It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Planned Parenthood Just Responded to Paul Ryan's Threat to Defund the Health Organization

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: gernblan

Once again, government funding of PP comes through Medicaid. Should hospitals just be privately funded to cover their Medicaid patients? OB/GYNs?


But that's not direct funding. That's just another claim through the system like anything else. I'm talking about administrative funding, paying the electric bill, things like that.




posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   


This party is so disgusting, the only one they ever claim to care about is a fetus but everyone else..NOPE.
edit on 6-1-2017 by bigdaddycruel6699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: gernblan

The government doesn't provide money for those things.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Do you even know how the government funds PP? They're not giving them money to cover operating costs or anything. It means that the government reimburses them when someone comes in with Medicaid. A person with basic insurance can go to PP and they're visit will be billed to their insurance.

So by defunding PP it means that a person with Medicaid who would previously gone there now has to go to a hospital or other office. Both of which will almost definitely have a higher bill than PP. Thus causing the taxes to increase because the government now needs more money for Medicaid.

PP can still exist without government funding. They might have to close some more rural locations where most of their patients have Medicaid but they'll still be around.

The funny thing is that the ones hurt most by defunding PP are a demographic that is key to the GOP, the rural working class.


No, I don't know all the different ways it is funded. When I need health services I use my ridiculously priced medical insurance, which is directly affected by PP. I know medicaid has a part in it and taxpayers pay on average of $500 million/year to fund PP.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Even if the government defunded PP the taxpayers would still be paying at least as much if not more. Just because PP no longer accepts Medicaid doesn't mean those people are just not going to not seek out somewhere else. A hospital has much higher operating costs than PP. Thus they might bill more than PP for the same procedure. If a person with Medicaid is now forced to go to a hospital instead of PP that means Medicaid will need to shell out more money meaning it will need more money from the taxpayers.

Do you also have a problem with free clinics? Those are much more directly funded by taxes.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard




Why wouldn't he want repeal? Because the reality of repeal and replace later is that it would cause absolute chaos.


I truly believe that a lot of Trump supporters, based on I read here on ATS, want anarchy. Congress? Not so much.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: chadderson
a reply to: windword

A responsible woman would NOT have sex if she felt the risk of having a child. Get real.


and.... responsible men should be more than happy to accept the idea that their wife desires to place a long term ban on the sex in their marriage!!!



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



Maybe with the exception of a rape victim, but other than that it was their choice to try and have a baby.


Do you think that all women are trying to have a baby when they have sex? Do you think all men, when they're having sex with women, are trying to make a baby?




Do I really have to explain that when you have sex, protected or not. There is a risk for pregnancy.

No. I'm sure windword understands that perfectly. What about the teenage kids who are just starting to grow into their sexuality and know next to nothing about sex and its life changing consequences? If they knew and understood this then teen pregnancy wouldn't be as high as it it. That is a statement of fact.


I have a 13 year old boy. Another statement of fact is parents need to educate their children.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



Maybe with the exception of a rape victim, but other than that it was their choice to try and have a baby.


Do you think that all women are trying to have a baby when they have sex? Do you think all men, when they're having sex with women, are trying to make a baby?




Do I really have to explain that when you have sex, protected or not. There is a risk for pregnancy.

No. I'm sure windword understands that perfectly. What about the teenage kids who are just starting to grow into their sexuality and know next to nothing about sex and its life changing consequences? If they knew and understood this then teen pregnancy wouldn't be as high as it it. That is a statement of fact.


I have a 13 year old boy. Another statement of fact is parents need to educate their children.

Not all kids have parents.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
So how were they born?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

actually, it's just the lifeline program... the cellphones were just added as an option. it will provide you with a cellphone, or a land line, you choice.
and I think it was around longer that bush even..



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

Even if the government defunded PP the taxpayers would still be paying at least as much if not more. Just because PP no longer accepts Medicaid doesn't mean those people are just not going to not seek out somewhere else. A hospital has much higher operating costs than PP. Thus they might bill more than PP for the same procedure. If a person with Medicaid is now forced to go to a hospital instead of PP that means Medicaid will need to shell out more money meaning it will need more money from the taxpayers.

Do you also have a problem with free clinics? Those are much more directly funded by taxes.


Yep, and Medicaid is another government subsidy highly misused/abused. It needs chopped up and redone in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
So how were they born?

Are you just being deliberately obtuse or can you not consider that some kids are put up for adoption, the state takes charge of them, or their parents just flat out pass away?



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
So how were they born?

Are you just being deliberately obtuse or can you not consider that some kids are put up for adoption, the state takes charge of them, or their parents just flat out pass away?


Less than 5% of children are parentless and most of them live with their grandparents.

Source



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I'm not looking for statistics. I was just showing you that there is a portion of the child population that CAN'T receive guidance from their parents. This is to get you to see that your "one-size-fits" all solution is a poor one. I mean this isn't even taking into account the children that have parents they never see, are abusive, ALSO don't know how sex or contraceptives work, and a myriad of other situations that aren't the perfect 2 parents and children in a stable home that you seem to picture Americans all have.
edit on 6-1-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

So in other words you pretty much just feel that the poor can go f*** themselves. How very Christian of you.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Middleoftheroad



Maybe with the exception of a rape victim, but other than that it was their choice to try and have a baby.


Do you think that all women are trying to have a baby when they have sex? Do you think all men, when they're having sex with women, are trying to make a baby?




Do I really have to explain that when you have sex, protected or not. There is a risk for pregnancy.

No. I'm sure windword understands that perfectly. What about the teenage kids who are just starting to grow into their sexuality and know next to nothing about sex and its life changing consequences? If they knew and understood this then teen pregnancy wouldn't be as high as it it. That is a statement of fact.


I have a 13 year old boy. Another statement of fact is parents need to educate their children.


Should we blame children for not "choosing" good parents?

Parents should/could/need to . . . and . . .



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I'm not looking for statistics. I was just showing you that there is a portion of the child population that CAN'T receive guidance from their parents. This is to get you to see that your "one-size-fits" all solution is a poor one. I mean this isn't even taking into account the children that have parents they never see, are abusive, ALSO don't know how sex or contraceptives work, and a myriad of other situations that aren't the perfect 2 parents and children in a stable home that you seem to picture Americans all have.


Then what are you looking for? You started your off topic argument with me when I made a statement that people need to use condoms and not PP as a source for birth control.

Then you bring in your ridiculous argument of not all kids have parents, when I was referring to adults not using condoms.

I show you that a very very small percentage of kids are actually parentless and that the majority of those are being raised by their grandparents, which can teach them the same thing. So who is being obtuse here?

ETA: Just make a thread about parentless kids and we can debate their, but right now I feel you are taking me off topic.
edit on 6-1-2017 by Middleoftheroad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: NotToday




What are you gonna do about it, make a sign and chant? We run the show now and we do not want to subsidize your life


So you are proposing that you take away the Republicans subsidized program that allows churches to be tax exempt?

Cool since I'm agnostic and all, and don't believe squat when it comes to religion. I would love for my tax dollars to not have to pick up the burden caused by tax exempt fairytale organizations such as churches.



In regards to abortions , Instead of defunding Planned Parenthood why don't the Republicans make every Church have to pay , love, , take care of these children and take responsibility for them until they are 18 years of age.

Oh yeah its far easier to stick your head in the sand and not see the reality of life and blame others for not taking responsibility.


edit on 31131America/ChicagoFri, 06 Jan 2017 11:31:25 -0600000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Middleoftheroad

I just explained what I was doing. Try reading my post. I'm not going to retype it out.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join