Figgys Garden

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5246 Dec 14, 2013
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Persephone. You, Figgy, and the nice people here are all awesome too!
:)

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5247 Dec 14, 2013
what a russsh wrote:
*****
hello little miss figgy ...
))>><<((
Howdy

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#5248 Dec 14, 2013
-Persephone- wrote:
<quoted text>
Howdy
*****

hello miss persy

))>><<((

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#5249 Dec 14, 2013
Figarooo wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello Russsh!((HUGS))
What a nice surprise! How are you?
*****

as fine as 100 yr old bouban whiskey

))>><<((

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#5250 Dec 14, 2013
-Persephone- wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
I likes my Persephone!:)

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5251 Dec 14, 2013
Figarooo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to agree with you there! Haha!
That's what makes it so scary.
People are jumping ship... the used to be all for it but once they found out what it was about they're leaving their jobs. Did you know the people that are putting the Medicaid programs don't get the same services? There's a couple of stupid posters on the topic forum that think that all their troubles will be solved. They think they can keep all their assets their homes and their cars and still get free benefits. Guess what...hehehe. Fraud is going to be at an all time high. Give this two years and they will be crying.

Level 3

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5252 Dec 15, 2013
Excuse me for barging in but you are absolutely correct. Also Medicaid doesn't pay doctors enough to cover their overhead so they have to limit the number of Medicaid patients they can see. They have drastically increased the number of Medicaid recipients but have not increased the number of doctors that will treat them. Free medical care isn't worth much if you can't see a doctor. I just hope enough people get the facts before the upcoming election to change things. There are many things that could have been done to reduce the cost of health care. Obamacare didn't do a single one of them.

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#5253 Dec 15, 2013
There are unassigned and assigned providers. The assigned providers do have to limit the types of patients they see. The unassigned providers are allowed to bill out of pocket on top of what the government pays.
Just wondering

Dallas, TX

#5254 Dec 15, 2013
Putting aside the ACA, what exactly is it that is so wrong about the poor being able to see a doctor that has so many upset? For a nation that claims to be "Christian", it acts very "un"Christ like. Why is it that the Atheists, Agnostics and non believers appear to show more sympathy towards those less fortunate than Christians do? Why does it not dawn on those who are against the poor, that of all the nations of the world, the U.S. stands behind those that have a system in place to assist the poor. They all enjoy a higher standard of living than the U.S. does. Why is that? Could it be that the citizens of this nation have let greed rule their lives? That they hate to see anyone else get ahead? Or could it be as simple as not wanting to see the opposing political ideology as being the one to do it? But in any case, it boils down to nothing more than wishing harm on another human being. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. Not wanting to help those in need "is" wishing harm on them. What does Christ say about that?

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5255 Dec 15, 2013
Your statement is loaded. Try another angle, non believer.
;)
That's kind of like using the race card For those of us that do not support Barack Obama.
Just wondering wrote:
Putting aside the ACA, what exactly is it that is so wrong about the poor being able to see a doctor that has so many upset? For a nation that claims to be "Christian", it acts very "un"Christ like. Why is it that the Atheists, Agnostics and non believers appear to show more sympathy towards those less fortunate than Christians do? Why does it not dawn on those who are against the poor, that of all the nations of the world, the U.S. stands behind those that have a system in place to assist the poor. They all enjoy a higher standard of living than the U.S. does. Why is that? Could it be that the citizens of this nation have let greed rule their lives? That they hate to see anyone else get ahead? Or could it be as simple as not wanting to see the opposing political ideology as being the one to do it? But in any case, it boils down to nothing more than wishing harm on another human being. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. Not wanting to help those in need "is" wishing harm on them. What does Christ say about that?

