Retirees? What'S Your Thai Living Budget?

[OriginalPoster]

It's easy to talk big until you, or one of your loved ones, are affected by one of those conditions.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter how much you want them, because you are not allowed to buy organs.

I think the same applies to most of Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of euthanizing everyone on their 70th birthday.

[Naam]

It's easy to talk big until you, or one of your loved ones, are affected by one of those conditions.

And as I stated, it doesn't matter how much you want them, because you are not allowed to buy organs.

I think the same applies to most of Europe.

exceptions prove the rule. that is... if we can agree that Russia belongs to Europe. but those who need and can afford to buy organs for transplants are served in Mumbai, Shanghai and since a few weeks in Manila where the ban on selling and buying organs was lifted.

[Naam]

By the time they are close to 60 I think everybody should have some idea how much it costs them to live.

that is of course correct Ian and applies only to regular expenses. but whether at age 60 or 80 people have no idea what unforeseen circumstances may arise which makes any financial forecast -even a logical and reasonable one- look ridiculous.

ask a Farang retiree who doesn't have a top notch health insurance whether he/she can afford to pay for a liver, lung or heart transplant or the cost of dialysis three times a week.

Why would any sensible person wish to continue living at that age with any of those complaints?

In the UK they wouldn't even consider treating a retired person for those conditions.

(I believe 40 is the cut off age for transplants in the UK, and you can't buy them, but feel free to correct me if you know better)

do you really think anybody age 60+ with enough dough in his/her pockets to pay for a transplant cares about any cut-off age in U.K. and/or is "sensible" enough to take your subtle advice and wait for death?

[ludditeman]

do you really think anybody age 60+ with enough dough in his/her pockets to pay for a transplant cares about any cut-off age in U.K. and/or is "sensible" enough to take your subtle advice and wait for death?

I agree there are many old people in the world who are so selfish they would rather a young person die so that they can eak out a miserable existence for a few more years.

Does that make it right? up to you.

[OriginalPoster]

do you really think anybody age 60+ with enough dough in his/her pockets to pay for a transplant cares about any cut-off age in U.K. and/or is "sensible" enough to take your subtle advice and wait for death?

I agree there are many old people in the world who are so selfish they would rather a young person die so that they can eak out a miserable existence for a few more years.

Does that make it right? up to you.

Transplants might not be a good example because there often is a waiting list for organs and when one person gets one it often means that another person isn't. But there are plenty of other treatments for various conditions that cost a bundle so someone can "eak out a miserable existence for a few more years" and do not require any other person to be deprived of treatment. It's easy to say "I'd rather be dead than have those treatments", but until you are in that situation you don't really know how you will feel about it. Aside from your straw-man of the selfish rich guy who will do anything & everything to live a little longer, there are many terminal conditions where you deteriorate slowly (and with a lot of pain) and there's never a clear "pull the plug" point at which it seems reasonable to discontinue medical care. Sure, it might sound reasonable to put a bullet in your head if you're in that type of a situation, but most people don't do that.

Edited October 20, 2011 by OriginalPoster

[ludditeman]

Transplants might not be a good example because there often is a waiting list for organs and when one person gets one it often means that another person isn't. But there are plenty of other treatments for various conditions that cost a bundle so someone can "eak out a miserable existence for a few more years" and do not require any other person to be deprived of treatment. It's easy to say "I'd rather be dead than have those treatments", but until you are in that situation you don't really know how you will feel about it. Aside from your straw-man of the selfish rich guy who will do anything & everything to live a little longer, there are many terminal conditions where you deteriorate slowly (and with a lot of pain) and there's never a clear "pull the plug" point at which it seems reasonable to discontinue medical care. Sure, it might sound reasonable to put a bullet in your head if you're in that type of a situation, but most people don't do that.

Naam specifically wanted to talk about transplants, and I was happy to do so.

As he is the most intelligent (and wealthy) poster on this forum, he gets to set the rules of engagement.

[elektrified]

As he is the most intelligent (and wealthy) poster on this forum, he gets to set the rules of engagement.

