Bob

Michael, Michael, no damn wonder you had some career issues. Turning in pairs of soiled Calvin Kleins to the judges wasn't hardly going to satisfy their requirements for briefs!

The carriers' primary mission, as far as I'm concerned, has been to rip off customers and then keep them around long enough to really do a good job of performing that primary mission. I never will buy a locked phone and I am puzzled as to why US consumers have bought into the bullshit pedaled by the carriers. While it's likely they do that because of the cheaper up-front cost of the hardware, there isn't anything cheaper about it in the long run. The FCC has let these outfits get away with wholesale fraud and monopolistic practices as far as I'm concerned.

The neighbor I mentioned who had the hip surgery Tuesday arrived home a couple of hours ago and I had the chance to both say "welcome home" and to view his hospital bill. I'm not sure of the name of the operation but his natural hip ball cracked, they tore that out, inserted a new hip ball (they cut off part of the femur and then stuff this thing down the center of that bone), and sewed him up. All the while he was awake with a spinal and he could hear (but not feel) all the sawing, hammer and chiseling, etc. (ugh!). Okay, back to the bill - saw the entire printout and the total was 112,700 baht. Incredibly cheap in my view.

Regardless of your intent, dale1, doing your thanks to another message board here comes across exactly as Michael has indicated above. A bit tacky at best.

I'm going to ask the obvious (and probably ignorant) question. Why not, at this stage of the game, simply change out these auxiliary batteries for old-style batteries that have flown for decades without problems? I'm guessing that we're involved with the same voltage output although I'm not so sure that the space afforded for these batteries on the Dreamliner is big enough for the larger old-style batteries. Whatever is the fastest fix, Boeing needs to do it yesterday.

A falang neighbor just had his second emergency hip replacement (both hips are now done) here in Chiangmai. If I can remember, I'll ask him about the total cost of both procedures and post the info here.

Consistent use of condoms, according to studies, reduces the transmission of HIV by about eighty percent and thus reduces the overall epidemic risk. You could google the topic and find lots of articles about it. As to the number of condoms available, I guess I'd only be concerned if not enough were available. Too much prevention doesn't strike me as a bad thing even if it only encourages one bar boy to engage in safer sex.

There's no reason to exclude anybody from any job as long as they have the skills for it. Women soldiers have died in the wars and also have won combat medals. One of the joint chiefs said he began to change his mind when he was being transported in a very hostile war zone in Iraq. He said he slapped the driver on the knee and said something to the effect of: "Where are you from, son?" The soldier answered: "I'm Amanda and....." Edit: Just wanted to correct something. Amanda wasn't the driver in the humvee transporting the general, she was its turret gunner!

I agree although I have no experience with the Bangkok hospitals. But, somewhat counter to what Jovianmoon suggested, my experiences here certainly don't support any notion that the hospitals here overcharge falang (in fact, I'm always dumbfounded how cheap it is). For example, I spent a day and a half in a private room in Sao Paolo hospital in Hua Hin a few years back and the total charge (multiple doctors, seven IV's of various stuff, and a load of medicines to take with me) was $384.00 on my US credit card (including the credit card company's foreign transaction fee). A month or two ago, I saw a dermatologist at Chiangmai RAM to check something out and the total (yep, total) fee for that visit was 300 baht. And, more recently, I went over to RAM for a consultation with a few minor tests and the total charge (including three meds) was a whopping 700 baht. Pretty damn cheap as far as I'm concerned.

[by the way, this post should have been in the other forum and a mod is free it move it there...and delete this post. And, for 30 baht more, I'll hire Mr. T (the actor, not the politician) to provide the mod with a free and personal colonoscopy.....]

So to prevent any misunderstandings, the hospitals don't treat their citizens (of their given province) for only the 30-baht the patient may pay. These hospitals are paid by the government for the care given under the the scheme (not enough, I'm sure, but a whole hell of a lot more than what the patient pays them!). Last I knew, the hospitals (the public ones under the scheme) were paid about 5% of the GDP annually. The patient fees should have been pegged to inflation, even perhaps to what might be termed the higher levels of medical expense inflation. And I suspect the government reimbursements to the hospitals should also have been pegged to inflation.

Here's the headline in a local story today: BANGKOK: -- Siriraj Hospital plans to hike its fees this year after shouldering an additional Bt800 million in wage costs due to the Bt300 wage policy and losing Bt1 billion in income to the government's measures to reduce drug expenses, the dean of Mahidol University's Medicine Faculty said. And here's the url: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Bt300-wage-forces-Siriraj-to-hike-fees-30198524.html Without more (like a little bit of thinking?), one might almost sympathize with the hospital; however, my only thoughts are that (1) the most likely culprit is the idiot journalist who wrote the story and/or (2) the hospital management is a bunch of cheap charlies. The new minimum wage law that took effect January 1st requires most employers (many smaller enterprises are exempted) to pay their workers a minimum of 300 baht per day. Many on the hospital's staff get one day off a week so they're working about 24-26 days a month. That'd mean, of course, that the minimum legal gross monthly wage for each employee would be 7,200 to 7,500 baht per month. Damn, spend your ass off hospital, you cheap charlies! (i.e, I'd hope that almost all of the hospital nurses and personnel didn't need a minimum wage law to boost their friggin' monthly salaries to that lofty level!). Now, for the "additional" 800 million baht annual cost due to the "wage hikes" as asserted in the article. Well, let's guess the hospital employs a total of 2,000 workers (I doubt if they have that many employees but what the heck, let's go for it). If you divide 800 million by 2000, you get 400,000 baht per worker per year. And that amounts to 33,333.33 baht per month per worker. Now my calculator shows that figure to be about 25,000 baht per month in excess of the minimum monthly wage the new law requires. What baloney. P.S. The Nation article in parts talks about some internal policy of the hospital which relates to hospital policy to boost the wages of degree holders; regardless of that separate issue, there is almost zero possibility that the new minimum wage law requires this hospital to pay anything more to workers than what it paid them last year.

