News Forum - Court rules for Health Ministry, calls dual pricing beneficial

[Soidog]

3 minutes ago, JamesR said:

That is a bit extreme, have you given all your possessions and money away and live in a cave?

Why mention the above as you or I have no chance of having the amount they have, are you pretending you could but have decided not to?

It is a sort of snobbery about not achieving, eg a bloke once asked my job etc and I told him and he said you probably had to go to university to do that job, I said yes, he then told me in a very superior way he went to the 'university of life', I told him I had tried that for a few years and it is crap so I went to a real university.

I think you have maybe not followed the thread. My comment was in relation to @Benroon post that said

“I have never seen anyone with money and possessions feeling miserable”.

That’s why I mentioned the famous and rich people I did. My point was to Illustrate  that fame and fortune doesn't necessarily make people Happy. Hope that clarifies things ?

[JamesR]

2 hours ago, Soidog said:

Wrong my friend. My father who worked all his life for minimum wage and has little or no possessions, yet hi is the happiest man I know. He lives in a small house, no money in the bank, never went far on holiday and struggled each month with his pay. But he was lucky enough to meet a woman he loved and they shared the problems of life. I have 100 times more than he has at a money and material level. But I’m still struggling to be as content as he is. 

How about a person with the women they love and share problems with, grown up successful kids and also has money and possessions and can go anywhere wherever and whenever they please, that is much better believe me. 

Having happiness with relationships and possessions/money are not mutually exclusive. 

[JamesR]

6 minutes ago, Soidog said:

I think you have maybe not followed the thread. My comment was in relation to @Benroon post that said

“I have never seen anyone with money and possessions feeling miserable”.

That’s why I mentioned the famous and rich people I did. My point was to Illustrate  that fame and fortune doesn't necessarily make people Happy. Hope that clarifies things ?

It was me who said “I have never seen anyone with money and possessions feeling miserable”.

My points are you seem to think having positions and money automatically excludes happiness with relationship etc, you can have both. 

[Soidog]

6 minutes ago, JamesR said:

It was me who said “I have never seen anyone with money and possessions feeling miserable”.

My points are you seem to think having positions and money automatically excludes happiness with relationship etc, you can have both. 

Yes of course you can have both and of course it’s ideal if you can. However, my point is happiness follows contentment and contentment doesn’t mean material possessions. Just because you have wealth and possessions doesn’t mean you will be happy. If on the other hand you are content with what you have (Rich or poor) you can be happy. 
 

I also know lots of people who are rich and have lots of possessions who are not happy. Just like Jackson and Houston. 

[Soidog]

10 minutes ago, JamesR said:

How about a person with the women they love and share problems with, grown up successful kids and also has money and possessions and can go anywhere wherever and whenever they please, that is much better believe me. 

Having happiness with relationships and possessions/money are not mutually exclusive. 

Never said they were mutually exclusive

[JamesR]

1 minute ago, Soidog said:

Never said they were mutually exclusive

Not directly but you seem to think it is not possible to be happy if people have money and possessions.

I like having money ,possessions and happiness.  

[JamesR]

8 minutes ago, Soidog said:

Yes of course you can have both and of course it’s ideal if you can. However, my point is happiness follows contentment and contentment doesn’t mean material possessions. Just because you have wealth and possessions doesn’t mean you will be happy. If on the other hand you are content with what you have (Rich or poor) you can be happy. 
 

I also know lots of people who are rich and have lots of possessions who are not happy. Just like Jackson and Houston. 

We are going around in circles, but in Jackson and Houston cases there were lots of drugs involved so if you are rich or poor the drugs will get you in the end, happiness will have left them a long time before they died. 

 

[Soidog]

1 minute ago, JamesR said:

Not directly but you seem to think it is not possible to be happy if people have money and possessions.

I like having money ,possessions and happiness.  

No not at all. That’s the very last thing I’m trying to say. Of course you can be happy if you have money and possessions!  Let me say that again in a loud voice in case there’s any doubt. YOU CAN BE HAPPY IF YOU ARE RICH AND HAVE POSSESSIONS.
 

What I’m saying is that the pursuit of possessions alone is not necessarily the route to happiness. Looking for contentment is the road to happiness. If that means sitting on a beach all day, or doing  multi- million dollar deals each day it really doesn’t matter. If you are content then you will be happy. 

[Soidog]

4 minutes ago, JamesR said:

We are going around in circles, but in Jackson and Houston cases there were lots of drugs involved so if you are rich or poor the drugs will get you in the end, happiness will have left them a long time before they died. 

That’s because they were never content. They tried to find happiness and not contentedness. 
 

 Happiness can be long lasting or transitory. Contentedness is enduring    

[JamesR]

7 minutes ago, Soidog said:

That’s because they were never content. They tried to find happiness and not contentedness. 
 

 Happiness can be long lasting or transitory. Contentedness is enduring    

I think you are splitting hairs, I see no difference between contentment and happiness, they are both the same thing. 

[JamesR]

9 minutes ago, Soidog said:

That’s because they were never content. They tried to find happiness and not contentedness. 
 

 Happiness can be long lasting or transitory. Contentedness is enduring    

 

10 minutes ago, Soidog said:

That’s because they were never content. They tried to find happiness and not contentedness. 
 

 Happiness can be long lasting or transitory. Contentedness is enduring    

Both can be either transitory and also enduring. 

[Soidog]

36 minutes ago, JamesR said:

I think you are splitting hairs, I see no difference between contentment and happiness, they are both the same thing. 

That is my central point. It’s not a matter of them being different, I just happen to believe (you may think otherwise, which is fine) that contentment always leads to happiness. Being happy doesn’t always lead to contentment.   Ive attached the two English definitions. As you will see contentment is a state of happiness and is referred  to by definition. Not the same with the definition of happiness. Subtle maybe. But that’s the point . 

[LoongFred]

6 hours ago, Stonker said:

The "point" was that I asked a simple question to establish if any countries "don't charge non-residents and non-nationals more" and although you answered "America" you restricted that to nationality.

I'm sure what you say is correct where payment for treatment is concerned, and that applies to most countries, where private / international hospitals charge everyone the same rate regardless of nationality or residence status.

Having told me to "Read for context and not to just try and make a point", though, you seem to be deliberately avoiding the context yourself as the context here is state funded medical care which is markedly lacking in the US.

As far as I can see those few hospitals in America that give free secondary treatment, which America designates "safety net hospitals", generally only do so for residents, not non-residents.

America is well behind most of the Western world in terms of any form of national health care, and way, way behind Thailand where 99.95% of the population, plus all registered migrant workers and all foreigners working legally get completely free health care of a reasonable standard.

Not everyone wants socialized medicine. It's middle of the road care, long waits, and high cost for what you get. No thanks. In Thailand I pay for the care and service I receive and I'm very pleased. I could go back to the US because I have comprehensive health care that was part of my retirement (100%), but I chose to receive care here because its a great value. 

I don't understand why some falang's complain about everything. Maybe ask Yinn because she can answer.

[BigHewer]

Topic locked as it’s gone off the rails.