|
|
On October 22 2012 14:11 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:08 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 14:06 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 13:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts. exactly. 23 million unemployed and 46 million on food stamps and mitt is going to wave a magic wand and fix everything by getting rid of pp and abortion. amazing You could fix the 46 million number by taking away that money and then what? just let them starve? when was the last time you were hungry? some of you people really amaze me. I can't think how you say these things if you really mean them
yeah dude.. it's their fault the housing market crashed and the economy is bad. let the fuckers starve, I say. too lazy to get a fucking job amirite
|
On October 22 2012 14:09 Zaqwert wrote:
The "War on Women" ™ is shameless fear mongoring and the Dems know it, well most of them anyway, apparently a lot of people in this thread don't.
You do realize there was a Republican President with a Republican majorities in both houses of Congress for 6 years (2000-2006) and abortion is still legal, women can still buy contraceptives, all the other crap they are saying will happen didn't happen.
Apparently being against the government giving women stuff for free just for the hell of it is now anti-woman. Quite a neat little political ploy the Dems tried, but the thing is I don't think it's a winner. All the women stupid enough to be duped by such are already firmly in the Democratic camp.
These social issues are just used to inflame emtions and get people not thinking and just blindly supporting your side, be it abortion, or gay marriage, etc. Both parties do this crap.
That's because a Supreme Court ruling (necessary for both contraception and abortion, incidentally) can't be overturned by a simple majority in Congress while controlling the executive. Considering the go-to method for changing abortion policy will be overturning Roe v. Wade in the court, it's entirely reasonable to vote against a presidential candidate controlling appointments who is vocally against the policy if you are firmly pro-choice. Bush's appointments brought us closer, and it's possible Romney could do even more. Other parts of the "war on women" may be exaggerated, but Roe v. Wade is a real issue.
This is assuming Paul Ryan straight up lied in the debates.
On October 22 2012 14:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:08 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:04 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:01 Sermokala wrote:On October 22 2012 13:59 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 13:40 turdburgler wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:
[quote]
Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. pissing on 47% of the population though... lololol On October 22 2012 13:31 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 BlueBird. wrote:
[quote]
This doesn't bother me at all. Planned Parenthood is defending themselves, thats fine with me, since I enjoy their services and use them.
And yes you can get prostate screenings at planned parenthood, they might not be free, their prices depends on your financial situation and your states funding etc. You really think that makes it OK? Imagine if the Heritage Foundation was kept afloat with Federal funding. Obama declared he wanted to cut that funding. Would it then be ok for them to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on pro-Romney ads? It's ludicrous. federal money shouldn't be used for advertising partisan opinions. i assume you will be getting on a similar high horse about churches that side with either candidate? I'm not aware of any churches that get federal funding, and I would strongly oppose any that did. would you oppose faith based organizations getting federal funding? I mean to be fair it is kinda the same when the red cross gets funding and the salvation army gets funding. just check your local detox facility and see who pays for and runs it. you might be surprised. Do they run political ads like PP? If so then IMO they should lose their federal funding. Can you find a political ad from Planned Parenthood and not the separate entity called the Planned Parenthood Action Fund? No, and I never said they used federal money (directly) to run the ads. But money is fungible and the clout PP has comes in part from the federal funding they get. Actually it's probably drawn from an entirely separate wing of donations explicitly for political action (the budget details are legally confidential as they should be), but keep on believing that! Yes it does come from separate donations... that's what I said... You can still do things like split overhead and salaries / benefits with a little creative accounting. And if PP was smaller (due to less federal funding) they wouldn't likely get as much attention (and funding!) for their action fund. Or heck, maybe if federal funding was cut they'd get a swell of donations just to stick it to the Republicans and be set for life.