Have you been monitoring his bank accounts? How would you know how much he has or doesn't have? Just curious, not trying to pick an argument.

[el jefe]

Naam, I usually agree with you, but if I've made it to 90 and I have 1 mil units of currency, why can't I withdraw the principal? If I invest very conservatively and sell assets so I spend 100k units a year, I'll have enough money to last til I'm almost 101. An extreme illness might reduce that by a couple of years, but I'd be ready to go by then. A similar formula works at younger ages too.

[Old Croc]

Naam specifically wanted to talk about transplants, and I was happy to do so.

As he is the most intelligent (and wealthy) poster on this forum, he gets to set the rules of engagement.

Naam has one of the best (and driest) senses of humour on the forum.

I doubt the other two claims.

[Naam]

do you really think anybody age 60+ with enough dough in his/her pockets to pay for a transplant cares about any cut-off age in U.K. and/or is "sensible" enough to take your subtle advice and wait for death?

I agree there are many old people in the world who are so selfish they would rather a young person die so that they can eak out a miserable existence for a few more years.

Does that make it right? up to you.

you Sir talk rubbish²! on what planet are you living? an organ transplant does not mean that a young person is killed and the organs are "harvested" that somebody can "eak out a miserable existence". people are dying each and every minute and if it was their wish their organs are used to help another person. these kind of transplants are done globally by the thousands each and every day.

however, i admit there is the "Chinese Connection" where criminals who are sentenced to death are executed in line with the demand for their organs. no doubt that this is rightfully called unethical. unethical to pay a poor Indian or Filipino a pittance for one of his kidneys even if this pittance might represent a fortune in these countries.

[Naam]

Naam, I usually agree with you, but if I've made it to 90 and I have 1 mil units of currency, why can't I withdraw the principal? If I invest very conservatively and sell assets so I spend 100k units a year, I'll have enough money to last til I'm almost 101. An extreme illness might reduce that by a couple of years, but I'd be ready to go by then. A similar formula works at younger ages too.

Estimado Don Jefe, perdone Vuestra Merced...

we were not really talking about people who are 90. my opinion was based on the posting of TV-member "NancyL" who (i think) has many years to go till she is 90 and who's financial adviser suggested that she uses up her capital and then sits with a begging bowl on a Chiang Mai board walk to make ends meet.

the mother of my best friend turned 99 last month. she had hip replacements (both) when she was 87 and a double coronary bypass approximately 10 years ago. fortunately her health insurance in Germany paid for all expenses. but what would have happened to her if she was living in Nakhon Nowhere, Thailand had drawn down all her savings, no insurance just living of some decent pension and contracted a pneumonia requiring a week or two in an extensive care unit? is it fair to suggest that she should make an end to her "miserable existence" with a bottle of adulterated Lao Khao?

[Naam]

Naam specifically wanted to talk about transplants, and I was happy to do so.

As he is the most intelligent (and wealthy) poster on this forum, he gets to set the rules of engagement.

Naam has one of the best (and driest) senses of humour on the forum. I doubt the other two claims.

when those who possess more hats than cattle run out of valid arguments they resort to unsubstantiated claims out of thin air.

[Naam]

View PostOriginalPoster, on Today, 09:59 , said:

But there are plenty of other treatments for various conditions that cost a bundle so someone can "eak out a miserable existence for a few more years" and do not require any other person to be deprived of treatment.

that's why i mentioned dialysis. average cost in a "western" country between 4,000 and 6,000 US-Dollars a month. people go to the hospital, read a book, listen to music or watch television for 2½ hours and lead otherwise a normal life. none of them are thinking to end their "miserable existence" and all are waiting for a kidney donour no matter how old they are.

i have of course no idea how much that treatment would be in Thailand.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Naam

[ludditeman]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

[Naam]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

[amexpat]

Around 40,000 baht.

Anybody else remember the original topic?

[ludditeman]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

In a sensible world worthiness of transplant would be decided on a persons continuing worth to society.

