USA -- low budget repatriation specific locations that aren't horrible

[bubba]

Please this thread is not a U.S. politics debate thread. Please take that stuff elsewhere.

Agreed. I had been following this thread out of interest and it has now gone completely off the rails.

[anotheruser]

"Where is there a good cheap place to live in the USA?" -The Dalai Lama

[Jingthing]

Update on this.

As I've been clear about on this thread, access to health care is a huge issue to me if and when repatriating to the U.S.

Of course when reaching age 65, that issue goes away as I'd be eligible for Medicare.

Well, please don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we get into an an election politics discussion on THIS thread (there are many other world news threads for that!) but the reality is the results of this election may significantly impact my decision to repatriate, especially about the timing.

If the republican nominee wins, he has promised to end Obamacare and doesn't offer any replacement for private insurance subsidies and as far as I can tell, that would mean insurance companies to opt to not insure based on preexisting conditions, which for me would mean I would be completely uninsurable and/or even if the preexisting condition thing was kept (don't see how) without subsidies, priced out.

In my opinion, if the republican wins that would mean he will also have majorities in congress, so indeed COULD pass trashing Obamacare.

The democratic nominee of course has promised to continue and improve upon Obamacare and also to make changes to Medicare (such as medication cost negotiations to lower costs). The main possible change to Obamacare would be implementing the public option nationally. That would solve the issue of republican governed states (like Florida and the entire south, etc.) not offering expanded Medicaid. Personally, I am skeptical the public option could pass in congress as I think the republicans will keep the house regardless. So I consider the public option possible, but still unlikely to pass.

There has also been chatter of allowing people under 65 (probably at 55) to buy into Medicare with similar subsidies as for regular Obamacare. My estimation is that it's a very nice idea, but very, very unlikely that will pass (at least before I'm 65 personally). That would be seen as a radical change and a democrat would need strong majorities in congress to do that.

So I expect a democratic presidential victory will likely mean a status quo for Obamacare with efforts to make small enhancement requests and possibly some small improvements that won't be anything earth shaking.

For my personal repatriation decision, I had already assumed that.

A republican presidential victory with the real potential of trashing Obamacare may mean a very strong personal reason to stay in Thailand, if possible, until at least age 65.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[taxout]

What you're not calculating is the possibility that Obamacare could implode on itself, as insurance rates for individual marketplace coverage soar out of sight and as insurors leave the individual marketplace. Remember, offering policies on the individual marketplace that meet Obamacare standards is voluntary. If the Aetnas of the world think it's to their advantage, they can get by by just offering group coverage to corporations and Medigap to the over-65s. What happens when no plans are being offered in the marketplace in a particular state (which might be your state)?

All of which is to say that I don't think Obamacare as we know it is likely to last through the second term of Clinton or Trump, no matter who wins 2016, though it might possibly survive the first.

[Jingthing]

Fair points indeed. No I hadn't really thought about that though I recall the democrat has mentioned cost control measures like meds price negotiation. But that would be hard to pass a republican house which wants Obamacare to fail not to mention the pharma lobby. It still seems to me if the republican wins he will probably be able to kill Obamacare quickly and that's also what the voters doing that would be asking for. A full term with the democrat as president would get me much closer to 65.

Edited July 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[OMGImInPattaya]

I don't think you have much to worry about and I would recommend you continue with your repatriation planning if that that's what you feel is best for your personal situation.

[OMGImInPattaya]

What you're not calculating is the possibility that Obamacare could implode on itself, as insurance rates for individual marketplace coverage soar out of sight and as insurors leave the individual marketplace. Remember, offering policies on the individual marketplace that meet Obamacare standards is voluntary. If the Aetnas of the world think it's to their advantage, they can get by by just offering group coverage to corporations and Medigap to the over-65s. What happens when no plans are being offered in the marketplace in a particular state (which might be your state)?

All of which is to say that I don't think Obamacare as we know it is likely to last through the second term of Clinton or Trump, no matter who wins 2016, though it might possibly survive the first.