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#5256 Dec 15, 2013
Just wondering wrote:
Putting aside the ACA, what exactly is it that is so wrong about the poor being able to see a doctor that has so many upset? For a nation that claims to be "Christian", it acts very "un"Christ like. Why is it that the Atheists, Agnostics and non believers appear to show more sympathy towards those less fortunate than Christians do? Why does it not dawn on those who are against the poor, that of all the nations of the world, the U.S. stands behind those that have a system in place to assist the poor. They all enjoy a higher standard of living than the U.S. does. Why is that? Could it be that the citizens of this nation have let greed rule their lives? That they hate to see anyone else get ahead? Or could it be as simple as not wanting to see the opposing political ideology as being the one to do it? But in any case, it boils down to nothing more than wishing harm on another human being. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. Not wanting to help those in need "is" wishing harm on them. What does Christ say about that?
There is nothing wrong with the poor seeing the doctor. However, that is not my fault and shouldn't be forced on me. That should be the job of charities, not the government. If I want to give to that, that is well and good. It is unChristian to force anyone to pay anything. Forced charity is not any good. That should come from the goodness of everyone's hearts, and as an individual decision.

Nor is it Christian to force people to pay for immoral or sexual things. If anyone is stupid and immoral enough to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, and ALL sex outside marriage is wrong according to the Book, then it is immoral and wrong for anyone to pay to assist someone in that endeavor. Life starts at conception, as far as the Bible seems to indicate, and it is immoral to murder anyone, regardless of reason, so I shouldn't have to have tax dollars taken from me to pay for murder. Sanctioned execution of the guilty, yes, but not murder of the innocent. Birth control is not necessary - just avoid sex. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Now, yes, if it is a matter of immoral actions of another forced onto the woman or a matter of health, it is different. I know a Christian couple where the wife was on a lot of medication and she discovered she was pregnant. The doctor tried to drop hints, "It would be unfortunate if she had this baby." But that was not an option for them. She had the baby, and it was healthy and the mother is still alive and well, but the husband did decide to get a procedure done on himself.

I tend to believe in "social Darwinism." If you are too weak to make it without assistance, then maybe you should be left to the natural forces and forced to either sink or swim. While it is arguably immoral to turn away the poor, it is also immoral to enable poverty and bad choices by funding it. Each time you pay someone who is poor, you are destroying their ability to take care of themselves and promoting immoral and unhealthy dependence on others. Each person's responsibility is first to themselves and their immediate family. If they can't take care of themselves, then it is wrong to force them to take care of others. The goal of any government should be to empower people as individuals, not as groups. Now yes, if someone truly is disabled, that is different, but it doesn't mean you should do everything for them either.

Each nation should be completely autonomous, and what goes on in other nations is nor out business. Nations that do right should be rewarded with wealth, and those that don't should be rewarded with poverty. So if a nation does wrong and is cursed, it is not our job to try to undermine the curse that is supposed to teach them a lesson. When you interfere with punishments, others never learn.

Go ahead and flame me, I don't care, but I won't continue this debate. This is just a one-time vent.

