Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#102 May 12 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.


The issue is that this would make it so they cannot accept Medicare, or any other government assisted type insurance program. Which a lot of poor people have.
Let me get this straight. Because they get funding from the government, they can't accept donations?


No... This bill makes it so the poor people on Medicare can't get any services from Planned Parenthood. It's not that PP could close down, it's that these people who need these services can't get them here because they are on a state-assisted insurance program, which pays with government funds.
#103 May 12 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,030 posts
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Cancer won't spread to others. Disease contracted from waste water will. It was poor reasoning by Elinda. I agree with Moe on this and I see how others could argue against him/us, but the example Elinda used wasn't an effective route.
Only Moe made this about cancer screening. I'm not really in agreement with the medical manufacturers/insurers/regulators pushing cancer screening on the medical professionals and the public at large. Much if it is not justified.

And pushing the cost of STD testing and abortion services on the public is justified?

There's the disconnect for me.
Planned Parenthood provides community health services. Mostly to young people and/or poorer people. If Indiana decides that the organization, over-all was not providing the outcomes that were expected then pull funding or fix the program. But that's not what happened here. Funding was not pulled because the service wasn't working as intended. It was pulled because Planned Parenthood provided a controversial service. That's stupid.

If Indiana now has an outbreak of syphilis, some might conclude that the absence of easy, cheap std testing/treatment was a root cause. Who knows.

We taxpayers spent an awful lot of money on h1n1 testing and vaccine over the last couple years. Is that justified?

Btw, when I was a teen I used the local PP for my birth control bills. They weren't free. I had to pay for them but I got a good price. I also had to have, and pay for, a little physical before I could get on them.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#104 May 12 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Belkira wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.


The issue is that this would make it so they cannot accept Medicare, or any other government assisted type insurance program. Which a lot of poor people have.
Let me get this straight. Because they get funding from the government, they can't accept donations?


No... This bill makes it so the poor people on Medicare can't get any services from Planned Parenthood. It's not that PP could close down, it's that these people who need these services can't get them here because they are on a state-assisted insurance program, which pays with government funds.
How does that stop one from donating money to assist with the shortfall? I don't understand how people sending money to PP would keep them from providing the services that they no longer can provide because Medicare can't pay them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#105 May 12 2011 at 9:30 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,056 posts
Belkira wrote:
No... This bill makes it so the poor people on Medicare...

I hate to nitpick, but it's Medicaid, not Medicare; old folk don't need no abortions!

Quote:
...can't get any services from Planned Parenthood. It's not that PP could close down, it's that these people who need these services can't get them here because they are on a state-assisted insurance program, which pays with government funds.

I'm working under the assumption that they can still get federally-subsidized health care from other providers, right? Which kind of begs the question that Moe pointed out, which is why this is such a huge fiasco, unless PP is literally the only health care provider that accepts Medicaid in a particular area (which I highly doubt).
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#106 May 12 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
Also, doesn't PP take donations? If someone is concerned about them, then send them a check.


The issue is that this would make it so they cannot accept Medicare, or any other government assisted type insurance program. Which a lot of poor people have.
Let me get this straight. Because they get funding from the government, they can't accept donations?


No... This bill makes it so the poor people on Medicare can't get any services from Planned Parenthood. It's not that PP could close down, it's that these people who need these services can't get them here because they are on a state-assisted insurance program, which pays with government funds.
How does that stop one from donating money to assist with the shortfall? I don't understand how people sending money to PP would keep them from providing the services that they no longer can provide because Medicare can't pay them.


It doesn't. My point was that it's not so much that people are concerned that PP is going to shut down because they aren't getting money from the government, but that these people can't get services there. I'm not sure how many times I have to say that...
#107 May 12 2011 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Demea wrote:
Belkira wrote:
No... This bill makes it so the poor people on Medicare...

I hate to nitpick, but it's Medicaid, not Medicare; old folk don't need no abortions!