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish.
|
On October 22 2012 14:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:11 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 14:08 BluePanther wrote:On October 22 2012 14:06 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 22 2012 13:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:xDaunt blocks things like this out of his head because the only way for a purely conservative standpoint like his to be coherent in any way is for him to ignore a large amount of facts. exactly. 23 million unemployed and 46 million on food stamps and mitt is going to wave a magic wand and fix everything by getting rid of pp and abortion. amazing You could fix the 46 million number by taking away that money and then what? just let them starve? when was the last time you were hungry? some of you people really amaze me. I can't think how you say these things if you really mean them yeah dude.. it's their fault the housing market crashed and the economy is bad. let the fuckers starve, I say. too lazy to get a fucking job amirite
and they had jobs until we had to cut govt, cut teachers, cut auto workers, no more health care. yeah that's fair
|
On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish.
I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal.
|
On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal.
Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting."
And if it's not illegal, it's just a PAC! Were you saying they should be defunded when they made a PAC? There's a teacher's PAC too, and they get government funding. Better stop funding teachers!
|
On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting."
Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law.
Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about.
|
On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about.
Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC?
|
Abortion will NEVER be illegal again in the US, period. It would take a constitutional amemdment specifically forbidding it and those are damn near impossible to pass, even when a vast majority of people support them, and in the case of abortion that's clearly not the case.
People realize the Supreme Court does not get together every day and re-vote on whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal. There is 40 years of legal precedence now that says it's legal given the existing Consitution.
Like I said, the abortion debate is nothing but fear mongoring, a complete red herring. The status of abortion in 4 years will be 100% identical with Obama or Romney, that's just common sense talking.
|
On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC?
to be fair the teachers are forced to join the unions and thus forced to support democratic candidates or they lose their job.
Public unions aren't corrupt or have too much power at all.
|
On October 22 2012 14:29 Zaqwert wrote:
Abortion will NEVER be illegal again in the US, period. It would take a constitutional amemdment specifically forbidding it and those are damn near impossible to pass, even when a vast majority of people support them, and in the case of abortion that's clearly not the case.
People realize the Supreme Court does not get together every day and re-vote on whether or not abortion should be legal or illegal. There is 40 years of legal precedence now that says it's legal given the existing Consitution.
Like I said, the abortion debate is nothing but fear mongoring, a complete red herring. The status of abortion in 4 years will be 100% identical with Obama or Romney, that's just common sense talking.
Uh, no, "common sense" says that electing the person who specifically says he wants to overturn 40 years of legal precedent would make it more likely for abortion restrictions to be created.
It's not as though there aren't plenty of cases you could effectively turn into Roe v. Wade given the currently existing legislation in many states. Suits don't always have the effects you think they would-look at Citizen's United.
Edit: Either a) Romney is lying by saying he'll meaningfully impact Roe v. Wade or b) he'll try to overturn it. Either way if you're pro-choice he should take a few hits in your books.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:26 turdburgler wrote:
[quote]
other westernised countries are building year on year on their cancer screening and sti education because prevention is not only better, but cheaper than a cure.
and yet in the US you want to cut funding because its a socialist abortion factory?
because thats what your saying so far. it needs to be made clear by people in this thread, and republicans in general, whether they are against planned parenthood or against abortion. because right now from the outside it looks like your trying to argue a pro cancer position.
HAHAHA!! I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer! Wow, just wow! You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer. That's BS. Low quality BS at that. What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else. Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack. Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient. And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services. In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls! No, do you have a cost breakdown I could see?
Considering how many different services there are you'll have to Google most of 'em on your own, but this is what I found from a quick search:
For patients not covered by health insurance, STD tests done at a doctor's office usually cost $50 to $200 each, depending on the test. For patients who do not want to visit a doctor for testing, perhaps because they do not want the testing and results to become part of their permanent medical record, private STD testing companies that do not accept health insurance offer testing for about $50 to $150 per test, depending on the disease, or a package of seven to 10 STD tests, including HIV, for about $300 to $400. http://health.costhelper.com/std-testing.html
All of this you can get free at Planned Parenthood if you are without health insurance/low income.
|
On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC?
