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.

 

Trump expected to cut Planned Parenthood funding

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Blaine91555

I kind of think that the vatican is a heck of alot richer than planned parenthood....
so why do their hospitals need tax dollars? they should just give the taxpayers a break and provide those poor medicaid/medicare patients free healthcare and not expect reimbursement from those gov't programs for the provided care!!!


The Vatican does not support abortion. They are not getting recompensed because they don't offer the service in the first place.




posted on May, 17 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

How Federal Funding Works at Planned Parenthood

Turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Most of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is from Medicaid reimbursements for preventive care, and some is from Title X. There’s no keep-Planned-Parenthood-running part of the federal budget.



To really understand what federal funds pay for at Planned Parenthood, you first need to know that federal tax dollars don’t pay for abortions. A decades-old, unfair law already prohibits that (except in cases of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is in danger).

Again, most federal funding comes to Planned Parenthood in the form of reimbursements through Medicaid, the government-funded health insurance plan for people with low incomes.

Just like other kinds of health insurance, Medicaid reimburses Planned Parenthood’s doctors and nurses for the preventive medical services they provide, including life-saving cancer screenings, HIV testing, and birth control. There are no special favors here.

The majority of federal funds come through Planned Parenthood health centers via reimbursements for the medical services that they provide to patients who either have Medicaid coverage or qualify for other publicly funded health care programs (like Title X).

Planned Parenthood’s health centers also get federal funds for delivering vital services through Title X, the nation’s family planning program — funds that can only be used to support family planning health care.

You do know what a reimbursement is right? It's getting paid back for money already put out. In this case for services that AREN'T abortions.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, we've already covered that.
PP get paid back for services supplied, which frees up money for abortion services, for which the same staff, facilities and supplies contribute to that abortion service.

So they fund abortions from the savings they made from the govt subsidy - tax dollars.

Case closed.

edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: nwtrucker

In a roundabout way they do, since they're not paying any kind of taxes.


PP is 'paying taxes'?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Again. You can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.


Yes it does.

edit on 17-5-2018 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there is no restriction against using donated money for abortions. So now you are just moving the goal posts.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Again. You can say otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.


Yes it does.

Except it doesn't. Hence why PP is allowed to operate as it does.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.

At what point do you get to dictate the morality of someone else?


I'm not dictating. Just making a statement.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade


The quantity of murders has reduced.

*shrugs*

I stand by what I said.

We aren't changing behaviors, we're legitimizing current behaviors.


But your desired result is occurring anyways. I mean you do accept that there is no possible way to get to zero abortions right?


It's a worthy goal.

Maybe one day.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there is no restriction against using donated money for abortions. So now you are just moving the goal posts.


Seems like the ogal posts were moved earlier that UKTruth.....



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Maybe. Since it is clearly impossible for you guys to accept reality.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there is no restriction against using donated money for abortions. So now you are just moving the goal posts.


Indeed, there is no restriction on PP using tax dollars for abortions, hence they do. Without such tax dollars their cost to provide abortions would go up.


edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.

At what point do you get to dictate the morality of someone else?


I'm not dictating. Just making a statement.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade


The quantity of murders has reduced.

*shrugs*

I stand by what I said.

We aren't changing behaviors, we're legitimizing current behaviors.


But your desired result is occurring anyways. I mean you do accept that there is no possible way to get to zero abortions right?


It's a worthy goal.

Maybe one day.

So it reasons you should support the most effective means to reduce abortions. IE abortions should be legal and contraceptives should be promoted. Then finally, safe sex should be taught in schools.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there is no restriction against using donated money for abortions. So now you are just moving the goal posts.


Indeed, there is no restriction on PP using tax dollars for abortions, hence they do. Without such tax dollars their cost to provide abortions would go up.

But that is a lie... Hyde Amendment

Stop inventing issues out of thin air. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Well there is no restriction against using donated money for abortions. So now you are just moving the goal posts.


Indeed, there is no restriction on PP using tax dollars for abortions, hence they do. Without such tax dollars their cost to provide abortions would go up.

But that is a lie... Hyde Amendment

Stop inventing issues out of thin air. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.


It really is not difficult to understand.
You provide two services that cost you $100 each to provide.
You only have $100.
The govt gives you $100.
You are able to provide both now.

You can argue till you are blue in the face that the $100 from the govt was only for the cost of one of the services, but it enabled you to provide the other. You can even stay within the law by applying the $100 from the govt to one allowed service only (accounting), but it STILL enabled you to provide both services.

I look forward to the funding being cut and watching what happens to the cost of an abortion, because what you are saying is that the cost will not rise at all if funding is cut, right?
edit on 17/5/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Yes, I know it is legal. I wish it wasn't. I think it is murder.

