Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
You've got to be kidding me. Stand up for your beliefs, I get that. But this statement is just fucking absurd and ultimately detracts from the point you're apparently trying to make. It's dramatic and insulting.
dramatic and insulting?
if that's true, why does the right keep perpetuating the outright lie that defunding planned parenthood is "all about stopping the taxpayers from having to pay for your abortions".
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
I don't consider abortions (elective or otherwise) to be in the same universe as the other procedures you metioned.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
So to go back to the OP's original statement, I'll ask too.
"What right's are being taken away?"
If you need medical care you can walk into any hospital or clinic and they can not deny you. You can even apply for "hardship" when you receive your bill.
Is this more a social issue than a human rights issue?
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Because you pay taxes.. what a tired argument. Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more of your tax dollars go to making bombs and killing civilians in other countries than all the abortions combined. You want to argue what rights are being taken away? I'll argue who exactly is attacking us that we need to spend more on defense than the next 10 highest-spending nations combined?? That's where your fucking tax dollars are going.
"Because I pay taxes..." Give me a fucking break. An abortion funded by PP isn't hurting your god forsaken paycheck.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Contraception, Pap smears to detect possible cancerous cells in the cervix, internal exams to detect other malignancies, fibroids, etc are all frivolous spending?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
how about circumcision, vasectomies....?
From basic government funded healthcare? No. From private insurance, that's for the competitive company to decide.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Contraception, Pap smears to detect possible cancerous cells in the cervix, internal exams to detect other malignancies, fibroids, etc are all frivolous spending?
Contraception, no. There are plenty of organizations that give out free condoms. Pap smears, internal exams I would say fall under the umbrella of basic healthcare.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Contraception, Pap smears to detect possible cancerous cells in the cervix, internal exams to detect other malignancies, fibroids, etc are all frivolous spending?
Contraception, no. There are plenty of organizations that give out free condoms. Pap smears, internal exams I would say fall under the umbrella of basic healthcare.
So basically you're just cherry picking what you consider to be essential services. There doesn't seem to be any basis for your logic.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Contraception, Pap smears to detect possible cancerous cells in the cervix, internal exams to detect other malignancies, fibroids, etc are all frivolous spending?
Contraception, no. There are plenty of organizations that give out free condoms. Pap smears, internal exams I would say fall under the umbrella of basic healthcare.
Condoms aren't the only form of contraception. Besides, those organizations wouldn't be able to hand them out for free without... wait for it... government funding.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
how about circumcision, vasectomies....?
From basic government funded healthcare? No. From private insurance, that's for the competitive company to decide.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Because you pay taxes.. what a tired argument. Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more of your tax dollars go to making bombs and killing civilians in other countries than all the abortions combined. You want to argue what rights are being taken away? I'll argue who exactly is attacking us that we need to spend more on defense than the next 10 highest-spending nations combined?? That's where your fucking tax dollars are going.
"Because I pay taxes..." Give me a fucking break. An abortion funded by PP isn't hurting your god forsaken paycheck.
I understand your point, but kinda hate it. It all adds up so it all matters. You just are more ok having your $ spent on certain things then the other person is...or me...or others. But it all takes $ out of our paychecks.
I personally an against abortion, I won't add to planned parenthood funding by buying PJ shirts, etc. But, I do believe that there needs to be government funding to provide basic care to all people and this include Planned Parenthood. I also personally wouldnt like it if my tax $ went to pay for abortions...but the court has upheld this right and until laws are changed and the court upholds those changes, we should follow the law. And our lawmakers shouldn't be coming up with creative ways to try and get their way and circumvent the law just cause they don't like it. They should work on changing the law or following the law.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Because you pay taxes.. what a tired argument. Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more of your tax dollars go to making bombs and killing civilians in other countries than all the abortions combined. You want to argue what rights are being taken away? I'll argue who exactly is attacking us that we need to spend more on defense than the next 10 highest-spending nations combined?? That's where your fucking tax dollars are going.
"Because I pay taxes..." Give me a fucking break. An abortion funded by PP isn't hurting your god forsaken paycheck.
I understand your point, but kinda hate it. It all adds up so it all matters. You just are more ok having your $ spent on certain things then the other person is...or me...or others. But it all takes $ out of our paychecks.