I always get the two confused. :/

Demea wrote:
Quote:
...can't get any services from Planned Parenthood. It's not that PP could close down, it's that these people who need these services can't get them here because they are on a state-assisted insurance program, which pays with government funds.

I'm working under the assumption that they can still get federally-subsidized health care from other providers, right? Which kind of begs the question that Moe pointed out, which is why this is such a huge fiasco, unless PP is literally the only health care provider that accepts Medicaid in a particular area (which I highly doubt).


I've already addressed that. What I heard about this on the radio is that this displaces 26,000 women, and the centers available will be completely overwhelmed and unable to meet the demand. That, and the lady they inverviewed who uses PP's services tried to visit one of the other health centers that the person who introduced the bill said could handle these services, and they told her they do not do pap smears and breast exams.

Of course, the suggestion that PP stop offering a legal service because the religious right is in charge in Indiana and they get ***** about it and want to impose their will on the public, that's just silly. They're doing nothing wrong. If anyone is making this a political issue, it's the people putting forward these bills.
#108 May 12 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Belkira wrote:
I'm not sure how many times I have to say that...
You shouldn't be saying it at all since it never disputed that which you were trying to dispute.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#109 May 12 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I'm not sure how many times I have to say that...
You shouldn't be saying it at all since it never disputed that which you were trying to dispute.


Obviously I thought it did, or I wouldn't have bothered. Alitardif was putting forth that people were only concerned about this because PP would shut down. I was explaining the real concern.

Also, go troll someone else.
#110 May 12 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
I got it, Belkira. That was a point I overlooked.

If they can't make abortions illegal, they can make them near impossible to access.

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#111 May 12 2011 at 9:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Ailitardif wrote:
I got it, Belkira. That was a point I overlooked.


Thank you.

Ailitardif wrote:
If they can't make abortions illegal, they can make them near impossible to access.



Exactly. It's disturbing, because these people don't give a shit about women's health, just their own religious agenda.
#112 May 12 2011 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As soon as Mitch Daniels cuts me a tax refund check for my share of the money that would have gone to PP, I'll be glad to sign the back and hand it over to the organization.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 May 12 2011 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Belkira wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
I'm not sure how many times I have to say that...
You shouldn't be saying it at all since it never disputed that which you were trying to dispute.


Obviously I thought it did, or I wouldn't have bothered. Alitardif was putting forth that people were only concerned about this because PP would shut down. I was explaining the real concern.

Also, go troll someone else.
I'm not trolling you, I just didn't think he was stupid enough to think PP was getting shut down.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#114 May 12 2011 at 9:46 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Also, go troll someone else.
I'm not trolling you, I just didn't think he was stupid enough to think PP was getting shut down.

Don't antagonize them when they're bleeding. It never ends well.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#115 May 12 2011 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Which kind of begs the question that Moe pointed out, which is why this is such a huge fiasco, unless PP is literally the only health care provider that accepts Medicaid in a particular area (which I highly doubt).

Why do you doubt it? A lot of physicians don't accept government insurance programs and, of the ones that do, not all are able to accept new patients. I won't play the "literally" game but it's hardly a leap of faith to say this could cause significant hardship.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116 May 12 2011 at 9:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Their core mission is providing women's health services (primarily reproductive) which includes abortion and contraception. While abortion remains legal, they have all the rationale they need to not capitulate to politically driven attacks.
You are absolutely correct. They are well within their rights to continue doing it. Continuing, however, proves that this is not about women's health, but politics. When a perfectly viable solution is available, but they choose to press for the contentious they lose the moral high ground.

That's fairly ridiculous. They're interested in the politics of women's health. One doesn't preclude the other.

If Planned Parenthood was purely concerned with the politics, they'd find it a **** of a lot easier to simply act as a lobbying organization rather than ***** around with doctors, clinics, health screenings and the rest of it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#117 May 12 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,030 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
Which kind of begs the question that Moe pointed out, which is why this is such a huge fiasco, unless PP is literally the only health care provider that accepts Medicaid in a particular area (which I highly doubt).