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5257 Dec 15, 2013
PERFECT! Good morning, afternoon or evening since I don't know where you're at.
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with the poor seeing the doctor. However, that is not my fault and shouldn't be forced on me. That should be the job of charities, not the government. If I want to give to that, that is well and good. It is unChristian to force anyone to pay anything. Forced charity is not any good. That should come from the goodness of everyone's hearts, and as an individual decision.
Nor is it Christian to force people to pay for immoral or sexual things. If anyone is stupid and immoral enough to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, and ALL sex outside marriage is wrong according to the Book, then it is immoral and wrong for anyone to pay to assist someone in that endeavor. Life starts at conception, as far as the Bible seems to indicate, and it is immoral to murder anyone, regardless of reason, so I shouldn't have to have tax dollars taken from me to pay for murder. Sanctioned execution of the guilty, yes, but not murder of the innocent. Birth control is not necessary - just avoid sex. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Now, yes, if it is a matter of immoral actions of another forced onto the woman or a matter of health, it is different. I know a Christian couple where the wife was on a lot of medication and she discovered she was pregnant. The doctor tried to drop hints, "It would be unfortunate if she had this baby." But that was not an option for them. She had the baby, and it was healthy and the mother is still alive and well, but the husband did decide to get a procedure done on himself.
I tend to believe in "social Darwinism." If you are too weak to make it without assistance, then maybe you should be left to the natural forces and forced to either sink or swim. While it is arguably immoral to turn away the poor, it is also immoral to enable poverty and bad choices by funding it. Each time you pay someone who is poor, you are destroying their ability to take care of themselves and promoting immoral and unhealthy dependence on others. Each person's responsibility is first to themselves and their immediate family. If they can't take care of themselves, then it is wrong to force them to take care of others. The goal of any government should be to empower people as individuals, not as groups. Now yes, if someone truly is disabled, that is different, but it doesn't mean you should do everything for them either.
Each nation should be completely autonomous, and what goes on in other nations is nor out business. Nations that do right should be rewarded with wealth, and those that don't should be rewarded with poverty. So if a nation does wrong and is cursed, it is not our job to try to undermine the curse that is supposed to teach them a lesson. When you interfere with punishments, others never learn.
Go ahead and flame me, I don't care, but I won't continue this debate. This is just a one-time vent.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#5258 Dec 15, 2013
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing wrong with the poor seeing the doctor. However, that is not my fault and shouldn't be forced on me. That should be the job of charities, not the government. If I want to give to that, that is well and good. It is unChristian to force anyone to pay anything. Forced charity is not any good. That should come from the goodness of everyone's hearts, and as an individual decision.
Nor is it Christian to force people to pay for immoral or sexual things. If anyone is stupid and immoral enough to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, and ALL sex outside marriage is wrong according to the Book, then it is immoral and wrong for anyone to pay to assist someone in that endeavor. Life starts at conception, as far as the Bible seems to indicate, and it is immoral to murder anyone, regardless of reason, so I shouldn't have to have tax dollars taken from me to pay for murder. Sanctioned execution of the guilty, yes, but not murder of the innocent. Birth control is not necessary - just avoid sex. If you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Now, yes, if it is a matter of immoral actions of another forced onto the woman or a matter of health, it is different. I know a Christian couple where the wife was on a lot of medication and she discovered she was pregnant. The doctor tried to drop hints, "It would be unfortunate if she had this baby." But that was not an option for them. She had the baby, and it was healthy and the mother is still alive and well, but the husband did decide to get a procedure done on himself.
I tend to believe in "social Darwinism." If you are too weak to make it without assistance, then maybe you should be left to the natural forces and forced to either sink or swim. While it is arguably immoral to turn away the poor, it is also immoral to enable poverty and bad choices by funding it. Each time you pay someone who is poor, you are destroying their ability to take care of themselves and promoting immoral and unhealthy dependence on others. Each person's responsibility is first to themselves and their immediate family. If they can't take care of themselves, then it is wrong to force them to take care of others. The goal of any government should be to empower people as individuals, not as groups. Now yes, if someone truly is disabled, that is different, but it doesn't mean you should do everything for them either.
Each nation should be completely autonomous, and what goes on in other nations is nor out business. Nations that do right should be rewarded with wealth, and those that don't should be rewarded with poverty. So if a nation does wrong and is cursed, it is not our job to try to undermine the curse that is supposed to teach them a lesson. When you interfere with punishments, others never learn.
Go ahead and flame me, I don't care, but I won't continue this debate. This is just a one-time vent.
good post ...
and I agree that you are trying to talk to a brick wall to those who do not have a real
understanding as to what Obama is doing to our nation !
Too many people are looking for 'free' to understand that when some have to pay for
their 'free'... it is not 'FREE'!

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5259 Dec 15, 2013
At least one of these is regretting the decisions that he or she made in their life. Limited prescriptions, Lifesaving procedures only, Limited dental care and not cosmetic Are what they get. At least one of them never worked for anything And feels they should be continuing their comfort of freebies. I wonder if that person is going to sit outside in auto dealership and demand their right to a free car? Lol. I wonder if the same person also feels that the very rich owe him?
what a russsh wrote:
<quoted text>
good post ...
and I agree that you are trying to talk to a brick wall to those who do not have a real
understanding as to what Obama is doing to our nation !
Too many people are looking for 'free' to understand that when some have to pay for
their 'free'... it is not 'FREE'!