In states where there is a genuine interest in providing affordable quality healthcare and the insurance to pay for it, e.g., California, New York, Oregon, etc., the Affordable Care Act and the insurers providing policies there under are doing just fine. In states (i.e., the South) where it has been the political choice to actively oppose and undermine the Act, sure, it and the insurance companies are floundering. However, under no circumstances will the Act itself be repealed or "fail," no matter how much the Party Of The One-Percent may wish it. If worse came to worse, the nation would move to much higher fines in order to provide more attractive insurance pools for health-insurers or institute a single-payer option (Medicare for all).

[MajarTheLion]

What you're not calculating is the possibility that Obamacare could implode on itself, as insurance rates for individual marketplace coverage soar out of sight and as insurors leave the individual marketplace. Remember, offering policies on the individual marketplace that meet Obamacare standards is voluntary. If the Aetnas of the world think it's to their advantage, they can get by by just offering group coverage to corporations and Medigap to the over-65s. What happens when no plans are being offered in the marketplace in a particular state (which might be your state)?

All of which is to say that I don't think Obamacare as we know it is likely to last through the second term of Clinton or Trump, no matter who wins 2016, though it might possibly survive the first.

That's an excellent point. And you're probably being generous when you say Obama care "could" implode on itself. Over a dozen Obamacare exchanges are bankrupt. Premiums are rising. Deductibles are rising 7 times the rate of inflation. Health insurance companies are pulling out of markets due to massive losses. A large majority of the increased in insured is moochers on Medicaid. This of course adds to the unsustainability of Obamacare.

I believe one of the biggest problems with health care insurance is too much coverage and lack of exposure to costs by the insured. Everyone wants a copay to see a doctor every time they sneeze, copays for prescription drugs. I don't see how a long term and viable solution won't involve the insured having exposure to costs and thus a motivation to shop around and be frugal with health care dollars spent. And as far as coverage, imagine how expensive car insurance would be if we wanted oil change and brake pads covered. Rates would go through the roof.

Real, actual health care reform won't come from cretins who've had little to no experience in the real world while exempting themselves from what they expect the rest of us to live by.

[MajarTheLion]

What you're not calculating is the possibility that Obamacare could implode on itself, as insurance rates for individual marketplace coverage soar out of sight and as insurors leave the individual marketplace. Remember, offering policies on the individual marketplace that meet Obamacare standards is voluntary. If the Aetnas of the world think it's to their advantage, they can get by by just offering group coverage to corporations and Medigap to the over-65s. What happens when no plans are being offered in the marketplace in a particular state (which might be your state)?

All of which is to say that I don't think Obamacare as we know it is likely to last through the second term of Clinton or Trump, no matter who wins 2016, though it might possibly survive the first.

In states where there is a genuine interest in providing affordable quality healthcare and the insurance to pay for it, e.g., California, New York, Oregon, etc., the Affordable Care Act and the insurers providing policies there under are doing just fine. In states (i.e., the South) where it has been the political choice to actively oppose and undermine the Act, sure, it and the insurance companies are floundering. However, under no circumstances will the Act itself be repealed or "fail," no matter how much the Party Of The One-Percent may wish it. If worse came to worse, the nation would move to much higher fines in order to provide more attractive insurance pools for health-insurers or institute a single-payer option (Medicare for all).

Interesting comment. Texas had many if not most of the preventive care provisions in place already. But I disagree when you say the Democratic party wants Obamacare to fail. I'm sure they want it to succeed.

[Jingthing]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

[taxout]

"In states where there is a genuine interest in providing affordable quality healthcare and the insurance to pay for it, e.g., California, New York, Oregon, etc., the Affordable Care Act and the insurers providing policies there under are doing just fine."

Sure, Obamacare is on stronger footing in the richer states like New York and California, but the crisis will be upon us when there's no individual marketplace coverage available in just one state. That's a very low threshold.

"I don't see how a long term and viable solution won't involve the insured having exposure to costs and thus a motivation to shop around and be frugal with health care dollars spent."

