Wake Up! Are We Really So Stupid!

[jdinasia]

anyways ... back to Thailand ...the OP is just unhappy here obviously ... he should work on solving that problem ... legal adoption and moving should make it all better

[Gary A]

I noticed that you didn't mention how much you pay for your excellent insurance. For what that premium costs per year I COULD have open heart surgery here.

I also think you better check your information regarding employers paying for health insurance.

Wrong, wrong and wrong, and what do you mean by "how do I pay for my insurance?"

Are you implying something? Say it if you're going to say it, dont pussy foot around the issue.

All workplaces are recquired to offer insurance ..ALL of them.

Pre existing condition? No problem, you dont know what your talking about.

I pay for my Blue Cross, not my employer....in fact I dont have an employer . I pay 10 bucks for prescriptions, 20 bucks for a dr visit, and 20 for a dental check up all at a Dr. of my choosing.

As I said, the folks without insurance choose not to pay for it and spend their money on other things.

Should have known you would get all bent out of shape and attack me. You have issues.

[ROFL]

I noticed that you didn't mention how much you pay for your excellent insurance. For what that premium costs per year I COULD have open heart surgery here.

No you couldnt,

Toral said standard open-heart surgery here runs on average $7,500

saw a quote on thaivisa quoting 10,000 to 16,000.

A lot cheaper than in the states.

[AmeriThai]

But it can only happen in the US , if your insurance runs out halfway through your treatment, you are out on your ear take your wriggly bits with you in a plastic bag in UK national health service is collapsing,we were in thailand last year, my wife was taken seriously ill, the brilliant thai surgeon explained that he was only to willing to operate for a fee, but he explained why pay for it in thailand when she could be treated at home in australia for free, he arranged the casevac to a brisbane hospital ,24 hours later my wife was operated on and on the mend,that would never happen in the US if you have got money you pay through the nose Thai life aint perfect , but it makes retirement so easy Nignoy

I agree if a person has the choice for free medical care in their native country, it'd be pretty hard to argue against that kind of decision. I have no qualms about the quality of medical service in the US, but as you indicated, a person has to have health insurance to cover the expense of such services. If a person works for a large company, the company can make the insurance available at fairly decent rates because they get quantity discounts based on how many employees they have.

But for anyone else, forget about it. The problem there is that iit isn't uncommon for rates to people, who have to buy direct from the insurance companies, to be anywhere from $600 - $900 per month with a deductable of $500 to $1000 per year. And that's for average coverage plans. And if that isn't expensive enough, the older you are, the higher the rates. Today, somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 out of every 5 or 6 US citizens have no medical insurance because they simply can't afford it.

Hospitals and doctors can provide free services, but often it's for unusual cases that draw the attention of the media. A lot of that seems to be more for public relations than anything else.

Oddly, prescription medications made in the US can be found in other countries, sometimes at throw-away prices. Medicines are often purchased from drug companies by the US government (at taxpayer's expense) to give to other countries free of charge. And yet US consumers have to pay astronomical prices because the pharmaceutical companies spend outrageous fortunes for commercials on television, magazines, etc. You can't change a channel without being bombarded by a drug commercial. To make up for all the expense and waste, the US consumer is 'rewarded' with having to pay staggering high prices. It's no wonder that consumers are going to other countries to buy medications that were produced in the US.

More people are losing their homes because they are unable to afford the rising costs. More people are being forced to move farther away from the cities in order to find cheaper housing though it means longer commuting distances to get to work. Despite the rosy picture of how great the economy is and prosperous US citizens are, the middle class is in rapid decline. Even though foreigners in Thailand are not allowed to own property in the kingdom, the cost of houses in Thailand is much more affordable than in the US.

Adding insult to injury, undocumented immigrants in the US have greater access to benefits, including medical services, etc., often free of charge or at the expense of US taxpayers, while citizens and legal residents of the US have less access to the same benefits across the board.

While the OP is complaining that things in Thailand are unfair or more expensive than in the 60s or 70s, that's an unrealistic comparison. The OP should compare things as they are today, rather than as they were in the past. There's no question that things have changed in LOS over the years and decades, but that's true anywhere else. Thailand is no exception in that regard.

Although many things have changed in Thailand over the years, one thing is still important: expats and tourists still make a significant contribution to the economy of Thailand which is beneficial to the Thai people and the country as a whole.