“The Spotted Girl News Network”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Spotted World

#5260 Dec 15, 2013
what a russsh wrote:
<quoted text>
good post ...
and I agree that you are trying to talk to a brick wall to those who do not have a real
understanding as to what Obama is doing to our nation !
Too many people are looking for 'free' to understand that when some have to pay for
their 'free'... it is not 'FREE'!
Exactly. Free isn't free. It is only free for some. Besides, the more someone does for you, the more power they have over you.

How would someone like it if someone robbed them on the street and then took them to a restaurant for "free?" That isn't free.

What I've never understood is why the most poor and the least fit to be parents make the most babies. That question was asked on Wiki Answers. The answer there is that it is a matter of responsibility and the ability to control your urges. Those having the most kids might also be using the most drugs, eating the most, etc.Those who can't afford protection also cannot afford what they need protection from. Government issued chastity belts would be a good return on the investment. That would offer protection from pregnancy, STDs, and perhaps even sexual assault to a degree, and it would be reusable.
Just wondering

Kansas City, MO

#5261 Dec 15, 2013
-Persephone- wrote:
Your statement is loaded. Try another angle, non believer.
;)
That's kind of like using the race card For those of us that do not support Barack Obama.
<quoted text>
So then I can put you in the column of not wanting to help out the less fortunate just because you don't like your duly elected president? How is that the "Christian" thing to do?

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5262 Dec 15, 2013
Just wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
So then I can put you in the column of not wanting to help out the less fortunate just because you don't like your duly elected president? How is that the "Christian" thing to do?
Let me give you a shortcut to end your misery... And your token misery making... You identify yourself completely to my satisfaction and I'll answer any question you want.
I don't have the time or the energy for your stupid games. They're boring.
:D

Level 3

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5263 Dec 15, 2013
Just wondering wrote:
Putting aside the ACA, what exactly is it that is so wrong about the poor being able to see a doctor that has so many upset? For a nation that claims to be "Christian", it acts very "un"Christ like. Why is it that the Atheists, Agnostics and non believers appear to show more sympathy towards those less fortunate than Christians do? Why does it not dawn on those who are against the poor, that of all the nations of the world, the U.S. stands behind those that have a system in place to assist the poor. They all enjoy a higher standard of living than the U.S. does. Why is that? Could it be that the citizens of this nation have let greed rule their lives? That they hate to see anyone else get ahead? Or could it be as simple as not wanting to see the opposing political ideology as being the one to do it? But in any case, it boils down to nothing more than wishing harm on another human being. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter. Not wanting to help those in need "is" wishing harm on them. What does Christ say about that?
The poor had access to medical care before Obamacare. They will actually have less access now because they have put so many more people on Medicaid but haven't added any more doctors. They will suffer by having to wait longer for appointments.

What Obamacare does is increase the burden for the rest of us without helping the poor. Older people's healthcare costs are 5 times the cost of younger peoples costs and insurance rates were set accordingly. That was fair. The people who used it more paid more. The older generation also is better established and able to pay higher prices. Obamacare moved the ratio to a maximum of 3 to 1. That means the younger people, who aren't as well established, have to pay more to help the older generation. This isn't working out very well. The younger people aren't signing up.
Since the underwriters set the rates under the assumption they would have more young people signed up instead of fewer this will drive the rates even higher. Insurance companies not only have to collect enough in premiums to pay the claims, but are required by law to keep enough in reserve to cover claims in the event of an epidemic. This will sorely stretch their reserves until they can raise the rates next year. Can you see rationing?. Bottom line, poor people will have less access. We are going to have fewer people insured, not more and it's going to be even less affordable than it was before.
This was a political move that backfired. The democrats, secure in the belief that the younger people, who have always been their strongest supporters would continue to support them went after the older voting block. They intended to give older people lower cost insurance hoping to gain their support. The younger voting block didn't go for this income redistribution to the older people, most of whom are better equipped to pay than they are. They simply decided to pay a small fine (less than one months insurance premium) and forego insurance altogether. They are also leaving the democratic party in droves. They also failed to capture the older voting block because their premiums will go up drastically without the younger people signing up.
The 2014 elections should be quite interesting. Even though they delayed the employer mandate until after the elections I don't think they can hide what they did until after the election. The 2014 renewals will have to show a drastic increase in large group premiums because of what is happening.with the individual mandate.
Oh, and I don't think Christ has anything to do with what Obamacare did to any of us. Rich, poor and middle class will all suffer.