It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates.
A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation.
|
On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation.
The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding.
Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest.
Edit2: And Amnesty International. And quite a few other groups.
|
On October 22 2012 14:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
HAHAHA!!
I say that I want federal PP funding to go to other organizations and now I'm pro-cancer!
Wow, just wow! You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer. That's BS. Low quality BS at that. What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else. Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack. Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient. And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services. In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls! No, do you have a cost breakdown I could see? Considering how many different services there are you'll have to Google most of 'em on your own, but this is what I found from a quick search: Show nested quote +For patients not covered by health insurance, STD tests done at a doctor's office usually cost $50 to $200 each, depending on the test. For patients who do not want to visit a doctor for testing, perhaps because they do not want the testing and results to become part of their permanent medical record, private STD testing companies that do not accept health insurance offer testing for about $50 to $150 per test, depending on the disease, or a package of seven to 10 STD tests, including HIV, for about $300 to $400. http://health.costhelper.com/std-testing.html All of this you can get free at Planned Parenthood if you are without health insurance/low income.
Ok, awesome. So if PP charges the government less than the $50 to $150 per test that private companies charge (assuming they wouldn't offer a discount to get government business) we can say that PP is more efficient, put a number on it and decide if the difference (if any) is worth it.
|
On October 22 2012 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:34 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS. Low quality BS at that. What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else. Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack. Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient. And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services. In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls! No, do you have a cost breakdown I could see? Considering how many different services there are you'll have to Google most of 'em on your own, but this is what I found from a quick search: For patients not covered by health insurance, STD tests done at a doctor's office usually cost $50 to $200 each, depending on the test. For patients who do not want to visit a doctor for testing, perhaps because they do not want the testing and results to become part of their permanent medical record, private STD testing companies that do not accept health insurance offer testing for about $50 to $150 per test, depending on the disease, or a package of seven to 10 STD tests, including HIV, for about $300 to $400. http://health.costhelper.com/std-testing.htmlAll of this you can get free at Planned Parenthood if you are without health insurance/low income. Ok, awesome. So if PP charges the government less than the $50 to $150 per test that private companies charge (assuming they wouldn't offer a discount to get government business) we can say that PP is more efficient, put a number on it and decide if the difference (if any) is worth it.
Don't ignore geography and access, this isn't business, this is public health.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:34 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:38 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're not pro-cancer, you just don't realize that without PP, lots of women won't get cancer screenings that can prevent cervical cancer.
That's BS. Low quality BS at that. What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else. Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack. Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient. And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services. In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls! No, do you have a cost breakdown I could see? Considering how many different services there are you'll have to Google most of 'em on your own, but this is what I found from a quick search: For patients not covered by health insurance, STD tests done at a doctor's office usually cost $50 to $200 each, depending on the test. For patients who do not want to visit a doctor for testing, perhaps because they do not want the testing and results to become part of their permanent medical record, private STD testing companies that do not accept health insurance offer testing for about $50 to $150 per test, depending on the disease, or a package of seven to 10 STD tests, including HIV, for about $300 to $400. http://health.costhelper.com/std-testing.htmlAll of this you can get free at Planned Parenthood if you are without health insurance/low income. Ok, awesome. So if PP charges the government less than the $50 to $150 per test that private companies charge (assuming they wouldn't offer a discount to get government business) we can say that PP is more efficient, put a number on it and decide if the difference (if any) is worth it.
Don't forget the $15-$30 that someone would have to pay for the doctor's visit. Also, what farvy said.
|
On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest.
Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there.
I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics.
|
On October 22 2012 14:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest. Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there. I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics.
Ah. And if the planned parenthood employees want to have a voice they can't say they're planned parenthood employees? Seems a bit silly to me.
