Americans are retiring to Vietnam(latimes.com)
latimes.com
Americans are retiring to Vietnam
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-12-25/americans-are-retiring-to-vietnam-for-cheap-health-care-and-a-decent-living-standard
246 comments
The apartment complex they’re talking about in the article is (educated guess, used to live there) one of the nicest and most expensive in the country. It’s overlooking the Saigon River and has luxuries and amenities that you wouldn’t have except at super luxury buildings the US.
You can live a pampered lifestyle that would not be even remotely within reach in the US on the same budget.
You can live a pampered lifestyle that would not be even remotely within reach in the US on the same budget.
That's more expensive than South Europe cities
>Good thing is, American government has sensible reciprocal arrangement with many countries that offer national pension system that you don't necessarily have to wait until you hit full retirement age to live abroad and collect social security checks from there.
I did not know this. How does this work?
I did not know this. How does this work?
We have agreement with the following countries. (Vietnam isn't one of them)
https://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html
In a nutshell, all national pension systems work pretty much the same way in that, the longer you put into it, the more you get out. There is also minimum that you have to put in. For the U.S., it's 40 points (or 10 years).
Let's say you work 9 years in the U.S. but then decide to pack your stuff up and move to one of the above listed countries. You will get credit for 9 years worth of work and not have to start over in your new country (and the other way around too)
I'm actually conflating two different topics... one is reciprocal arrangement in terms of pension point system.
Another is, just being able to collect pension from abroad, which is actually not a big deal at all.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110614/how-can-i-re...
https://www.ssa.gov/international/agreements_overview.html
In a nutshell, all national pension systems work pretty much the same way in that, the longer you put into it, the more you get out. There is also minimum that you have to put in. For the U.S., it's 40 points (or 10 years).
Let's say you work 9 years in the U.S. but then decide to pack your stuff up and move to one of the above listed countries. You will get credit for 9 years worth of work and not have to start over in your new country (and the other way around too)
I'm actually conflating two different topics... one is reciprocal arrangement in terms of pension point system.
Another is, just being able to collect pension from abroad, which is actually not a big deal at all.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110614/how-can-i-re...
I'm surprised by how well written the social security administration article is. I found it interesting and readable enough to read all the way through, which I absolutely wasn't expecting.
Our tax dollars at work, I guess.
Our tax dollars at work, I guess.
> for about $250,000 in 2011
I can't tell if the LA Times are thinking this sounds cheap or not?
I can't tell if the LA Times are thinking this sounds cheap or not?
Anyone from the LA area knows that 250k for 4 bedroom is super cheap. In my area, 2 bedroom starts at $550k.
True, but I feel you can do a lot better without having to move all the way to Vietnam.
Dunno about LA, but $250k went a lot further in 2011.
In many crash-afflicted areas, prices are double what they were in 2011.
In many crash-afflicted areas, prices are double what they were in 2011.
LA is insane. You can easily spend more than $250k in South Central.
Yeah that price is similar for places you can find in the rural midwest US.
The rest of the COL is pretty cheap as well:
> The children were born via caesarean section; the procedure, including a four-day hospital stay, cost about $1,200, far less than it would have in the United States.
> Monthly expenses here rarely exceed $2,000, even to live in a large unit like Rockhold’s, including the help of a cook and a cleaner.
Getting staff for that price in the US is next to impossible.
> The children were born via caesarean section; the procedure, including a four-day hospital stay, cost about $1,200, far less than it would have in the United States.
> Monthly expenses here rarely exceed $2,000, even to live in a large unit like Rockhold’s, including the help of a cook and a cleaner.
Getting staff for that price in the US is next to impossible.
Yeah, but then you’d have to live in the rural midwest US rather than a beach city. The rural life just isn’t for some people. Also, old people like to retire to warmer places so they don’t feel cold all the time.
They also want to be able to afford housekeepers, gardeners, and cooks at a rate so low they can afford to have all three and still come out cheaper than having one of those in the US.
"afford" is just a way to rephrase "exploit" - due to the fundamentally unfair wealth distribution
you can "afford" a gardener as a retired middle manager only because a lot of poeple in that society are being enslaved
What a great idea! Let's retire there and have slaves!
you can "afford" a gardener as a retired middle manager only because a lot of poeple in that society are being enslaved
What a great idea! Let's retire there and have slaves!
Yeah, but you can't find an 18 year old woman to marry you as a modern day indentured servant in the midwest. Ninety percent or so of the old white men I encountered in SEA had his arm around some poor childlike girl.
While that is a horrible thing to say, I wouldn't disagree. I also saw some rather worrying couples when I was living in Saigon.
That said, some Asian women also just look young even at a surprisingly high age. I recently had Germans mistake my Asian mother in law to be my younger sister.
But sure, it is a big plus that in Saigon the $2k in retirement money pay not only for one person, but for an entire family. So if you're old and lonely, that might be a very attractive reason to go.
That said, some Asian women also just look young even at a surprisingly high age. I recently had Germans mistake my Asian mother in law to be my younger sister.
But sure, it is a big plus that in Saigon the $2k in retirement money pay not only for one person, but for an entire family. So if you're old and lonely, that might be a very attractive reason to go.
Absolutely, but I hope my comment was not taken as an endorsement by any means. I don't think most folks know how rampant it is. It was something I had read about and knew existed, but seeing it in person is eye opening. I know it's not my business and I shouldn't care, logically, but it makes me disgusted in some way every time.
If both people are getting what they want out of a relationship, what is the problem exactly?
The idea that relationships are based on love is not universal to say the least, many parts of the world still have arranged marriages that are explicitly transactional with an agreed dowry or bride price.
If it makes you feel a bit better, we are currently living through an unprecedented high in relationships based upon love rather than money.
The idea that relationships are based on love is not universal to say the least, many parts of the world still have arranged marriages that are explicitly transactional with an agreed dowry or bride price.
If it makes you feel a bit better, we are currently living through an unprecedented high in relationships based upon love rather than money.
That kind of thing's basically the norm among the rich, no matter where they live. Not really surprising that the non-rich do the same thing when they go somewhere that makes them, relative to the locals, rich.
I believe that it may well become an existential crisis for western cultures that guys are conditioned by advertisements to expect an attractive girlfriend in exchange for being successful at work, but in reality that rarely works out.
On the one side, that leads to men who feel like they deserve an attractive girlfriend and take evil methods for acquiring one.
On the other side, there's a booming industry in the US and Europe that teaches rich single white dudes how to be a decent enough human being for long enough to go on a normal date with a normal girl.
But for the guy, after they have committed most of their youth to financial success in the hopes that it will lead to a mate, switching course later on will be very painful. And lots of frustrated overly horny dudes might destabilize the country.
On the one side, that leads to men who feel like they deserve an attractive girlfriend and take evil methods for acquiring one.
On the other side, there's a booming industry in the US and Europe that teaches rich single white dudes how to be a decent enough human being for long enough to go on a normal date with a normal girl.
But for the guy, after they have committed most of their youth to financial success in the hopes that it will lead to a mate, switching course later on will be very painful. And lots of frustrated overly horny dudes might destabilize the country.
I didn't realize that non whites rich males don't do this as well.
In my experience that's significantly less common in Vietnam than in Thailand or the Philippines (having been to all three, and dated women in all three).
Agreed. I am going on my 4th year living in Vietnam, it is significantly less common here.
Of course you see a lot of sexpats, but Vietnamese culture is definitely less sexualized than in other SE Asia countries. It certainly exists literally everywhere, but it is just harder to find outside of the STD infected backpacker areas. The women are pretty adamant about having a bf.
For a long time, it was also more difficult and expensive to get a visa... so the guys looking to just get laid went to the easier countries. That is changing though as Vietnam now has an e-visa.
Of course you see a lot of sexpats, but Vietnamese culture is definitely less sexualized than in other SE Asia countries. It certainly exists literally everywhere, but it is just harder to find outside of the STD infected backpacker areas. The women are pretty adamant about having a bf.
For a long time, it was also more difficult and expensive to get a visa... so the guys looking to just get laid went to the easier countries. That is changing though as Vietnam now has an e-visa.
Thailand is no longer a particularly cheap country. Girls want cars and condos from their Western boyfriends. And they don't want old men.
Indeed, this is kind of a gross thing that is definitely happening in not-so-subtle ways. It's also been called "sex tourism."
In fact, it appears the man in the article may fit that profile. I think there's a big difference between "American couples are retiring to Thailand" and "single American men are retiring to Thailand and marrying Thai women."
In fact, it appears the man in the article may fit that profile. I think there's a big difference between "American couples are retiring to Thailand" and "single American men are retiring to Thailand and marrying Thai women."
"American girls found inferior to Asian girls by random rich old white dude from America". I wonder if that would be enough to trigger a shit-storm.
Suburban / Ungentrified urban Midwest
I think I'd rather live in a small town in Iowa than Vietnam for that price.
May I ask why that is? I've travelled a fair amount of Asia and Africa over the last decade and I have to say many places are significantly more exciting than a rural or small town in the US. I have not so much personal experience with the US, but my family is from a rural German region and if the US is anything like it (and I suspect it's not too far off), there are many more exciting places out there.
The cuisine and the culture in much of the developing world are superb, the cities are dynamic and young, transport and services are cheap, in contrast, going back to my parent's village feels like going to a whale graveyard. Now I'm far from retirement age and maybe I'll mellow out a bit but many western small towns I've seen are outright depressing to live in (and at this point lack basic services and public transport).
The cuisine and the culture in much of the developing world are superb, the cities are dynamic and young, transport and services are cheap, in contrast, going back to my parent's village feels like going to a whale graveyard. Now I'm far from retirement age and maybe I'll mellow out a bit but many western small towns I've seen are outright depressing to live in (and at this point lack basic services and public transport).
> Now I'm far from retirement age
that's why you feel this way. After you lived a life and developed social ties and relationships in place it would be impossible to rebuild those in a radically different country.
Statements like "Retire to Vietnam!" are mostly absurd nonsense - really to go to a place you can't even read the signs?. The most valuable asset one has are the social ties - far easier to live in a boring German village where you know most people than in the most dynamic place on Earth where you never lived before.
that's why you feel this way. After you lived a life and developed social ties and relationships in place it would be impossible to rebuild those in a radically different country.
