech organizations and the EU over content moderation issues. A self-described “free speech absolutist,” Musk has allowed previously banned figures, such as conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, influencer Andrew Tate, and British far-right activist Tommy Robinson, to rejoin the platform. The Guardian clarified that readers could still share its articles on X, and the platform would occasionally feature in its live news coverage. Reporters would also continue to use X for news gathering, although official Guardian editorial accounts would be absent. Individual journalists, meanwhile, will be able to use X according to the outlet’s social media guidelines. The Guardian explained, “Social media can be an important tool for news organizations and help us to reach new audiences, but at this point X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there.” Responding to the news, Musk labeled the Guardian “irrelevant” and a “laboriously vile propaganda machine,” adding a touch of his characteristic, outspoken criticism to the ongoing public debate over his platform's direction and standards. Based on a report by The Guardian 2024-11-15 -
0
Metropolitan Police Chief Warns of Drastic Budget Cuts Under Labour
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has voiced strong concerns about the severe budget cuts he anticipates under Labour’s financial plans, warning of “eye-watering cuts” to the level of public service his officers can provide. In a recent interview on BBC Radio 4’s *Political Thinking* podcast, Sir Mark expressed being "deeply troubled by the situation we appear to be heading towards," describing the difficult future he envisions for the police force amid cumulative financial constraints. Britain's top police officer highlighted how previous budget reductions have already stretched resources thin. Combined with the newest public sector spending targets, these cuts could bring about “difficult choices” for his force, potentially affecting front-line services. Sir Mark acknowledged the tight financial environment but stressed that the severity of these changes would surpass anything that could be managed through typical efficiency measures. “The Chancellor has been very clear – it’s a difficult public sector context,” he said, acknowledging the broader pressures on government spending. Sir Mark noted that together, these changes mark “a dramatic change in budgets and of a scale that’s never going to be absorbed by efficiencies.” According to him, the magnitude of these cuts will inevitably impact the services the Metropolitan Police can deliver to Londoners, warning that these budget reductions cannot be met simply by internal savings. Discussing the challenges ahead with host Nick Robinson, Sir Mark emphasized that almost all possible efficiencies have already been realized, leaving “little, if any, scope left” for further savings without compromising front-line services. Based on a report by Daily Telegraph 2024-11-15 -
0
Labour’s Business Backlash: How Tax Hikes and Policy Shifts Are Straining Corporate Ties
When Rachel Reeves steps up to deliver her first Mansion House speech, she’ll likely receive polite applause from the gathered business elite. Yet behind the scenes, an increasing number of business leaders who backed Labour before the election are now voicing serious concerns. Reeves’ budget, which involves a £25 billion increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, has many in the business community questioning the future of Labour’s pledge to be the “party of business.” In defense of the tax hike, the Chancellor has argued that companies should be able to adjust and absorb the increased cost. However, some of the UK’s largest companies are warning of rising prices and potential job losses as they attempt to safeguard shrinking profits. This stance is in stark contrast to Labour’s promises during the campaign when Reeves asserted that her party would be the champion of “wealth creation” and business. Businesses are now grappling with what they describe as a “perfect storm” of burdensome policies: tax hikes, an increased national minimum wage, and the most sweeping overhaul of workers’ rights in a generation. “You cannot just engage on the way in,” remarked the CEO of one of the UK’s largest retailers. “You have got to keep business with you. With workers’ rights, the consultation worked, but the rise in the national insurance contributions was unexpected.” Another advisor to a major FTSE 100 firm was more direct, saying, “Business is feeling very sore. Two years of supine breakfast, and the first chance they get, they give business a slap.” Business groups have begun to mobilize in response. The British Retail Consortium has warned that job losses and price hikes are “inevitable.” The Institute of Directors expressed that the budget poses a “damaging hit,” while the Confederation of British Industry voiced concerns that Labour’s budget lacks a clear “plan for growth.” In opposition, Reeves positioned Labour as more pro-business than even Tony Blair’s administration, with promises to stimulate private investment. To bolster this commitment, Labour established a British infrastructure council that brought on board leading financial players such as Lloyds, HSBC, Santander, and Fidelity. However, as the impact of Labour’s new budget settles in, some business leaders are speaking out. Andrew Higginson, chair of JD Sports, stated that Labour’s tax increases would be “too much to bear” in tandem with the minimum wage hike. “The cumulative effect of all these changes is too much for industry to bear,” he warned, “in the sense of them being able to get on and invest and grow.” Mark Glover, executive chairman of SEC Newgate UK, noted that while Labour’s emphasis on growth had been promising, the decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions struck many as counterproductive to that goal. “They can’t quite see how that’s encouraging growth,” he said. Emma Woods, chair of the restaurant chain Tortilla, had been among those who initially endorsed Labour. But now, alongside other hospitality executives, she is voicing fears of “unprecedented damage” to the industry from rising employment costs. Adding to the discontent, Sir Tim Martin, CEO of Wetherspoons and a former Tory donor, has warned that these policies will ultimately lead to higher consumer prices. “Good economic policies require common sense and business savvy,” Martin said, emphasizing the need for an understanding of “what makes people tick.” According to him, this was “a political budget” that may dampen the optimism and “animal spirits” essential for economic growth. Initially, Labour leader Keir Starmer announced plans to personally chair five “mission delivery boards,” including one focused on growth. Yet, after the election, these boards were assigned to secretaries of state rather than Starmer himself. Despite a successful investment conference in October that brought major banks and businesses to the table, the recent budget has changed the tone. Labour’s national insurance increase disproportionately affects companies with large numbers of low-paid workers, hitting major supermarkets particularly hard. Tesco, for instance, faces a £1 billion rise in its national insurance costs over the current parliament. Sainsbury’s, Morrisons, and Asda have all raised concerns over the added financial strain. A Confederation of British Industry survey found that nearly two-thirds of 185 businesses now have a negative view of the budget, with many asserting that it will make Britain a less appealing investment destination. Compounding the situation, there is worry over potential U.S. tariffs. “We’re not in the EU, so we’re getting clobbered on the trade there,” commented a FTSE 100 advisor, adding that Donald Trump’s proposed import tariffs could spell further trouble. “We’re so screwed,” he added with a note of resignation. In the weeks and months ahead, Labour’s relationship with the British business sector will be tested as leaders evaluate how closely the party’s rhetoric aligns with its policies. For now, many in the business community remain deeply concerned about the road ahead. Based on a report by The Times 2024-11-15
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
.thumb.jpeg.42eea318e3350459f0aaaa5460326bca.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now