Why do you doubt it? A lot of physicians don't accept government insurance programs and, of the ones that do, not all are able to accept new patients. I won't play the "literally" game but it's hardly a leap of faith to say this could cause significant hardship.
Also PP's are usually located in the neighborhoods with their clientele and therefore accessible where other medical facilities might not be.

Again, cutting off of funding is not about efficient use of tax dollars. Three million dollars is couch change. This is an attack on abortions.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#118 May 12 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's fairly ridiculous. They're interested in the politics of women's health. One doesn't preclude the other.

If Planned Parenthood was purely concerned with the politics, they'd find it a **** of a lot easier to simply act as a lobbying organization rather than ***** around with doctors, clinics, health screenings and the rest of it.

I disagree. They could provide for women's health far more easily if they separated the offending practice (around which the organization was founded) from actual health services.

And, to deny that they are an organization with a political end foremost in mind is simple willful ignorance. They were created with a view to eugenics, not health services, and have morphed in to something uglier.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#119 May 12 2011 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
This is an attack on abortions.


And poor people, don't forget that.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#120 May 12 2011 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
They could provide for women's health far more easily if they separated the offending practice (around which the organization was founded) from actual health services.

You mean "They could provide for the women's health services Republicans find acceptable more easily if they don't provide any legal women's health services that Republicans find unacceptable. If they don't do what Republicans find acceptable, it means they weren't really serious anyway."

Right. I can't imagine why they're not jumping all over that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#121 May 12 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
They could provide for women's health far more easily if they separated the offending practice (around which the organization was founded) from actual health services.

You mean "They could provide for the women's health services Republicans find acceptable more easily if they don't provide any legal women's health services that Republicans find unacceptable. If they don't do what Republicans find acceptable, it means they weren't really serious anyway."

Right. I can't imagine why they're not jumping all over that.

You know what they say: beggars can't be choosers. It's pretty tough to sell the high horse with your hand out.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#122 May 12 2011 at 10:12 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's fairly ridiculous. They're interested in the politics of women's health. One doesn't preclude the other.

If Planned Parenthood was purely concerned with the politics, they'd find it a **** of a lot easier to simply act as a lobbying organization rather than ***** around with doctors, clinics, health screenings and the rest of it.

I disagree. They could provide for women's health far more easily if they separated the offending practice (around which the organization was founded) from actual health services.

And, to deny that they are an organization with a political end foremost in mind is simple willful ignorance. They were created with a view to eugenics, not health services, and have morphed in to something uglier.


That count as a Godwin's? It was damned near as silly as one, at any rate.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#123 May 12 2011 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
That count as a Godwin's? It was damned near as silly as one, at any rate.

Silly? How so? I mean, I've read Ms. Sanger's own words on the subject, but if you've special insight on the founding I'd love to read it.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#124 May 12 2011 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,030 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
This is an attack on abortions.


And poor people, don't forget that.
republicans hatez them poor-peeps.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#125 May 12 2011 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Elinda wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Elinda wrote:
This is an attack on abortions.


And poor people, don't forget that.
republicans hatez them poor-peeps.

They got them N'ola darkies but good!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#126 May 12 2011 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
That count as a Godwin's? It was damned near as silly as one, at any rate.

Silly? How so? I mean, I've read Ms. Sanger's own words on the subject, but if you've special insight on the founding I'd love to read it.


What Joph said?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#127 May 12 2011 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Silly? How so?

It's not 1920 any more, for one thing. Hey, once upon a time the Republicans freed the slaves. A hundred years later, we have Lee Atwater ******** that you can't call them "niggers" any longer and have to turn the whites against them in other ways.

Times sure do change, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 May 12 2011 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening
Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
Hey, if you ask Republicans, that's an elective service.

Are you suggesting that it's not or are you in agreement with them but lack the testicular fortitude to put forth the position?