Statements like "Retire to Vietnam!" are mostly absurd nonsense - really to go to a place you can't even read the signs?. The most valuable asset one has are the social ties - far easier to live in a boring German village where you know most people than in the most dynamic place on Earth where you never lived before.
>The most valuable asset one has are the social ties - far easier to live in a boring German village where you know most people
the problem is though that this is an idealized version of traditional small towns. My parents are still doing fine, but my grandparents were very isolated at the end of their lives because most peers have died off, are too old or sick to go anywhere, and most young people have left too so it's a very, very insular and lonely environment.
From the stories I read about the state of health, drug abuse and so on in American small towns it appears to be even worse.
Boring life is not necessarily a good thing for older folks. The practical problems of being far away from healthcare and so on aside, I believe being in a young and dynamic environment is a good thing for you if you're old, it keeps people stimulated.
People love painting the image of 'loneliness in the city' vs 'community in the village' but in reality, at least in my experience it's the other way around.
the problem is though that this is an idealized version of traditional small towns. My parents are still doing fine, but my grandparents were very isolated at the end of their lives because most peers have died off, are too old or sick to go anywhere, and most young people have left too so it's a very, very insular and lonely environment.
From the stories I read about the state of health, drug abuse and so on in American small towns it appears to be even worse.
Boring life is not necessarily a good thing for older folks. The practical problems of being far away from healthcare and so on aside, I believe being in a young and dynamic environment is a good thing for you if you're old, it keeps people stimulated.
People love painting the image of 'loneliness in the city' vs 'community in the village' but in reality, at least in my experience it's the other way around.
Everyone can end up lonely and forgotten. It is a problem that is solved by staying involved and becoming part of a community.
Integrating into a foreign culture is orders of magnitude more difficult - for many perhaps impossible at old age.
Integrating into a foreign culture is orders of magnitude more difficult - for many perhaps impossible at old age.
I moved to Japan 12 years ago and while I love it and it's the only home I know, I agree with you. Retiring, picking up and moving to a new country with a new culture would involve pretty serious culture shock. Betting the farm, so to speak, on wanting to live there for the rest of your life is kind of crazy I think. I've also had some health issues while I've lived here in Japan and even though I speak Japanese quite well and the Japanese health system is quite good, it's incredibly frustrating having to deal with something so important in a way that is foreign to you.
In kind of a less extreme situation, I've known several couples who retired in the UK and moved lock stock and barrel to Spain. Even there, I've heard horror stories of getting soul crush homesickness, not being able to sell the house, and eventually returning to the UK and living a very much reduced lifestyle thanks to all the assets being tied up in Spain. It's a massive risk.
In kind of a less extreme situation, I've known several couples who retired in the UK and moved lock stock and barrel to Spain. Even there, I've heard horror stories of getting soul crush homesickness, not being able to sell the house, and eventually returning to the UK and living a very much reduced lifestyle thanks to all the assets being tied up in Spain. It's a massive risk.
I can only speak to Bangkok, but life in Bangkok will be cheaper, safer, more convenient, the food quality will be higher, medical and dental care will be much higher standards, public transport is better, than in Iowa. I’ve spent less time in Vietnam, but it seems to be hot on the heels of Thailand.
Bangkok ain't cheap. The current Thai government discourages retirees. Those who have already retired there are moving to Vietnam, Cambodia or the Phils.
$250,000 is more or less the median price for a house that size in Ames, IA, a university town which regularly shows up on various "Best Places to Live" lists.
Its about the median across the whole of the US, not just Iowa. Other cities with lower or similar median: Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Philadelphia, Chicago, Salt Lake City, Nashville. Loads of cities are cheaper.
https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/real-estate/T010-S003-home-pr...
https://www.kiplinger.com/tool/real-estate/T010-S003-home-pr...
Yeah but who would want to live in cold, wintery Iowa when you have the option of staying in a place that is warm year round.
Can't get much colder or wintery than Finland, Denmark, and Norway, but
> For the second year in a row, the world's happiest country is... Finland!
> Finland topped the list of 156 countries, which were ranked in the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network's 2019 World Happiness Report. The report ranks countries on several well-being variables including income, freedom, trust, healthy life expectancy and more.
> Two other Nordic countries came in second and third place, Denmark and Norway, respectively.
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/03/20/finlan...
Meanwhile, in the tropics:
> On the other hand, South Sudan ranked the least happy on the list.
> For the second year in a row, the world's happiest country is... Finland!
> Finland topped the list of 156 countries, which were ranked in the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network's 2019 World Happiness Report. The report ranks countries on several well-being variables including income, freedom, trust, healthy life expectancy and more.
> Two other Nordic countries came in second and third place, Denmark and Norway, respectively.
From https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2019/03/20/finlan...
Meanwhile, in the tropics:
> On the other hand, South Sudan ranked the least happy on the list.
So perhaps the answer to “who would want to live somewhere that cold?” is “people who were born there and lived their whole lives there.” This is based on my understanding that those countries have very low rates of immigration.
Well, Sweden is 7th on the list and over 20% of the ppl here have foreign background (individuals either born abroad or having both parents born abroad).
Canada is 9th.
People immigrate to sweden and canada for jobs, opportunities and generous welfare, not because they want to live there. It's mostly the poor and desperate who immigrate to these countries.
How many wealthy native born canadians visit sweden? Hardly any. How many wealthy native born swedes visit canada? Hardly any. I bet more swedes visit thailand in one day than they visit canada in a whole year.
How many wealthy native born canadians visit sweden? Hardly any. How many wealthy native born swedes visit canada? Hardly any. I bet more swedes visit thailand in one day than they visit canada in a whole year.
Think it is more about living in a society that takes care of it's citizens.
South Sudan is in their sixth year of a brutal civil war...
They’ve done well with what they have. I wouldn’t put their happiness down to the weather, rather I think it’s in spite of it.
>> when you have the option of staying in a place that is warm year round.
Bugs. There is something to be said for a deep winter when opening a window doesn't mean invading in an Attenborough documentary worth of wildlife into your bedroom.
Bugs. There is something to be said for a deep winter when opening a window doesn't mean invading in an Attenborough documentary worth of wildlife into your bedroom.
There are plenty of temperate places that are not tropical and don’t host a ton of bugs. Speaking of bug, the Russian tundra or Alaska are an absolute bug nightmare come summer.
No doubt based on that recommendation Ames is a great place to live, but you're still in the American healthcare system which could financially drain you dry from one major medical incident. The article specifically mentions cheap healthcare as the other draw besides cheap cost of living.
Isn't this article about retirement-age Americans, who are covered by Medicare?
Correct so a lot of the comments are not relevant to the article. But to clarify, Medicare does not cover Americans who choose to live abroad.
Right, but the point of the argument is that people might leave the US because health care is so much cheaper abroad.
I don't really understand this.
Max out-of-pocket for insurance plans now is very reasonable. If you can afford a $250k house, you can afford the max out-of-pocket cost for many many years.
Max out-of-pocket for insurance plans now is very reasonable. If you can afford a $250k house, you can afford the max out-of-pocket cost for many many years.
Don't you also have to pay the actual insurance premium as well? Before you even get to the out-of-pocket costs? I have friends in the US who pay thousands a month for health insurance premiums.
At 65 you're eligible for single-payer, government-supported Medicare.
I'm not old enough to be keeping an eye on the numbers, but it looks like ~$450 / month for hospital (free) + doctor (subsidized) + prescription (pay).
I'm not old enough to be keeping an eye on the numbers, but it looks like ~$450 / month for hospital (free) + doctor (subsidized) + prescription (pay).
Then you consider that the total unsubsidized out of pocket cost for a surgery at a private hospital in one of the medical tourism destinations amounts to only a few months of premiums. And on top of it the service and hospitality with which the medical care is delivered is unlike any you've ever even imagined in the US.
That’s correct but Medicare is not a viable option for Americans living abroad because it does not cover overseas healthcare.
Medicare should work in Guam and other US territories.
All except the smallest employers are required by law to provide health insurance to full-time employees and may have employees contribute up to only 10% of their household income.
I did some random shopping for a typical family of 5 and found a max rate of ~$1600/mo for insurance premiums. You would only pay this if you were self-employed, part-time employed at a pretty shitty job, or unemployed and run out of the various mechanisms to keep your insurance. After that you have to spend your net worth until you qualify for the insurance benefits for the poor in your state.
In reality, with various employers I have paid between $0 and $200/month for insuring just myself. (I have paid $0, I don't remember the most expensive, but it was <$200 in any case)
Who gets screwed and bankrupt are the lower-middle class who can't manage to get a full time job, especially single parents who get sick. The system is biased towards benefitting married partners with children, only one person needs that full time job to cover everyone. If you are in the middle class or above and do only a small amount of planning, you're fine. If you are below the middle, you generally have to lose everything or go bankrupt before the system will help you – people in that position are often the least equipped to figure out and head through the optimal path for themselves and end up making very bad decisions.
We don't need public healthcare, we need better support which reaches higher up the income scale and better education.
I did some random shopping for a typical family of 5 and found a max rate of ~$1600/mo for insurance premiums. You would only pay this if you were self-employed, part-time employed at a pretty shitty job, or unemployed and run out of the various mechanisms to keep your insurance. After that you have to spend your net worth until you qualify for the insurance benefits for the poor in your state.
In reality, with various employers I have paid between $0 and $200/month for insuring just myself. (I have paid $0, I don't remember the most expensive, but it was <$200 in any case)
Who gets screwed and bankrupt are the lower-middle class who can't manage to get a full time job, especially single parents who get sick. The system is biased towards benefitting married partners with children, only one person needs that full time job to cover everyone. If you are in the middle class or above and do only a small amount of planning, you're fine. If you are below the middle, you generally have to lose everything or go bankrupt before the system will help you – people in that position are often the least equipped to figure out and head through the optimal path for themselves and end up making very bad decisions.
We don't need public healthcare, we need better support which reaches higher up the income scale and better education.
I find the idea that employers should have anything to do with healthcare quite revolting. Healthcare should be a deal between you and the government for which you should pay taxes. This and some other reasons are why I cannot fathom living in the US under 250K a year.
> Healthcare should be a deal between you and the government
No, health care should be between me and my physician and whatever other experts I decide to consult. The government has no business meddling in it.
