Women need birth control because "they can't control their libido"

[JakeStarkey]

Here's another one where a PP in Abilene Texas was found guilty of falsifying records, and not meeting the standard of the testing that they were billing Medicare/medicaid for. In fact the judgement states that although it was an employee who committed the crime, the clinic, and specifically the director, were remiss because they did not provide training or oversight for the procedures and tests that they were charging the government for.

http://www.hhs.gov/dab/decisions/civildecisions/cr2854.pdf

The crime...taking federal money allegedly to provide RH testing...but then just calling another lab and getting THEIR results and using those, instead of actually doing the testing. The clinic was not set up to do the testing, didn't have the proper equipment, and didn't train their workers to do the testing. This was standard operating procedure. Charge for rh testing, call another clinic that has previously tested them, then write down those results as if they were the results of the PP clinic.


Cuz that money wasn't going to testing at all. The *testing* is just lip service. They take the money from the government and claim they are performing services they aren't, then they ALSO take money from the patients, claiming that the feds won't pay for abortions. Score!

If this was corrected and the clinic appropriately punished, then the system works.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If you believe that government money is confiscated, then you obviously do not believe in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution gives the federal government the authority to tax, so it's money is not 'confiscated'. You are contradicting yourself.

The government certainly does have the constitutional authority to provide birth control, if it is considered to be in the interest of the "General Welfare" of the American people.

The American people have the right as individuals to their own religious beliefs. To many people taking birth control is exercising personal responsibility. That may not be your belief, but you do not have the authority to dictate your interpretation of 'responsibility' to other people.

Therefore the government may provide birth control to facilitate people exercising their personal responsibility if it is deemed to be in the interest of the "general Welfare' of the American people.

Agreed: Furthermore--birth control pills are a prescription only drug. Insurers are and have been mandated for decades now to pay for them. As is the same for Viagra and all of the male enhancement prescription drugs that are advertised on television.

Now if men want to stop having sex with women--then we probably could get away from the birth control pill topic. But I don't see that happening anytime soon---

birth control does not correct a physical ailment or disease. in cases where it is used as hormone replacement therapy, it should be. but as a birth control it becomes an elective or convenience. much like plastic surgery. that should not be paid for

I don't have a problem with insurance companies choosing to cover birth control. In a business sense, I can see where that would be less expensive for them in the long run than paying for the pregnancy and resulting new human being. I'm not a big believer in mandating by law what insurance covers, though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you're simply going to sit there and take their word for it? Settling "as a practical matter" is cover for "Oh, I fucked up, here's some hush money."

Produce some hard evidence that will stand up in court and then you have something. A bunch of partisan allegations by hack politicians on the make doesn't constitute hard evidence.

All politicians lie! That includes the ones who are telling you that PP is committing fraud. If there was even any semblance of substance to those allegations those political hacks would have ridden it into the ground in the desire to take down PP because then they would be heroes and would win in a landslide with the support of people like yourself.

But instead they allowed PP to settle with no admission of doing anything wrong. That means they had squat and they knew it going in. In this nation you can sue anybody over anything. You don't need any actual evidence of any wrongdoing to file a lawsuit. You can simply file a lawsuit with a load of allegations and then the lawyers start making money hand over fist.

It would have cost PP far more to fight that nuisance lawsuit than it took to settle. Happens all the time in this nation and there are unscrupulous lawyers who do it just to make a living. So if you are a proponent of Tort Reform the 1st place to start is to change the law so that the loser pays 100% of the legal costs. That will reduce these kinds of frivolous lawsuits by 90%.

Your usage of "nuisance lawsuit" and their usage of "settling as a practical matter" isn't hard evidence either, my good man. It would be destroyed in the court of law. Prove to me that the costs of litigating the case would have exceeded the settlement amount. I don't believe you'll be able to. Lawyers charge varying rates for representing a case. This is nothing but an assertion, Derideo.

There's no way to know what the lawyers charged or if the fees exceeded the settlement. So, we are left with my original point.

Which is, and forgive me both of you because I like you both, both of you are guessing?

