Bob

As I understand it, most Thai banks offer some form of accident insurance when a falang opens up an account. Bangkok Bank offered me that when I first opened up an account with them, I quickly read a sheet of paper the bank person gave me which outlined the alleged benefits, and I declined the insurance (based on what I read....although I don't remember much now as it was 10+ years ago....I thought it was a rip-off). I also declined the same offer with my current Thai bank (also SCB). Up to you but you could either ask your bank how much it costs (or, perhaps, just look at your monthly statements online and figure it out yourself?).

Sorry, Topjohn, I still think you're being a bit unfair. I don't see at all where he's advocating the customary or traditional social system with respect to homosexuality in Singapore at all; on the other hand, he's just saying that's the way it is around there. I don't presume he's praising how gays are treated in Singapore just because he hasn't come out and overtly condemned it in a fashion some of us might prefer. If I lived in Singapore (or Malaysia or Indonesia or....), my guess is I wouldn't bother doing that either as I would likely think there's no point in doing so. I even believe many of the gay travelers to Thailand misinterpret how Thais think about homosexuality. Yes, we're generally treated a with fair amount of tolerance and even overt acceptance (especially but not exclusively in the gay areas); however, that's a far cry from the average Thai citizen accepting or approving of it. Come to think of it, I might say about the same thing about the US (although in some areas even of the US there's little tolerance or any acceptance of it).

I didn't view Khun Abang's comments as personal advocacy for a return to the social dark ages but, rather, I took it as his view (perhaps tinged with a wee bit of sarcasm) as to how the rulers of Singapore think. But we all at times, I suppose, read things differently and I suppose I interpreted his comments in light of his history (all positive in my view) with the board. I'm fairly ignorant of the politics of Singapore but I can say that neither I nor my Thai bf experienced anything other than a friendly reception when we went there a few years ago. We had a great time.

Dear me....disappointment? The only time I've preached about something (well, at least as far as I can recall - and I wouldn't trust my memory) is when I've bitched about people attempting to bring other forum fights to this board. And, if that's preaching, I'm guilty as charged....hang me.

Rather strange thread and I'm not talking about the original post (of which I have no opinion, comment, or, frankly, any interest). What's strange (at least to my decrepit mind) is that one or two people who've really had no involvement with the board all of a sudden jump in and start preaching about what this or that regular poster should or shouldn't be saying. Some of the johnny-come-lately comments may partially apply but I frankly don't understand the motivation of initiating one's career here at GT that way. And, of course, I have my doubts that we're really dealing with a newbe in any event. Oh well, carry on.

Even those insurance companies that will continue to cover you charge premiums based on age and there's a point where one begins to wonder if the cost is worth it. Most of the older (low to mid 70's and older) guys I know over here that don't have special insurance (VA coverage, government policies, or special company policies) are going absolutely bare and hoping that they can handle their medical expenses. And many also already say that, should a long-term and expensive medical problem arise, they'd go back to their home country to take care of it.

Somewhat strange topic but perhaps you're getting VA benefits from that war?

Nothing much has ever happened to me. Initially...like late 90's....I used to come on vacation and ended up with bloody toes from the god-awful "level" sidewalks over here but that all ended when I began to buy sandals that covered those little puppies. Other than that, I've smacked my head a couple of times on signs along the street....the bane of being 6' or taller over here...but nothing much else that I can recall. As for medical insurance, I maintain a relatively inexpensive policy with IMG with a high ($5,000) deductible and, like GB, I've never have had occasion to use it. Typically, I end up going over to the hospital once a year because of bronchitis or some such thing and never end up spending more than 1000 baht to see a doctor and for some antibiotics; however, the last 8-month+ stint over here I incurred no medical expenses (other than a couple of hundred baht for a medical certificate for driver license purposes). I thankfully don't do any meds other than occasional alcoholic beverages.....