Instead of being overly concerned about how different things in Thailand have become over the last 30 or 40 years, it makes more sense to view things as they are. If a person is going to live in Thailand, it's important to look around, adapt to your surroundings and adjust your priorities if necessary. If dwelling on differences from the past is more important, then perhaps for those people Thailand is no longer the desirable paradise they once knew. It all depends on how a person chooses to look at things. But, from my point of view, when you compare the overall cost to live in Thailand, it's still an excellent value.

Edited June 18, 2006 by AmeriThai

[AmeriThai]

All workplaces are recquired to offer insurance ..ALL of them.

Pre existing condition? No problem, you dont know what your talking about.

I pay for my Blue Cross, not my employer....in fact I dont have an employer . I pay 10 bucks for prescriptions, 20 bucks for a dr visit, and 20 for a dental check up all at a Dr. of my choosing.

As I said, the folks without insurance choose not to pay for it and spend their money on other things.

Congratulations on being able to afford to pay the monthly premiums for health insurance on your own. I think that’s great. True, there are people who can afford to do that. However, saying people who choose not to have health insurance because they spend it on other things is a bit misleading or not seeing beyond your own particular circumstances. It isn’t so much that these people skip it because they want to. It’s because the expense for many is beyond their means to afford. For them, it's a catch-22.

True, many workplaces do indeed offer medical insurance to their employees. But not ALL employers are required to do so. Small businesses with only a few employees are not required to offer such insurance. Larger workplaces are able to offer health insurance because the rates they can get from the insurance companies are lower based on the number of employees. The more employees, the better the rates. Regardless, many such employees pay at least a part of the monthly premium with the employer paying the rest.

As for pre-existing conditions, Blue Cross requires a 6-month waiting period for pre-existing conditions, although you can take advantage of any other medical needs that may arise before the end of that 6-month period.

You mentioned you have Blue Cross. Sounds good. I too would be interested in knowing how much your monthly premiums are and what kind of annual deductible you have to pay before being able to take advantage of the low co-payments for services, prescriptions, dental, etc.? Who knows? It might be low enough to reconsider.

[Misplaced]

All workplaces are recquired to offer insurance ..ALL of them.

Pre existing condition? No problem, you dont know what your talking about.

I pay for my Blue Cross, not my employer....in fact I dont have an employer . I pay 10 bucks for prescriptions, 20 bucks for a dr visit, and 20 for a dental check up all at a Dr. of my choosing.

As I said, the folks without insurance choose not to pay for it and spend their money on other things.

True, many workplaces do indeed offer medical insurance to their employees. But not ALL employers are required to do so. Small businesses with only a few employees are not required to offer such insurance. Larger workplaces are able to offer health insurance because the rates they can get from the insurance companies are lower based on the number of employees. The more employees, the better the rates. Regardless, many such employees pay at least a part of the monthly premium with the employer paying the rest.

Completely True! Company with fewer than 14 employees are not mandatedd to offer any benefits (in US). This fact may be verified with any SBA offices.

Unfortunately I know many people who can not afford to purchase Health insurance. It's not because they don't want to but because they can't afford to. With the rising cost of fuel, food, heating fuel, insurance premium and the rising unemployment rate (in MI), something just had to give.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Misplaced

[Thaiquila]

Just for some perspective, most Americans over 50 who have to pay for their own coverage pay about $6,000 per year (just for a single policy). I have a friend who is paying $9,000 a year (she is a few years short of medicare age). Her social security is 14,000 a year. Do the math. Many people with preexisting conditions cannout buy insurance that will cover their conditions at any price. The word for that is uninsurable, and it is quite common in middle aged people.

People often choose between staying insured and being homeless, that is, if they have the choice to actually buy the insurance.

Edited June 18, 2006 by Thaiquila

[Tony Montana]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

[Nignoy]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

healthcare in UK not perfect, how many people die in UK waiting for socalled non essential surgery, healthcare in UK is the same as the states if you can pay forit you are alright if you have no money you die, thank god for australian medicare nignoy

[Donz]

australia is the best

[English Noodles]

The World Health Organisation published a report which presented a ranking of national health systems’ performance in their efforts to achieve three goals [WHO-1]

good health

responsiveness to the expectations of the population

fairness of financial contribution

It did so by combining together some measures of these three aspects into a single index. The results of this analysis were widely publicised in the UK because this overall ranking placed the UK in 18th position (out of 191 countries), and led to numerous newspaper features on the health systems of other countries. it is of interest to look at its overall findings in the context of different countries’ methods of financing healthcare and expenditure on healthcare.