Health insurance or health care cost sharing might be things we could arrange cooperatively through government, but it doesn't seem like it's possible to do that without having the government try to meddle in what care people get.
No, health care should be between me and my physician and whatever other experts I decide to consult. The government has no business meddling in it.
Health insurance or health care cost sharing might be things we could arrange cooperatively through government, but it doesn't seem like it's possible to do that without having the government try to meddle in what care people get.
Well then there will be a variable cost depending on the treatment you need and the prices that the market decides. No amount of money in your bank could give you any financial security as you are basically one accident, surgery or even treatment away from bankruptcy. It could be that this one pill you need is suddenly priced at a million dollars a pill and you cant survive anymore. (Hypothetically can happen in a totally free market).
I for one wouldn't like this level of risk with something so vital to my wellbeing. I would rather prefer that the government took this risk on my behalf of me and just charged me a flat rate throughout my life. (Btw this is the case already in almost all developed countries)
In general there are some things where government intervention is needed. Police, Education, Healthcare and Pension as these things cannot have a totally variable cost decided by a free market.
I for one wouldn't like this level of risk with something so vital to my wellbeing. I would rather prefer that the government took this risk on my behalf of me and just charged me a flat rate throughout my life. (Btw this is the case already in almost all developed countries)
In general there are some things where government intervention is needed. Police, Education, Healthcare and Pension as these things cannot have a totally variable cost decided by a free market.
> It could be that this one pill you need is suddenly priced at a million dollars a pill and you cant survive anymore. (Hypothetically can happen in a totally free market).
No, it can't, because in a totally free market nobody would have monopoly rights to produce particular drugs or provide particular treatments, so if one provider tried to charge a price nobody who needed the treatment could afford, they would go out of business. If it proved to be impossible for anyone to make the drug or provide the treatment at a price anyone could afford, then that would be a failure of the free market, yes; but it's an extremely unlikely failure mode as compared with the much more common failure modes of government granted monopolies and government determined prices.
That said, in a democratic country if the majority shares your risk preference, then that majority can vote for politicians who will enact it:
> I would rather prefer that the government took this risk on my behalf of me and just charged me a flat rate throughout my life.
And that would be a form of cost sharing, which I mentioned--all taxpayers share the costs of expensive treatments, on the assumption that only a small percentage of them will actually end up having an illness that incurs those costs.
However, that still only protects you on the assumption that in fact only a small percentage of people end up having the costly illnesses. But the illnesses people are generally worried about with respect to high costs--cancer, heart disease, arterial sclerosis leading to a high risk of stroke, liver disease, kidney disease, diabetes--are not that rare. So either we keep paying more and more taxes as a higher and higher percentage of people have the illness, to the point where we are just as badly off as if we each paid our own costs individually, or many people end up not getting the treatments at all because there isn't enough money to go around, so the risk you thought you were offloading to the government is back on you again.
This scheme also ignores the possibility of making the treatments cheaper. But the way to do that is to allow free market competition; we don't have that in the US since prices are not set by supply and demand but by a combination of government agencies and private health insurance companies.
> In general there are some things where government intervention is needed. Police, Education, Healthcare and Pension as these things cannot have a totally variable cost decided by a free market.
This is not the obvious truth you appear to think it is. It is an extremely strong claim which is not at all clearly established by actual historical evidence.
No, it can't, because in a totally free market nobody would have monopoly rights to produce particular drugs or provide particular treatments, so if one provider tried to charge a price nobody who needed the treatment could afford, they would go out of business. If it proved to be impossible for anyone to make the drug or provide the treatment at a price anyone could afford, then that would be a failure of the free market, yes; but it's an extremely unlikely failure mode as compared with the much more common failure modes of government granted monopolies and government determined prices.
That said, in a democratic country if the majority shares your risk preference, then that majority can vote for politicians who will enact it:
> I would rather prefer that the government took this risk on my behalf of me and just charged me a flat rate throughout my life.
And that would be a form of cost sharing, which I mentioned--all taxpayers share the costs of expensive treatments, on the assumption that only a small percentage of them will actually end up having an illness that incurs those costs.
However, that still only protects you on the assumption that in fact only a small percentage of people end up having the costly illnesses. But the illnesses people are generally worried about with respect to high costs--cancer, heart disease, arterial sclerosis leading to a high risk of stroke, liver disease, kidney disease, diabetes--are not that rare. So either we keep paying more and more taxes as a higher and higher percentage of people have the illness, to the point where we are just as badly off as if we each paid our own costs individually, or many people end up not getting the treatments at all because there isn't enough money to go around, so the risk you thought you were offloading to the government is back on you again.
This scheme also ignores the possibility of making the treatments cheaper. But the way to do that is to allow free market competition; we don't have that in the US since prices are not set by supply and demand but by a combination of government agencies and private health insurance companies.
> In general there are some things where government intervention is needed. Police, Education, Healthcare and Pension as these things cannot have a totally variable cost decided by a free market.
This is not the obvious truth you appear to think it is. It is an extremely strong claim which is not at all clearly established by actual historical evidence.
> so if one provider tried to charge a price nobody who needed the treatment could afford, they would go out of business
Lets be realistic here. What happens is that most drugs are either actually manufactured overseas or at least can be shipped from overseas for pennies. However due to regulations and lobbying drug companies charge really high prices for the same drugs and they make sure it is illegal to import those drugs. In case the government itself was paying for these drugs it would be much harder for the companies to game the system like this and an individual would be protected from such predatory practices.
> So either we keep paying more and more taxes as a higher and higher percentage of people have the illness, to the point where we are just as badly off as if we each paid our own costs individually,
This is not true if you observe the tax rates in any countries with government funded healthcare. The taxes more or less remain the same but of course there are differences in the healthcare budget.
> This scheme also ignores the possibility of making the treatments cheaper.
Once again the healthcare costs in the US have actually risen quite significantly under the private system.
> This is not the obvious truth you appear to think it is. It is an extremely strong claim which is not at all clearly established by actual historical evidence.
Police and education it already is true even in the US. Even pension has significant regulation. The only reason healthcare is not is aggressive lobbying by private companies.
Lets be realistic here. What happens is that most drugs are either actually manufactured overseas or at least can be shipped from overseas for pennies. However due to regulations and lobbying drug companies charge really high prices for the same drugs and they make sure it is illegal to import those drugs. In case the government itself was paying for these drugs it would be much harder for the companies to game the system like this and an individual would be protected from such predatory practices.
> So either we keep paying more and more taxes as a higher and higher percentage of people have the illness, to the point where we are just as badly off as if we each paid our own costs individually,
This is not true if you observe the tax rates in any countries with government funded healthcare. The taxes more or less remain the same but of course there are differences in the healthcare budget.
> This scheme also ignores the possibility of making the treatments cheaper.
Once again the healthcare costs in the US have actually risen quite significantly under the private system.
> This is not the obvious truth you appear to think it is. It is an extremely strong claim which is not at all clearly established by actual historical evidence.
Police and education it already is true even in the US. Even pension has significant regulation. The only reason healthcare is not is aggressive lobbying by private companies.
Why?
Why is one large bureaucracy better than the other?
Why is one large bureaucracy better than the other?
One of the large bureaucracies will be there as long as you're alive, and there is no need to switch between health provider paperwork or worry it will disappear when you change jobs or become unemployed.
Because one isn't in an adversarial relationship with you?
You may be in the fortunate position that your government is not in an adversarial relationship with you. There are many people with that good fortune. But there are also many people who are not in that position.
I have some bad news for you - the administrative state is very much in an adversarial relationship with you if you do anything other than breathe.
The government isn't an "at will" arrangement from which you can be sacked?
Because I want to switch jobs without switching doctors loads of paper work, and health is the sort of fickle thing where if I get really sick they will always be able to price-gouge me so I rather remove the profit motive.
I've had several jobs, several insurance plans and a couple on the individual market.
Never had to switch doctors and the paperwork amounted to the receptionist asking if my insurance was current and handing them my card.
Never had to switch doctors and the paperwork amounted to the receptionist asking if my insurance was current and handing them my card.
One word: accountability. Your employer is not accountable to you, you’re at best a cost center. Your government is accountable to you via process known as democracy.
[deleted]
Democracy clearly, empirically does not imply that the government is accountable to you.
No, it, literally and directly does, that's the definition of it. Your representatives are accountable to you via vote. If not that, then what do you think democracy even means?
I think democracy generally means that the population elects representatives who establish policy. That’s certainly true. But in what sense is the government actually accountable to an individual in any meaningful sense? If you are wronged by a democratic government do you honestly believe that you have a remotely decent chance of holding the government accountable? And how about for individuals who are among the least fortunate in society?
[Citation needed]
And I'm asking you not just to show that a bunch of bad stuff has happened, but that in its totality at least one country most people would consider a democracy (a good but imperfect shortcut for this is if Freedom House rates them as such) has essentially no accountability.
And I'm asking you not just to show that a bunch of bad stuff has happened, but that in its totality at least one country most people would consider a democracy (a good but imperfect shortcut for this is if Freedom House rates them as such) has essentially no accountability.
Well, if you think that showing many many examples of democratic governments wronging individuals and then not being held accountable for those wrongs (including many examples of long-standing systematic wrongs, not just one-off extreme cases) is NOT sufficient evidence for the claim “democratic governments are not accountable to you,” then I don’t know what evidence would satisfy you.
You can't be fired from America because you get sick.
>I have friends in the US who pay thousands a month for health insurance premiums.
This sounds like an entire family with a higher-level plan, correct? Higher-level plans have correspondingly reduced out-of-pocket maximums, to the point where the out-of-pocket maximum can be as low as $2000/year — so your premium is nearly your entire spending.
This sounds like an entire family with a higher-level plan, correct? Higher-level plans have correspondingly reduced out-of-pocket maximums, to the point where the out-of-pocket maximum can be as low as $2000/year — so your premium is nearly your entire spending.
My parents in late 50s pay $2k per month for a bronze plan with an OOP max of $14k.
I am just about to sell my father's $320,000 house so I can pay for his nursing home care. He sadly did not have the foresight to acquire long-term disability insurance or put his assets into a trust so we'll be paying out of pocket until his money runs out and he goes on Medicaid, which will still only cover 60% of his care.
$320,000 / $8000+ a month (not including rising costs) means he has 3.25 years of care coverage paying out of pocket which I don't consider many years.
