Actually, in response to his virtually endless “Fuck you, you’re a moron, fuck you” posts, I’ve been pointing out not misspellings by emacknight but wrongful use (and frequently so) of properly spelled words - i.e., “breaks” that can’t stop your car and “digging in heals” to indicate stubborness. Oh, yeah, and then there was that time that he felt compelled to correct me when I referred to “rocket surgery”, scornfully advising me that it’s “rocket science” or “brain surgery”. So now emacknight’s all butthurt and shit, and so every time I accidentally miss a key or inadvertently add one through a mistake of hasty typing, he feels compelled to use that in an effort to make me look as bad as he does.
And so you see, kaylasdad, all is not as it appears. emacknight is a petty, poorly educated and overly emotional doucebag who can’t think straight. Ample evidence of this is apparent in his laughable comparison just upthread of U.S. vs. Canadian health care. I don’t have time at the moment to disassemble it, but the problems with it should be clear to any thinking person, pro-UHC or not.
Hey Starving Artist, you missed my post. Not surprising, since I seem to need to repeat my posts 10 times or so before you respond: Anyway,
This woman in your OP earned enough money and benefits so that she was over the cutoff $$ amount for Medicaid. Why exactly should a government worker step in to help this particular woman out and break the rules?
Why exactly should they have broken the rules in this particular case?
Why exactly do you want them to make a special exception in this one case? What about all the other cases where someones income is just slightly too high? When is it OK to break the rules, and when is it NOT OK to break the rules?
If you think that the extra benefits she received should not have “counted” as income when assessing her eligibility for medicaid, say so. Then the problem is with how medicaid eligibility is assessed.
If you think the income cutoff for eligibility for medicaid is too low, say so. Then the problem is with the cutoff level, and it should be raised for everyone.
But don’t complain that nobody in the government broke the rules to your satisfaction.
ETA: I see you “don’t have time” again. You really should look into taking a time management course or something.
Wow, you’re really gonna get it now, emack! Listen, if you want to go cringe somewhere, we’ll totally understand, 'cause, boy, he’s gonna tear you a new one, soon as he gets back. Man, I sure wouldn’t want to be in your shoes. You guys do have shoes, right?
Shoes? Well, kind of, we actually implemented a single-payer system for shoes back in the 70s. But long wait times, and lack of equipment have really made things tough. I’m hoping for a new pair in about 6 months.
We are in the pit right? I kind of thought we were supposed to swear in the pit, otherwise shit like this gets moved to great debates where it’s all formal and boring with people saying cite over and over. Fuck that.
Gee, I dunno, Guin, ETF… Doper chicks are ladies of refinement and sensitivity, maybe you ought not be here when Starkers gets back and emack gets all tore up, and stuff. Not for delicate sensibilities, like you guys got.
Are you Donald Rumsfeld? Because he used to do the same thing - any time anyone pointed out the flaws in his Iraq strategy he would assert that they “didn’t get it.” It didn’t matter whether it was the media, or the left-wingers, or his own generals - the problem was always that everyone else didn’t understand the situation properly. Except, of course, that they did, and he turned out to have been a delusional fool.
I’m not sure what else we can tell you here, SA - the evidence says you’re wrong, the anecdotes from people who have experienced UHC say you’re wrong, the statistics say you’re wrong, basic economic theory says you’re wrong, and the article in your own OP says you’re wrong. You’ve got nothing except your continued brazen assertions that a system run by the government would be worse than the current private-run system, a system which actively incentivizes denial of care.
So now he’s going to “disassemble” you, emack. When he has the time, of course.
He was going to “deconstruct” me. That was herein Post 672.
I guess that was kind of a pre-emptive threat, because in the same post he entreats:
I provided him with the requested examples hereand I’ve been trembling with anxiety ever since. Why, I must have lost 20 pounds! I can’t eat, I can’t sleep…
So I sure do hope he gets around to deconstructing me soon. I’m ahead of you in the que, after all. Your disassembly is just going to have to wait.
I saw you, Starving Artist, childless, lonely old grubber, poking among the thread in the Pit and eyeing the moderators.
I heard you asking questions of each: Who made me a prepubescent porn star? What price napkin sandwiches? Are you my Death Panel?
I wandered in and out of the brilliant stacks of rants following you, and followed in my imagination by a board admin.
We typed down the open forums together in our solitary fancy spouting anecdotes, assuming every convenient statistic, and never passing Ed Zotti.