St Luke's Hospital Sucks

[Pinay Wife 47]

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Three posts have been removed for unacceptable personal attacks. It is a violation of TOS to insult or make attacks against other members. You can disagree with the contents of their posts but once you start attacking the poster you have crossed the line. Any further comments in this vein will lead to a thread ban for the poster. As PinayWife noted - BACK ON TOPIC, please.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

That was a lenghty (and rather pompous) diatribe.

All the work you put into writing that post...it's a shame it all gets blown away with 2 questions.....ready?

Are you stating that ALL (Mexican) illegal's bring poverty, disease, and crime to America... and that... "THEY" ALL prey on America's vulnerable benefits system?

Re-read his phrasing Kevin...he doesn't say...some...or most....he says..."they". As in...all.

Correction... YOU said all, not TCO. The word ALL does not appear in his post. And his post was on point and very accurate. He also didn't say Mexicans, YOU said it. He said illegal aliens entering thru Mexico. Because that is one of the easiest places to enter, and also because there are MANY who do it. Are most Mexicans? I imagine so. The Hispanic population has boomed in the past few years. And while America IS a great melting pot, if they want to come here and enjoy the US of A, they need to learn English, we should not have to add Spanish as a primary option to phone messages and food labels. If it were a particular other race that had a large influx to the US, would we then add Arabic-type labels to our food cans?

They is a generic pronoun, plural in nature... not all-encompassing. I know you have an issue with things that TCO posts, and sometimes you are correct, but not this time.

FWIW, I agree with him 100% on this one. In fact, I made a joke to my fiancee several months ago that it would be simpler (and MUCH faster) if she could get a visa to Mexico, and just walk across the border. Sad, but true. Good thing I am more apt to do the slow legal thing as opposed to instant gratification.

[~happyndinlove~ 540]

Correction... YOU said all, not TCO. The word ALL does not appear in his post. And his post was on point and very accurate. He also didn't say Mexicans, YOU said it. He said illegal aliens entering thru Mexico. Because that is one of the easiest places to enter, and also because there are MANY who do it. Are most Mexicans? I imagine so. The Hispanic population has boomed in the past few years. And while America IS a great melting pot, if they want to come here and enjoy the US of A, they need to learn English, we should not have to add Spanish as a primary option to phone messages and food labels. If it were a particular other race that had a large influx to the US, would we then add Arabic-type labels to our food cans?

They is a generic pronoun, plural in nature... not all-encompassing. I know you have an issue with things that TCO posts, and sometimes you are correct, but not this time.

FWIW, I agree with him 100% on this one. In fact, I made a joke to my fiancee several months ago that it would be simpler (and MUCH faster) if she could get a visa to Mexico, and just walk across the border. Sad, but true. Good thing I am more apt to do the slow legal thing as opposed to instant gratification.

This might help.....Pay attention to the examples of the word usage...jeeeez...this is elementary school level.

http://www.merriam-w...dictionary/they

Let me state it again...I agree that the U.S. has an illegal alien problem. Furthermore, I would like to see a fix to the problem just as much as you, Kevin and TCO. I would vote yes to... "The Great Wall of America" across the Mexican border.

(but) I'm not going to make a claim that... "they"...being the illegal's....bring disease, crime and poverty to America and prey on America's benefits systems...do some? Absoulutely...All? No...Therefore the sentence should be phrased as follows.....Some of them ...or...most of them...or...a majority of them...or...a percentage of them....or how 'bout....and within the ranks of the illegal's crossing the Mexican border, comes an element of .....

It is obvious that the phrasing TCO used is a blanket statement that labels all of them.

I think you and Kevin are ignoring his phrasing because of your staunch opinion(s) regarding illegal's.

I have an opinion about illegal's and...racism. I am able to differentiate the 2....are you?

I have heard the statement..."You are in America! Use English!!" ...since I was a teen.

Time to wake up....America has a rapidly growing spanish speaking population that spends MONEY!! (obviously) Some of it here in the U.S.

You took the flight to Fili....How many languages were represented on the flights and at the airports?

(If) The Arab community had the same purchasing power (represented in America) as the Spanish speaking population does...

Yes...Arabic would be on the menu...

Don't be too naive...The almighty Benjamin names the tune we all dance to.

Edited April 9, 2011 by ~happyndinlove~

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hope a moderator could split this thread into two, one for what happens at SLEC, and the other on whether TCO is, or isn't a(n) _______________.