$320,000 / $8000+ a month (not including rising costs) means he has 3.25 years of care coverage paying out of pocket which I don't consider many years.
Don't forget about the annual max gift tax limit (15k for 2020). Your father could reasonably gift you 15k a year (possibly another 15k to your spouse if you happen to be married) to reduce his savings a tiny bit quicker, so medicaid kicks in a bit sooner. At that point you could maybe even claim your parent as a dependent, and help him pay for his medical costs (which I think you can also deduct?).
I'm not sure on the particulars, and certainly don't take the above as any kind of financial advice -- I just started looking into this for an aging parent myself. Though, it might be worth talking to an accountant and see what is applicable for your location.
I'm not sure on the particulars, and certainly don't take the above as any kind of financial advice -- I just started looking into this for an aging parent myself. Though, it might be worth talking to an accountant and see what is applicable for your location.
If I understand correctly from my non-CPA googling, $15K is just the amount you don't have to report to the IRS. You can give more, up to a lifetime limit of several million, before the gifts are taxed. How that interacts with medicaid, I have no idea.
This is correct the 15k per year is just a reporting limit.
There are the local medicaid/medicare administrations and elder care law specialists that can advise on medical care as well as the various tax writeoffs and eligibility for programs that the poster should investigate now since rules vary so much from state to state in the USA, and he is talking about years of care.
> I am just about to sell my father's $320,000 house so I can pay for his nursing home care.
You’d be doing this in the UK on the NHS too. The patient needs to pay until their assets are drawn down until a certain amount, and then the government will take over until death.
You’d be doing this in the UK on the NHS too. The patient needs to pay until their assets are drawn down until a certain amount, and then the government will take over until death.
There are options to save money yet provide good care:
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ActiveAging/story?id=3487260&p...
Is he not eligible for Medicare? I thought even the pricier Part C plans would be less than $8k for a whole year's worth of premiums + the out of pocket maximum
The last time I had to look at this, one cannot have any assets in excess of a small dollar number for Medicaid, so one has to start drawing down all savings to pay for care, and Medicare does not cover long term care, only short stays for specific reasons.
Medicare doesn't cover long-term care
I just got billed $22,000 for a rabies course and I have good insurance. Four rounds of immunoglobulins are expensive.
Now you know why I'm waiting to see my PCP despite having earlyish symptoms of heart disease. Should I have a heart attack it's better to leave my wife a cheap, dead corpse and a life insurance payout rather than an expensive out of work husband. That's the calculus of the American medical system.
Are you uninsured?
Get checked. Think about it. If you're worried about money you will spend less if you catch and manage something early than if you're late and whatever you have doesn't kill you but makes you very sick.
If you're not insured, get insured. Financial planning via expecting death is just foolish.
Get checked. Think about it. If you're worried about money you will spend less if you catch and manage something early than if you're late and whatever you have doesn't kill you but makes you very sick.
If you're not insured, get insured. Financial planning via expecting death is just foolish.
Did you "get billed" that much in that this is what you now owe?
Or did you get a "bill" that listed before-insurance numbers which nobody pays and might as well be spit out by a random number generator?
Or did you get a "bill" that listed before-insurance numbers which nobody pays and might as well be spit out by a random number generator?
This obsession with cheap places to live intrigues me. In Memphis, TN you can rent a decent apartment in a shitty part of town for $300 a month. And Memphis isn't even close to the cheapest big city in the US.
In Birmingham Alabama, you can't get just as hot as you can in Vietnam, and your rent will be pretty similar.
Yes, healthcare and food are more expensive, but not that much. And you'll spend less on those two things over the year than if you come home once a year to keep your citizenship.
In Birmingham Alabama, you can't get just as hot as you can in Vietnam, and your rent will be pretty similar.
Yes, healthcare and food are more expensive, but not that much. And you'll spend less on those two things over the year than if you come home once a year to keep your citizenship.
You don't have to do anything to keep your American citizenship. You can't get rid of it without a significant amount of effort.
America is one of the only nations in the world that taxes its expats also. You can't escape the USA. You are the property of the tax farm.
I believe the reason for this is simple (though understandably unpopular):
A lot of people that get rich because of America would just drop American citizenship once they do get rich to avoid paying back into the system that allowed them to become successful.
There is no other country that offers as much upward mobility as the US to its citizens. Hence the tax.
A lot of people that get rich because of America would just drop American citizenship once they do get rich to avoid paying back into the system that allowed them to become successful.
There is no other country that offers as much upward mobility as the US to its citizens. Hence the tax.
Nope. First of all, social mobility in the US is not better than anywhere else (https://www.epi.org/publication/usa-lags-peer-countries-mobi...) . Secondly, it's not that much harder to renounce US citizenship than other countries - in fact, in some ways it's easier because the US is the only country I know of that allows you to renounce citizenship without having another citizenship already.
My point was only that you don't have to "actively keep" your citizenship, by visiting the US or any other means.
This is a pleasant fiction, isn’t it? A quick look will tell you that the US is far below the Nordic countries in social mobility. For instance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility
Also the services that the US Government provides to even their overseas expats is pretty remarkable. I’m not sure there’s another country in the world that can bail you out of a dicey situation within hours in almost any spot on earth.
You don't know what you are talking about. The US overseas generally won't lift a finger unless it has invaded the country in question. Canada, the UK, Germany, Ireland, Japan: all in fact assist.
Maybe they meant to renew the foreign visa
But yeah that also wouldn’t require coming back to the US necessarily
But yeah that also wouldn’t require coming back to the US necessarily
Yeah, you would just drive to Laos or Cambodia or take a short flight to one of the nearby island countries for a week.
>This obsession with cheap places to live intrigues me.
That's... pretty damn bizarre that you'd find it intriguing.
>In Memphis, TN you can rent a decent apartment in a shitty part of town for $300 a month.
Who _wants_ to live in the shitty part of town? You've deconstructed your own argument in a sentence.
Also, with American money you can live in Vietnam like royalty, and in an area that looks like paradise. There's a reason the places you are talking about are in the "flyover states".
That's... pretty damn bizarre that you'd find it intriguing.
>In Memphis, TN you can rent a decent apartment in a shitty part of town for $300 a month.
Who _wants_ to live in the shitty part of town? You've deconstructed your own argument in a sentence.
Also, with American money you can live in Vietnam like royalty, and in an area that looks like paradise. There's a reason the places you are talking about are in the "flyover states".
> Who _wants_ to live in the shitty part of town? You've deconstructed your own argument in a sentence.
Let's say you just quit your job to live your dream of creating an indie video game. You'll probably want as much runway as possible while you build.
Startups tend to need rapid iteration and experimentation unless they're highly technical, which is why this plan is probably better for things you can do solo and completely cut off.
On the other hand, maybe someone just wants to spend a few years playing video games and reading books? Why not do it cheaply?
Let's say you just quit your job to live your dream of creating an indie video game. You'll probably want as much runway as possible while you build.
Startups tend to need rapid iteration and experimentation unless they're highly technical, which is why this plan is probably better for things you can do solo and completely cut off.
On the other hand, maybe someone just wants to spend a few years playing video games and reading books? Why not do it cheaply?
Sure, I don’t mean to suggest it’s a good idea for all or even most Americans to retire in Vietnam vs. a cheaper city in the USA. However I do think a sizeable amount (maybe some 5% of retirees?) would be a good match for that
Its not about the cheapest place to live it’s about not-Birmingham, not-Memphis
The Bi-coastal Americans in this article will take communism on a bankroll over the Bible Belt, take a hint
The Bi-coastal Americans in this article will take communism on a bankroll over the Bible Belt, take a hint
Tropical weather and ocean access helps. A flat land with extremes of hot and cold, tornadoes and drastic divergences in daily temperature are more worrisome than being on the head with a Bible, personally.
Yes all that is geographically part of the Bible Belt:
Shitty extremes of temperature
Shitty hostile weather patterns
Shitty viability of opportunities as a result of ongoing talent drain towards the coasts with everyone wondering why its so cheap
Shitty isolationist mentality and nationalism to rationalize why their dystopian nightmare is okay
Shitty extremes of religion that were literally kicked out of Europe
Shitty public policy and services as a byproduct of the prior two realities
When people want to enjoy their money its an easy and hard pass on the bible belt. Social welfare states and full blown communist states by the water give you everything for free all while you can buy luxury in liberalized state planned economies.
Shitty extremes of temperature
Shitty hostile weather patterns
Shitty viability of opportunities as a result of ongoing talent drain towards the coasts with everyone wondering why its so cheap
Shitty isolationist mentality and nationalism to rationalize why their dystopian nightmare is okay
Shitty extremes of religion that were literally kicked out of Europe
Shitty public policy and services as a byproduct of the prior two realities
When people want to enjoy their money its an easy and hard pass on the bible belt. Social welfare states and full blown communist states by the water give you everything for free all while you can buy luxury in liberalized state planned economies.
I’m sitting here in New Orleans chuckling at your handle
A resort town in SE Asia is pretty nice; you also have to consider much cheaper services that you aren’t going to get in a cheap Deep South city. It has nothing to do with communism or Bible belts.
Also you get access to democracy and safety.
In a nice resort town in SE Asia vs a failing city in the Deep South....I’m not sure which one you are referring to?
or the us east coast that isn't NYC
Yeah that sum can get you at least 2500 sqft in Montana, it would also come with 30 acres of backyard.
Just won’t have pho around and lots of snow.
Just won’t have pho around and lots of snow.
I made the move to Montana last year. Loving it. People's jaw drops at what I got for the price I paid. Yes, no pho. Or decent mexican.
Montana can be really expensive for food and restaurants. Helena, for example, it feels like California prices.
With that money you can buy a penthouse in any big metropolis here in Brasil. Or a house just as big in a luxury condo for 7/10 of that
That's very expensive for Vietnam or relative to what you get in terms of infrastructure/law. They either got a bad deal or the market right there is crazier than the US.
The market is crazy in Ho Chi Minh City. Considering average wages are $5-10K per year, housing is outrageous there.
> "housing is outrageous there"
As is household debt.
As is household debt.
One piece of information the article doesn't acknowledge is that property rights in Vietnam aren't the same as they are in the US. So if a foreigner "buys" an apartment in Vietnam, they can only have it for up to 50 years. In other words, it's an asset that is steadily decreasing in value, and not one that the "owner" can necessarily hand down to the next generation at a higher or the same value unless changes are made to those laws.