Table 3 below shows the rankings of the 15 EU countries, plus those of some other major economies.

Table 3 – Major industrialized countries, ranked by World Health Organization indicators WHO

rank

Country Main type

of funding(a) Expenditure

per capita( %

Private

1 France SI 2,077 23.6

2 Italy Tax 1,783 32.0

7 Spain Tax 1,218 23.2

9 Austria SI 1,968 29.5

10 Japan SI 1,822 21.7

11 Norway SI 2,425 17.2

12 Portugal Tax 1,237 33.1

14 Greece Tax 1,167 43.2

16 Luxembourg SI 2,215 7.7

17 Netherlands SI/VI 2,070 29.6

18 United Kingdom Tax 1,461 16.2

19 Ireland Tax/VI 1,436 24.2

20 Switzerland VI 2,794 26.6

21 Belgium SI 2,081 10.3

23 Sweden Tax 1,746 16.2

25 Germany SI 2,424 25.4

30 Canada Tax 2,312 30.4

31 Finland Tax 1,502 23.7

32 Australia Tax/VI 2,043 30.7

34 Denmark Tax 2,133 18.0

37 United States VI 4,178 55.3

(a) SI = Social insurance; Tax = General taxation; VI = Voluntary (private) insurance.

( US $, purchasing power parities. Source: [OECD]

The most remarkable fact about this table is the lack of correspondence between a country’s rank (as measured on the WHO indicators) and its method of financing healthcare, although those few countries where voluntary insurance plays a greater role in funding all fall in the lower half of the table. Furthermore, although countries with a predominantly social insurance funded system tend to spend more on healthcare than those with tax funded systems, there is very little correlation between their rank and the amount spent on healthcare. Indeed, if this were the sole criterion for ranking the countries, the UK does rather better than might be expected.

The table also shows the proportion of each country’s health expenditure that is financed privately. Even though in most countries a contribution to publicly funded healthcare is compulsory, either indirectly through taxation or directly through social insurance, there is usually a significant amount of private expenditure, chiefly comprising contributions by patients towards the cost of drug treatments, over-the-counter medicines, and private insurance. This averages about 25% of total health expenditure for the countries shown in the table. The largest deviations above the mean are the USA and Greece and the largest below are the Benelux countries and, to a lesser degree, the UK, Sweden and Norway. Again the type of funding system does not affect the amount spent privately, although on average it is slightly higher amongst tax based systems than social insurance systems.

Edited June 19, 2006 by English Noodles

[Donz]

what year was that done

[English Noodles]

what year was that done

June 2005

Sorry that should read June 2002 but it gives you an idea.

Edited June 19, 2006 by English Noodles

[jackr]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

healthcare in UK not perfect, how many people die in UK waiting for socalled non essential surgery, healthcare in UK is the same as the states if you can pay forit you are alright if you have no money you die, thank god for australian medicare nignoy

Yeah, but how many people are saved through emergency treatment? ANYONE gets emergency treatment, FREE... including dodgy immigrants.

[Donz]

what year was that done

June 2005

Sorry that should read June 2002 but it gives you an idea.

not really, its out dated facts.

Australia is probaly top 5 today

[Ulysses G.]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

healthcare in UK not perfect, how many people die in UK waiting for socalled non essential surgery, healthcare in UK is the same as the states if you can pay forit you are alright if you have no money you die, thank god for australian medicare nignoy

Yeah, but how many people are saved through emergency treatment? ANYONE gets emergency treatment, FREE... including dodgy immigrants.

It isn't that difficult to ge free medical treatment in the US if you research free clinics and hospitals that will bill you, but never try very hard to collect.

[English Noodles]

what year was that done

June 2005

Sorry that should read June 2002 but it gives you an idea.

not really, its out dated facts.

Australia is probaly top 5 today

What changes have been implemented to the Australian health system over the past 4 years that makes you say that?

[English Noodles]

Make at over the past 3 years, this is writen by a guy who should know.

Peter Sainsbury

President

Public Health Association of Australia

For years I have repeated endlessly, 'There is no Australian health care crisis. Australians enjoys very good health. Australia has a very good health system. Australians like Medicare. Medicare has some problems, which need fixing. But ... THERE IS NO CRISIS!'

