Try adding some spelling errors.
OK you have first priority, and then it is post #782. Then he can dissasemble emacknight’s comparison of healthcare.
Course SA is pretty busy and all. But I"m sure he’ll get to us all in the fullness of time.
Hey, c’mon, I’ve been waiting to be “deconstructed” since Post 672. Surely I deserve a place in the que!
What the fuck, man? I’ve been in Emergency Rooms that were faster than this!
I’m sorry, remember that time you had to go to the bathroom? Lost your place. You’re behind me now.
Post traumatic stress, was it?
- Eyes luc while polishing brass knuckles *
Damn! It’s the diuretics I’m taking for my hypertension. I *knew *that stuff was gonna cost me!
Is it too late for me to declare victory? I could use another in my win column.
And a lovely set they are, too! Bloomies?
Ha, I love it. He’s so busy teaching Muslims how to be smart he neglected our thread. His thoughts on the “cite” he posted:
Classic Starving Artist.
Do you ever utter an honest word? :rolleyes:
Quick SA, while everyone else is either asleep or in the bathroom, answer mine first!
I know you’re out there…
Was it because she was beautiful? You made a big point of it in your OP - put it in the title and all.
How beautiful do you have to be before the rules about medicaid eligibility are bent for you. Like a “9” or something?
Gotta say, as a bad ass takedown, ripping to shreds, disassembly and discombobulation, it was a mite thin.
You posted the notes from a conservative lecture series, first calling it an “article” then referring to it as a study.
If the notes are 9 years old, why haven’t they done one recently to show how much worse things have gotten? I would suspect that if things got really bad they’d be excited to trumpet the news.
Until shown otherwise, I’m going to concluded that they tried, and found that things didn’t get worse, but actually got better.
If you want to know about Canada, consider reading through some of the history. Oddly enough, it was built because private industry failed to provide enough doctors in rural areas. The problems we faced over the past two decades were not because of failures in the system, they were the result of some pretty crazy deficit spending between the 70s and 80s.
Instead of continuing with deficit spending indefinitely, the federal government made pretty dramatic cuts to social programs to, get this, balance the budget. Can you imagine, a country with balanced budget. What do you suppose that would be like?
Now that the budget has been balanced health care has become the main priority, money has poured back into it, and it is steadily improving.
Healthy banks, too. Don’t forget the banks.
Oh, okay!
To save her life.
There should be no rules he would have to break in the first place.
I never said nor implied that they should have broken the rules. Have you been taking debating lessons from elucidator?
Never said it, ain’t gonna address it.
What I think is that government sucks when it comes to running entitlement programs. It invariably and virtually unavoidably hews to a one-size-fits-all system of rules and regulations in which no flexibility exists in which to allow for exceptions or to make changes once wheels are in motion. Government cannot possibly take into account all the variables that exist in life and instead tries to hammer the square peg of people’s individual needs and problems through the round hole of rules and limitations set by the government. Government simply can’t run things in such a way that individual needs can be met in any way resembling that which is actually needed.
Look at what happens in communist countries where you have government central planning determining what foods and textiles are produced and distributed. You wind up with bananas being over-produced and things such as wheat being under-produced, with the result that markets are flooded for months with more bananas than people need or want, and with shortages of bread that require people to stand in line for hours waiting for a loaf or two.
Remember how when you were a child and didn’t understand why your parents were making you do such and so, and when you asked why you had to do something or couldn’t do something else, your parents said: “Because I said so!”
Well, that’s the way it is when government is in charge of your life. It has its own reasons for doing things the way it does and you, being in the situation of needing it more than it needs you, have little say in the matter. If the government tells you that you can’t cancel your new benefits and get your Medicaid reinstated in order to have an operation that will save your life, you have little choice but to accept it because, well, “the government said so!”
Government ought to be set up so that there is flexibility and systems in place that will allow for common-sense solutions to individual problems. But of course this leads to a problem for government because it simply can’t have all its minions running around doing whatever they think is best in any given situation. So it simply issues dictates that everyone has to live under, with the result being that people like Diana Smith get told in effect, “So sorry, but death for you!”, when to any thinking individual the solution is painfully obvious - simply let her cancel her son’s new disability benefits and reinstate her Medicaid coverage…and do it quickly so she can have the surgery she so badly needs on schedule as previously arranged.
But all that lies far outside the ability of government function. So people whose lives could easily be saved if only someone with a brain and a modicum of decision-making ability could greenlight it wind up dying for no reason other than governmental red tape and inflexibility. And again I assert that the government’s response to Diana Smith amounts in virtually every way to a death panel decision to the effect that she should be left to die. It was their system, their regulations, their limits, and their red tape that all resulted in the loss of her coverage and inabilty to correct and reinstate it. Her situation is a classic, textbook example of governmental indifference and inflexibility in the face of dire, life-threatening need, and a perfect example also of why I absolutely do not want the government of the United States having control over my or my family’s health care.
There shouldn’t be any rules that would disqualify one from Medicaid?
Unless you’re wealthy or die young, that is going to happen eventually.
Well, at least the funding part through Medicare and such.