Again, AARP is a much, much better example.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 22 2012 14:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:41 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:27 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:24 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 22 2012 14:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:16 TheTenthDoc wrote:
What you're saying is they're siphoning money from federal funding into their action committee to support Obama, even if that committee is entirely using money generated explicitly for political purposes. The IRS even supports them, dude, it's not even shady for them to be doing this.
What you're doing is accusing Planned Parenthood of something illegal. If you have evidence, go for it with the IRS! Then they'll be defunded and you'll get your wish. I'm not accusing PP of doing anything illegal. Oh really? That's what it sounds like when you talk about "creative accounting." Creative accounting is not illegal... the whole point of being creative with your accounting is so that you get what you want within the law. Edit: Isn't that a teacher's union PAC? A bit different if that's what you are talking about. Is it really, when the unions take money directly from teacher paychecks and administer the PAC? It would be weird if schools banded together to form a PAC and endorse candidates. A union runs a PAC ad as the position of the union, not the school. PP's action fund runs ads that are the position of PP. So they get extra clout from their organization's reputation. The PAC of the American Teacher's Federation runs ads and gives donations that are the positions of teachers (it's in their bylaws the members must approve donations) and gets extra clout because of the fact that their organization consists of teachers, all of whom partially live on federal funding. Edit: A better example is AARP to be honest. Apples to oranges. Teachers are not schools, they just work there. I'm not suggesting that PP's employees can't have a political voice. I don't like the organization itself playing politics.
What about defense contractors, the oil/energy sector, etc.? I would love it if they all didn't have a voice as well.
|
On October 22 2012 14:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 14:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 14:34 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 14:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:41 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 13:26 Souma wrote:On October 22 2012 13:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 22 2012 12:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On October 22 2012 12:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
That's BS.
Low quality BS at that. What's BS about it? PP does a shit ton of cancer screenings to women who can't afford it anywhere else. Your point? PP would still exist w/o federal funds. Federal funding elsewhere could plausibly pick up the slack. Just because it exists does not mean it'll be nearly as effective. You can shift federal funds elsewhere but there is nothing that is nearly as efficient and cheap as Planned Parenthood for the kinds of services that they offer. Speculative. It could be less effective or it could be more effective. Besides they've dug their own grave. You can't piss on half the politicians in Washington and expect zero repercussions. Speculative? Do you know the cost of these kinds of services in hospitals at the moment? Chucking them some money (which would be spread out amongst multiple times more clinics) is not going to make them as efficient. And I don't care if they've "dug their own grave," as I don't give a single damn about political repercussions. The argument at hand is on whether this funding should continue or not and why. I mean, jeezes, it was freaking Nixon who introduced federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Surely the Republicans at the time saw merit in its services. In any case, this whole argument is insane. THIS IS A GOOD THING GUYS. People are getting the help they need! Rejoice! Smile! If you fear you're going to contract testicular cancer, you can rest assured because Planned Parenthood will be here to save the day one of your balls! No, do you have a cost breakdown I could see? Considering how many different services there are you'll have to Google most of 'em on your own, but this is what I found from a quick search: For patients not covered by health insurance, STD tests done at a doctor's office usually cost $50 to $200 each, depending on the test. For patients who do not want to visit a doctor for testing, perhaps because they do not want the testing and results to become part of their permanent medical record, private STD testing companies that do not accept health insurance offer testing for about $50 to $150 per test, depending on the disease, or a package of seven to 10 STD tests, including HIV, for about $300 to $400. http://health.costhelper.com/std-testing.htmlAll of this you can get free at Planned Parenthood if you are without health insurance/low income. Ok, awesome. So if PP charges the government less than the $50 to $150 per test that private companies charge (assuming they wouldn't offer a discount to get government business) we can say that PP is more efficient, put a number on it and decide if the difference (if any) is worth it. Don't ignore geography and access, this isn't business, this is public health.
Ok I won't ignore that. Still, public health should be evaluated objectively. Cost is a useful objective measure so let's not ignore that either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