Well, you might be shocked to hear this is true of London as well. Very few areas have land you can buy without a land lease, called freeholds.
Large landowner (ex aristocrat) or government, what difference does it make? The land is forever not yours.
Large landowner (ex aristocrat) or government, what difference does it make? The land is forever not yours.
Can they sell it at the end of those 50 years and buy something else? If so, I can't see why purchasing one would necessarily be steadily decreasing in value, except for the requirement of a rushed sale if you waited until the very last minute to sell.
Because you wouldn't get your money back at the end of that 50 years. If you sold it after 35 years, you would essentially be selling a 15 year contract to own the apartment, which would likely be factored into the resale price.
With that said, 50 year property rights are likely a stepping stone to something "better" since no one has hit that point yet, so the laws could change before then. However a lot of other things could change before then that might work against you (e.g.increase in corruption, attitudes towards foreigners could sour, property rights policies could revert back to less rights, etc).
Right.
Vietnam still is a communist country in that respect.
The government still owns all the land and is legally leasing it to its citizens and foreigners. In reality, now that Vietnam is increasingly open to the world economy the government has to treat property rights better or else it'll scare foreign investment away.
The lack of private property rights and the Vietnam's Communist Party stranglehold on the economy with their state owned enterprises is a huge drag on productivity and innovation.
Fortunately, it seems like things are improving.
Vietnam still is a communist country in that respect.
The government still owns all the land and is legally leasing it to its citizens and foreigners. In reality, now that Vietnam is increasingly open to the world economy the government has to treat property rights better or else it'll scare foreign investment away.
The lack of private property rights and the Vietnam's Communist Party stranglehold on the economy with their state owned enterprises is a huge drag on productivity and innovation.
Fortunately, it seems like things are improving.
Nothing to do with communism. Capitalist Thailand has thirty year limits on property ownership with the exemption of condo buildings that are majority owned by Thai citizens.
Hell even Singapore limits property ownership of foreigners.
Hell even Singapore limits property ownership of foreigners.
I hate using the terms capitalist and communist since they are both pretty loaded, but I think in the case of Vietnam and China it does have something to do with their recent Communist or Socialist histories. Property rights are usually seen as the bedrock of a capitalist society for better or worse. Vietnam and China's land is technically still owned "by the people" (aka government) and since both countries have opened they have gradually loosened those rights. Singapore is often seen as an anomaly to people who see things on the capitalist/communist spectrum, but you're right they have rights similar to those seen in China and Vietnam and often cited as a model for those countries to provide more property rights without allowing for a 'Western' model.
Is New Zealand a communist country? They banned foreign ownership recently.
Are you sure that’s how it works? I thought the distinction was ownership versus lease.
You lease it for 50 years, but in the end you can sell the actual property to a citizen or sell it to a non-citizen who will get a 50 year lease.
You lease it for 50 years, but in the end you can sell the actual property to a citizen or sell it to a non-citizen who will get a 50 year lease.
There isn't much clarification around what will happen since it hasn't happened yet: http://vietnamembassy-usa.org/basic-page/land-regulations
The same is true for China and its 99 year apartment leases. Everyone is assuming the government will roll over the leases for minimal fees, or eventually repulsed the leases with a proper property tax, but nothing is guaranteed yet.
Huh. In Canada you can’t buy land on First Nation reserves. They do 99 year leases, but you buy and sell the home the same way as if you were buying the land as well, since the expectation is that the lease would be renewable for the foreseeable future.
if the apartment is bought with his Vietnamese wife then it could be a freehold
It takes a lot of cheek to kill, what, 2 million people? participating in a pointless war, and then retire there.
Americans, AIR?
Americans, AIR?
Yea, I felt the same way, but I realized a couple things after living here for 4 years... Vietnam is now a very young country... in the same way that kids born in the late 1990/2000's don't remember the Gulf War, kids in Vietnam have no association with the war. They don't care about it at all.
The kids also do not trust their govt. or the education they get in school. They now have access to the Internet and can learn things on their own.
For the older generations, the other part is that America has, in a way, redeemed itself. First was the attempt at the end of the war to rescue millions of people. We've also brought great wealth to the country and for better or worse, taught them capitalism (Clinton in the 90's). People may be dirt poor, but nobody in Vietnam goes hungry anymore.
So yea... it just isn't how is looked upon anymore.
The kids also do not trust their govt. or the education they get in school. They now have access to the Internet and can learn things on their own.
For the older generations, the other part is that America has, in a way, redeemed itself. First was the attempt at the end of the war to rescue millions of people. We've also brought great wealth to the country and for better or worse, taught them capitalism (Clinton in the 90's). People may be dirt poor, but nobody in Vietnam goes hungry anymore.
So yea... it just isn't how is looked upon anymore.
* Americans with Vietnamese spouses are retiring to Vietnam
Turns out the Vietnam war was a savvy retirement plan setup: clear out some space, return to the US to bask in the most generous ROI in history for 30+ years, return to that patch of land that’s conveniently clear now.
At least the conquistadors had to live there in the interim years.
At least the conquistadors had to live there in the interim years.
More like a savvy deep state drug trafficking plan. But yes, bombing the crap out of other countries does make it easier to walk in and take what you want. And you get to sell more bombs, which is also great for the economy.
literally that land is not cleared well, many land mines are still in the ground, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-vietnam-war-is-...
Among other toxins.
Yeah dousing carcinogenic defoliants all over your future retirement property is pretty piss-poor planning.
I can practically hear the journalist giggling in my head as he writes some of these quotes down.
Is there a clever acronym for best low cost countries for Americans' retirement? I think MVP = Mexico Vietnam Panama might work, but are there others?
Can you not further overload an abbreviation that already has multiple meanings? It's anything but clever.
What do you need an acronym for?
> Historically, the Philippines, Thailand and Malaysia were more common destinations for American retirees. But a higher cost of living, especially in coastal areas like California and New York, has pushed many farther afield.
Why would a higher cost of living within the US push expats out of Malaysia into Vietnam?
Why would a higher cost of living within the US push expats out of Malaysia into Vietnam?
Increased demand for properties outside of the US as more people decide to retire abroad.
I would guess they save less so have to retire to cheaper places.
Everything you want.
Something many people (especially Americans) forget to consider when selecting a place to retire is the almost guaranteed need for lots and lots of high quality medical care wherever you end up. I suspect many people here on HN will retire with large enough retirement savings (and other assets) to settle down like kings in many places in the world. But the distribution of high quality care for ahem people of advancing ages, is very uneven and most of the places with better care have very high costs of living (e.g. Northern Europe) or very high costs of medical care (everywhere U.S.).
There's also a desire to try to make daily costs of living stretch more and many retired people will find themselves retiring to rural environments. However, those places may also be very far away from the kind of emergency medical care that's likely to be needed.
The intersection of decent cost of living, close to medical facilities, high quality medical establishment, and affordable medical care leaves not too many places in the world.
At the moment, my wife and I are considering retiring to South Korea (not Seoul) or Japan (not Tokyo) since those seem to be places with that rare intersection. I'm sure some places in Western Europe may also qualify.
There's also a desire to try to make daily costs of living stretch more and many retired people will find themselves retiring to rural environments. However, those places may also be very far away from the kind of emergency medical care that's likely to be needed.
The intersection of decent cost of living, close to medical facilities, high quality medical establishment, and affordable medical care leaves not too many places in the world.
At the moment, my wife and I are considering retiring to South Korea (not Seoul) or Japan (not Tokyo) since those seem to be places with that rare intersection. I'm sure some places in Western Europe may also qualify.
I am from Turkey but living in US for 10 years now, and plan to retire in a low-cost area within the US, despite the fact that Turkey would have been much cheaper - but states is home now.
I don't think what you say is remotely true, though. Sure if you plan to live in high-cost areas in Europe, healthcare would be expensive, but taking Turkey as an example, the healthcare is very reasonably priced even in top private institutions, compared to what they would be in the US.
I do not have first hand experience for critical surgeries, but i have a recent experiences and learned what the price would be in Turkey.
Labor: US: $40K, Turkey: ~$2K. Dental implant: US: $6K, Turkey: $660
They are both pre-insurance, though.
The same should follow for critical surgeries like healthcare, cancer, etc.
I don't think what you say is remotely true, though. Sure if you plan to live in high-cost areas in Europe, healthcare would be expensive, but taking Turkey as an example, the healthcare is very reasonably priced even in top private institutions, compared to what they would be in the US.
I do not have first hand experience for critical surgeries, but i have a recent experiences and learned what the price would be in Turkey.
Labor: US: $40K, Turkey: ~$2K. Dental implant: US: $6K, Turkey: $660
They are both pre-insurance, though.
The same should follow for critical surgeries like healthcare, cancer, etc.
> I don't think what you say is remotely true
I think you exactly confirmed what I said.
I think you exactly confirmed what I said.
Health care in Vietnam is not not too bad, at least for the price. Surely you can't expect state of the art cancer treatments here but everything else is pretty affordable. My father just had an operation to fix his retinal detachment, everything costed less than 800 USD, and only 200 USD after insurance. Another guy I know had an operation for appendicitis, and he only needed to pay 200 USD for it. And both of them used special services, it would be even cheaper if they use normal ones.
If anyone want to move to Vietnam, pick Saigon/Danang/Hue/Nhatrang and stay away from the north until they fix their air pollution problem. It's pretty bad up there. (source: I'm a Hanoian)
If anyone want to move to Vietnam, pick Saigon/Danang/Hue/Nhatrang and stay away from the north until they fix their air pollution problem. It's pretty bad up there. (source: I'm a Hanoian)
> Health care in Vietnam is not too bad, at least for the price.
Let us see...
My partner got what looked liked food poisoning when we arrived to Hue. Local hospital refused to take us, sent to a special hospital "for foreigners". She was put on a bed and kept waiting in pain for hours. The doctor didn't bother to do anything for her for hours, despite not too many other patients. We felt hungry, yet they refused to let us go. After several hours waiting and feeling more stomach pain from hunger, I said, we absolutely have to go and eat something. Yet the doctor told us to keep waiting, refusing to let us go. I started looking around for food and found a cafeteria on premises that was luckily still open (it was already late). After a verbal fight with the doctor, he finally allowed us to go to eat in that cafeteria. It was already late and dark and I had told the doctor, we would be leaving now unless he does something. After more verbal fights and repeated insistence, the doctor wrote a quick prescription without even checking and sent us to pay about USD 100! However, by the time he gave it to us, the hospital pharmacy was already closed. And no other pharmacy on the street would have that medicine. So we came back around midnight, with no medicine, wasted many hours, spent USD 100 on nothing.
