Planned parenthood?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The govt supporting planned parenthood is running the govt like a business.
For every dollar they spend on birth control they save many more from welfare, food stamps, education costs, etc.

Just a good business decision like many want the government to make. Or so they claim.

Except they don't have to be funding welfare, food stamps, or education. They choose to, so your explanation is a false dichotomy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood?

Because it’s an effective use of public monies, ensuring quality care for tax dollars spent.

This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

Some of the funding sources are noted below, note also how ‘defunding’ PP would result in costing the taxpayer more, as the need for services will continue to exist whether funded or not:

According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2006, government spending on contraceptive services for 9.4 million patients-including Medicaid, Title X and state funding- totaled $1.85 billion. Of those patients, 2.6 million went through Planned Parenthood, at what Planned Parenthood estimates to be a cost of $385 million, and 6.8 million of them went through other providers, at a cost of $1.5 billion, according to Guttmacher numbers. Broken down, this means Planned Parenthood cost the government an average of $148 for a patient's contraceptive care in a year, while other clinics spent $215 a year per patient. Just pushing contraceptive care for these patients from Planned Parenthood to other clinics would thus cost the government an additional $174 million a year.

Planned Parenthood and the federal budget: how Title X funding saves taxpayer dollars. - Slate Magazine

 

[kaz]

Question, why does the goverment help subsidize Planned Parenthood? This is not an attack on PP, as I do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

I agree completely. I support planned parenthood, but they should be operating completely on private dollars.

 

[Dissent]

Like paying your taxes.

That's theft actually.

You think the health of the nation is irrelevant to our ability to prosper economically AND to defend ourselves?

You're an idiot.

I am an individual not some ******* group of people you or the government can boss around. The people as individuals don't need to follow anything the government says because as it is all to painfully obvious the government ***** up everything it touches. If I think a law is stupid,immoral or illegal I simply don't follow it. Obama can try and fine me for not buying insurance all he wants. I own 1 thing and that's my vehicle and it ain't worth a hell of a lot...so let him and his goon squads try and steal money from me for refusing to buy insurance for myself. I can't wait for that shit to go into effect because there is gonna be a lot of shit hitting the fan when his goon squads come to arrest someone for not paying their fines. Can't ******* wait.

Taxes are theft. So you're a mental retard. I think we all already know that. There is no need to run up the score.

Man comes into my home takes a portion of my paycheck what's that called? THEFT its not ******* different when the government does it. They just have stormtroopers with guns and kangaroo courts to enforce it as "legal"

 

[kaz]

Taxes are theft. So you're a mental retard. I think we all already know that. There is no need to run up the score.

Taxes that are used for common purposes, like the military, roads and courts are not theft, but taxes for the benefit of one citizen over another clearly are.

 

[uscitizen]

The govt supporting planned parenthood is running the govt like a business.
For every dollar they spend on birth control they save many more from welfare, food stamps, education costs, etc.

Just a good business decision like many want the government to make. Or so they claim.

Except they don't have to be funding welfare, food stamps, or education. They choose to, so your explanation is a false dichotomy.

Not a false dichotomy because welfare, etc does exist and is not going away real soon so money will be saved by providing birth control.

Your premise is a pipe dream dichotomy.

 

[kaz]

The govt supporting planned parenthood is running the govt like a business.
For every dollar they spend on birth control they save many more from welfare, food stamps, education costs, etc.

Just a good business decision like many want the government to make. Or so they claim.

Except they don't have to be funding welfare, food stamps, or education. They choose to, so your explanation is a false dichotomy.

Not a false dichotomy because welfare, etc does exist and is not going away real soon so money will be saved by providing birth control.

Your premise is a pipe dream dichotomy.

Since neither side of the abortion debate is actually motivated by the dollars, your point was completely irrelevant to begin with. Government doing anything like a business is just laughable anyway.

 

[uscitizen]

Except they don't have to be funding welfare, food stamps, or education. They choose to, so your explanation is a false dichotomy.

Not a false dichotomy because welfare, etc does exist and is not going away real soon so money will be saved by providing birth control.

Your premise is a pipe dream dichotomy.

Since neither side of the abortion debate is actually motivated by the dollars, your point was completely irrelevant to begin with. Government doing anything like a business is just laughable anyway.

My view on birth control and abortion is motivated somewhat by the dollars saved.

The latest estimate is that it costs ~$250,000 to raise a child to adulthood and educate.