Recently I have reconsidered. There is a crisis looming. But it isn't dollars or waiting lists or nurses or Emergency Departments or GPs or even medical indemnity. And it isn't the continuing appalling state of Indigenous health, or cancer, or the epidemic of obesity, or SARS.

No, the real crisis is the totally inadequate attention being given to the development of long-term goals and coordinated strategies for Australia's health system. The division of powers between the Commonwealth and State governments has created problems since Federation, not only in health care. But it seems that the longstanding cooperation, willing or unwilling, between the jurisdictions is being replaced by health ministers preferring to blame each other publicly for the symptoms of poor planning and poor coordination ('he can't run his state's hospitals efficiently'; 'she doesn't support bulk-billing) rather than work together to create a first-rate system. The result is an increasingly confused, confusing and dysfunctional health system that will eventually fail to deliver good health and good health care for all Australians.

So why is this and what can be done?

Firstly, the split responsibilities, grounded in the Constitution, are a major hurdle. Simply, almost all Commonwealth and State health funding originates from the Commonwealth Government, who also directly pay GPs and specialists and fund the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (which doesn't include drugs provided in hospital). The states provide the hospital and community health services, including health promotion.

We must move to a simpler, less fragmented system. The Commonwealth controls the money, so maybe they should be responsible for providing all the services.

Secondly, despite its rhetoric, the current Commonwealth Government is deliberately dismantling Medicare. It is misrepresenting the aims of Medicare. It is shamelessly wasting over two billion dollars a year on the totally ineffective private health insurance rebate. It is redefining bulk-billing to destroy its purpose. It is entering into trade agreements with other countries (particularly the United States) that seriously threaten the effectiveness and excellent cost control record of Australia's health care system. Why the government would destroy a cost-effective, internationally admired system to create a more fragmented, more costly one is totally beyond me. Anyone who cares about good health, health services available on the basis of need not ability to pay, and the efficient use of taxpayers' dollars must oppose this underhand destruction of Medicare.

Thirdly, forces whose primary interest is neither improved health nor improved health care are driving many of the current developments in Australia's health care system: reduced direct taxation, international trade agreements, doctors' incomes, corporate profits, cost-shifting, political points scoring, professional rivalries. This is compounded by an all-too-frequent focus by politicians and the press on meaningless debates about inputs ('we're spending more on health than the previous government') and bed numbers rather than service quality, value for money and creating better health.

Fourthly, health departments across Australia have plans for every conceivable service, population group, illness and risk factor. We also have the Australian Health Care Agreements between the Commonwealth and State Governments. But these are like railway carriages with no engine and no track. We need a national plan, agreed by all jurisdictions, that clearly specifies the overall goals of the health system and the strategies to achieve them.

The national plan should include more emphasis and more funding for health promotion. This is a wise investment. Also, it must be developed in consultation with the community, who know what they need and what they are prepared to pay.

Such a plan will not be developed overnight and it will involve many compromises. But the real crisis is looming, and those who should be taking it seriously, the politicians and health departments, are ignoring it. The alternative, continuing to undermine a good but not perfect system, will have disastrous consequences for all Australians.

[jbowman1993]

Sounds like the OP was having a bad Thailand day. I have those on occasion. I just go home and drink a beer, watch some Star Trek, and have a go at things the next morning.

Are some things better than they were in the 60's? Yes

Are some things worse than they were in the 60's? Yes

Today, I went with my wife to an orphanage down the road, and took them a 50 kg sack of rice. I figure that probably helped them out a great deal. I wish I could give more, but that was all i could afford today. I can't control government policy, land prices, social values, etc. The only thing I can do is help people in my limited way.

That orphanage always needs adults to read to children, or hold the young ones, when they are crying. My advice, opinion, etc. Spend less time complaining about why things suck, and try to help make them better.

If you do decide to do something positive, here is one suggestion.

Foundation for Children

http://www.ffc.or.th/htmleng/engpage1/page.htm

[AmeriThai]

The problem there is that Insurance is a choice, the same people that dont have insurance will spend 45 bucks on Cable TV, by their kids a couple 50 dollar video games a month, smoke ciggs that cost 5 bucks a pack, alcohol, half their paycheck on lottery tickets.

If a person wants insurance in the states its available, its good, and it will keep you from going bankrupt.