Would I call it "not too bad"? Well, if it was any more serious, we would have to fear for our lives is all I can say.
Let us see...
My partner got what looked liked food poisoning when we arrived to Hue. Local hospital refused to take us, sent to a special hospital "for foreigners". She was put on a bed and kept waiting in pain for hours. The doctor didn't bother to do anything for her for hours, despite not too many other patients. We felt hungry, yet they refused to let us go. After several hours waiting and feeling more stomach pain from hunger, I said, we absolutely have to go and eat something. Yet the doctor told us to keep waiting, refusing to let us go. I started looking around for food and found a cafeteria on premises that was luckily still open (it was already late). After a verbal fight with the doctor, he finally allowed us to go to eat in that cafeteria. It was already late and dark and I had told the doctor, we would be leaving now unless he does something. After more verbal fights and repeated insistence, the doctor wrote a quick prescription without even checking and sent us to pay about USD 100! However, by the time he gave it to us, the hospital pharmacy was already closed. And no other pharmacy on the street would have that medicine. So we came back around midnight, with no medicine, wasted many hours, spent USD 100 on nothing.
Would I call it "not too bad"? Well, if it was any more serious, we would have to fear for our lives is all I can say.
Poor your friend with such awful experience.
I'm a native VNmese in HCMCity. My wife is a doctor, we also have lots of friends/relatives working as doctors, pharmacists,... so I hope my sharing is not quite irrelevant.
In VN, you can get medical service with the same quality as US, if you know the right place to go. Sometimes you can find doctors with excellent proficiency, since VN is a good evironment for doctors to practice their skill and knowledge (rare cases, severe cases due to bad sanitary & healthcare mindset).
But again, the biggest challenge is that "right place". Not all great doctors work in the biggest hospitals, and not all well-known doctors are great.
I'm a native VNmese in HCMCity. My wife is a doctor, we also have lots of friends/relatives working as doctors, pharmacists,... so I hope my sharing is not quite irrelevant.
In VN, you can get medical service with the same quality as US, if you know the right place to go. Sometimes you can find doctors with excellent proficiency, since VN is a good evironment for doctors to practice their skill and knowledge (rare cases, severe cases due to bad sanitary & healthcare mindset).
But again, the biggest challenge is that "right place". Not all great doctors work in the biggest hospitals, and not all well-known doctors are great.
I'm sorry to hear that. It seems that we are still not used to deal with foreigners yet, especially outside HN/SG.
> Local hospital refused to take us, sent to a special hospital "for foreigners".
This was the red light, Hue central hospital is actually very good (I have been there myself). It would be better if you had a local to guide you, maybe I should develop a website to help expats in Vietnam... Still what was the name of that hospital 'for foreigner' you mentioned?
> Local hospital refused to take us, sent to a special hospital "for foreigners".
This was the red light, Hue central hospital is actually very good (I have been there myself). It would be better if you had a local to guide you, maybe I should develop a website to help expats in Vietnam... Still what was the name of that hospital 'for foreigner' you mentioned?
But then you don't get to live in Hanoi ;)
Do you know about the quality of VinMec? For VinSchool I've heard from friends who attended that they have incredible teachers and from advertisements that they have professors from ivies helping them out, so I was wondering if VinMec is also top tier. They claim to have equipment "equivalent to leading hospitals in the US, UK, Germany, Japan and Singapore" so I wonder if they also have the skills to use it effectively.
Do you know about the quality of VinMec? For VinSchool I've heard from friends who attended that they have incredible teachers and from advertisements that they have professors from ivies helping them out, so I was wondering if VinMec is also top tier. They claim to have equipment "equivalent to leading hospitals in the US, UK, Germany, Japan and Singapore" so I wonder if they also have the skills to use it effectively.
Vinmec has been poaching doctors from public hospitals with their much higher pay. But they still can't get the very best ones for some reasons (I heard those doctors like to help people and not work for money). So VinMec has good service, but don't expect the best doctors over there.
Based on my medical care in the USA I can assure you Asian doctors are,at the very least, at the same level as US doctors. It sounds like an insult to my ears.
I can tell you from experience that an average doctor in a backwater county of Arkansas is better than an average doctor in the capital city of Laos.
I can also tell from my own experience that an average doctor in Thailand's backwater is better than in the capital of Ireland.
Surely there are some differences between Myanmar and Tokyo right? There’s a lot of countries in Asia.
Ironically some of the SEA countries probably have better medical services than Tokyo.
You guys are criticizing me for calling Asia a monolith but I can assure you the difference between Tokyo and Myanmar is smaller than NYU and the Midwest
You guys are criticizing me for calling Asia a monolith but I can assure you the difference between Tokyo and Myanmar is smaller than NYU and the Midwest
Some of the best medical centers in the country are in the Midwest...
Very true. But for every Cleveland Clinic there are a hundred other midwestern cities that lack a similar tier institution, but you might have three similar institutions to CC in NYC or on the west coast to choose from. Having to drive over an hour to see your specialist while you are senile is not ideal, but is a reality for a lot of people in the midwest by virtue of the sprawl and low density of services.
Have you commuted or driven around NYC or LA? Unless you live in the same neighborhood, your commute to the hospital is already going to be 30-60 minutes. Not to mention that of the top hundred hospitals in the country, only a handful are in NYC or LA.
One could make an argument that living in rural areas is worse than urban ones when it comes to access to top medical care, but that has nothing to do with the NYC/LA vs. the rest of the country.
One could make an argument that living in rural areas is worse than urban ones when it comes to access to top medical care, but that has nothing to do with the NYC/LA vs. the rest of the country.
Midwest like the Mayo Clinic?
Will you be living next to Mayo Clinic when you have your heart attack, or something closer to the median hospital in the region?
Like the Cleveland Clinic, Northwesten Medical, or University of Michigan?
There’s some confused thinking in this thread I think.
There’s some confused thinking in this thread I think.
Of course there are institutions in the midwest. Some of the best universities are in the midwest. But practically if you lived in, say Lodi, it would take you over an hour to drive to the cleveland clinic main campus to see a specialist. That might be fine while you are 35 but untenable when you are 85.
The services are there but the density is low and the sprawl is wide in the midwest, and your only option is the car or to be entirely dependent on a relative to shuttle you to your appointments as public transit is anemic to non existent outside of chicago.
The services are there but the density is low and the sprawl is wide in the midwest, and your only option is the car or to be entirely dependent on a relative to shuttle you to your appointments as public transit is anemic to non existent outside of chicago.
The 4 hospitals you've named will serve tens of millions of people?
How about the ambulances in Detroit which take 45 mins, or the south Chicago hospitals who refuse to treat gunshot wounds?
How about the ambulances in Detroit which take 45 mins, or the south Chicago hospitals who refuse to treat gunshot wounds?
You are correct indeed. That's why some countries in SEA are major medical tourism destinations for many people from western countries.
Based on where my wife and I are thinking of retiring (Korea, Japan), I believe I said that they were within the intersection of high quality and reasonable cost. You've understood what I've said in exactly the opposite way.
The doctors might be at the same level, but do they have the same access to resources?
The resources can be better. I can't find it right now (and don't have the time to look for it), but there's some interesting studies that show at least in South Korea, there's something like 3-4x the number of medical imaging devices per capita than in the U.S.
Costs are fractions of U.S. costs. For an extraordinary number of medical situations, one could fly to Korea, get treated, stay in hotels or nice recovery centers (medical hotels), and fly back and still spend less money than in the U.S. with very competitive medical outcomes.
Costs are fractions of U.S. costs. For an extraordinary number of medical situations, one could fly to Korea, get treated, stay in hotels or nice recovery centers (medical hotels), and fly back and still spend less money than in the U.S. with very competitive medical outcomes.
Asia is a big place. Which area(s) are you referring to?
Strange he didn't see the irony of "insult" when referring to Asia as a monolith
Many people forget that Saudi Arabia (fifth biggest by land) is in Asia too.
I think you guys are missing the joke. The users experience is with the U.S. health system. Because the stereotype and the parent comments have the implication that doctors from Asia are seen as inferior; the joke being that the U.S. sets a fucking low standard for quality of care.
> Because the stereotype and the parent comments have the implication that doctors from Asia are seen as inferior;
That's not at all what I said and is exactly the opposite.
That's not at all what I said and is exactly the opposite.
Yeah because I'm explaining someone else's joke to you. Like it or not some of the comments here are perpetuating that stereotype. It's also a disservice and naive for one to claim that the there isn't that stereotype.
This is indeed exactly what I was trying to say, thank you :)))
Can you expand?
Uh why do you think retirees choosing a place to retire are “forgetting to consider” healthcare costs? If anything that is the #1 thing most people think about.
Many retirees don't consider it deeply at all and end up in places far removed from good long-term health care.
Source?
Anecdotally, an aging motel owner in small Sierra town, trying to sell, told me he and his wife needed a place with "straight roads to the doctors".
Real estate agent who told me retirees were coming down out of west-side Santa Cruz cabins as "the medical problems start."
Real estate agent who told me retirees were coming down out of west-side Santa Cruz cabins as "the medical problems start."
>I'm sure some places in Western Europe may also qualify.
There are places in Spain that are essentially senile British colonies.
There are places in Spain that are essentially senile British colonies.
[deleted]
I've spent significant time in HCMC (about 6 months over four years). It is vibrant, friendly, booming, tech heavy, and goddamn cheap. I didn't need medical care, and didn't have to cook because food is amazing and cheap. I computed about 1/10th to 1/12th the cost of my life in Northern Cali. I hope when I'm older it is still cheap and not environmentally wiped out. (I'm also biased because twice I met a woman who I thought was waaaay out of my league and we ended up dating.)
Seems like the reporter not so shyly pointed out that an incentive for these men to retire to SE Asia is not just the healthcare but the women?
because men liking women is shameful?
