John Kasich Will Sign Bill To Defund Planned Parenthood In His State

[BlueGin]

I think it's the mixing in of private money to subsidize the abortions in the same setting of govt funding for other services.

Hospitals accept MedicAid and MediCare, private practices and other non-PP clinics accept MedicAid and MediCare. They also mix govt funding with other services.

Clinics, Hospitals, and Private Practices also accept Tri-Care which is govt funds.


>>>>

Plus all of the big providers have Medicare/Medicaid replacement plans.

MediCare replacement plan?

What is that. When I turn 65 I qualify for MediCare, I can purchase supplemental insurance that covers what MediCare doesn't cover, but that is not a "replacement".

MedicAid is government coverage for the poor. I've never heard of a replacement plan for that one either. If you earn enough where you can afford to carry a private insurance plan, I don't think you would typically qualify for MedicAid anyway.


>>>>

How Medicare Advantage Plans work | Medicare.gov

You are really still in Medicare and the government is paying premiums. Still taxpayer money.

From your link:
Medicare pays a fixed amount for your care each month to the companies offering Medicare Advantage Plans.

>>>>

They are meant to simplify regular Medicare and in some cases can be cheaper.

Via ask.com...

"They are a Medicare option that combines your Part A, B and sometimes part D into one plan that is administered by a Medicare contracted insurance company. Many of these plans have very low or even 0 monthly premiums. You still have copays but they are generally much less than Original Medicare."

 

[Lakhota]

Since it's against the law to use taxpayer funds for abortions, and the fact that Planned Parenthood and any facility that performs abortions are closely audited and monitored by the fed - can anyone provide any "credible" PROOF that taxpayers are funding abortions. How exactly are they doing that?

So, you are saying that there is no federal money going to planned parenthood? Then why object to cutting off federal funding?

Duh, because only 3% of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortions - meaning that 97% goes for non-abortion related women, and men healthcare. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

That isn't at all what you said. You said that taxpayers don't fund planned parenthood.

Please show me where I said that taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood. They receive both private and federal funding.

Bear with me because I have to guide you by the hand through the mountain of bull shit you created:

So they do receive federal funding and by your own admission, at least 3% of what they do is abortions.

Therefor, taxpayers do fund abortions there. Got it now?

As per federal law, the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can only be used for abortions that relate to rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother. Do you disagree with that?

Planned Parenthood

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why isn't funding removed from independent OBGYN practices and hospitals that also do abortions and yet can still submit MedicAid and MediCare for other not abortion services?


>>>>

I think it's the mixing in of private money to subsidize the abortions in the same setting of govt funding for other services.

Hospitals accept MedicAid and MediCare, private practices and other non-PP clinics accept MedicAid and MediCare. They also mix govt funding with other services.

Clinics, Hospitals, and Private Practices also accept Tri-Care which is govt funds.


>>>>

Yes, but they aren't also private advocacy groups raising money to subsidize abortions from private physicians.

What does that have to do with the discussion?

We're talking about govt funds here.

(BTW - yes there are private advocacy groups that raise money for hospitals and some abortions are performed in a hospital setting. So they raise money for a organization that performs abortions.)


>>>>

I'm trying to see if there's a difference between PP and some "other health care provider", such as the group of internists who do my wellness screenings or the groups that provide for my wife and daughter, that would reasonably suggest PP should be treated differently. I think we agreed that other health care providers do sometimes provide abortions, either insurance or privately paid for, and also take federal dollars via either Medicaid or govt subsidies to private insurers via Obamacare. And, these "other health care providers" aren't being targeted to take away funding for wellness stuff.

If PP is operating as a private advocacy group as well as a health care provider ... then maybe there's a distinction. But, generally I'd agree that abortion, whether one approves or not, is a legal medical procedure.

I agree and that is the logic that confuses me.

PP - Performs other medical procedures besides abortion, yet is targeted to have funds removed (even though MediCare and MediAid) that pay for contraception, cancer screenings, medical care to pregnant women, and even health services to men.

Hospitals, Other Clinics, and Private Practitioner - Performs other medical procedures besides abortion, yet are not targeted to have funds removed (even though MediCare and MediAid) that other medical screenings, tests, and procedures even though they may do abortions on other patients.


If the position is do not allow access to any government revenue stream if any abortions are performed by that organization, I can respect that position (I don't agree with it, but I can respect it as being consistent). But to say, no this hospital has performed abortions, but they can still get government funds - but this group over here? Nope they get cut off. That is not consistent.