Level 3

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#5264 Dec 15, 2013
Spotted Girl wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Free isn't free. It is only free for some. Besides, the more someone does for you, the more power they have over you.
How would someone like it if someone robbed them on the street and then took them to a restaurant for "free?" That isn't free.
What I've never understood is why the most poor and the least fit to be parents make the most babies. That question was asked on Wiki Answers. The answer there is that it is a matter of responsibility and the ability to control your urges. Those having the most kids might also be using the most drugs, eating the most, etc.Those who can't afford protection also cannot afford what they need protection from. Government issued chastity belts would be a good return on the investment. That would offer protection from pregnancy, STDs, and perhaps even sexual assault to a degree, and it would be reusable.
Sterilize them when they have the first kid on our dime before they leave the hospital. When and if they become responsible enough to support that kid AND come up with the money to reverse the sterilization procedure on their dime they can have more kids. Pretty simple.
Right now we reward having babies they can't afford with more free stuff.

“<3”

Level 9

Since: Jun 10

Black Rock City, NV

#5265 Dec 15, 2013
Excellent post! If there was a like button I would like this! I can't give you judgeits, my phone doesn't do that. Thank you!
just a shill wrote:
<quoted text>
The poor had access to medical care before Obamacare. They will actually have less access now because they have put so many more people on Medicaid but haven't added any more doctors. They will suffer by having to wait longer for appointments.
What Obamacare does is increase the burden for the rest of us without helping the poor. Older people's healthcare costs are 5 times the cost of younger peoples costs and insurance rates were set accordingly. That was fair. The people who used it more paid more. The older generation also is better established and able to pay higher prices. Obamacare moved the ratio to a maximum of 3 to 1. That means the younger people, who aren't as well established, have to pay more to help the older generation. This isn't working out very well. The younger people aren't signing up.
Since the underwriters set the rates under the assumption they would have more young people signed up instead of fewer this will drive the rates even higher. Insurance companies not only have to collect enough in premiums to pay the claims, but are required by law to keep enough in reserve to cover claims in the event of an epidemic. This will sorely stretch their reserves until they can raise the rates next year. Can you see rationing?. Bottom line, poor people will have less access. We are going to have fewer people insured, not more and it's going to be even less affordable than it was before.
This was a political move that backfired. The democrats, secure in the belief that the younger people, who have always been their strongest supporters would continue to support them went after the older voting block. They intended to give older people lower cost insurance hoping to gain their support. The younger voting block didn't go for this income redistribution to the older people, most of whom are better equipped to pay than they are. They simply decided to pay a small fine (less than one months insurance premium) and forego insurance altogether. They are also leaving the democratic party in droves. They also failed to capture the older voting block because their premiums will go up drastically without the younger people signing up.
The 2014 elections should be quite interesting. Even though they delayed the employer mandate until after the elections I don't think they can hide what they did until after the election. The 2014 renewals will have to show a drastic increase in large group premiums because of what is happening.with the individual mandate.
Oh, and I don't think Christ has anything to do with what Obamacare did to any of us. Rich, poor and middle class will all suffer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Topix Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
risperdal risperdole (Jul '14) 10 hr victum 288
~Last Post~ (Apr '12) 16 hr Alex Nicole 3,955
Aunt flirting with me? Thu connie 4
JOSH dial kayla buis hiv postive Thu satan 1
34 m looking to have bi curious fun Thu Bigorsmall 1
Wayne Goodwin Needs To Go Thu mally 14
Word association game (Sep '12) Thu Recon Beeker 1,513
More from around the web