But shopping around is impossible because costs aren't transparent. I remember once asking a doctor what the lab tests were going to cost. He didn't know. I asked the lab. They didn't know. The accountant does all that, and I'd get a bill, they said.

The Obamacare draft legislation did have some provisions for costs transparency, but the clause was eliminated before enactment with the promise that the issue would be re-visited. Of course, it never has been. Ditto the special exemption from anti-trust legislation for hospitals.

"But I disagree when you say the Democratic party wants Obamacare to fail. I'm sure they want it to succeed."

There's long been a theory that Obamacare was intended to fail at some point by many Democrats, perhaps including Obama himself, as the only way to get single-payor on the table.

[NeverSure]

I hear terms similar to "Medicare for all" or "until I can get Medicare." As health insurance, Medicare sucks. When you first become eligible you are signed up for part A and part B. Part A covers only something that requires an overnight hospital stay and it has copays and deductibles. Part B covers some doctor visits but it has rather high copays and deductibles. If one has a serious medical condition he's going to run up some real personal expenses.

Part B costs $104 per month IIRC.

Part C can be bought voluntarily from a private insurer and it's called Medicare Advantage. I don't know how much it costs but it covers some of the copays and deductibles but not all. It is subsidized by the government to the insurer.

Nothing mentioned so far covers prescription drugs. That has to be purchased separately from a private insurer under Medicare. Mine costs me about $30 per month.

The Cadillac is part F which is Medigap. I have that. My part F and my RX cost me about $180 per month. F covers all deductibles and copays so I'm out of pocket nothing else except copays for prescription drugs.

Without looking, $104 per month is withheld from my SS check for A and B and I don't remember which one of those it is. The private insurance company where I get my F and RX bills me the $180 per month with an auto debit to my checking account. So, I'm paying about $284 per month for Medicare which in my case is real insurance which covers almost anything in full.

Many retired people who have little or nothing more than a small SS check for income probably couldn't afford real Medicare.

Cheers.

[SpokaneAl]

I hear terms similar to "Medicare for all" or "until I can get Medicare." As health insurance, Medicare sucks. When you first become eligible you are signed up for part A and part B. Part A covers only something that requires an overnight hospital stay and it has copays and deductibles. Part B covers some doctor visits but it has rather high copays and deductibles. If one has a serious medical condition he's going to run up some real personal expenses.

Part B costs $104 per month IIRC.

Part C can be bought voluntarily from a private insurer and it's called Medicare Advantage. I don't know how much it costs but it covers some of the copays and deductibles but not all. It is subsidized by the government to the insurer.

Nothing mentioned so far covers prescription drugs. That has to be purchased separately from a private insurer under Medicare. Mine costs me about $30 per month.

The Cadillac is part F which is Medigap. I have that. My part F and my RX cost me about $180 per month. F covers all deductibles and copays so I'm out of pocket nothing else except copays for prescription drugs.

Without looking, $104 per month is withheld from my SS check for A and B and I don't remember which one of those it is. The private insurance company where I get my F and RX bills me the $180 per month with an auto debit to my checking account. So, I'm paying about $284 per month for Medicare which in my case is real insurance which covers almost anything in full.

Many retired people who have little or nothing more than a small SS check for income probably couldn't afford real Medicare.

Cheers.

Medicare part A is already paid for via deductions from our pay checks during our working years. One must voluntarily sign up for Part B - it does not happen automatically. You are right - even with both part A and part B there are still holes in your medical coverage

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[OMGImInPattaya]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

He was making a lame joke on my reference to the one-percent party wanting it to fail...saying the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.

There are problems with the ACA, many caused by the compromises made to get passage of the act in the forst place. In addition, there had been active hostility to it by the One Percent Party at the federal and state level, who have tried to undermine it at every turn. Of course they FAILED.

The main problem is the ACA insurance pools are "too sick" because not enough healthy young and middle-aged people are buying ACA policies and electing to pay fines instead. If any kind of insurance is to work, there has to be enough non-claim money paid into the pool to balance the money paid out in claims. The fines and penalties need to be raised substantially to increase participation in the ACA exchanges by the uninsured. There are other changes that can be made to make the Act better but the One-Percent Party would block them in Congress and rather see people dying on the streets than improve it.