Thats the thing about the USA, you have the choice to improve your life or ###### it up, the choice is yours.

More importantly if you're dying from a car wreck you wont be thrown in a pick up truck or stuck in the back of a mini van ambulance in traffic that wont yield.

“The problem there is that Insurance is a choice, the same people that dont have insurance will spend 45 bucks on Cable TV, by their kids a couple 50 dollar video games a month, smoke ciggs that cost 5 bucks a pack, alcohol, half their paycheck on lottery tickets.”

Come on now. That describes people who don’t have insurance? That’s a bit all-inclusive and stereotyping, don’t you think? I don’t doubt there are plenty of people who come close to matching that description, but certainly not all.

Of course it’s a choice. But it’s a choice that depends on your income

“If a person wants insurance in the states its available, its good, and it will keep you from going bankrupt.”

Medical insurance plans are also available in Thailand, and priced much less than similar plans in the USA.

“More importantly if you're dying from a car wreck you wont be thrown in a pick up truck or stuck in the back of a mini van ambulance in traffic that wont yield.”

No question about it. Bouncing around in an ambulance in the US would be more comfortable than bouncing around in the back of a compact pickup in Thailand. On the other hand, “if you’re dying from a car wreck” there’s no guarantee of getting to hospital alive in the USA either.

So then do you live in the USA but visit Thailand? If that’s the case and if such a dreadful accident scenario were to happen to you while you’re in Thailand, you might still end up stuck in a traffic jam or tossed in the back of a pickup on your way to a hospital, unless somehow rubbing your Blue Cross card will instantly teleport you to an ER in the USA. I would hope such an accident would never befall you or anyone, but it can and does happen. Does that mean such a prospect would deter you from ever living in Thailand even visiting at all?

You still haven’t said how much your monthly insurance rates are. Just a rough hint is fine. $300 per month? $400? More? Less? Inquiring minds want to know.

Edited June 19, 2006 by AmeriThai

[stevehaigh]

Guess thats why Thais with money and folks with money from countries world wide fly to THAILAND for surgery, and not the USA.

In 2005, nearly 1.3 million foreigners came to Thailand for medical treatment with over 400,000 treated at Bumrungrad Hospital.

[OZONE]

The problem there is that Insurance is a choice, the same people that dont have insurance will spend 45 bucks on Cable TV, by their kids a couple 50 dollar video games a month, smoke ciggs that cost 5 bucks a pack, alcohol, half their paycheck on lottery tickets.

If a person wants insurance in the states its available, its good, and it will keep you from going bankrupt.

Thats the thing about the USA, you have the choice to improve your life or ###### it up, the choice is yours.

More importantly if you're dying from a car wreck you wont be thrown in a pick up truck or stuck in the back of a mini van ambulance in traffic that wont yield.

“The problem there is that Insurance is a choice, the same people that dont have insurance will spend 45 bucks on Cable TV, by their kids a couple 50 dollar video games a month, smoke ciggs that cost 5 bucks a pack, alcohol, half their paycheck on lottery tickets.”

Come on now. That describes people who don’t have insurance? That’s a bit all-inclusive and stereotyping, don’t you think? I don’t doubt there are plenty of people who come close to matching that description, but certainly not all.

Of course it’s a choice. But it’s a choice that depends on your income

“If a person wants insurance in the states its available, its good, and it will keep you from going bankrupt.”

Medical insurance plans are also available in Thailand, and priced much less than similar plans in the USA.

“More importantly if you're dying from a car wreck you wont be thrown in a pick up truck or stuck in the back of a mini van ambulance in traffic that wont yield.”

No question about it. Bouncing around in an ambulance in the US would be more comfortable than bouncing around in the back of a compact pickup in Thailand. On the other hand, “if you’re dying from a car wreck” there’s no guarantee of getting to hospital alive in the USA either.

So then do you live in the USA but visit Thailand? If that’s the case and if such a dreadful accident scenario were to happen to you while you’re in Thailand, you might still end up stuck in a traffic jam or tossed in the back of a pickup on your way to a hospital, unless somehow rubbing your Blue Cross card will instantly teleport you to an ER in the USA. I would hope such an accident would never befall you or anyone, but it can and does happen. Does that mean such a prospect would deter you from ever living in Thailand even visiting at all?

You still haven’t said how much your monthly insurance rates are. Just a rough hint is fine. $300 per month? $400? More? Less? Inquiring minds want to know.