So someone living in a Pattaya pimps palace, trading stocks and staying home all the time would be judged completely worthless IMHO.

[insertmembernamehere]

In a sensible world worthiness of transplant would be decided on a persons continuing worth to society.

Indeed, and you need to include children in this. Kids are only burdens to society until (and if ever) they make a positive contribution to society. My life, for example, is immeasurably more valuable than, say, a 2-year-old. Such a kid contributes nothing to society and must be sustained by productive adults in every aspect of life. The only thing a child has is possible potential, which must be scaled on a risk assessment of worth. It is a good bet that a child from a rural peasant family will not, at any time, be a "continuing worth to society."

And I'd rather have a partial liver transplant from a young donor for obvious medical benefits.

edited to fix quotes

Edited October 20, 2011 by insertmembernamehere

[OriginalPoster]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

It's not so much a matter of a young person's life being more valuable than an old person's, it's that success rates on transplants for young people are higher than for old people and the young person is apt to gain more years of life out of it. Hospitals in the West tend to go with the statistics when deciding which patient will get a given organ, so, all other factors being equal, preference will tend to go towards the young person.

Edited October 20, 2011 by OriginalPoster

[Naam]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

In a sensible world worthiness of transplant would be decided on a persons continuing worth to society.

So someone living in a Pattaya pimps palace, trading stocks and staying home all the time would be judged completely worthless IMHO.

worthless persons who live in a pimp's palace serve an important role in society. their existence justifies that valuable poor men, who live in huts in a suburb of Nakhon Nowhere, have valid reasons to open their mouths a mile wide to excrete their personal, albeit ridiculous, wisdom.

[OriginalPoster]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

In a sensible world worthiness of transplant would be decided on a persons continuing worth to society.

So someone living in a Pattaya pimps palace, trading stocks and staying home all the time would be judged completely worthless IMHO.

So who should decide who is worthy? In the EU and Britain maybe it's the State, but whether one thinks that's reasonable or not is going to depend upon how much one trusts the wisdom of thier government. To me the likelihood of medical success seems like a more reasonable deciding factor than how much the majority of people think the patient's life is worth.

[ludditeman]

worthless persons who live in a pimp's palace serve an important role in society. their existence justifies that valuable poor men, who live in huts in a suburb of Nakhon Nowhere, have valid reasons to open their mouths a mile wide to excrete their personal, albeit ridiculous, wisdom.

Lucky for me then that I'm not poor, don't live in a hut in the backwoods, and am currently educating Thais to postgraduate levels while creating my very own Thai citizens.

@OriginalPoster

So an unemployed (and never likely to be employed) person who left school at 16 and with a prison record, living off the state would be worthy of having a transplant, if they had a good chance of success and likely to sponge for another 40 years?

Edited October 20, 2011 by ludditeman

[el jefe]

Naam, I usually agree with you, but if I've made it to 90 and I have 1 mil units of currency, why can't I withdraw the principal? If I invest very conservatively and sell assets so I spend 100k units a year, I'll have enough money to last til I'm almost 101. An extreme illness might reduce that by a couple of years, but I'd be ready to go by then. A similar formula works at younger ages too.

Estimado Don Jefe, perdone Vuestra Merced...

we were not really talking about people who are 90. my opinion was based on the posting of TV-member "NancyL" who (i think) has many years to go till she is 90 and who's financial adviser suggested that she uses up her capital and then sits with a begging bowl on a Chiang Mai board walk to make ends meet.

the mother of my best friend turned 99 last month. she had hip replacements (both) when she was 87 and a double coronary bypass approximately 10 years ago. fortunately her health insurance in Germany paid for all expenses. but what would have happened to her if she was living in Nakhon Nowhere, Thailand had drawn down all her savings, no insurance just living of some decent pension and contracted a pneumonia requiring a week or two in an extensive care unit? is it fair to suggest that she should make an end to her "miserable existence" with a bottle of adulterated Lao Khao?