 

[koshergrl]

They actually forked over 4.3 mill, too. I found that by reading the state attorney's statement on the settlement....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Produce some hard evidence that will stand up in court and then you have something. A bunch of partisan allegations by hack politicians on the make doesn't constitute hard evidence.

All politicians lie! That includes the ones who are telling you that PP is committing fraud. If there was even any semblance of substance to those allegations those political hacks would have ridden it into the ground in the desire to take down PP because then they would be heroes and would win in a landslide with the support of people like yourself.

But instead they allowed PP to settle with no admission of doing anything wrong. That means they had squat and they knew it going in. In this nation you can sue anybody over anything. You don't need any actual evidence of any wrongdoing to file a lawsuit. You can simply file a lawsuit with a load of allegations and then the lawyers start making money hand over fist.

It would have cost PP far more to fight that nuisance lawsuit than it took to settle. Happens all the time in this nation and there are unscrupulous lawyers who do it just to make a living. So if you are a proponent of Tort Reform the 1st place to start is to change the law so that the loser pays 100% of the legal costs. That will reduce these kinds of frivolous lawsuits by 90%.

Your usage of "nuisance lawsuit" and their usage of "settling as a practical matter" isn't hard evidence either, my good man. It would be destroyed in the court of law. Prove to me that the costs of litigating the case would have exceeded the settlement amount. I don't believe you'll be able to. Lawyers charge varying rates for representing a case. This is nothing but an assertion, Derideo.

There's no way to know what the lawyers charged or if the fees exceeded the settlement. So, we are left with my original point.

Which is, and forgive me both of you because I like you both, both of you are guessing?

What are you talking about Jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They actually forked over 4.3 mill, too. I found that by reading the state attorney's statement on the settlement....

Good, the system works. I wish we had Halliburton tied down as effectively as this case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

They actually forked over 4.3 mill, too. I found that by reading the state attorney's statement on the settlement....

Good, the system works. I wish we had Halliburton tied down as effectively as this case.

A red herring.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They actually forked over 4.3 mill, too. I found that by reading the state attorney's statement on the settlement....

Good, the system works. I wish we had Halliburton tied down as effectively as this case.

A red herring.

What? I agreed. We need to have more successes against companies that boondoogle the taxpayer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Good, the system works. I wish we had Halliburton tied down as effectively as this case.

A red herring.

What? I agreed. We need to have more successes against companies that boondoogle the taxpayer.

You spent the the better part of the past hour or so arguing with her, only to agree with her. Now I'm confused...

 

[BDBoop]

Huckabee is neither a Dem nor a woman. He is not privy to their beliefs either.

He is essentially making an allegation about which he has, at best, a biased partisan opinion but absolutely zero first hand knowledge at all.

So it is understandable that this appears to be a partisan misogynistic slur aimed at moderate/liberal women who know exactly what they believe.

Before one speaks it is often worthwhile to put oneself in the shoes of the audience. It might be exactly what those he was speaking to wanted to hear but it wasn't as well received by the wider audience who would have to embrace what he just said if the GOP wants to take the Whitehouse in 2016.

​

Exactly.

Thank you.

 

[BDBoop]

Good question. He did look like a moron. He should have pointed out that you're not calling women sex whores, you're calling them welfare whores. You say if government does not provide free birth control, they won't get it. Government also needs to lower the bar for them.

By going to sex, it was a dumb quote. That is the art form that leftists have. You actually by not grasping what he said made yourselves to anyone with a critical mind look more stupid then his quote was. And you consistently do that for Republicans. They make themselves look stupid, but your reaction to it distracts from that as you make them look like rocket scientists compared to you.

What you said he said is not what he said. That is clearly more stupid than what he said.

And that is where both Limbagh and Huckabee blew it

If they wanted to say government or insurance should not cover birth control.....then say it

Linking it to a woman's ability to control her sex drive is offensive

You liars are the one's linking it to their sex drive. So you're being offensive.

Another example of the left blaming us for their guilt.

What do you think is the definition of libido?

 

[JakeStarkey]

A red herring.

What? I agreed. We need to have more successes against companies that boondoogle the taxpayer.

You spent the the better part of the past hour or so arguing with her, only to agree with her. Now I'm confused...