[DavenRoxy 1,073]

I am sick and tired of this stupid hospital. My fiance had to go there 4 days because she got annulled for psychiatric reasons, being the only way she could leave her ex-husband, then they made her go to another hospital in Queson City where we had to pay 1000 pesos to St Luke's and 3500 pesos to this other hospital. She has her interview this next week but they are still delaying our paperwork. They even admitted that there is nothing wrong with her. But this is a way St. Luke's scams US citizens into paying more for their services. Either this way or saying you have a spot on your lungs so they can delay you and make them pay more for their services. I want to file a complaint to the Embassy. Does anyone know if we do not have a completed medical if she still can have her interview. Because it now looks like it will not be finished before the interview. I think we are lucky I am not there or I would cause a scene about this.

While I can understand the requirement to further investigate the psychiatric aspect of the divorce because the US would require it, I DO agree that you are probably being milked for more money. Unfortunately, this whole process is full of exorbitant prices. They have to recoup the costs associated with all the checks they are "forced" to run. If the process was not so convoluted in typical governmental fashion, it would not be so expensive.

Sorry you have to pay the extra money, it hardly seems fair to be sure. But 10 years from now, when you have your lovely wife by your side, i doubt you will even remember the cost it took to get her there. I know she will be more than worth it.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

I hope a moderator could split this thread into two, one for what happens at SLEC, and the other on whether TCO is, or isn't a(n) _______________.

read the post by kathryn above again and you'll see this thread does not need to be split.

[Kevin- 13]

This thread may need to be split, but the current tangent discussion was specifically spawned due to remarks about the cause for the emotional unrest surrounding the behavior of St Luke's Hospital Extension Clinic and the US Embassy in Manila. The discussion would probably be quite lost without that point of reference. I do agree, to a less angry extent, with the original point made, and for many of the same reasons mentioned by the replies.

There is an accusation of racism based entirely on the use of the word "THEY", when no racist terms, no nationalities or ethnicities, or anything of the sort, were ever mentioned. In fact, tallcoolone most probably avoided using those terms for the specific purpose of not saying anything racist.

Employing the word "they", in nearly all circumstances, is not referring to a 100% saturation of the referenced group. In fact, "they" is most commonly used as a generic pronoun in order to avoid a long and detailed description of a sentence's subject. There is an argumentative tactic being employed here (which I suspect rlogan would be able to call out by name) where the choice of words is attacked, rather than the point itself. An astute individual can't possibly believe that tallcoolone was actually insinuating "every single illegal immigrant crossing the border from Mexico is carrying disease, is poor, and is a criminal". It is quite clear that he is saying "they" as a collective reference. "They" are bringing poverty, disease, and crime, collectively as a group, into this nation.

----

The Philippines, as mentioned, is a fantastic example of a country with myriad languages in their culture. Here are a few noteworthy details on that topic.

• It is a third world economy which relies on foreign workers for income.
• They (!!!) have grown incredibly slowly in terms of economy or economic status, compared to other nations which were once similar economically, such as Japan. (please note this sentence as an example of "they" usage)
• All education is performed in English, and all students are taught Tagalog as a subject. This indicates a realization that unification of language is key to growth, cohesion, and success.
• The Philippines does not have an enormous influx of people who are speaking an additional non-native language and refusing or not bothering to learn the local language.

I don't think most Americans want the USA to be similar to the Philippines in terms of relative worldwide socioeconomic status.

Also, the growing Spanish-only population was mentioned as an argument for supporting and/or "getting used to" the growing Spanish-only population. This is circular reasoning: "Because it's happening, it's acceptable."

There was a link to the Wikipedia Melting Pot article earlier. Here's a quote from it.

"The fusing process goes on as in a blast-furnace; one generation, a single year even-- transforms the English, the German, the Irish emigrant into an American. Uniform institutions, ideas, language, the influence of the majority, bring us soon to a similar complexion; the individuality of the immigrant, almost even his traits of race and religion, fuse down in the democratic alembic like chips of brass thrown into the melting pot."

And another:

"... the term assimilation is still used to describe the ways in which immigrants and their descendants adapt, such as by increasingly using the national language of the host society as their first language."

Regarding:

I think you and Kevin are ignoring his phrasing because of your staunch opinion(s) regarding illegal's.

On the contrary, I think evidence demonstrates that you may be ignoring logic and reason in the discussion in order to support your personal disdain for one specific person.

----

I don't think the points can be made any more clear, and I do not want to make this a thread of personal bickering, so I probably will not post in it again.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Kevin-

[Jimmyzr1 36]

While I can understand the requirement to further investigate the psychiatric aspect of the divorce because the US would require it, I DO agree that you are probably being milked for more money. Unfortunately, this whole process is full of exorbitant prices. They have to recoup the costs associated with all the checks they are "forced" to run. If the process was not so convoluted in typical governmental fashion, it would not be so expensive.