Naam, earlier you wrote ""financial planners" who advice their clients to draw from their capital to finance living expenses should be tarred and feathered! "

You missed the point and I know you're smarter than that. With a well diversified portfolio, one may not generate much current income but there should be growth of principal over time. Properly diversified, one should be able to draw down 3-4% of the value (the 3-4% includes the income generated by the portfolio). "Drawing from (their) capital to finance living expenses" should include medical insurance. If one is self insured part of that 3-4% should be set aside for catastrophic expenses. If you can buy an annuity (usually a poor proposition), why can't you self-annuitize your assets?

[Naam]

You missed the point and I know you're smarter than that.

1. With a well diversified portfolio, one may not generate much current income but there should be growth of principal over time.

2. Properly diversified, one should be able to draw down 3-4% of the value (the 3-4% includes the income generated by the portfolio).

3. "Drawing from (their) capital to finance living expenses" should include medical insurance. If one is self insured part of that 3-4% should be set aside for catastrophic expenses.

4. If you can buy an annuity (usually a poor proposition), why can't you self-annuitize your assets?

we are talking two languages based on different opinions Jefe.

1. that may or may not be the case.

2. i refrain to comment on such a poorly managed portfolio

3. 3-4% is an arbitrary figure. potential catastrophic expenses can neither be expressed in percentages nor in absolute figures. moreover, i don't understand the meaning of "set aside".

4. my mother told me not to use obscene words that's why i refrain to comment on annuities.

summary: let's agree to disagree and stick to our individual opinions (you know the saying about opinions). there are many ways which lead to success and many more ways which lead to disaster.

as far as health insurance or self-insured is concerned i am very biased. but i admit not everybody was/is like me lucky enough to join at a very young age a government controlled private health insurance where premiums are partially based on entry age and membership time (we continental Europeans, as opposed to citizens of other nations, do not "buy" health insurance but join as "members").

if i did not have the advantage of paying peanuts for a first class insurance, valid globally, no cap because i joined the insurance 40 years ago i would definitely opt for "self-insured" because the premiums for me and the Mrs would be sky high even if we had gotten in 10 years ago.

[amexpat]

Maybe 6,000 - 7,000 for food. Some western, mostly Thai, fruit, and veggies cooked at home.

[Thakkar]

@naam

There are not enough organs to suppy all who want them. So if one is wasted on an old person, then someone else wiil die through lack.

give me a break man! you think the life of a young person is more valuable than the life of an old person? according to one of your recent postings you are age 85. if yes, why do you eat and "waste" food by taking it away from the thousands of children who die every day due to lack of food? why do you live anyway? why don't follow your own advice by selling all your investments, donate the money to various charitable institutions (mainly those who globally take care of children) and queue up at the nearest crematorium to end your "miserable existence"?

In a sensible world worthiness of transplant would be decided on a persons continuing worth to society.

So someone living in a Pattaya pimps palace, trading stocks and staying home all the time would be judged completely worthless IMHO.

Hey! We keep the whores employed, who keep the somtam vendors employed. And we order lots of pizza. So thers our contributions right there. Don't diss the job creators!

T

[L&J]

It has been announced that USA Social Security recipients with get a 3.6% increase

in benefits in January. There has been no increase in the last two years. This should

add a few baht to retirees budget.

[philliphn]

It has been announced that USA Social Security recipients with get a 3.6% increase

in benefits in January. There has been no increase in the last two years. This should

add a few baht to retirees budget.

Don't get too excited. Most of the increase will be eaten up by higher health insurance fees.

[L&J]

Living in Thailand won't have any increase in Medicare for us.

[hml367]

Living in Thailand won't have any increase in Medicare for us.

Mine will as far as I know. What makes you say there will not be an increase if someone is living in Thailand?

MSPain

From the Social Security web site:

Information about Medicare changes for 2012, when announced, will be available at www.Medicare.gov. For some beneficiaries, their Social Security increase may be partially or completely offset by increases in Medicare premiums.

Edited October 21, 2011 by hml367