Trump Signs Anti-Planned Parenthood Law
Comments
-
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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. Elective treatments such as abortion and contraception should not be payed for by taxpayers. Not all types of medical treatment are under the umbrella of "basic healthcare" and saying someone has the right to elective surgeries should not be funded by the government in my opinion.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.Post edited by PJPOWER on0 -
Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.PJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
"Other non-profit medical providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
That is a false statement and is dependent on the city you live in.rgambs said:
Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.PJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
"Other non-profit medication providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.0 -
Some areas are covered, more are not. Comparing the locations and services provided by PP to other "free-clinics" will not enhance your argument, especially when you consider the portion which are religiously affiliated and don't provide contraception services.PJPOWER said:
That is a false statement and is dependent on the city you live in.rgambs said:
Taxpayers don't foot the bill for abortions, you know that. They are prohibited from using federal funds for abortions, again, I think you know that.PJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
"Other non-profit medication providers" do not exist in nearly enough quantity to provide the care needed.
Because they are nutballs.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
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.HughFreakingDillon said:PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
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.0 -
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?0 -
dramatic and insulting?KC2917 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
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.
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".
now who's dramatic and insulting again?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?0 -
Is this what you're referring to?HughFreakingDillon said:
dramatic and insulting?KC2917 said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
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.
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".
now who's dramatic and insulting again?
0 -
I don't consider abortions (elective or otherwise) to be in the same universe as the other procedures you metioned.PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.0 -
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.CM189191 said:
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.
0 -
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.CM189191 said:
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.0 -
Really? Show me the cost-benefit analysis then.PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.0 -
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.PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
So again, what does it matter to you if someone else's treatment 'non-essential' or 'elective'?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
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?PJPOWER said:
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.CM189191 said:
wait...back upPJPOWER said:
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?rgambs said:
You cannot be refused life saving emergency medical care. There is a big difference.PJPOWER said:
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.HughFreakingDillon said:
do you think that access to a car is a basic human right?PJPOWER said:
Interestingly enough, did you know that vehicle insurance is more expensive for men than women? What do you think they base those costs on?HughFreakingDillon said:
health insurance for just being a woman is higher, making it much more difficult for women to seek the care they need.PJPOWER said:
Not sure I understand this. What health care access options do men have that women do not?HughFreakingDillon said:
access to the same health care options that men have.ponytd said: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.
http://www.insurancequotes.org/health-insurance/health-resources/coverage-for-women/
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.
what difference does it make if it's 'elective' or not?
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.
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.
Star Lake 00 / Pittsburgh 03 / State College 03 / Bristow 03 / Cleveland 06 / Camden II 06 / DC 08 / Pittsburgh 13 / Baltimore 13 / Charlottesville 13 / Cincinnati 14 / St. Paul 14 / Hampton 16 / Wrigley I 16 / Wrigley II 16 / Baltimore 20 / Camden 22 / Baltimore 24 / Raleigh I 25 / Raleigh II 25 / Pittsburgh I 250
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 275 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help