>>>>

 

[PredFan]

So, you are saying that there is no federal money going to planned parenthood? Then why object to cutting off federal funding?

Duh, because only 3% of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortions - meaning that 97% goes for non-abortion related women, and men healthcare. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

That isn't at all what you said. You said that taxpayers don't fund planned parenthood.

Please show me where I said that taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood. They receive both private and federal funding.

Bear with me because I have to guide you by the hand through the mountain of bull shit you created:

So they do receive federal funding and by your own admission, at least 3% of what they do is abortions.

Therefor, taxpayers do fund abortions there. Got it now?

As per federal law, the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can only be used for abortions that relate to rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine, but you asked for someone to show you how taxpayer money is used for abortions at PP and I did.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hospitals accept MedicAid and MediCare, private practices and other non-PP clinics accept MedicAid and MediCare. They also mix govt funding with other services.

Clinics, Hospitals, and Private Practices also accept Tri-Care which is govt funds.


>>>>

Plus all of the big providers have Medicare/Medicaid replacement plans.

MediCare replacement plan?

What is that. When I turn 65 I qualify for MediCare, I can purchase supplemental insurance that covers what MediCare doesn't cover, but that is not a "replacement".

MedicAid is government coverage for the poor. I've never heard of a replacement plan for that one either. If you earn enough where you can afford to carry a private insurance plan, I don't think you would typically qualify for MedicAid anyway.


>>>>

How Medicare Advantage Plans work | Medicare.gov

You are really still in Medicare and the government is paying premiums. Still taxpayer money.

From your link:
Medicare pays a fixed amount for your care each month to the companies offering Medicare Advantage Plans.

>>>>

They are meant to simplify regular Medicare and in some cases can be cheaper.

Via ask.com...

"They are a Medicare option that combines your Part A, B and sometimes part D into one plan that is administered by a Medicare contracted insurance company. Many of these plans have very low or even 0 monthly premiums. You still have copays but they are generally much less than Original Medicare."

I'm not addressing anyting about administration.

I'm just pointing out that it is still the government paying the premiums, i.e. taxpayer dollars. To say they are replacements for MediCare (i.e. government expenditures of funds) isn't true, the government is still paying for it.


>>>>

 

[Lakhota]

Duh, because only 3% of Planned Parenthood services relate to abortions - meaning that 97% goes for non-abortion related women, and men healthcare. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

That isn't at all what you said. You said that taxpayers don't fund planned parenthood.

Please show me where I said that taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood. They receive both private and federal funding.

Bear with me because I have to guide you by the hand through the mountain of bull shit you created:

So they do receive federal funding and by your own admission, at least 3% of what they do is abortions.

Therefor, taxpayers do fund abortions there. Got it now?

As per federal law, the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can only be used for abortions that relate to rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine, but you asked for someone to show you how taxpayer money is used for abortions at PP and I did.

Duh, no you didn't - but thanks for playing...

 

[PredFan]

And btw, Kasick is only saying that because he is heading into South Carolina. Notice he didn't say that before NH.

 

[PredFan]

That isn't at all what you said. You said that taxpayers don't fund planned parenthood.

Please show me where I said that taxpayers don't fund Planned Parenthood. They receive both private and federal funding.

Bear with me because I have to guide you by the hand through the mountain of bull shit you created:

So they do receive federal funding and by your own admission, at least 3% of what they do is abortions.

Therefor, taxpayers do fund abortions there. Got it now?

As per federal law, the Hyde Amendment, federal funds can only be used for abortions that relate to rape, incest or endangerment to the life of the mother.

Planned Parenthood

Hyde Amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fine, but you asked for someone to show you how taxpayer money is used for abortions at PP and I did.

Duh, no you didn't - but thanks for playing...

Ha ha, you lose again you lying fuck.

 

[Lakhota]

And btw, Kasick is only saying that because he is heading into South Carolina. Notice he didn't say that before NH.

Can you prove that?

 

[Seawytch]

We need a healthy country to survive. Does that justify universal tax payer funded healthcare?

Our country has not only survived for well over two centuries, but thrived and rose to the top without it.

Nice try. Your orange is rotten.

So we don't need healthy people, we need troops scattered all over the world and 5000 nuclear weapons.

Goddam you're retarded.

Outside of abortions for issues involving birth defects or risks to the mother's life, what part of the process is a health issue? And that's really the problem people have with PP getting public funding: abortion.

Want an abortion? Pay for it with your own money and stop asking for taxpayers to foot the bill.