It’s not but the old white man/submissive younger Asian woman dynamic is one of those uncomfortable stereotypes that ring true
I'm not sure it's limited to Asian women.
I believe those old white dudes who can afford it are just trying to avoid dating the stereotypical modern western girls.
Here in Germany, rich guys go for a Czech, Turkish or Italian wife if they hope to have plenty of kids. And it's no secret that British guys will travel all over Europe to try their luck at dating, because apparently most aren't too happy with the supply at home.
I believe those old white dudes who can afford it are just trying to avoid dating the stereotypical modern western girls.
Here in Germany, rich guys go for a Czech, Turkish or Italian wife if they hope to have plenty of kids. And it's no secret that British guys will travel all over Europe to try their luck at dating, because apparently most aren't too happy with the supply at home.
The dynamic is that these old white men aren’t actually that rich by Western standards but are by SE Asian ones, so they don’t have the status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman but do in SEA.
If they were actually rich they wouldn’t need to retire overseas to stretch out their retirement.
If they were actually rich they wouldn’t need to retire overseas to stretch out their retirement.
Personality arguments aside: if we assume that “buying” an asian wife is an uncomfortable stereotype, doesn’t “status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman” fall into the same category? What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
>What’s the difference (except life cost multiplier/divisor) that makes one uncomfortable and the other comfortable?
Both are uncomfortable stereotypes, but we find the latter more acceptable because Western masculine ideals traditionally interpret the male in that situation as expressing his virility and alpha-dog status (while denigrating the woman as a gold-digger and whore.) Although many people are creeped out by the age differential if it's wide enough, it's expected both that older, powerful men will attract younger women, and that younger women will be attracted to the money and power. It's a sentiment expressed and reinforced throughout Western media and culture.
Meanwhile the Asian version of the stereotype has connotations of the failure of masculinity on the part of the male, as only a step above hiring a prostitute, as well as implications of pedophilia and sex-trafficking.
Both are uncomfortable stereotypes, but we find the latter more acceptable because Western masculine ideals traditionally interpret the male in that situation as expressing his virility and alpha-dog status (while denigrating the woman as a gold-digger and whore.) Although many people are creeped out by the age differential if it's wide enough, it's expected both that older, powerful men will attract younger women, and that younger women will be attracted to the money and power. It's a sentiment expressed and reinforced throughout Western media and culture.
Meanwhile the Asian version of the stereotype has connotations of the failure of masculinity on the part of the male, as only a step above hiring a prostitute, as well as implications of pedophilia and sex-trafficking.
This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective. If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver), and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom. It is strange that traditions link those two, as a person may be just not interested genuinely in spending effort to accumulate so much bigger than usual money to simply get a normal healthy date and life. Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
Basically, it is a failure of a man to find a decent woman, but it is still unclear who is a failure in general.
Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver), and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom. It is strange that traditions link those two, as a person may be just not interested genuinely in spending effort to accumulate so much bigger than usual money to simply get a normal healthy date and life. Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
Basically, it is a failure of a man to find a decent woman, but it is still unclear who is a failure in general.
>This implies (well, directly states) that these asian women are only a step above prostitutes, while in fact either both are, or none of them, depending on the perspective.
I meant to state that the perception is that about Asian women not that I consider it the reality.
> If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
A man is often seen as having earned a Western trophy girlfriend, but as having likely bought the Asian counterpart. Why this is, and why the former is more accepted, is probably rooted in negative stereotypes about Asian women formed during America's wars in Asia (specifically Korea and Vietnam) and about the perceived "submissive" nature of Asian women in general.
>Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver),
It doesn't have to be, but historically, it has been. Trump bragged about being able to "grab'em by the pussy" and it endeared him to (some of) the public, as did Clinton's escapades, as did JFK's. It's been the case since kings had harems.
>and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom.
Yes, people often say ostentatious displays of wealth are a way to compensate for a man's shortcomings.
>Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
There's masculinity, and there's "masculinity" as expressed by commercial culture (call it corporate masculinity.) The latter is telling men that they need wealth and status items (in other words, to participate in conspicuous consumerism) for a woman to find them attractive.
I meant to state that the perception is that about Asian women not that I consider it the reality.
> If the male cannot find a match, it is a failure by definition, but I do not see how this fails his masculinity.
A man is often seen as having earned a Western trophy girlfriend, but as having likely bought the Asian counterpart. Why this is, and why the former is more accepted, is probably rooted in negative stereotypes about Asian women formed during America's wars in Asia (specifically Korea and Vietnam) and about the perceived "submissive" nature of Asian women in general.
>Masculinity doesn’t have to be linked with local wealth (pressing/buying someone with money, connections and law doesn’t make one alpha-dog nor a unique problem solver),
It doesn't have to be, but historically, it has been. Trump bragged about being able to "grab'em by the pussy" and it endeared him to (some of) the public, as did Clinton's escapades, as did JFK's. It's been the case since kings had harems.
>and I would add wealth actually tends to hide smaller balls, if you excuse a non-native speaker for this idiom.
Yes, people often say ostentatious displays of wealth are a way to compensate for a man's shortcomings.
>Masculinity is a thing that allows you to skip these steps altogether, unless women are heavily reprogrammed on money instead and everyone is okay with that.
There's masculinity, and there's "masculinity" as expressed by commercial culture (call it corporate masculinity.) The latter is telling men that they need wealth and status items (in other words, to participate in conspicuous consumerism) for a woman to find them attractive.
scythe(1)
What I meant is that even old white men who are actually rich by western standards tend to choose young attractive non-western woman.
>>>so they don’t have the status or wealth to attract a young attractive western woman but do in SEA
Or they are totally put off by the personalities of young attractive western women and consider foreign women an objective quality-of-life upgrade.
Or they are totally put off by the personalities of young attractive western women and consider foreign women an objective quality-of-life upgrade.
analyst74(1)
In Vietnam, the women are not submissive at all and I have a bit of a theory on it after living and dating here for 4 years.
All the men were killed in the war. The women ran the houses and the businesses. Now, 2-3 generations later, kids have grown up watching mom and sister be the strong ones.
Trust me, the last thing you want to do is piss off a Vietnamese woman.
All the men were killed in the war. The women ran the houses and the businesses. Now, 2-3 generations later, kids have grown up watching mom and sister be the strong ones.
Trust me, the last thing you want to do is piss off a Vietnamese woman.
Except for the submissive part.
Go ahead marry into an Asian family I double dog dare you.
Go ahead marry into an Asian family I double dog dare you.
So true. I grew up in SE Asia and although women there are not as independent as the ones in the west, they can be pretty passive aggressive/manipulative/controlling in the household. One may not notice it right away, but once you're married or have been with them for a while, you'll start noticing that.
That's why there's the saying in my country that roughly translates to something like "Woman is key of the household (because she keeps all the money)". One of the traditional duties (there are five of them) of a wife is to control and distribute money in the way that is fair (among family, her parents and in-laws).
That's why there's the saying in my country that roughly translates to something like "Woman is key of the household (because she keeps all the money)". One of the traditional duties (there are five of them) of a wife is to control and distribute money in the way that is fair (among family, her parents and in-laws).
Work friend married a Thai American lady. First few years were fine. Then they had a baby girl and his mother in law and aunt's thumb came down hard.
That guy must have been incredibly lucky with the timing.
When I researched housing prices in the nice areas of Saigon in 2018, 50 square meter 1 bedroom apartments were sold at $300,000+. And "sold" here means you rent it perpetually from the development company to circumvent that 50-year land ownership limit. But that can put you at risk in case said company folds.
Oh and I've also heard a lot of stories about Vietnamese women becoming rather disenchanted of hip cool American backpackers, the latter of which presumably read articles like this and decided to try their luck. The backpacker area of Saigon is considered more like a slum that you try to avoid at night.
One other thing that the article dangerously omits is the fact that food hygiene and/or safety testing is still pretty much non-existent even in the richest parts of Vietnam. If you're old, a bad food poisoning could well kill you. And in Vietnam, you'll probably have one per year. That said, food is super tasty and impossibly cheap.
When I researched housing prices in the nice areas of Saigon in 2018, 50 square meter 1 bedroom apartments were sold at $300,000+. And "sold" here means you rent it perpetually from the development company to circumvent that 50-year land ownership limit. But that can put you at risk in case said company folds.
Oh and I've also heard a lot of stories about Vietnamese women becoming rather disenchanted of hip cool American backpackers, the latter of which presumably read articles like this and decided to try their luck. The backpacker area of Saigon is considered more like a slum that you try to avoid at night.
One other thing that the article dangerously omits is the fact that food hygiene and/or safety testing is still pretty much non-existent even in the richest parts of Vietnam. If you're old, a bad food poisoning could well kill you. And in Vietnam, you'll probably have one per year. That said, food is super tasty and impossibly cheap.
>>>Oh and I've also heard a lot of stories about Vietnamese women becoming rather disenchanted of hip cool American backpackers, the latter of which presumably read articles like this and decided to try their luck. The backpacker area of Saigon is considered more like a slum that you try to avoid at night.
Hanoi's French Quarter is the same way, and I'm glad the local women are hip to the game. They'll ask you "where are you staying?" If you are anywhere near Hoan Kiem Lake they will assume you are a broke backpacker and ghost you. When I was staying at a serviced apartment at West Lake (a more upscale neighborhood where foreign white-collar expats live) Tinder matches switched to "OK I come to your place tonight."
>>>One other thing that the article dangerously omits is the fact that food hygiene and/or safety testing is still pretty much non-existent even in the richest parts of Vietnam.
I've also spent about 6 months in Vietnam, cumulatively over 6 six trips. I've gotten brutally sick on 5 of those 6 visits. The lack of sanitation is the #1 reason I don't think I could EVER live there, no matter how much money I had. You can't escape the E.Coli in every ice cube and tap water supply, the open-sewer streets, and the choking air pollution.
Hanoi's French Quarter is the same way, and I'm glad the local women are hip to the game. They'll ask you "where are you staying?" If you are anywhere near Hoan Kiem Lake they will assume you are a broke backpacker and ghost you. When I was staying at a serviced apartment at West Lake (a more upscale neighborhood where foreign white-collar expats live) Tinder matches switched to "OK I come to your place tonight."
>>>One other thing that the article dangerously omits is the fact that food hygiene and/or safety testing is still pretty much non-existent even in the richest parts of Vietnam.