Sorry you have to pay the extra money, it hardly seems fair to be sure. But 10 years from now, when you have your lovely wife by your side, i doubt you will even remember the cost it took to get her there. I know she will be more than worth it.

Well, they delayed our paperwork one too many days. Now our appointment was supposed to be today but they still have not finalized the paperwork or given her immunizations. They said she probably will get her immunizations later this afternoon after our scheduled appointment. They said we would have to reschedule our appointment. I sure hope we dont have to wait another 1-1 1/2 months.

[Vi-Jay 218]

Putting aside the "racism" debate.

When used, generic "they" can be seen to have an implication of indefinite reference. It is most commonly used with indefinite referents of a distributive nature such as someone, anyone, everyone, and no one. Such references are not to one particular person but to a large group taken one at a time, causing influence from the implied plural.

The inflected form of "they" being debated, is nominative (subject) and prenominal possessive.

Nominative- "they carry"

Prenominal possessive- "their kids"

Therefore, Happy is correct. Kevin and Dave are incorrect.

VJ never fails to provide some comic relief!

Yanks having a heated debate over the proper use of "they".

[B_J 2,752]

Putting aside the "racism" debate.

When used, generic "they" can be seen to have an implication of indefinite reference. It is most commonly used with indefinite referents of a distributive nature such as someone, anyone, everyone, and no one. Such references are not to one particular person but to a large group taken one at a time, causing influence from the implied plural.

The inflected form of "they" being debated, is nominative (subject) and prenominal possessive.

Nominative- "they carry"

Prenominal possessive- "their kids"

Therefore, Happy is correct. Kevin and Dave are incorrect.

VJ never fails to provide some comic relief!

Yanks having a heated debate over the proper use of "they".

English is the only language I speak and I have no idea what you said; too many big words.

[Kevin- 13]

Putting aside the "racism" debate.

When used, generic "they" can be seen to have an implication of indefinite reference. It is most commonly used with indefinite referents of a distributive nature such as someone, anyone, everyone, and no one. Such references are not to one particular person but to a large group taken one at a time, causing influence from the implied plural.

The inflected form of "they" being debated, is nominative (subject) and prenominal possessive.

Nominative- "they carry"

Prenominal possessive- "their kids"

Therefore, Happy is correct. Kevin and Dave are incorrect.

VJ never fails to provide some comic relief!

Yanks having a heated debate over the proper use of "they".

The debate is actually about the accusation of racism hinging on the word "they".

The wikipedia article you have quoted from does not address the specific case here, where they is a generic pronoun referring to a referenced singular subset of a population group. It would be quite a mouthful (keyboard-full?) to accurately communicate the point being made without this particular use of "they".

For example, if you're referencing a group of fish which has been introduced into a new body of water, where that type of fish did not previously exist, the word "they" could properly be used to refer to the fish when making a statement about the effects of that group of fish is having on the new ecosystem. "They are causing significant disruption to the ecosystem of this lake." The subject here can correctly be referred to as singular or plural, depending on the specific sentence structure. To further specify the relevance to this debate, "they" would not necessarily imply that every individual member of the referenced group (of fish) are singularly participating in the disruption of the ecosystem, rather that the collective effect of the entire group is causing the disruption.

Finally, my use of "fish" and "ecosystems" are purely examples for the purpose of grammatical demonstration, and not meant to draw any correlation between people and fish, nor countries and ecosystems.

[Kevin- 13]

I just noticed that the racism portion of the topic has been removed from the thread (or my eyes are playing tricks on me). I apologize for mentioning it again. It seems the edit timer has already expired on my post, however.

[Loolie 56]

I think people should relax... just because of the word they?? c'mon. In my ingenius way of thinking I think he is refferring to illegal aliens. Of course it is more that one coz he put S on the word ALIEN... heller! So what if its a negative statement it is his opinion. Just becauce he didnt use most of them or some of them who cares... I dont. You dont even know if what he said is true or not so why give a feet about it. hehehehehe.

[Rattomj 0]

OMG MY FIANCEE WAS SPOTTING 3 DAYSO AFTER HER MONTHLY. NOT TO UNUSUAL! SENT HER TO A OBGYN THAT CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. BUT THEY WON'T CERTIFY SHE'S OK UNTIL PAPS MEER IS DONE. THIS IS FRIDAY INTERVIEW MONDAY GUESS WHAT. RESCHEDULE YOUR APPOINTMENT. THIS IS SUCH MONEY GRABBING NONSENSE. OH ULTRASOUND CLEAN TO. OMG