For the one millionth time.......taxpayers do not pay for abortions

You're missing the point. PP brings up abortion as an option. Money goes to PP. Whether PP actually takes that funding and uses it for office supplies and corporate jets or just uses it to suck out a fetus from some tramp's hoohoodilly isn't the issue for people that don't want abortions. They don't want their tax dollars going to an organization that pushes abortion as a legitimate solution to getting preggers.

So you are also opposed to aid to Israel, right?

 

[bendog]

I think it's the mixing in of private money to subsidize the abortions in the same setting of govt funding for other services.

Hospitals accept MedicAid and MediCare, private practices and other non-PP clinics accept MedicAid and MediCare. They also mix govt funding with other services.

Clinics, Hospitals, and Private Practices also accept Tri-Care which is govt funds.


>>>>

Yes, but they aren't also private advocacy groups raising money to subsidize abortions from private physicians.

What does that have to do with the discussion?

We're talking about govt funds here.

(BTW - yes there are private advocacy groups that raise money for hospitals and some abortions are performed in a hospital setting. So they raise money for a organization that performs abortions.)


>>>>

I'm trying to see if there's a difference between PP and some "other health care provider", such as the group of internists who do my wellness screenings or the groups that provide for my wife and daughter, that would reasonably suggest PP should be treated differently. I think we agreed that other health care providers do sometimes provide abortions, either insurance or privately paid for, and also take federal dollars via either Medicaid or govt subsidies to private insurers via Obamacare. And, these "other health care providers" aren't being targeted to take away funding for wellness stuff.

If PP is operating as a private advocacy group as well as a health care provider ... then maybe there's a distinction. But, generally I'd agree that abortion, whether one approves or not, is a legal medical procedure.

I agree and that is the logic that confuses me.

PP - Performs other medical procedures besides abortion, yet is targeted to have funds removed (even though MediCare and MediAid) that pay for contraception, cancer screenings, medical care to pregnant women, and even health services to men.

Hospitals, Other Clinics, and Private Practitioner - Performs other medical procedures besides abortion, yet are not targeted to have funds removed (even though MediCare and MediAid) that other medical screenings, tests, and procedures even though they may do abortions on other patients.


If the position is do not allow access to any government revenue stream if any abortions are performed by that organization, I can respect that position (I don't agree with it, but I can respect it as being consistent). But to say, no this hospital has performed abortions, but they can still get government funds - but this group over here? Nope they get cut off. That is not consistent.


>>>>

I personally have no issue with abortions, albeit with some regulation as to "how late" without some compelling medical/psych reason, which most people also agree with.

But so long as PP is providing a service by referring women to abortion providers, to whom PP pays a private subsidy to partially pay for abortions, PP is doing something that other HC providers, who incidentally provide abortions in at least some instances, do not do.

So, if Kasich were merely telling them to "divide" their operations, I might could see that as rational. At least from his perspective, given his religious beliefs.

 

[BlueGin]

Plus all of the big providers have Medicare/Medicaid replacement plans.

MediCare replacement plan?

What is that. When I turn 65 I qualify for MediCare, I can purchase supplemental insurance that covers what MediCare doesn't cover, but that is not a "replacement".

MedicAid is government coverage for the poor. I've never heard of a replacement plan for that one either. If you earn enough where you can afford to carry a private insurance plan, I don't think you would typically qualify for MedicAid anyway.


>>>>

How Medicare Advantage Plans work | Medicare.gov

You are really still in Medicare and the government is paying premiums. Still taxpayer money.

From your link:
Medicare pays a fixed amount for your care each month to the companies offering Medicare Advantage Plans.

>>>>

They are meant to simplify regular Medicare and in some cases can be cheaper.

Via ask.com...

"They are a Medicare option that combines your Part A, B and sometimes part D into one plan that is administered by a Medicare contracted insurance company. Many of these plans have very low or even 0 monthly premiums. You still have copays but they are generally much less than Original Medicare."

I'm not addressing anyting about administration.

I'm just pointing out that it is still the government paying the premiums, i.e. taxpayer dollars. To say they are replacements for MediCare (i.e. government expenditures of funds) isn't true, the government is still paying for it.


>>>>

That is what they are called. I didn't name them that. You are splitting hairs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

WTF are you babbling about?

None of your tax dollars go to pay for abortions

Taxpayer dollars fund PP. Money is fungible, so of course our tax dollars are paying for abortions.

You don't understand money, or fungible, or tax dollars.

Unless you can prove that PP spent more of its revenue on abortion funding than it collected in non-federal taxpayer dollars,

then you cannot prove that a dime of taxpayer money was spent on abortion.

