Women's healthcare providers are readying for a fight. Refusing to back down from its commitment to women's choice, Planned Parenthood is now at risk of losing nearly 40 percent of its funding—and is calling for a massive mobilization to resist the attack on women's health.
Signed the petition. I understood last night that this provision was for just a year. What's up with that? So clearly meant to break PP. They don't know who they're messing with.
Do note that the bill doesn't say Americans on Medicaid can't go to PP, only that the gov't won't pay PP (or whoever else might be included) for services they render to these citizens. Congress needs to understand that indeed this means that these Americans won't wind up getting the services, because in many cases there's no place else to go. And of course, it ignores that while PP may provide both Medicaid-eligible service and abortions, in many cases they are provided in separate facilities, specifically to make it clear that they are separately funded.
It really doesn't matter to most of these "representatives" about the plight of the people they "serve". As long as the party will pay for their campaigns they will toe the party line. This might actually be acceptable if the Parties listened to their constituents but they are beholden to the ones with the wherewithal to donate sums equal to the GDP of small nations or American states. If our parties are unresponsive to our needs please explain just what they are good for? I used to think that candidates made a local name for themselves by supporting things that the people needed or felt strongly about. Then attracted party movers and were nominated for office. Lately I have disabused myself of such foolishness and have come to realize that it is pliability and a charismatic appearance that is the ticket..
If PP is a non-profit, just donate to them so they can provide the services you think they should provide.
I fully support a woman's right to have an abortion if she has made that hard decision.
I also support a woman's right not to have to pay for another woman's abortion if she doesn't want to.
Get this out of the government's ever shifting political arena and return it to the people.
Direct democracy implemented a little at a time.
I fully support your right to open heart surgery. I also fully support the Right of every American not to have to pay for it. Toss in treatment for cancer, diabetes, stroke, Alzheimers, being hit by a brick. I say why draw the line where it just applies to women.
Which rock have you been under? Yes, they're nonprofit, on both abortion and other-services sides, sort of like your local hospital. But no taxpayers are paying for any abortions. And surprise, there are lots of men who get STD and cancer screenings and treatment, covered by Medicaid, from PP clinics.
I don't draw the line just with women. The topic was focused on abortion.
I wish more people felt the same.
The healthcare conversation has been so totally sidetracked that most people can't even realize the real question, at least as far as I'm concerned.
I'm a systems analyst. For many years I've had to fight to get clients to understand the difference between WHAT and HOW. Clients will tell me that they need a spreadsheet or a database application or a mobile app, etc. It's a huge struggle to really find out WHAT they want/need. After identifying that, the many possible HOWs quickly filter down to a sensible set.
To accomplish anything, first one must determine WHAT one is trying to accomplish. Almost everyone in the world it seems focuses on a HOW. Insurance is a HOW to do something.
Of course, on this site, it would seem that for most posters the WHAT is a fantasized totalitarian state with "free" healthcare, "free" education, "free" housing, etc..
Given that as the WHAT, government control of healthcare becomes a HOW to achieve that.
For me, the WHAT is how to have the most cost effective healthcare.
Almost the entire world has been sidetracked into an insurance debate.
Take the term "pre-existing condition". That's an insurance industry term, not a healthcare term, and it's ubiquitous shows how much control the bastards have gained over this conversation.
I'm not saying PP is a bad thing.
I'm saying that if people agree with it's mission, they should support it. Directly.
Take the last presidential campaign. Please:). The Clinton Political Machine literally had unlimited funds available for the campaign (and still lost!).
She was supported by every rock star, major media outlet, movie star and the wealthiest billionaire donors on earth. Why is government support of PP even being discussed. Her donor pool could fund PP a hundred times over without noticing it.
Take just one well known politician, John Kerry. When he was running for president, the L.A. Times estimated his family fortune at between 1 1/2 to 3 billion dollars. He could easily afford a few million a year for PP.
Get PP funding out of politics and you get the politics out of PP funding.
(A) The past election is past and irrelevant.
(B) ONCE more, the government does not "fund PP" as an entity. It reimburses PP for services rendered, under Medicaid, just as it does any other provider of health care, just as it might your local hospital or clinic run by any other entity.
Educate yourself or shut up.
Just pointing out that the true 1% that supported the Democrat candidate can fund this out of couch change. No government reimbursement needed. Simply fund that which they claim to support.
For that matter, everyone who voted against Trump could simply donate tiny amounts, say, a fraction of the amount they spent at Starbucks, and fund these things completely.
Ooh, someone needs a hug today!