I've also spent about 6 months in Vietnam, cumulatively over 6 six trips. I've gotten brutally sick on 5 of those 6 visits. The lack of sanitation is the #1 reason I don't think I could EVER live there, no matter how much money I had. You can't escape the E.Coli in every ice cube and tap water supply, the open-sewer streets, and the choking air pollution.
I live part time in Tây Hồ (fly back to the States for each semester of school) and I just want to say that I've never gotten sick from the food. I'll eat street food on plastic chairs, restaurants with and without AC, and places that would be expensive even for foreigners. Of course I'll also eat what cô cooks sometimes and it's delicious. I'm not denying that you've gotten sick, but I'm just saying that it's different for everybody.
Ice cubes come from vendors and I'd be surprised if they're contaminated (that's like the entire point of buying ice instead of making it from the water supply).
The air pollution is something that is being worked on, but honestly it's not really noticable (I buy a new n95 mask every other day, problem solved).
Regarding open sewer streets, I mean, some gaps between the sidewalk and the roads are dirty but what place has sewage just flowing by? Seriously name the street and I'll visit it today.
Also have you considered staying outside the foreigner bubble? (I bet you're probably in Quảng An). Go see the real Hanoi, outside of menus that are in English and don't even have Vietnamese on them.
Ice cubes come from vendors and I'd be surprised if they're contaminated (that's like the entire point of buying ice instead of making it from the water supply).
The air pollution is something that is being worked on, but honestly it's not really noticable (I buy a new n95 mask every other day, problem solved).
Regarding open sewer streets, I mean, some gaps between the sidewalk and the roads are dirty but what place has sewage just flowing by? Seriously name the street and I'll visit it today.
Also have you considered staying outside the foreigner bubble? (I bet you're probably in Quảng An). Go see the real Hanoi, outside of menus that are in English and don't even have Vietnamese on them.
>>>The air pollution is something that is being worked on, but honestly it's not really noticable
You consider this "not really noticeable"? [1]
>>>but what place has sewage just flowing by? Seriously name the street and I'll visit it today
Bach Mai, the commercial street east of Bach Khoa (Hanoi University of Science and Technology). Have you not noticed the filth that gets dumped in the streets from all those little restaurants?
>>>Also have you considered staying outside the foreigner bubble? (I bet you're probably in Quảng An). Go see the real Hanoi, outside of menus that are in English and don't even have Vietnamese on them.
What "foreigner bubble"? I've only known 4 foreigners in Hanoi: 2 European women from Tinder, and 2 other black guys who were exchange students at HUST. Everyone else I know in Hanoi is Vietnamese, and mostly Hanoi natives. Over those six trips I only spent 2 weeks at the serviced apartment in Quang An (I ate the excellent room service there almost exclusively and that was the one trip I didn't get sick). Most of the time I've been in Hang Bai or Bach Khoa because most of my engineers lived there, or out west at Cau Giay where my client's office was located.
I had a local date take me to eat snails and bird eggs (similar to balut in the Philippines, but much smaller). Another date took me to her favorite restaurant for Ga Tan, some sort of blackened bird soup. I went on a weekend camping trip to Ham Lon (Pig Jaw Lake/Mountain) with about a dozen Vietnamese, as the only foreigner. We barbecued meat that had been waterlogged the whole day because the styrofoam "icebox" failed early in the trip. I still ate it. When we returned to Hanoi we had some sort of big duck stew together.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UnmvQTBj7cYNMHrq7
"Foreigner bubble"....scoffs
[1]https://vietnaminsider.vn/why-hanoi-and-hcm-city-ranked-amon...
You consider this "not really noticeable"? [1]
>>>but what place has sewage just flowing by? Seriously name the street and I'll visit it today
Bach Mai, the commercial street east of Bach Khoa (Hanoi University of Science and Technology). Have you not noticed the filth that gets dumped in the streets from all those little restaurants?
>>>Also have you considered staying outside the foreigner bubble? (I bet you're probably in Quảng An). Go see the real Hanoi, outside of menus that are in English and don't even have Vietnamese on them.
What "foreigner bubble"? I've only known 4 foreigners in Hanoi: 2 European women from Tinder, and 2 other black guys who were exchange students at HUST. Everyone else I know in Hanoi is Vietnamese, and mostly Hanoi natives. Over those six trips I only spent 2 weeks at the serviced apartment in Quang An (I ate the excellent room service there almost exclusively and that was the one trip I didn't get sick). Most of the time I've been in Hang Bai or Bach Khoa because most of my engineers lived there, or out west at Cau Giay where my client's office was located.
I had a local date take me to eat snails and bird eggs (similar to balut in the Philippines, but much smaller). Another date took me to her favorite restaurant for Ga Tan, some sort of blackened bird soup. I went on a weekend camping trip to Ham Lon (Pig Jaw Lake/Mountain) with about a dozen Vietnamese, as the only foreigner. We barbecued meat that had been waterlogged the whole day because the styrofoam "icebox" failed early in the trip. I still ate it. When we returned to Hanoi we had some sort of big duck stew together.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UnmvQTBj7cYNMHrq7
"Foreigner bubble"....scoffs
[1]https://vietnaminsider.vn/why-hanoi-and-hcm-city-ranked-amon...
Any where the To Lich flow. Quan hoa is one example
Wait that canal is sewage? I drive on that road everyday, never noticed it was anything other than a cute waterway.
Long ago it was a river, the French made it that way in the early 20th century.
>>>>>>One other thing that the article dangerously omits is the fact that food hygiene and/or safety testing is still pretty much non-existent even in the richest parts of Vietnam.
>>>I've also spent about 6 months in Vietnam, cumulatively over 6 six trips. I've gotten brutally sick on 5 of those 6 visits. The lack of sanitation is the #1 reason I don't think I could EVER live there, no matter how much money I had. You can't escape the E.Coli in every ice cube and tap water supply, the open-sewer streets, and the choking air pollution.
You will get used to it, eventually. Would be faster if you have a local to tell you what's safe and what isn't. I rarely get food poisoning, not even during that time I had to eat shit, literally (google 'thắng cố', 'nậm pịa' if you are curious). Surely half of Vietnamese street food won't meet western hygiene standards, but then your digestive system will adapt to it.
>>>I've also spent about 6 months in Vietnam, cumulatively over 6 six trips. I've gotten brutally sick on 5 of those 6 visits. The lack of sanitation is the #1 reason I don't think I could EVER live there, no matter how much money I had. You can't escape the E.Coli in every ice cube and tap water supply, the open-sewer streets, and the choking air pollution.
You will get used to it, eventually. Would be faster if you have a local to tell you what's safe and what isn't. I rarely get food poisoning, not even during that time I had to eat shit, literally (google 'thắng cố', 'nậm pịa' if you are curious). Surely half of Vietnamese street food won't meet western hygiene standards, but then your digestive system will adapt to it.
I don't think so.
"Food poisoning killed 22 people and hospitalized 3,147 others in Vietnam during the first 11 months of this year, official government data shows."
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/food-poisoning-deaths-doub...
That's the government data where they count only registered Vietnamese residents.
"Food poisoning killed 22 people and hospitalized 3,147 others in Vietnam during the first 11 months of this year, official government data shows."
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/food-poisoning-deaths-doub...
That's the government data where they count only registered Vietnamese residents.
>>>Would be faster if you have a local to tell you what's safe and what isn't.
The locals taking me to their favorite holes-in-the-wall to eat was what usually made me sick. When I pressed them to go to more upscale restaurants with the caveat that I was paying, I think that helped.
The one weekend I spent in HCMC I didn't get sick, but I spent the whole time dining at some really upscale places with a chubby foodie (I swiped right on her for exactly that reason..."She looks like she eats well").
The locals taking me to their favorite holes-in-the-wall to eat was what usually made me sick. When I pressed them to go to more upscale restaurants with the caveat that I was paying, I think that helped.
The one weekend I spent in HCMC I didn't get sick, but I spent the whole time dining at some really upscale places with a chubby foodie (I swiped right on her for exactly that reason..."She looks like she eats well").
I ate everything that I saw in Vietnam. Street food, restaurant food, food down dark allies. For months. Only had ONE single issue. For an hour. That's it.
There may be something more going on here?
There may be something more going on here?
Maybe you have a really strong stomach? I've spent weeks in Thailand, often in pretty rural areas, and never got sick there either. But it's not like I'm the only one having problems with Hanoi's food:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09567...
https://www.who.int/features/2015/food-safety-interview/en/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09567...
https://www.who.int/features/2015/food-safety-interview/en/
Going there for sexual tourism?
Projection, much?
No. I did a 5-week exchange program with the Hanoi University of Science and Technology, which led to me networking with a state-owned defense company to develop products for them. This then led to me hiring some grad students and other engineers to prototype a software-defined radio device for said defense company, but the remote-management of that team eventually failed.
Another trip was to attend a defense-related research conference which was hosted at HUST. I had a pre-existing relationship with the conference as it was started in Thailand and I networked with the founders (Thai military officers, some of which had studied in the US).
No. I did a 5-week exchange program with the Hanoi University of Science and Technology, which led to me networking with a state-owned defense company to develop products for them. This then led to me hiring some grad students and other engineers to prototype a software-defined radio device for said defense company, but the remote-management of that team eventually failed.
Another trip was to attend a defense-related research conference which was hosted at HUST. I had a pre-existing relationship with the conference as it was started in Thailand and I networked with the founders (Thai military officers, some of which had studied in the US).
Is there a big disconnect between buy and rent prices? My brother was living in a nice area for a few hundred dollars per month just a few years ago.
Absolutely. Renting - for example on AirBnB - is quite cheap. I had a nice apartment with balcony for $300 monthly. But the buy prices are hugely inflated at the moment.
Price to rent everywhere has been pretty crazy for the last 6 years. So this isn't a Vietnam specific thing.
The thing specific to Vietnam is that purchase prices are very high, while rental prices are comparatively low. I believe it's due to the vicinity to China with rich investors looking for places to deposit their cash.
I'm sure it's a very nice place, but that sum is nothing to sneeze at. I wonder how much it costs now, and what is monthly expense is.
Good thing is, American government has sensible reciprocal arrangement with many countries that offer national pension system that you don't necessarily have to wait until you hit full retirement age to live abroad and collect social security checks from there.