My thoughts exactly, Michael. Her embassy should have been contacted within a very few hours and the embassy staff should have made contact with her directly in less than 24 hours. Presuming that occurred (if it didn't, something's rotten with the Phuket system and/or the Swiss embassy), then I can only guess (and hope) that the reason the Swiss embassy didn't immediately notify the girl's parents was due to something the girl said or requested.

The lese majeste law ought to be repealed. And guess that's all I can say about it (and hope that the powers that be can't read my thoughts).

Not really funny to me but I'd consider it fair. Consequences teach most of us an occasional thing or two.

Any efforts to promote safe sex, including the efforts of Take Care, certainly deserve praise. I've noticed that the OP, like Elvis, has left the building. Presuming you're still reading the thread, terrychris, I'm wondering if you might respond to a question. You spend $2,000-3,000+ for airflight, hotel/guesthouse, food, alchohol and off fees, etc., and you're complaining about spending $1.50 to buy 3 condoms? And you think you're entitled to get some free condoms from somebody? It's not my business to say who gets the free condoms provided by Take Care and other great charities but, frankly, I'd hope that those free condoms would be used only by those that can't afford the cost of condoms and/or as an incentive to the bar boys to practice safe sex. If any significant percentage of the free condoms are going to falang (read: cheap charlies), I'd be disappointed.

Sometimes you guys argue like 13-year-old school girls. Handbags at 15 paces, girls! (Damn, don't use those funny little symbols - whatever you call them - very often but I think I found one that's perfect to describe Khun Khortose's driving: )

We're going afield (sorry, OP) but, while we US citizens pay a myriad of state and local taxes, one thing we're not doing is paying enough federal tax. Supposedly 48-52% pay no federal tax at all! And people like Romney paying 13% of 27 million in income speaks for itself. Buffett, one of the richest Americans, has paid 17% the last couple of years. With all the loopholes (bought and paid for by lobbyists, of course), almost nobody pays the top tax rate of 39% (and, besides, that's only assessed on income over a certain level after some income is exempted and generous deductions are applied).

Nope, you don't. Here's a question for you that you likely will do your best to avoid answering: Should the state of Nevada have the right to require the brothel workers there to use condoms or be periodically tested (for HIV, std's, hep, etc.) and would you consider it a violation of their personal rights if the state so regulated? [Prostitution is legal in certain counties in Nevada. Both female and male prostitutes are required to be regularly tested and condoms must be used. That's obviously the law. The question for you Michael is whether you have a problem with this law and, if not, then why shouldn't a similar law be applied to all who engage in commercialized sex including porn actors?] As to your attempt to sidetrack the discussion you yourself started - positing whether the Thai government ought to register, license, test, and require male and female prostitutes here to use condoms - I'll bite and answer that with a definite "yes!" But the fact that Thailand doesn't do something semi-intelligent to protect its citizens simply is irrelevant to the question of whether the US has the right to require porn actors to wear/use condoms.

Hmmm, I think you failed in that mission. For Christ's sake, buy some condoms, you can get them at any 7/11, Tesco, pharmacy, etc.

While I could agree with you depending on how you define "abnormal" (i.e, the current surcharges in France, for example, seem rather ludicrous to me) and I know that this is the position taken by the wealthy as a whole, how do you explain what happened in the US in the 90's when we had much higher tax rates than today and much higher levels of both employment and capital investment? And, lordy, lordy, those conditions led to the first time we in the US had a balanced federal deficit! Warren Buffet asserts that uncertainty, not tax rates, is what drives people to invest or not invest. I agree with him.

While I agree with almost all your arguments, this issue does relate to personal liberty; however, the government's right to protect society as a whole in my view simply trumps the personal liberty of a professional porn actor to "feel the skin" so to speak. Yet, there's no reason in the world why the commercial porn industry ought to think it's somehow exempt from reasonable governmental regulation to protect the workers as a group and society as a whole. Michael, you're continuing to confuse private behavior with adults with commercial porn production. Nowhere near the same thing. I doubt if anybody here would support a rule or regulation requiring consenting adults in private to wear condoms (they may be idiots in many situations for doing so but I suppose there are lines that even sane governmental regulation cannot cross due to personal liberties and privacy rights guaranteed by the constitution).

Sorry, Khun TW, I don't think that's a fair comment at all. There's no suggestion in the thread you're referring to that the porn actors don't support or care about the use of condoms in general (and I would think that those very porn actors are actually more enlightened and careful outside the studio than the general public). Read what Mr. Deen had to say about that very topic. [Regardless, we're still both on the same page as to the intelligence of the regulation requiring use of condoms in the porn industry].

Very interesting article, Michael. Sounds like most of the industry and actors are rather responsible about the testing procedures and frequency. However, the article notes that there are advocates and opponents of the condom law within the industry itself. It's been a lot of years since I watched any porn but I don't recall that, as a viewer, it made any difference to me whether the actors did or didn't wear condoms. Do you think that there's a significant percentage of the paying audience out there that only wants to see condom-less sex scenes? If so, then I can at least understand the monetary objection to using condoms although I still think that the legitimate public safety issue outweighs it.

Presuming there's value in protecting endangered wildlife both inside and outside Thailand, seems like a no-brainer to me. Killing an elephant to make a tourist trinket (or, for some, an art object) or killing a rhino to pulverize its horn to make an alleged sex stimulant for East Asians ought not to be allowed. Allowing the importation or sale of any such items simply provides the primary reason (money) the practice exists.