Hutch Starskey
Diamond Member
- Mar 24, 2015
- 35,625
- 9,265
- 1,340
I think you assume too much. Your premise requires that we all assume that Democrats contribute nothing to PP
Um...nnnnooooooooo. You said that, Holmes. Amazing how often the blatantly obvious needs to be explained to you people. Here's your quote:
"the people on Medicaid just lost a provider"
How could you know that? Of course there's no way you could. I would argue that the majority of private support they receive more than likely comes almost exclusively from liberal minded donors. None of that matters though as they receive public money because they provide public health services. A good portion of those services are offered in underserved areas to a population that has a higher risk for health problems without their services. PP addresses the public need for health services. That's the only reason they get public funding.
As I keep saying, I'd chip in. I totally support their cause. I also own a business and the local branch is a great customer of ours, and they always pay on time. I'm as un leftists as they come, I support liberty. But then I'm used to funding my own causes and it's completely alien to you
"the people on Medicaid just lost a provider"
Because Jindal removed PP as a Medicaid provider.
What does that have to do with Democrats paying for PP?
You are confused.
Jindal made it illegal for Medicaid patients to go to PP?
Read the thread dumbass.