In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side.
I am a party of one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Like paying your taxes.

You admit that taxes are coerced?

Taxes are levied by the democratic processes that are established, sanctioned, and defended by the US Constitution.

Are you claiming that the Constitution is nothing more than an instrument of coercion?

You are the one that said that we make people do things for the national good, and used taxes as an example. All I am doing is clarifying your position.

 

[kaz]

My view on birth control and abortion is motivated somewhat by the dollars saved.

The latest estimate is that it costs ~$250,000 to raise a child to adulthood and educate.

In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side.
I am a party of one.

You said government was running it like a business. Had you said OBTW, we save money your point would be valid. The socons say it's murder, the other side talks about a woman's right to chose. Since no one is motivated by money, money is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to say you are motivated by that, fine, say that. But don't play games.

As for "In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side" I'm not seeing anywhere in my post that said you were. And BTW, I'm pro-choice, it's a woman's body. That's not a money position, it's a liberty position. But the socons clearly are not motivated by money in this either.

 

[uscitizen]

My view on birth control and abortion is motivated somewhat by the dollars saved.

The latest estimate is that it costs ~$250,000 to raise a child to adulthood and educate.

In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side.
I am a party of one.

You said government was running it like a business. Had you said OBTW, we save money your point would be valid. The socons say it's murder, the other side talks about a woman's right to chose. Since no one is motivated by money, money is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to say you are motivated by that, fine, say that. But don't play games.

As for "In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side" I'm not seeing anywhere in my post that said you were. And BTW, I'm pro-choice, it's a woman's body. That's not a money position, it's a liberty position. But the socons clearly are not motivated by money in this either.

But MY party of one sees the monetary gain by providing birth control and abortions.
As I said I do not kowtow tio either party.
I do lean left a bit, mostly because most right weingrs seem to be pricks.

I believe in the right to berar arms with reasonable controls.
I believe in a balanced budget.
I believe in the death penalty.
I believe in food stamps, etc for those who really need them.
I believe in a strong defense but that we are not to be the police force for the world.
I was against TARP.
I was for stimulus money to help with unemployment benefits, etc to help people thru the hard times. Other than the benefit money flowing right back into the economy I did not expect any real stimulus effect.
I was against Iraq and anything over 6 months in Afganistan.
Kick ass take names and leave with a warning that we will be back if you mess with us again.

 

[kaz]

My view on birth control and abortion is motivated somewhat by the dollars saved.

The latest estimate is that it costs ~$250,000 to raise a child to adulthood and educate.

In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side.
I am a party of one.

You said government was running it like a business. Had you said OBTW, we save money your point would be valid. The socons say it's murder, the other side talks about a woman's right to chose. Since no one is motivated by money, money is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to say you are motivated by that, fine, say that. But don't play games.

As for "In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side" I'm not seeing anywhere in my post that said you were. And BTW, I'm pro-choice, it's a woman's body. That's not a money position, it's a liberty position. But the socons clearly are not motivated by money in this either.

But MY party of one sees the monetary gain by providing birth control and abortions.
As I said I do not kowtow tio either party.
I do lean left a bit, mostly because most right weingrs seem to be pricks.

I believe in the right to berar arms with reasonable controls.
I believe in a balanced budget.
I believe in the death penalty.
I believe in food stamps, etc for those who really need them.
I believe in a strong defense but that we are not to be the police force for the world.
I was against TARP.
I was for stimulus money to help with unemployment benefits, etc to help people thru the hard times. Other than the benefit money flowing right back into the economy I did not expect any real stimulus effect.
I was against Iraq and anything over 6 months in Afganistan.
Kick ass take names and leave with a warning that we will be back if you mess with us again.

In the posts I've seen, you are definitely more left, but I agree you're not always on the side of the left like liberal stalwarts like truthmatters or rightwinger.

But seriously, the "right" are generally pricks? That is such a biased statement. Not that many on the right aren't pricks, but the campaign of hate by Obama, his ass of a VP not to mention the truly hate filled rants of Reid and Pelosi and the endless anger and hate spewed from the rest of the left and you use "prick" as a reason to support them? Please

 

[uscitizen]

You said government was running it like a business. Had you said OBTW, we save money your point would be valid. The socons say it's murder, the other side talks about a woman's right to chose. Since no one is motivated by money, money is irrelevant to the argument. If you want to say you are motivated by that, fine, say that. But don't play games.