I'm not sure the current dictatorship (junta) will or won't make much difference with how the mainly Burmese refugees in Thailand are treated; but, hardly attempting to defend the soldier boys, the call for returning the refugees began long before they took power in May of this year (it's been going on for a couple of years after things "loosened up" in Burma). Although there are varying degrees of bad all over Asia, how the Burmese junta has treated the Royhinga people (also known as the "forgotten people") has been especially pernicious (and perhaps in large part because most of them are muslim - which brings to mind the Chinese treatment of the Uighurs). And the fact that the Thai juntas have been cozying up to the Burmese leaders and copying their tactics (e.g., essentially getting rid of a fully elected senate) seems a bit disturbing to me.

A 6-hands message? Unseriously, I'd guess it's three guys doing semaphore (or, perhaps, sign language). Being slightly more serious, a 6-hand massage is likely having 3 people give you a massage. As to what (wat) all can happen, I'll leave that to your imagination. Of course, I'm more interested in what a 5-hand massage might be.

If I ever wear that outfit on the beach, I don't think many people would feel it's out of place (although I expect some would view my general appearance as a sense of relief - given they most certainly look a bit more stylish than that!); however, if I ever wear that outfit in town in the evening in Pattaya (or here in Chiangmai or anywhere), I do hope that some kind and concerned person would come up to me and gently whisper: "Do you even have a clue how fucking stupid you look in that outfit?!?"

Looking at the photo, what I see looks almost identical to the trimming ("butchering") they did about 10-11 years ago there. And all the trimmed trees back then grew back rather quickly.

"England, will you take us back?" http://us.cnn.com/2014/09/12/opinion/wheeler-scotland-referendum/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Yes, the phenomenon certainly isn't limited to Thailand. Up here in Chiangmai, I'm only aware of one guy who might fall into the "love" trap you mentioned (on the other hand, I also know he wasn't wise at all with his money back in North America). As the female comedienne once said: There isn't enough blood in the world to fill both heads and have them both work properly.....

As the old axiom goes, a fool and his money are soon parted. But I don't believe for a moment that those "fleeced falang" (however many there are is unknown to me) only got stupid with their money once they hit the shores of Thailand.

Again, as I stated, I'm not taking sides on what Scotland should or shouldn't do. Given I don't live there or elsewhere in the UK, I somewhat feel it's none of my business. And I think majority rule is adequate for normal issues but I have a real problem thinking it's appropriate for 51% of the people to mandate that 100% of the people should do something this momentous; hence, my understanding/support for major issues (like amending a constitution or joining or leaving another country) being decided by a larger majority. If I lived in Scotland, I might or might not support separation but I wouldn't want it decided by one vote. Doesn't seem right to me. Part of my thinking possibly surely could be influenced by my long-held view of the wisdom of certain safeguards that the US founding fathers provided Sure, they supported democracy but they also recognized the problem of the possible tyranny of a simple majority. That's why they included certain safeguards as noted above. Come to think of there are other safeguards they provided too including that there would be two senators from each state regardless of the population of those states (without that provision 8 or so of our most populous states could rule the senate regardless of what the other 42 states thought).

Years (10-13) I used to stay at Tui's (which is the little hotel that was right behind Rit's section...not sure if it still is so located) and that was before any yellow-brick road was installed. Rather scary to walk back there late at night especially in the dark as occasionally some goddam dog (which sounded like Cujo) would jump out at you. Later on, after the lighting and pathway came into being, it was a much easier and safer journey. I also recall when they trimmed the trees once long ago and everybody complained about how they were "butchered"; however, I guess that's the proper way to trim palm trees and you'll see that they'll almost look back to normal by about next summer (they grow pretty fast).

Was really hoping you'd address the question. Do you think it's wise to make such a major change if only 51 out of a 100 support it?

