![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
and since I'm in a bad mood...
Dec. 1st, 2008 04:48 amI'll have one of my "and I still cannot believe I cannot get a job in this town with the way some people write" rants.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7a37c0d5-446e-4c35-9acf-251c75457e15
and the follow up
http://www.montrealgazette.com/maternity+tourism+makes+suckers/1004138/story.html
1) I can't figure out how the hell this happened to begin with. I married Pascal November 23rd 1996 and everything for Olly, who was born February 5th 1997, was covered by the health program here. These people either didn't have their shit together, or were seriously misled by someone somehow (easy in the mess of bureaucracy required to a) immigrate and b) get health care). Why this is even an issue is beyond me. RAMQ needs to step up and go "whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here, there is no drama here, everything is cool, here Doctor is your lousy FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS so stop whining." (Yes, $400 is what the doctor would get for a vaginal delivery under the health plan here). This woman and her baby are absolutely eligible to have everything paid for under the health plan and why this has yet to be corrected is beyond me.
2) The second article pisses me off even more than the first. From the second article, ranting about how apparently wealthy women fly all over the world and plop their offspring wherever they like to bestow citizenship, then walk out like some starlet with bad manners on an unpaid restaurant bill:
None of this applies to Marley's mother. She applied for landed immigrant status after marrying Samuels in June. But there is a systematic abuse of medicare here and the government, not MDs or hospitals, needs to find a solution, one that takes into account humanitarian needs but is also fair to doctors - and taxpayers.
Then why the fuck was the first 66% of the article spent with a lead in regarding this particular family's situation, as if it did have sweet fuck all to do with this? If it has nothing to do with it, then why are they tying the two together and spending more time bitching about this family than about what they're* supposedly editorializing over? I personally learned in modern logic classes this is an improper argument. Red herring, straw man, one of the two I can't remember which and am too cranky right now to look it up. Either way it sucks and is crap writing and I could do better.
I wish I was rich. [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] and I would totally start our own paper. And now that I am more mature I'd probably listen to him a lot more than I did back when I had the chance. I'd still throw tantrums about it of course, but I would listen more, and give in more quickly.
As long as he let me have my serial comma.
*omg I used possessive their the first time in this. I need sleep. I'm so embarrassed.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7a37c0d5-446e-4c35-9acf-251c75457e15
and the follow up
http://www.montrealgazette.com/maternity+tourism+makes+suckers/1004138/story.html
1) I can't figure out how the hell this happened to begin with. I married Pascal November 23rd 1996 and everything for Olly, who was born February 5th 1997, was covered by the health program here. These people either didn't have their shit together, or were seriously misled by someone somehow (easy in the mess of bureaucracy required to a) immigrate and b) get health care). Why this is even an issue is beyond me. RAMQ needs to step up and go "whoa whoa whoa wait a minute here, there is no drama here, everything is cool, here Doctor is your lousy FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS so stop whining." (Yes, $400 is what the doctor would get for a vaginal delivery under the health plan here). This woman and her baby are absolutely eligible to have everything paid for under the health plan and why this has yet to be corrected is beyond me.
2) The second article pisses me off even more than the first. From the second article, ranting about how apparently wealthy women fly all over the world and plop their offspring wherever they like to bestow citizenship, then walk out like some starlet with bad manners on an unpaid restaurant bill:
None of this applies to Marley's mother. She applied for landed immigrant status after marrying Samuels in June. But there is a systematic abuse of medicare here and the government, not MDs or hospitals, needs to find a solution, one that takes into account humanitarian needs but is also fair to doctors - and taxpayers.
Then why the fuck was the first 66% of the article spent with a lead in regarding this particular family's situation, as if it did have sweet fuck all to do with this? If it has nothing to do with it, then why are they tying the two together and spending more time bitching about this family than about what they're* supposedly editorializing over? I personally learned in modern logic classes this is an improper argument. Red herring, straw man, one of the two I can't remember which and am too cranky right now to look it up. Either way it sucks and is crap writing and I could do better.
I wish I was rich. [Bad username or site: @ livejournal.com] and I would totally start our own paper. And now that I am more mature I'd probably listen to him a lot more than I did back when I had the chance. I'd still throw tantrums about it of course, but I would listen more, and give in more quickly.
As long as he let me have my serial comma.
*omg I used possessive their the first time in this. I need sleep. I'm so embarrassed.