As for "In case you have not caught on yet I am not with either side" I'm not seeing anywhere in my post that said you were. And BTW, I'm pro-choice, it's a woman's body. That's not a money position, it's a liberty position. But the socons clearly are not motivated by money in this either.

But MY party of one sees the monetary gain by providing birth control and abortions.
As I said I do not kowtow tio either party.
I do lean left a bit, mostly because most right weingrs seem to be pricks.

I believe in the right to berar arms with reasonable controls.
I believe in a balanced budget.
I believe in the death penalty.
I believe in food stamps, etc for those who really need them.
I believe in a strong defense but that we are not to be the police force for the world.
I was against TARP.
I was for stimulus money to help with unemployment benefits, etc to help people thru the hard times. Other than the benefit money flowing right back into the economy I did not expect any real stimulus effect.
I was against Iraq and anything over 6 months in Afganistan.
Kick ass take names and leave with a warning that we will be back if you mess with us again.

In the posts I've seen, you are definitely more left, but I agree you're not always on the side of the left like liberal stalwarts like truthmatters or rightwinger.

But seriously, the "right" are generally pricks? That is such a biased statement. Not that many on the right aren't pricks, but the campaign of hate by Obama, his ass of a VP not to mention the truly hate filled rants of Reid and Pelosi and the endless anger and hate spewed from the rest of the left and you use "prick" as a reason to support them? Please

Just look at the ratio of insults and such here from the right vs the left.
Yes pricks.

I support people with reasonable views and proper attitudes on here, I do not support fussin or fightin from either side.

I do admit to picking on a few of the more ignroant and aggravating posters on here.
Just jike to poke them with a stick to get a rise sometimes

 

[California Girl]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Following your 'logic', the government can tell us what to eat, drink, do etc. **** that.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The govt supporting planned parenthood is running the govt like a business.
For every dollar they spend on birth control they save many more from welfare, food stamps, education costs, etc.

Just a good business decision like many want the government to make. Or so they claim.

Except they don't have to be funding welfare, food stamps, or education. They choose to, so your explanation is a false dichotomy.

Not a false dichotomy because welfare, etc does exist and is not going away real soon so money will be saved by providing birth control.

It is a false dichotomy because as I pointed out, none of those things are Constitutionally mandated spending. There are three choices, not two, the least expensive of which would be to not spend money on any of it. We can debate the likelihood of whether or not they would actually go away all day, but it is an option nonetheless.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Following your 'logic', the government can tell us what to eat, drink, do etc. **** that.

And if they proposed that I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he supported it, as long as it was a Democrat who proposed it, of course.

 

[Listening]

The health of the nation's people is a vital national interest. The federal government has the right and the justification to take measures that work towards protecting, maintaining, improving the health of the people.

Pure horsecrap.

Move to Sweden if that is what you want.

You can't justify it for our federal government.

 

[eots]

question, why does the goverment help subsidize planned parenthood? This is not an attack on pp, as i do think they do a lot of good, just confused as to how/ why the goverment got into the business of paying them to do it.

because those that play on the grand chessboard are working toward the goal of a world government with china being the prototype, population control and the normalization of abortion and the dehumanization that comes with it is an important part of that agenda

 

[eots]

Planned Parenthood's Founder


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM2FyiA58KI]The Eugenicist racist psychopath criminal Margaret Sanger - YouTube[/ame]

 

[courseofhistory]

Planned Parenthood should be funded by the government because there are many women's health services offered to women who cannot afford them otherwise.

Women who seek an abortion from Planned Parenthood (and who do not have insurance or have government-backed insurance) must pay the full cost of that abortion. They are not subsidized in any way with federal dollars the way that other exams and procedures are.

Think of it this way: A pap smear costs $200 to perform. A poor patient getting a pap smear from PP might only pay $15, and government and private funding would make up the difference.

For abortions, a patient either pays the full cost of of pocket or uses a private insurer that pays for abortions (like mine).

Planned Parenthoods are non-profits. This means that their operating expenses and their revenue have to match. I can't see any way of doing this math which shows federal dollars going to "pay for" abortions.

LINK

...Title X not only benefits women’s health, but also helps the government save billions of dollars each year in Medicaid spending by reducing unintended pregnancies. In 2008, Title X was critical in supporting 4,500 clinics that served approximately five million women and men.

The Title X program was signed into law by President Richard Nixon and sponsored by then-Congressman George H. W. Bush. But for the modern Republican Party, shutting it down has become an ideological imperative.

LINK