We look at an act, like abortion, and instead of changing our behavior to eliminate abortions, we change our laws to justify the behavior.

At what point do you get to dictate the morality of someone else?


I'm not dictating. Just making a statement.

So why don't you accept this statement?
U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade


The quantity of murders has reduced.

*shrugs*

I stand by what I said.

We aren't changing behaviors, we're legitimizing current behaviors.


But your desired result is occurring anyways. I mean you do accept that there is no possible way to get to zero abortions right?


It's a worthy goal.

Maybe one day.

So it reasons you should support the most effective means to reduce abortions. IE abortions should be legal and contraceptives should be promoted. Then finally, safe sex should be taught in schools.


Promoting abortions does nothing to reduce abortions.

Promoting safe sex does.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Planned Parenthood doesn't pay for abortions with tax payer money.


Nonsense.
Tax dollars are used for staff costs, supplies and facilities. They are inseparable between the various forms of services provided.

You saying otherwise doesn't make it true.


It's simple, and not a case of true or false, it's just simply reality.
The funding they get goes towards the running of their business, including staff costs, facilities, property, supplies.

If none of the money was going toward abortions - which is impossible - then the answer is simple.
Close all abortion practices within PP clinics, open up a sub-brand with new clinics focusing on abortions only and restrict the use of funds from the federal govt paid to PP so that none can be legally passed to the sub brand.

If none of the money is currently going to abortions then this would cost nothing.

What's simple is that Planned Parenthood isn't using the money to fund abortions and the existence of accountants means that it is totally possible to compartmentalize funding to make sure this is the case.


How do you compartmentalise the salaries and facility costs?
Are there abortion beds, abortion rent, abortion salaries?

If there is no money going towards abortion services, then like I said, they could separate completely, open up specific abortion clinics and have completely separate staff, facilities and supplies. They wouldn't do that because it would hurt their profits - i.e. it would cost them money - hence tax dollars are currently being used to pay for abortion services.

Here's another little example...
I have $100. I need to buy groceries for $100 but also want a $100 phone. You give me $100. I say, thanks for buying my groceries, but remember you didn't pay for my phone.
I got my groceries and my phone because you gave me money, regardless of how I account for your gift, you put money towards my phone, in fact, you enabled me to buy it.


You're forgetting about the money they spend to lobby for abortions. Sure, it's not spent on directly proving abortions.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
It really is not difficult to understand.

I know it isn't, yet you continue to fail to understand how reimbursements work.


You can argue till you are blue in the face that the $100 from the govt was only for the cost of one of the services, but it enabled you to provide the other. You can even stay within the law by applying the $100 from the govt to one allowed service only (accounting), but it STILL enabled you to provide both services.

Um no... If I am given $100 to pay for a service that costed me $100 to perform, then I wouldn't be able to perform any other services without more funding. IE donations. So really you are the one who keeps failing to understand math.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Promoting abortions does nothing to reduce abortions.

Besides this being a strawman since abortion isn't "promoted", it's merely offered as a service for those who want it, got any figures to show that legalized abortions are keeping the abortion rate higher than it would be if they were illegal?


Promoting safe sex does.

At least we agree on something.



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
It really is not difficult to understand.

I know it isn't, yet you continue to fail to understand how reimbursements work.


You can argue till you are blue in the face that the $100 from the govt was only for the cost of one of the services, but it enabled you to provide the other. You can even stay within the law by applying the $100 from the govt to one allowed service only (accounting), but it STILL enabled you to provide both services.

Um no... If I am given $100 to pay for a service that costed me $100 to perform, then I wouldn't be able to perform any other services without more funding. IE donations. So really you are the one who keeps failing to understand math.


lol, what?
In the example you already had $100 - which after your govt subsidy you can now use to pay for the second service. In PP's case, that's abortions.

I'll repeat,
I look forward to the funding being cut and watching what happens to the cost of an abortion, because what you are saying is that the cost will not rise at all if funding is cut, right?



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
lol, what?
In the example you already had $100 - which after your govt subsidy you can now use to pay for the second service. In PP's case, that's abortions.

Who cares about your example? I'm talking about how Planned Parenthood works with receiving reimbursements.


I'll repeat,
I look forward to the funding being cut and watching what happens to the cost of an abortion, because what you are saying is that the cost will not rise at all if funding is cut, right?

It's SOOO wonderful that you are looking forward to making the lives of unwell poor women that much worse by making it hard to receive medicaid or Title-x payments. You're such a standup guy. /s

From my PP source:

At least 60% of Planned Parenthood patients rely on public health programs like Medicaid and Title X for their preventive and primary care. So, when you hear extreme politicians talking about “defunding” Planned Parenthood, they really mean blocking patients who rely on public health care programs from getting their care at Planned Parenthood centers

edit on 17-5-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join