You can't trust a career politician and their federal government...

I'm still waiting for you to explain to us what kind of a government we'd have if all taxes were voluntary.

You're missing the point, no tax should based on income. It's none of career politicians and federal governments business who makes what. I never said anything about voluntary...

So if the government needs $5000 per citizen to function, you want every person, rich or poor, to have to come up with the 5 grand?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Take away PP's federal funding, and they will have to decide between abortions and women's health services.

There you admit that the money isn't going for abortions.

Oh, btw, are you aware that many abortions at PP are PAID FOR by the patient?

They deserve no tax dollars...

They deserve what the People are willing to give them. Your conservative dictatorship isn't in place yet.

They do no good for most of the population...

Neither do nuclear weapons.

 

[PredFan]

And btw, Kasick is only saying that because he is heading into South Carolina. Notice he didn't say that before NH.

Can you prove that?

How am I supposed to prove a negative?

 

[bendog]

Well, I haven't seen anything showing PP actually uses tax money for abortions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, I haven't seen anything showing PP actually uses tax money for abortions.

They don't in the real world.

 

[WorldWatcher]

MediCare replacement plan?

What is that. When I turn 65 I qualify for MediCare, I can purchase supplemental insurance that covers what MediCare doesn't cover, but that is not a "replacement".

MedicAid is government coverage for the poor. I've never heard of a replacement plan for that one either. If you earn enough where you can afford to carry a private insurance plan, I don't think you would typically qualify for MedicAid anyway.


>>>>

How Medicare Advantage Plans work | Medicare.gov

You are really still in Medicare and the government is paying premiums. Still taxpayer money.

From your link:
Medicare pays a fixed amount for your care each month to the companies offering Medicare Advantage Plans.

>>>>

They are meant to simplify regular Medicare and in some cases can be cheaper.

Via ask.com...

"They are a Medicare option that combines your Part A, B and sometimes part D into one plan that is administered by a Medicare contracted insurance company. Many of these plans have very low or even 0 monthly premiums. You still have copays but they are generally much less than Original Medicare."

I'm not addressing anyting about administration.

I'm just pointing out that it is still the government paying the premiums, i.e. taxpayer dollars. To say they are replacements for MediCare (i.e. government expenditures of funds) isn't true, the government is still paying for it.


>>>>

That is what they are called. I didn't name them that. You are splitting hairs.

The fact that the government is paying for it is not classified as "splitting hairs"?

Why don't I see you saying the same thing to those wanting to take health care services targeted for poor people way because federal law prevents tax dollars from paying for abortions but yet the money they receive is for other services? That's "splitting hairs" to a higher degree.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I personally have no issue with abortions, albeit with some regulation as to "how late" without some compelling medical/psych reason, which most people also agree with.

Personally I don't like abortion at all. That doesn't mean I think the government should be involved in the decision in the 1st trimester, more limited in the second trimester, and only in case of it being the mother or baby in the 3rd.

But so long as PP is providing a service by referring women to abortion providers, to whom PP pays a private subsidy to partially pay for abortions, PP is doing something that other HC providers, who incidentally provide abortions in at least some instances, do not do.

Cut off to a referral agency but not to cut off funds to organizations that actually perform abortions (in both cases for non-related services)? That makes no sense.

So, if Kasich were merely telling them to "divide" their operations, I might could see that as rational. At least from his perspective, given his religious beliefs.

It's not Kasich doing it (on his own), the legislature passed the bill yesterday. As the Governor, now he is a sign or veto position. Which is actually bad for him. If he signs it and were to win the nomination, he would get the conservative block vote that would vote against Hillary anyway, but might drive moderates toward the Dem's. On the other hand if he were to veto it then he could loose support in the conservative wing he needs to get through the primaries. Tough row to hoe.


>>>>

 

[ZackB]

WTF are you babbling about?

None of your tax dollars go to pay for abortions

Taxpayer dollars fund PP. Money is fungible, so of course our tax dollars are paying for abortions.

You don't understand money, or fungible, or tax dollars.

Unless you can prove that PP spent more of its revenue on abortion funding than it collected in non-federal taxpayer dollars,

then you cannot prove that a dime of taxpayer money was spent on abortion.

You can't trust a career politician and their federal government...

I'm still waiting for you to explain to us what kind of a government we'd have if all taxes were voluntary.

You're missing the point, no tax should based on income. It's none of career politicians and federal governments business who makes what. I never said anything about voluntary...

It also punishes and discourages prosperity.