I personally an against abortion, I won't add to planned parenthood funding by buying PJ shirts, etc. But, I do believe that there needs to be government funding to provide basic care to all people and this include Planned Parenthood. I also personally wouldnt like it if my tax $ went to pay for abortions...but the court has upheld this right and until laws are changed and the court upholds those changes, we should follow the law. And our lawmakers shouldn't be coming up with creative ways to try and get their way and circumvent the law just cause they don't like it. They should work on changing the law or following the law.
Again, because it's like everyone has taken crazy pills, FEDERAL FUNDS DO NOT PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
There are 3 exceptions, when it is medically necessary to save the mother, and in cases of invest and/or rape.
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Because you pay taxes.. what a tired argument. Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy more of your tax dollars go to making bombs and killing civilians in other countries than all the abortions combined. You want to argue what rights are being taken away? I'll argue who exactly is attacking us that we need to spend more on defense than the next 10 highest-spending nations combined?? That's where your fucking tax dollars are going.
"Because I pay taxes..." Give me a fucking break. An abortion funded by PP isn't hurting your god forsaken paycheck.
I understand your point, but kinda hate it. It all adds up so it all matters. You just are more ok having your $ spent on certain things then the other person is...or me...or others. But it all takes $ out of our paychecks.
I personally an against abortion, I won't add to planned parenthood funding by buying PJ shirts, etc. But, I do believe that there needs to be government funding to provide basic care to all people and this include Planned Parenthood. I also personally wouldnt like it if my tax $ went to pay for abortions...but the court has upheld this right and until laws are changed and the court upholds those changes, we should follow the law. And our lawmakers shouldn't be coming up with creative ways to try and get their way and circumvent the law just cause they don't like it. They should work on changing the law or following the law.
Again, because it's like everyone has taken crazy pills, FEDERAL FUNDS DO NOT PAY FOR ABORTIONS.
There are 3 exceptions, when it is medically necessary to save the mother, and in cases of invest and/or rape.
I know that. Did I say they do? I didnt mean to imply that. I was just stating my opinion that I wouldn't want my taxes to pay for an abortion, BUT since it's legal I don't know why they can really justify not. Make sense?
Serious question..what rights are being stripped away? I tried to look up what exactly was signed, and didn't find much other than it's part of rollback of previous legislation, but what I did find is that this basically says the federal government can't force states to use federal money to fund PP. It now gives states the choice of how to use the money, so if they want to still use that money for PP, they can.
access to the same health care options that men have.
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.
the biggest misconception is that planned parenthood is "state sponsored abortions", when abortions account for about 3% of PP's overall funding. everything else is general medical care/info for females.
it's just another way for the right to keep gender disparity alive while convincing the uneducated and ignorant that it's some moral issue.
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?
It's still based on costs. The insurance company base their rates on costs/risk. I'm not saying it's right or fair, but the cost of treating women as a whole is more expensive than men. They use a lot more services. I get the argument that some think everyone should pay for all medical care for everyone and that access to medical care should be a basic human right. Thing is, everyone does have access to medical care, but not everyone can afford insurance, not even Obamacare. The taxpayers end up footing the bill either way. You cannot be refused medical care, whether or not you can pay.
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.
And abortion is not basic medical care, right. Is it fair for taxpayers to foot the bill for elective surgeries? Where do you draw the line? I'd be fine funding Planned Parenthood if that funding excluded elective treatments/surgeries. As you said, those only account for 3%, right? But then why single out PP, should that funding not also be appropriated to other non-profit medical providers at the state's discretion?
wait...back up what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
Where would you draw the line for elective/non-essential surgeries; abortion, nose jobs, laser eye surgery, gender reconstruction??? If all of these costly procedures were covered, premiums would most definitely skyrocket.
First off, most surgical procedures are 'elective'. I think you're trying to distinguish between medical vs non-medical procedures. Is donating a kidney elective? Should it be covered?
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
If you'll notice, I tied in "non-essential" when lumping in other surgeries to the ones planned parenthood performs. I consider abortions (except for certain life threatening circumstances) to be both, elective and non-essential. Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?
Because I pay taxes and I do not believe government funds should be allocated for them (going back to planned parenthood specifically). It would just be more frivolous spending on the taxpayers dime.