Go back and read. Yes, kg has an agenda, but if the PP clinic was caught out, that is a good thing. Whether kg agrees or not is immaterial. Right is right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What? I agreed. We need to have more successes against companies that boondoogle the taxpayer.

You spent the the better part of the past hour or so arguing with her, only to agree with her. Now I'm confused...

Go back and read. Yes, kg has an agenda, but if the PP clinic was caught out, that is a good thing. Whether kg agrees or not is immaterial. Right is right.

Oy...

 

[BDBoop]

What is it with Republicans that they think a woman's decision to use birth control has something to do with being able to control her sex drive?

It is really difficult for me not to go to "Not tonight dear, I have a headache" that they must hear so very often, but in all honesty, it looks purely misogynistic to me.

 

[BDBoop]

Romney said that once. Obama tells the other 53% of us how much he hates us every day.

53% of Voters disagreed

Funny, if the election were held today Obama would lose.

You mean if nobody was running against him? Yeah.

Maybe then.

 

[NLT]

What is it with Republicans that they think a woman's decision to use birth control has something to do with being able to control her sex drive?

It is really difficult for me not to go to "Not tonight dear, I have a headache" that they must hear so very often, but in all honesty, it looks purely misogynistic to me.

I bet you hear that alot

 

[Derideo_Te]

Lots of arguments die in this one sentence in Derideo's article link:

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider operating 13 clinics in Texas which perform abortions...

Planned Parenthood to pay Texas $1.4 million to settle alleged fraud | Reuters

Meaning folks, that the environment is ripe for PP to use tax dollars for abortions. Case closed.

At this stage I am going to stop posting on this topic because it is pointless. Given your emotional investment in this topic, and yes, if you are honest you will admit as much, there is no hard evidence that will make the slightest bit of difference.

I respect your right to your opinion on abortion and your objections to PP and I will defend your right to those positions.

But from my perspective there is nothing of substance to the allegations that are being made against PP.

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Peace
DT

 

[BDBoop]

Spoonman, Huck is being criticized, rightfully so. The GOP cannot win elections when women think they are being attacked. They won't even listen to such a defense of Huck as yours.

women don't think they are being attacked. only liberal idiots think they are being attacked

"Women don't think they are being attacked?"

So - you're saying that the only women who view this as an insult are "liberal idiots."

Is that correct.

 

[Rocko]

Huckabee is neither a Dem nor a woman. He is not privy to their beliefs either.

He is essentially making an allegation about which he has, at best, a biased partisan opinion but absolutely zero first hand knowledge at all.

So it is understandable that this appears to be a partisan misogynistic slur aimed at moderate/liberal women who know exactly what they believe.

Before one speaks it is often worthwhile to put oneself in the shoes of the audience. It might be exactly what those he was speaking to wanted to hear but it wasn't as well received by the wider audience who would have to embrace what he just said if the GOP wants to take the Whitehouse in 2016.

​

Exactly.

Thank you.

Only he's not saying anything about what women believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lots of arguments die in this one sentence in Derideo's article link:

Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider operating 13 clinics in Texas which perform abortions...

Planned Parenthood to pay Texas $1.4 million to settle alleged fraud | Reuters

Meaning folks, that the environment is ripe for PP to use tax dollars for abortions. Case closed.

At this stage I am going to stop posting on this topic because it is pointless. Given your emotional investment in this topic, and yes, if you are honest you will admit as much, there is no hard evidence that will make the slightest bit of difference.

I respect your right to your opinion on abortion and your objections to PP and I will defend your right to those positions.

But from my perspective there is nothing of substance to the allegations that are being made against PP.

So we are just going to have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Peace
DT

I will take this as a concession. If you accuse me of being emotional... perhaps you're the one who got emotional? I will give you credit for not flaming out like numerous other liberals do when they admit defeat. Yes, it's a defeat. But that's another argument, and of topic to boot.

I've posted plenty of evidence. First about KPMG, then Trajan poured more on, then I kosher came about with a lawsuit that you labeled a "nuisance."

I harbor no ill will towards you, DT. You're a good friend of mine. But I'm a completely different animal in the politics forum.