If the latter, go figure, but if the former, do you know what elective means? No one is suggesting cancer screening is not important, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to effectively cast is as not elective.
I figured you'd say something like this. You're also assuming that health care overall is elective.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#129 May 12 2011 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Silly? How so?

It's not 1920 any more, for one thing. Hey, once upon a time the Republicans freed the slaves. A hundred years later, we have Lee Atwater ******** that you can't call them "niggers" any longer and have to turn the whites against them in other ways.

Times sure do change, huh?

Sanger died in 66 and espoused her beliefs until the end. And if you'll recall it's the Democrats who had Klansmen in the senate until last year. But this isn't about racial politics, it's about Planned Parenthood.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#130 May 12 2011 at 10:32 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
bsphil wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening
Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
Hey, if you ask Republicans, that's an elective service.

Are you suggesting that it's not or are you in agreement with them but lack the testicular fortitude to put forth the position?

If the latter, go figure, but if the former, do you know what elective means? No one is suggesting cancer screening is not important, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to effectively cast is as not elective.
I figured you'd say something like this. You're also assuming that health care overall is elective.

Hardly.

So you don't care to answer the question?
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#131 May 12 2011 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
cancer screening
Why cut cancer screening? That's just terrible.
Hey, if you ask Republicans, that's an elective service.

Are you suggesting that it's not or are you in agreement with them but lack the testicular fortitude to put forth the position?

If the latter, go figure, but if the former, do you know what elective means? No one is suggesting cancer screening is not important, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made to effectively cast is as not elective.
I figured you'd say something like this. You're also assuming that health care overall is elective.

Hardly.

So you don't care to answer the question?
Which? I don't think cancer screening should be elective, but then again, that's only because I can't bring myself to hate other people enough.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#132 May 12 2011 at 10:41 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,155 posts
I do not have a lot of time at the moment, so I apologize that I can not respond to all the points in your post, gbaji. However, I would like to respond to this one:

gbaji wrote:

So at the very least, perhaps we shouldn't be so focused on "provide more birth control and education" as the solution. That's clearly not the way to fix the problem you started out saying these things are supposed to prevent.


I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.

Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or *** education as a solution to fix a growing population. The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.

Edited, May 12th 2011 12:42pm by ChanchanXI
#133 May 12 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
bsphil wrote:
I don't think cancer screening should be elective, but then again, that's only because I can't bring myself to hate other people enough.

Just enough to decide how they live their lives for them. Gotcha.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#134 May 12 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
it's about Planned Parenthood.

So let's talk about the modern organization rather than trying to reach back nearly a century to score points.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#135 May 12 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
it's about Planned Parenthood.

So let's talk about the modern organization rather than trying to reach back nearly a century to score points.

Sure. What began as a project in selective breeding through birth control has morphed in to a project of selective breeding through abortion that demands it be paid for by the taxpayer and uses ancillary services as emotional pleas to assist its bid for funding.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#136 May 12 2011 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I disagree. You're factually inaccurate about the abortion funding and your premise isn't particularly convincing.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#137 May 12 2011 at 10:55 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I disagree. You're factually inaccurate about the abortion funding and your premise isn't particularly convincing.

I disagree. Keeping the lights on is required for an abortion and I find my premise very convincing.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#138 May 12 2011 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
You don't need the lights to punch someone in the stomach.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#139 May 12 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Keeping the lights on is required for an abortion

And yet not necessarily provided by tax funding as previous audits of PP have shown.
Quote:
and I find my premise very convincing.

I don't doubt it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 May 12 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
I don't think cancer screening should be elective, but then again, that's only because I can't bring myself to hate other people enough.
Just enough to decide how they live their lives for them. Gotcha.
Do you think those that want cancer screen should be given it (assuming at an appropriate age, on a yearly/biyearly/etc schedule)?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#141 May 12 2011 at 11:35 AM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
bsphil wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
bsphil wrote:
I don't think cancer screening should be elective, but then again, that's only because I can't bring myself to hate other people enough.
Just enough to decide how they live their lives for them. Gotcha.
Do you think those that want cancer screen should be given it (assuming at an appropriate age, on a yearly/biyearly/etc schedule)?
Not at the expense of the tax payer. Believing in the individual's right to fail makes me a monster.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#142 May 12 2011 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Believing in the individual's right to fail makes me a monster.

