Biggest Benefit to Being Expat

[404cameljockey]

I guess women cost more because of the plumbing. Tricky beasts!

Besides the plumbing inspection vs PSA, the added cost for wife was the mammogram.

Tricky beasts!

[Homer]

US government contracts still refer to them as TCN's

Wow, in the heartland of PC, I'm really surprised by that!!

Really? The European Commission uses 'Third Country Nationals'. Not that I care in the slightest what isn't PC, I do find the rational (if it can be called that) amusing at times.

[dtaai-maai]

I guess women cost more because of the plumbing. Tricky beasts!

Besides the plumbing inspection vs PSA, the added cost for wife was the mammogram.

Tricky breasts!

Jut corrected your typo, cameljockey.

[404cameljockey]

Besides the plumbing inspection vs PSA, the added cost for wife was the mammogram.

Tricky breasts!

Jut corrected your typo, cameljockey.

[404cameljockey]

Some strange findings here:

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2017/07/ ... 7Bi0g6j.97

[laphanphon]

Am I reading that correctly? Hope not....

The global survey – involving a total of 2,003 online interviews with expats aged 25-59

That's a bit of a joke isn't it ?

Global survey or 2003 people. 195 countries, so just over 10 people per country surveyed.....

OK .... half the countries surveyed .... 20 ish people. Just G20 countries, wow 100 ..

Everyone I know is retired, so survey is meaningless.

And the highlights of the survey, by an Insurance company, pointing out issues and concerns of those not insured........

No disclaimer stating it is (should be) an advertisement.

[handdrummer]

the best book I ever read in high school was: How To Lie With Statistics. it's still available.

[404cameljockey]

Am I reading that correctly? Hope not....

The global survey – involving a total of 2,003 online interviews with expats aged 25-59

That's a bit of a joke isn't it ?

Global survey or 2003 people. 195 countries, so just over 10 people per country surveyed.....

OK .... half the countries surveyed .... 20 ish people. Just G20 countries, wow 100 ..

Everyone I know is retired, so survey is meaningless.

And the highlights of the survey, by an Insurance company, pointing out issues and concerns of those not insured........

No disclaimer stating it is (should be) an advertisement.

So two replies and two sets of mistrusting comments (handdrummer just thinks that no statistics can be trusted, and he has a point to a degree, might be nice to know how the people who completed the survey were selected, and if a larger number of results were collected than actually were used in the report, making selectivity a possibility).

Re the number of people polled per country, the survey methodology in the survey explains generally 100 people per country (seems they picked countries with a significant expat population - for example Burkina Faso does not figure). See pp.14-15. So not just 10 people per country.

I'm not doubting Cigna would not have published it if it didn't suit their purpose, but I don't see any reason to mistrust the statistics without reason. Cigna is not some shady backstreet operation? Also there's no suggestion that they only polled uninsured people.

Anyway, I only left it here for comment, and I got some! Cheers.

And I guess I was off-topic again.... Sorry admins, my mind wanders.

[handdrummer]

I didn't mean to imply that I mistrusted "all" statistics, merely that one can lie with them to make whatever po9nt one wants to make.

[Homer]

I'm not doubting Cigna would not have published it if it didn't suit their purpose, but I don't see any reason to mistrust the statistics without reason.

Two obvious reasons. Respondents were all members of Internations. That's a sample of convenience, not one picked because it's representative. Secondly, CIGNA didn't report their response rate. The lower the response rate, the greater the garbage in the data.

[404cameljockey]

I'm not doubting Cigna would not have published it if it didn't suit their purpose, but I don't see any reason to mistrust the statistics without reason.

Two obvious reasons. Respondents were all members of Internations. That's a sample of convenience, not one picked because it's representative. Secondly, CIGNA didn't report their response rate. The lower the response rate, the greater the garbage in the data.

OK but why would randomly selected members of Internations be less representative than a sample picked any other way? It's a global expat website, seems a perfectly reasonable place to poll?

And garbage in data is just that, it's not an attempt to manipulate the data. Although I did wonder how they selected the responses to include in the survey and which to leave out (if that's how it was done).What I was trying to say was I don't see a specific reason not to trust Cigna's handling of the data, rather than the accuracy of the data collected. Sorry I was vague on that.

[Homer]

OK but why would randomly selected members of Internations be less representative than a sample picked any other way? It's a global expat website, seems a perfectly reasonable place to poll?

Perfectly reasonable on the face of it, which is why it's called Face Validity http://www.statisticshowto.com/face-validity/ Defining representative samples isn't easy. That's why research firms who can repeatedly do it get paid the big bucks.

[golferstu]

Biggest benefit?

Everything is cheap. And it's hot. And it's not closed all the time.

[StevePIraq]

Not everything is cheap, cars for one thing are much more expensive here than many countries.

[handdrummer]

Biggest benefit?

Everything is cheap. And it's hot. And it's not closed all the time.

the only things that are cheap and that is a relative term, are items grown and produced here. it also depends on where they're purchased. lettuce at the OKAY market in Cha Am is nearly 1/2 the price of lettuce at Golden Place.