If you had to purchased insuranace on your own without any compensation from any company, it could be anywhere from $500-900 and more. It would all depends on the type of coverage. Ofcourse this would not include deductibles and may not include dental.

[ROFL]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

I agree, the USA spends way too much on global security. I for one would love to see countries like Japan provide for their own defense, but then again Asia’s economy would suffer as countries like Japan, Korea, and Taiwan have to fund their own armies.

Who knows perhaps the next time there’s a Tsunami the USA will say "call Australia" our Navy’s busy providing floating health care to AMERICANS.

[ROFL]

Guess thats why Thais with money and folks with money from countries world wide fly to THAILAND for surgery, and not the USA.

In 2005, nearly 1.3 million foreigners came to Thailand for medical treatment with over 400,000 treated at Bumrungrad Hospital.

The majority of them were for plastic surgery.

[ROFL]

“More importantly if you're dying from a car wreck you wont be thrown in a pick up truck or stuck in the back of a mini van ambulance in traffic that wont yield.”

No question about it. Bouncing around in an ambulance in the US would be more comfortable than bouncing around in the back of a compact pickup in Thailand. On the other hand, “if you’re dying from a car wreck” there’s no guarantee of getting to hospital alive in the USA either.

In the USA cars pull over to the side of the road to let Ambulances threw, its the law.

The emergency services(paramedics) are the best in the world, some might say they have to be.

[jdinasia]

wow ROFL ... how do you pay for your insurance then?

<snide remarks aside>

The working poor often cannot get insurance ... workplaces are nt required to offer it ...

anyone with a pre-existing condition is out etc etc etc ...

anyways ... back to Thailand ...the OP is just unhappy here obviously ... he should work on solving that problem ... legal adoption and moving should make it all better

Wrong, wrong and wrong, and what do you mean by "how do I pay for my insurance?"

Are you implying something? Say it if you're going to say it, dont pussy foot around the issue.

All workplaces are recquired to offer insurance ..ALL of them.

Pre existing condition? No problem, you dont know what your talking about.

I pay for my Blue Cross, not my employer....in fact I dont have an employer . I pay 10 bucks for prescriptions, 20 bucks for a dr visit, and 20 for a dental check up all at a Dr. of my choosing.

As I said, the folks without insurance choose not to pay for it and spend their money on other things.

Should have known you would get all bent out of shape and attack me. You have issues.

Sorry ROFL ... you are wrong on this post

ALL employers are NOT required to provide health care insurance in the USA ... of the percentage that does most do not pay for it all. Some don't pay for any of it.

The average cost of a health insurance plan is MORE expensive than a minimum wage employee can even pay (They make LESS than the premiums)

Pre-existing conditions do limit coverage AND there are those considered medically uninsurable though some states have required risk pools to be instated...

for more info feel free to read here

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[Thaipwriter]

Where is the OP?, did he fall asleep reading the health insurance squabble?

[jdinasia]

He'll pop back in soon enough with another angry tirade ....

life just works that way for some people.

[Thaiquila]

The US sounds like a completly ****** up place,when billions maybe trillions are spent on the military when it refuses to spend money on offering free health care to its citizens.I'm from the UK,ok the health care is not perfect but at least there is some kind of safety net.

Well, the really stupid, tragic part is that per capita Americans spend much more than any other country in the world for health care. Most expensive in the world. For a decent percentage of Americans, they do receive some of the best care in the world. But for the 45 million uninsured, among those many millions who either want to buy insurance (uninsurable) or cannot afford the insurance, well, it is documented many thousands are dying every year. Many more than died in 911, many more than the dead US soldiers in Iraq. Priorities?

Edited June 19, 2006 by Thaiquila

[retirednavyman]

zzzzzzzzzzzz

I could fill a page with it .. but why?

You superior BKK and City people aren't "real" Thais is just fabulous! An amazing generalisation...

Strangely the USA is not the same in 2006 as it was in 1960 ... I rather doubt anywhere really is.

I imagine that if you have been in a family with any amount of time that you should be able to manage a visa ... but if not it would lead one to wonder why!

I love it here in Thailand though my history here is limited to when you returned ... 1997 was my first trip. SO WHAT?

But good luck to you ... if you are this upset and bitter now ... just think how you'll feel in a few more years!

He could probably write his memoirs in a few years based on how he feels now, stay tuned..........lol