Yeah, but basing it on cancer screens is so petty that it makes you a small monster. Like a gremlin or maybe a Muppet.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 May 12 2011 at 11:52 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Believing in the individual's right to fail makes me a monster.

Yeah, but basing it on cancer screens is so petty that it makes you a small monster. Like a gremlin or maybe a Muppet.

ANIMAL!
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#144 May 12 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
They could provide for women's health far more easily if they separated the offending practice (around which the organization was founded) from actual health services.

You mean "They could provide for the women's health services Republicans find acceptable more easily if they don't provide any legal women's health services that Republicans find unacceptable.


Except that it's not just health services that Republicans find unacceptable, is it? Didn't Obama spend a **** of a lot of time insisting that not one dime of health care money would be spent on abortion? Heck. Haven't *you* argued that there's no problem because no tax dollars will fund abortion? If it's just Republicans who think that's important, they why not stand on your principles and insist that tax dollars should fund abortion? But you don't, do you? And neither does Obama, and neither do the majority of Democrats either. So let's stop pretending that this is all about what Republicans want, ok?

So... given that we're all agreed that tax dollars should not fund abortions, then why the opposition to insisting that the organization restructure in a way that allows us to ensure that this is actually the case? If the claims are true, then you should have no reason to oppose this. The *only* reason to oppose what Daniel's has done is if you both believe that PP does use tax dollars to fund abortions *and* you think that they should.

Why not be honest and admit that then? Or be honest and admit that what Daniel's is doing is perfectly in line with your own position on the issue? You kinda have to pick one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 May 12 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Except that it's not just health services that Republicans find unacceptable, is it?

Well, yes. You don't think abortion is classified as a health service? Unless you meant to say "Not just Republicans". In which case you're correct although it doesn't take much work to see what direction the little anti-PP crusade is coming from.

Quote:
So... given that we're all agreed that tax dollars should not fund abortions, then why the opposition to insisting that the organization restructure in a way that allows us to ensure that this is actually the case?

Because they're not in violation of anything and what they are doing is legal. This isn't about making sure tax money is spent properly -- as I pointed out last time, the restrictions aren't different than those of faith-based organizations and I don't see any GOP groundswell demanding that churches divorce themselves completely from their charities. This is purely about an ideological crusade against a legal medical procedure.

Quote:
Why not be honest and admit that then?

Why not be honest and admit that this is purely an ideological crusade against abortion and has nothing to do with spending or the law?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 May 12 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
ChanchanXI wrote:
I think the 40% statistic regarding unwed mothers isn't a tell-all since not all unwed mothers require financial assistance. If you could show the link between unwed mothers and required government assistance, then I may be able to agree with your point.


The rate has increased by a factor of 13 over that period of time. Are you suggesting that an unwed mother is only 1/13th as likely to require government assistance today as she would have back in the 50s? Why? That just seems like wishful thinking to me.

Quote:
Additionally, I do not think we are speaking of increasing the amount of birth control and/or *** education as a solution to fix a growing population.


Not a "growing population", but a "growing population in need of government services". Remember when I insisted that we clarify your hypothesis:

Quote:
Quote:
Let's first recall that hypothesis. You are claiming that it is less expensive to fund an organization which provides birth control than it is to pay for the social services for the "spawn" which would otherwise result. Thus, you are assuming that a dollar spent providing birth control will prevent a dollars worth of social services on child care. More specifically, you are assuming that the money spent on funding for birth control will cause a reduction in the number of children born needing those social services.

Yes, I would agree that is my guess. For sake of debate, I'll agree with your wording and say it's my "claim".