I'm neither for or against the issue of whether Scotland should or shouldn't separate from the UK. I've read some rather heated rhetoric on other sites about that issue and hope I'm not starting that here. What dumbfounds me, though, is that apparently this rather momentous issue can be decided by a majority vote and I'm wondering if those for or against the separation might comment on that issue alone. Most of US law stems from our colonial masters and we generally cannot take many significant actions (ratification of a constitution which required a 2/3rd's vote, amendment to our constitution which requires approval by 3/4's of the states, overriding a presidential veto, etc.) without what I'll call super-majority approval. The theory, I suppose, is one shouldn't make major changes that affect everybody without some level of overwhelming support. Others argue that the higher vote levels somewhat protect the minority from what has been called the tyranny of the majority. So the question: Why is such an important change contingent on a simple majority vote and do you think that it's appropriate to handle it that way?

As Z indicated, probably best to edit out all comments (including mine) that don't relate to the original thread. But, I'd note, I wasn't born yesterday and clearly understood the comments of two writers (not just one) who were attempting to take a poke at another board and, in fact, the board owner who happened to join the thread.

I have no sympathy at all for the banks anywhere. If they want American accounts, they'll comply; if not, they won't. And I disagree entirely that the compliance part of it is any major PITA to the banks. Their IT people might spend some time getting it set up but, once that's done (rather easy for an IT professional), the annual reporting wouldn't take much more than a few minutes of pushing some buttons. I suspect (but actually don't know) that Thai banks already electronically report to Thai Treasury as to all foreign accounts held in their banks. But I do know for a fact that SCB reports annually to the Thai Treasury as to the interest I earn on the account I keep for retirement visa (extension) purposes and, of course, SCB pays over the 15% withholding to the Thai Treasury (no worry, I get the withheld amount back after the fact). Adding some minor programming changes, I can't see why they couldn't isolate American accounts in a separate list and then electronically send that info to the IRS too. It's certainly no major undertaking.

Seems rather chicken-shit to me for anybody to use this board to bitch about what's happening on another board. If one doesn't have the balls to complain at the site they don't like, please at least have the decency not to come running over here to tattle and tell us about it. Or, alternatively, have the balls to start your own thread about it (which I hope a moderator deletes). Unless I'm mistaken, wasn't this thread titled "Dongtan Beach Boy?"

A very good idea. I've had a few falang friends ask me about what things cost over here and have even asked my opinion about proposed budgets that they have drawn up. More than once, I've been a bit dumbfounded to see that their proposed budgets don't include all the basic expenses they will encounter. For good measure, just look at all the things you pay for at home and, other than some things being cheaper here, it's likely you'll encounter the same type of expenses here. Just don't forget the basics - rent/ownership, electric, water, cable tv, internet, laundry, etc., etc., etc. Where to live/rent/buy is a decision, I think, that most should take 1-3 years to make. Even if you've decided what city you want to live in, you very well might change your mind about what part of the city you wish to reside in once you've lived in the city for a while. My guess is you'll do well here given you're using your brain to consider all the various angles, expenses, etc.

We're all entitled to our opinions, I suppose. The goal of FATCA was to catch those laundering money internationally and those who were using foreign accounts to evade their tax obligations (somewhat ironic given the low percentage of gross income the wealthy really pay in the US). Admirable goals in my view. Every country has the right to create the requirements to deal with its banking system and, yes, given the disparate economic power of the US, FATCA to some was viewed as more bullying from the US; however, so far, the only real enforcement of FATCA has been through either voluntary compliance or through the signing of the mentioned intergovernmental agreements. The notion that FATCA imposes horrible burdens on foreign banks is just talk. All those banks have computer systems and electronically reporting once a year to the US information about US citizens accounts seems rather easy to me. As for burdens on individuals here in Thailand, none as far as I know (well, other than signing another form or two when you open a new bank or brokerage account here). The sky hasn't fallen....nor will it.

Never jumped the gun but, as you know, I've argued from the beginning that the sky-is-falling folk are simply full of beans. The only way the US law is implemented in other countries is via the intergovernmental agreements which are negotiated between the US and the given foreign government. And it's axiomatic that the given foreign government (and its banks once that foreign government allows or compels their banks to comply) will only have to do what the intergovernmental agreement provides (i.e., what the foreign government agreed to do). Nobody who has or will obtain bank accounts in Thailand will likely notice any difference at all.