Contraception, Pap smears to detect possible cancerous cells in the cervix, internal exams to detect other malignancies, fibroids, etc are all frivolous spending?
Contraception, no. There are plenty of organizations that give out free condoms. Pap smears, internal exams I would say fall under the umbrella of basic healthcare.
So basically you're just cherry picking what you consider to be essential services. There doesn't seem to be any basis for your logic.
As if that weren't already being done. Insurance doesn't pay for IVF...
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
How will they not have access to it? Are all the PP facilities shutting down in Iowa because of this?
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
Trump has yet to shut down State borders. And, let's not pick on Iowa as it was just a random example.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
Trump has yet to shut down State borders. And, let's not pick on Iowa as it was just a random example.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
I hate that argument. "don't like it? move". really? I have to uproot my life because my state's health care sucks? Really?
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
Trump has yet to shut down State borders. And, let's not pick on Iowa as it was just a random example.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
That's realistic, a person can't afford medical care but they can afford to move to another state so they can get medical care.
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
Trump has yet to shut down State borders. And, let's not pick on Iowa as it was just a random example.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
That's realistic, a person can't afford medical care but they can afford to move to another state so they can get medical care.
I like Planned Parenthood and all it stands for. I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't. Therefore, I agree with this decision. I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
Yeah, that's rational, but people who need care will not have access to it in Iowa because people who have access think they know what's best for everyone else.
Trump has yet to shut down State borders. And, let's not pick on Iowa as it was just a random example.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
The court already argued this. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
To Breyer and his colleagues in the majority, that qualified as an undue burden. “In the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity super facilities,” he wrote. “Patients seeking these services are less likely to get the kind of individualized attention, serious conversation, and emotional support that doctors at less taxed facilities may have offered.”
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a five-justice majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
Second, this is not how insurance works. The more procedures that are covered for more people is what drives down costs and drives down premiums.
These 'costly procedures' make up a negligible percentage of the total health care spend, including them would have little effect compared to the money spent on heart disease, diabetes and back pain.
Although, I do think that in the case of a kidney donation, the recipient's healthcare should be the one to soak up that charge.
"What right's are being taken away?"
If you need medical care you can walk into any hospital or clinic and they can not deny you. You can even apply for "hardship" when you receive your bill.
Is this more a social issue than a human rights issue?
You want to argue what rights are being taken away? I'll argue who exactly is attacking us that we need to spend more on defense than the next 10 highest-spending nations combined?? That's where your fucking tax dollars are going.
"Because I pay taxes..." Give me a fucking break. An abortion funded by PP isn't hurting your god forsaken paycheck.
www.headstonesband.com
From private insurance, that's for the competitive company to decide.
www.headstonesband.com
I personally an against abortion, I won't add to planned parenthood funding by buying PJ shirts, etc. But, I do believe that there needs to be government funding to provide basic care to all people and this include Planned Parenthood. I also personally wouldnt like it if my tax $ went to pay for abortions...but the court has upheld this right and until laws are changed and the court upholds those changes, we should follow the law. And our lawmakers shouldn't be coming up with creative ways to try and get their way and circumvent the law just cause they don't like it. They should work on changing the law or following the law.
There are 3 exceptions, when it is medically necessary to save the mother, and in cases of invest and/or rape.
I agree with States being responsible and not the Federal Gov't.
Therefore, I agree with this decision.
I live in NY, and I am fine with our Governor deciding to pay for PP through my tax dollars. I don't believe if most Iowans (example only) don't agree we should take that money from them to finance NY's greater need.
But, if someone in a State doesn't have something another State does, they can move. Causes other ripple effect problems for States that do, but so be it. That's part of the decision. This happens with lots of stuff that effect individual's access to care and other rights too numerous to list.
Heck, my local school taxes help NYC schools to the detriment of my local school district. Now THAT bothers me. But, I continue to live here. So, it must not bother me too much.
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
To Breyer and his colleagues in the majority, that qualified as an undue burden. “In the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity super facilities,” he wrote. “Patients seeking these services are less likely to get the kind of individualized attention, serious conversation, and emotional support that doctors at less taxed facilities may have offered.”
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a five-justice majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”
Because I do not know I am asking:
Can't a woman get an abortion at a hospital or is it a specialized procedure?