Your assumption is that by funding birth control, we are decreasing the amount of funding we have to pay for social services to support the children which would otherwise be born. Your argument is exactly about using birth control as a means to solve the problem of a growing population of children born poverty. You do remember your own argument, right?


Quote:
The statistics will not be able to distinguish how the outcome would have played out were the birth control/education not already in place. The situation is more along the lines of "Will the rates of birth increase in groups who previously had access to those services once those services are removed?" It's a subtle difference, but an important one when trying to compare against history.


Sure. But as I stated before. If your reason for supporting government funding for birth control on the grounds that it will reduce the cost to government to support the children who would otherwise be born, it's clear that the data simply does not support that reasoning at all. There's no evidence at all that handing out birth control is having any effect on the rate at which children are born into the conditions most likely to result in them needing government assistance. None at all. We assume this because the "obvious" assumption is that birth control helps "control birth", and thus empowers people to avoid that condition.


But it's clear that for whatever reason, it's not working. Can we at least agree therefore that spending money on providing birth control isn't the solution to that problem? I'm not saying that there aren't other reasons for doing it. I'll point out that I'm not arguing against funding birth control. Despite appearances, what I'm arguing against is doing it for the reasons you are claiming. You just stated what I saw as a week/false argument for providing birth control. That's it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 May 12 2011 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,711 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Except that it's not just health services that Republicans find unacceptable, is it?

Well, yes. You don't think abortion is classified as a health service?


Yet Obama still promised that his universal health care would not pay for it, didn't he? Do you think that taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions? I noticed you avoided answering this question, but it's the central issue, isn't it? Can you be honest about this?


Quote:
Because they're not in violation of anything and what they are doing is legal. This isn't about making sure tax money is spent properly -- as I pointed out last time, the restrictions aren't different than those of faith-based organizations and I don't see any GOP groundswell demanding that churches divorce themselves completely from their charities. This is purely about an ideological crusade against a legal medical procedure.


Huh? And as I pointed out to you, those charities are not allowed to combine the funds they receive from the government with the general church funds either. They are required to be separate entities in that regard. All we're asking here is that PP be held to the exact same restriction. It's the same thing I suggested in the last thread, and it's the same thing Moe is suggesting in this one. And btw, it's the exact thing that Daniels is saying has to happen before they can receive funding.

Why is this wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 May 12 2011 at 4:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,686 posts
Quote:
Do you think that taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions?
I do. I'd rather a one time payment than to have to possibly pay for that family on welfare forever.

Edited, May 12th 2011 7:58pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#149 May 12 2011 at 5:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,849 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Quote:
Do you think that taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions?
I do. I'd rather a one time payment than to have to possibly pay for that family on welfare forever.
Look, just because you and anyone else with basic cognitive thinking processes can think a step or two ahead doesn't mean everyone else can.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#150 May 12 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Do you think that taxpayer dollars should pay for abortions? I noticed you avoided answering this question, but it's the central issue, isn't it? Can you be honest about this?

I honestly don't care if they do or not. But the law says that they can not and so PP keeps separate records and undergoes regular audits. I've linked to samples of those audits in the other thread.

Quote:
Huh? And as I pointed out to you, those charities are not allowed to combine the funds they receive from the government with the general church funds either. They are required to be separate entities in that regard.

And, as I pointed out, you were wrong when you said it and linked to examples of how religious charities can use the same building for both religious and charitable functions, share staff, etc. All the same stuff you cry about Planned Parenthood doing (although PP probably does a much better job of keeping them separate).

The day the GOP starts fighting for all government funded charities to be purely secular with no religious ties is the day I start accepting that their interest in PP is based on anything beyond forcing social ideology.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 May 12 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The day the GOP starts fighting for all government funded charities to be purely secular with no religious ties is the day I start accepting that their interest in PP is based on anything beyond forcing social ideology.

Why we have government funded charities at all is completely beyond me. Charity is not the role of government.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT