Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Indiana cuts off Planned ParenthoodFollow

#102 May 12 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#104 May 12 2011 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 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.


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
*****
14,567 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).
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#106 May 12 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,646 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
******
30,646 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
******
35,374 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.


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
******
30,646 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
******
30,646 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
******
35,374 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.


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
*****
10,246 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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#118 May 12 2011 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 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
*****
10,246 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
*****
10,246 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
****
6,471 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.
#123 May 12 2011 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 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
*****
16,594 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:
I lost my post
#125 May 12 2011 at 10:22 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,246 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
****
6,471 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?
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 50 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (50)