Edited July 28, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[SpokaneAl]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

He was making a lame joke on my reference to the one-percent party wanting it to fail...saying the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.

There are problems with the ACA, many caused by the compromises made to get passage of the act in the forst place. In addition, there had been active hostility to it by the One Percent Party at the federal and state level, who have tried to undermine it at every turn. Of course they FAILED.

The main problem is the ACA insurance pools are "too sick" because not enough healthy young and middle-aged people are buying ACA policies and electing to pay fines instead. If any kind of insurance is to work, there has to be enough non-claim money paid into the pool to balance the money paid out in claims. The fines and penalties need to be raised substantially to increase participation in the ACA exchanges by the uninsured. There are other changes that can be made to make the Act better but the One-Percent Party would block them in Congress and rather see people dying on the streets than improve it.

Compromises? The ACA was passed by a democrat congress and a democrat president with no input accepted from republicans and no republican support. It is their baby.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[thaihome]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

He was making a lame joke on my reference to the one-percent party wanting it to fail...saying the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.

There are problems with the ACA, many caused by the compromises made to get passage of the act in the forst place. In addition, there had been active hostility to it by the One Percent Party at the federal and state level, who have tried to undermine it at every turn. Of course they FAILED.

The main problem is the ACA insurance pools are "too sick" because not enough healthy young and middle-aged people are buying ACA policies and electing to pay fines instead. If any kind of insurance is to work, there has to be enough non-claim money paid into the pool to balance the money paid out in claims. The fines and penalties need to be raised substantially to increase participation in the ACA exchanges by the uninsured. There are other changes that can be made to make the Act better but the One-Percent Party would block them in Congress and rather see people dying on the streets than improve it.

Compromises? The ACA was passed by a democrat congress and a democrat president with no input accepted from republicans and no republican support. It is their baby.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Republican opposition was pure politics. The republican alternative to Clinton's 1993 attempt at health care reform included an individual mandate with penalty for non compliance. Republican advocates for the alternative included same people that claimed these same provisions in the ACA were unconstitutional.

TH

[Jingthing]

OK. Please cut the political debate and move it to the world news threads.

The point here is that the results of this election may have a major impact on whether ACA continues to exist or not and as such is of concern to returning expats that may need ACA to exist.

On Medicare yes there are costs and of course would be much higher to people doing a buy in if the buy in option is passed which seems doubtful anytime soon.

[RKASA]

Was watching this tread for awhile but it got long.

So Jingthing - I am not going to read all 828 posts did you ever find a location that is not horrible? Just curious what you decided on.

[Jingthing]

Was watching this tread for awhile but it got long.

So Jingthing - I am not going to read all 828 posts did you ever find a location that is not horrible? Just curious what you decided on.

Well, there isn't any place that is lower budget by USA standards that doesn't have some horrible aspects to it.

But the two most attractive places I found for my purposes are:

St. Petersburg, Florida (or adjacent towns)

Tucson, Arizona

[Scotwight]

Was watching this tread for awhile but it got long.

So Jingthing - I am not going to read all 828 posts did you ever find a location that is not horrible? Just curious what you decided on.

Well, there isn't any place that is lower budget by USA standards that doesn't have some horrible aspects to it.

But the two most attractive places I found for my purposes are:

St. Petersburg, Florida (or adjacent towns)

Tucson, Arizona

I think there were a number of others mentioned but you have so many people on your ignore list that you may have missed 100 or so suggestions.

[RKASA]

Was watching this tread for awhile but it got long.

So Jingthing - I am not going to read all 828 posts did you ever find a location that is not horrible? Just curious what you decided on.

Well, there isn't any place that is lower budget by USA standards that doesn't have some horrible aspects to it.

But the two most attractive places I found for my purposes are:

St. Petersburg, Florida (or adjacent towns)

Tucson, Arizona

I guess I would between the two take Tucson - it is not a long haul in many directions to a number of places if you wanted to do any road tripping. We are looking at Henderson, NV - close to things we need yet a good start point for short trips - lots of flight options too. Good luck

[MajarTheLion]

"In states where there is a genuine interest in providing affordable quality healthcare and the insurance to pay for it, e.g., California, New York, Oregon, etc., the Affordable Care Act and the insurers providing policies there under are doing just fine."

Sure, Obamacare is on stronger footing in the richer states like New York and California, but the crisis will be upon us when there's no individual marketplace coverage available in just one state. That's a very low threshold.

"I don't see how a long term and viable solution won't involve the insured having exposure to costs and thus a motivation to shop around and be frugal with health care dollars spent."

But shopping around is impossible because costs aren't transparent. I remember once asking a doctor what the lab tests were going to cost. He didn't know. I asked the lab. They didn't know. The accountant does all that, and I'd get a bill, they said.

The Obamacare draft legislation did have some provisions for costs transparency, but the clause was eliminated before enactment with the promise that the issue would be re-visited. Of course, it never has been. Ditto the special exemption from anti-trust legislation for hospitals.

"But I disagree when you say the Democratic party wants Obamacare to fail. I'm sure they want it to succeed."

There's long been a theory that Obamacare was intended to fail at some point by many Democrats, perhaps including Obama himself, as the only way to get single-payor on the table.

I think Obamacare is definitely a stepping stone towards a total government takeover of health care. What we will likely hear next from the left is something like, "see, we tried but those damn insurance companies are ruining everything. We must go single payer".

Never mind that health insurance companies pay costs and don't necessarily control them. And they have pretty low profit margins. But Americans like bright, shiny objects so logical thinking can sometimes go out the window.

[MajarTheLion]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

He was making a lame joke on my reference to the one-percent party wanting it to fail...saying the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.

There are problems with the ACA, many caused by the compromises made to get passage of the act in the forst place. In addition, there had been active hostility to it by the One Percent Party at the federal and state level, who have tried to undermine it at every turn. Of course they FAILED.

The main problem is the ACA insurance pools are "too sick" because not enough healthy young and middle-aged people are buying ACA policies and electing to pay fines instead. If any kind of insurance is to work, there has to be enough non-claim money paid into the pool to balance the money paid out in claims. The fines and penalties need to be raised substantially to increase participation in the ACA exchanges by the uninsured. There are other changes that can be made to make the Act better but the One-Percent Party would block them in Congress and rather see people dying on the streets than improve it.

There's nothing lame about saying the Democratic party is the party of the 1%. The same can be said for both parties. Follow the money trail, there's really no other conclusion to come to.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Who said democrats want ACA to fail? Many democrats do of course want to transition towards universal nationalized health care of course.

He was making a lame joke on my reference to the one-percent party wanting it to fail...saying the Democrats are the party of the one-percent.

There are problems with the ACA, many caused by the compromises made to get passage of the act in the forst place. In addition, there had been active hostility to it by the One Percent Party at the federal and state level, who have tried to undermine it at every turn. Of course they FAILED.

The main problem is the ACA insurance pools are "too sick" because not enough healthy young and middle-aged people are buying ACA policies and electing to pay fines instead. If any kind of insurance is to work, there has to be enough non-claim money paid into the pool to balance the money paid out in claims. The fines and penalties need to be raised substantially to increase participation in the ACA exchanges by the uninsured. There are other changes that can be made to make the Act better but the One-Percent Party would block them in Congress and rather see people dying on the streets than improve it.

Compromises? The ACA was passed by a democrat congress and a democrat president with no input accepted from republicans and no republican support. It is their baby.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Unlike the GOP, which is monolithic in its goal of funneling other people's money to the One-Percent, the Democrats actually represent a cross-section of the country and have differing views and interests withing the party. The compromises and trade-offs were made WITHIN the Democratic Party.

[BruceMangosteen]

Never mind that health insurance companies pay costs and don't necessarily control them. And they have pretty low profit margins. But Americans like bright, shiny objects so logical thinking can sometimes go out the window.

Such low profit margins....that they can afford to sponsor major PGA Golf tournaments? I recall a few short weeks after United announced they were dropping out of the ACA their name was right there at the PGA Champions Tour event in Texas as the major sponsor. The lawyers are out of control with their malpractice lawsuits and of course, guess who sells the malpractice insurance? Some of you have lost the plot.

Another member mentioned Henderson NV. For those unaware, that's basically Las Vegas which has been discussed. It looks like the strip on the internet, but I've been told by people that live there that when you are on a "budget" it's nothing like the strip or even fine dining downtown. You live among ghetto blacks, Mexicans(many illegally in the USA) and trailer trash whites. To climb out of this crime and drug ridden culture you have to have real money in Las Vegas. I'm not sure Henderson would be far enough away if on a "budget".

[MajarTheLion]

Such low profit margins....that they can afford to sponsor major PGA Golf tournaments? I recall a few short weeks after United announced they were dropping out of the ACA their name was right there at the PGA Champions Tour event in Texas as the major sponsor. The lawyers are out of control with their malpractice lawsuits and of course, guess who sells the malpractice insurance? Some of you have lost the plot.

Another member mentioned Henderson NV. For those unaware, that's basically Las Vegas which has been discussed. It looks like the strip on the internet, but I've been told by people that live there that when you are on a "budget" it's nothing like the strip or even fine dining downtown. You live among ghetto blacks, Mexicans(many illegally in the USA) and trailer trash whites. To climb out of this crime and drug ridden culture you have to have real money in Las Vegas. I'm not sure Henderson would be far enough away if on a "budget".

One can certainly debate the merits of whether sponsoring a PGA tournament is "appropriate" or not. Should health insurance companies be barred from advertising?

Now, we can certainly agree our legal system is part of the problem. I believe one of the biggest problems is the American lifestyle of horrible diet and lack of exercise. Heart disease, diabetes, joint replacements are just a few of the health complications. A decent health care professional could likely list dozens of problems that are essentially voluntary. There's no health insurance program in the world that can fix that.

[MajarTheLion]

Unlike the GOP, which is monolithic in its goal of funneling other people's money to the One-Percent, the Democrats actually represent a cross-section of the country and have differing views and interests withing the party. The compromises and trade-offs were made WITHIN the Democratic Party.

Funneling money to the 1%... you mean people like Elon Musk, big banks and pet "green energy" projects?

The fact is, both major parties are about the 1%. Do you think Hillary Clinton is the #1 recipient of big pharma cash because she's for the little guy?

[Jingthing]

Never mind that health insurance companies pay costs and don't necessarily control them. And they have pretty low profit margins. But Americans like bright, shiny objects so logical thinking can sometimes go out the window.

Such low profit margins....that they can afford to sponsor major PGA Golf tournaments? I recall a few short weeks after United announced they were dropping out of the ACA their name was right there at the PGA Champions Tour event in Texas as the major sponsor. The lawyers are out of control with their malpractice lawsuits and of course, guess who sells the malpractice insurance? Some of you have lost the plot.

Another member mentioned Henderson NV. For those unaware, that's basically Las Vegas which has been discussed. It looks like the strip on the internet, but I've been told by people that live there that when you are on a "budget" it's nothing like the strip or even fine dining downtown. You live among ghetto blacks, Mexicans(many illegally in the USA) and trailer trash whites. To climb out of this crime and drug ridden culture you have to have real money in Las Vegas. I'm not sure Henderson would be far enough away if on a "budget".

I haven't been to Henderson NV so I don't know specifically but I think you paint the reality of poorer, minority dominated and/or very diverse neighborhoods with an unfairly broad brush. You have to look at the specific neighborhood, all poorer areas aren't the same. I've lived in such places for decades in the U.S. minus the "trailer trash" aspect as the places I lived weren't zoned for trailers. I can see why families might hate such places as the schools are usually bad but otherwise some of such places can be really interesting and culturally rich places to live. Great food, "ethnic" street festivals, warm people that aren't snobs. The diversity of the USA is one of its greatest features. No, I'm not naive. I'm not talking about the worse parts of the south side of Chicago. OK, I might have an advantage in heavily Latino areas because my appearance blends in fairly well in such areas.

In the context of the places I've become most interested in, yes, I would avoid more "ghetto" areas of south St. Petersburg and also the very high crime Latino barrios of Tucson. It's not hard to figure out where those places are. Yes if those are the only choices, then of course you're screwed.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[Tagaa]

Wow...I read the first 2 pages with interest, and was going to make a recommendation. So I click the arrow to go to the end and I'm on another planet. What happened?

I have thought, and usually do think, where would I go if the excrement hit the rotating device here in Thailand? I would probably go to N. Georgia. Beautiful country side and loads of really nice small towns. If you don't get to close to the N. Carolina border, you are within about an hours drive of Atlanta. Lots of restaurants of all kinds, live theater, live music out the wazoo, museums, huge world class aquarium, all major league sports (I didn't say the teams were great, but the Braves did win the World Series in 94, I think it was) culturally diverse & gay friendly. Weather is hot in the summer, like Thailand & beautiful, most of the time, in the winter and there are four distinct seasons, which I love.

The hang up would be the health care that you desire is not available in GA, according to the map you provided.

On the other hand, I think about going back when some Thai does something really stupid that causes me great aggravation. This happens once every 2 or 3 months, normally. But after a few days, I cool down, look over the lake at the mountain, pet the dog, have a martini and say "Screw it. The US is too F**Ked up for me."

I've been here almost 10 years. Not one time have I ever looked in my rear view mirror and seen blue lights, with Buford T. Justice swaggering up to my car with his hand on the butt of his pistol. Nobody has ever walked up to my gate & said I can't paint my house the color I like or I can't have whatever kind of fence I want or can't grow vegetables in my front yard if I want. I have an uncle that lives in Peoria, AZ, a suburb of Phoenix. The mini Hitler that runs his HOA is always putting nasty grams in his mailbox because she thinks the bushes need trimming or there are to many dead leaves on the stones in what they call yards, in Phoenix, or some such crap as that. You can have it. I'm stayin put.

Jing, if health insurance is a hang up, I have a policy that covers me in SE ASIA...ONLY...for $1030 US per year. I"m 60 with one excluded pre existing condition (PM me if you want details). I live a totally Western lifestyle here (see my post in Is Thailand still cheap). I have plenty of money to see me into my 90's, I just hope i don't live that long.

Unless the natives get restless and start a jihad on farangs, I'm stayin. You couldn't get me to go back.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Tagaa

[umbanda]

The best city, the best weather, the best food, the best day and night life, the best Medicare...San Diego, California.

Rent can be expensive there, but I will share some good "secrets".... after living there for many years.

In the South areas of San Diego, like National City and Chula Vista, home of the Hispanic and Filipino Community, rent is lower, and many and cheap choices for food. Best location will be close to the trolley line, for fast and easy commute to Old Town - Downtown and the Tijuana Border. Those areas are close to the beach too. The East side of Downtown is also a home of cheap housing and food, but not so close to beaches, and the trolley line.

Rentals can be a little higher than other US cities, but....you will be living in San Diego! Other expenses may be equal or lower.

About Medicare. Chula Vista is the home of the Sharp Medical Center, with a good selection of medical offices affiliated with Medicare.

The proximity with Tijuana may be very convenient in some cases. Medication in Tijuana is up to 10 times cheaper that in San Diego, and many Americans choose Tijuana for good and cheaper Dental Treatment, or a cheap Beach Vacation in Rosarito and Ensenada, with a selection of fish food and meats rare in San Diego...including the famous Baja Lobster, Beef and Fish Tacos, and Margaritas, and the La Fonda Motel Buffet by the Beach

Better to stop here.... I am getting nostalgic!

Edited July 29, 2016 by umbanda