quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

If private donations cover abortion costs, why do they need Gov't funding?

To pay for the cancer screenings, the STD screenings, the family planning and all the other services PP proovides.

quote:

Now you are complaining because they are following the requirement of the government.

quote:

quote:

14% of all abortions are paid for with public funds. Even though it comes from State and not Federal Government, it is still being paid for with public funds.

About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds, virtually all of which are state funds. 16 states (CA, CT, HI, ED, IL, MA , MD, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) pay for abortions for some poor women.

Medicaid and state programs pay for abortions. What does that have to do with Planned Parenthood?

quote:

quote:

What church-based health organizations are publicly funded?

Catholic Charities received a total of nearly $2.9 billion from the US government in 2010. In comparison, its annual revenue was $4.67 billion. Only about $140 million came from donations from diocesan churches, the remainder coming from in-kind contributions, investments, program fees, and community donations

quote:


Translated... you dont know.... you dont care... your word is the be all end all.

quote:


Btw, the government funds health care all over the place. CHips... working great towards that goal. Medicare... want to tell the old people they can no longer have that? I am glad you left out Tricare, else there would have been some who would have had some very choice words for you.
http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/FindingandPayingforTreatment/ManagingInsuranceIssues/HealthInsuranceandFinancialAssistancefortheCancerPatient/health-insurance-and-financial-assistance-gov-funded-health-plans

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Well, let's see, the US Constitution states that the Federal Government is tasked with raising the military and has the power to declare and wage war.

quote:

You aren't a very good translator. I don't have to run a program to know whether or not a program has Constitutional authority. Notice I have not made any mention of the quality of the program, just the Constitutionality. Government programs need to be authorized, not just effective.

quote:

Where do States get funding for Medicaid? Isn't it a jointly funded program? Sure is. A quick search did not give me any hard data on %-age supported by Federal/State Governments. Where are these people getting abortions? Is it possible that Medicaid patients get their abortions at PP (and I can honestly say that I don't know if they do or if they don't)?

quote:

And under what authority does Government pay for these services?

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, let's see, the US Constitution states that the Federal Government is tasked with raising the military and has the power to declare and wage war.

What part of "Promote the General Welfare" don't you understand?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

You aren't a very good translator. I don't have to run a program to know whether or not a program has Constitutional authority. Notice I have not made any mention of the quality of the program, just the Constitutionality. Government programs need to be authorized, not just effective.

Now, unless I am mistaken, the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact laws. So, unless you can argue that Congress did not have the legal right enact these programs, you will have to come up with a better reason.

quote:

Where do States get funding for Medicaid? Isn't it a jointly funded program? Sure is. A quick search did not give me any hard data on %-age supported by Federal/State Governments. Where are these people getting abortions? Is it possible that Medicaid patients get their abortions at PP (and I can honestly say that I don't know if they do or if they don't)?

Its possible some are. Its also possible that some are given abortions in hospitals as the result of various health issues.
You should read up on the Hyde Amendment.
The Hyde Amendment
After Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion in 1973, Medicaid covered abortion care without restriction. In 1976, Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) introduced an amendment that later passed to limit federal funding for abortion care. Effective in 1977, this provision, known as the Hyde Amendment, specifies what abortion services are covered under Medicaid.
Over the past two decades, Congress has debated the limited circumstances under which federal funding for abortion should be allowed. For a brief period of time, coverage included cases of rape, incest, life endangerment, and physical health damage to the woman. However, beginning in 1979, the physical health exception was excluded, and in 1981 rape and incest exceptions were also excluded.
In September 1993, Congress rewrote the provision to include Medicaid funding for abortions in cases where the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. The present version of the Hyde Amendment requires coverage of abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.
Implementation of the Hyde Amendment
The Hyde Amendment affects only federal spending. States are free to use their own funds to cover additional abortion services. For example, Hawaii, New York, and Washington have enacted laws funding abortions for health reasons. Other states, such as Maryland, cover abortions for women whose pregnancies are affected by fetal abnormalities or present serious health risks. These expansions are important steps toward ensuring equal access to health care for all women.
Prior to the 1993 expansion of the Hyde Amendment, thirty states chose not to use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.11 Initially, a number of states expressed resistance to comply with the expanded Hyde Amendment, and presently thirteen states are under court orders to comply and cover rape and incest in addition to life endangerment.12 Every court that has considered the Hyde Amendment's application to a state's Medicaid program since 1993 has held that states continuing to participate in the Medicaid program must cover abortions resulting from rape or incest in order to be compliant with the Hyde Amendment, regardless of state laws that may be more restrictive.
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/public_funding.html

quote:

And under what authority does Government pay for these services?

Under the authority that government both collects taxes and enacts law. Or are you saying they should enact only certain laws that you agree with.
I really am confused on your position here.
Why do you believe the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make laws?

quote:


the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled

All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest.

The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious [Citizen] to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school ... as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the [people]. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the ... materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power ... Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole [country] and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the [country] within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Well, let's see, the US Constitution states that the Federal Government is tasked with raising the military and has the power to declare and wage war.

What part of "Promote the General Welfare" don't you understand?

I don't understand the part where the liberals/progressives twist it into "personal welfare."
Got any other myths for me to bust?

quote:

Well Tweak, if someone works for a health insurance company denying medical care for the sick or rejecting claims, I can see how they would be afraid of a real national health care system...

quote:

The only part of my position that confuses you is the part you are leaving out. Yes, Congress has the authority to enact laws and levy taxes to pay for those laws. However, these laws are only Constitutional if they are authorized by the Constitution, and taxes can only be levied to pay for those laws. That's the "Necessary and Proper Clause."

quote:

See, there are limits placed on Government. Government can not do whatever it wants, to whomever it wants, whenever it wants and tax whoever it wants to pay for it. SternSkipper takes the liberal/progressive interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause. Theoretically, any action the Government wants to take could be rationalized under that clause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
"General welfare" is the totality of all the individual "personal welfare(s)" of the citizens of the USA. There, that's not too hard to grasp is it?
If it is too hard, try this: If you add up all the "personal welfares" of US citizens, then you have the "General Welfare". Easy isn't it?

quote:


From: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed45.asp

[Bold lettering added by me]

Federalist Paper #45:

...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former [Federal Government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. ...

quote:

Of course the addition bit is the difficult bit for you (philosophically speaking) as you appear to be opposed to anything based on a principle of 'cooperation'. Particularly in areas that you assert are areas of "personal responsibility".

quote:


Why healthcare, or healthcare funding comes under the heading of personal responsibility is unclear to me.

quote:

At the moment, all citizens of the US fund health care partially through direct payments (taxes to the Govt, or private insurers) and indirectly, through the paying for goods and services (health care as a business cost is passed onto the final purchaser - the consumer through the cost of products and services). So at the moment, everyone is paying for health care, but not every one receives health care.

quote:

The citizens being ripped off under the pre-Obamacare arrangements are those denied, or unable to obtain health care coverage. Oddly enough, you seem to be asserting that remedying this situation will mean you are subsidising the health care of others. Diametrically wrong (no surprise that is it?). It will mean that they stop subsidising your health care. It will mean that the marginalised no longer subsidise the health care of the affluent.

quote:

Why you are opposed universal healthcare on financial grounds is also a mystery to me. Either way you pay, the discussion should be about which system delivers the best health and funding outcomes. Universal healthcare systems in almost all other comparable Western countries end up costing a lot less than the insane US healthcare system - typically cost about half the cost of the US system. Such systems also produce far superior health outcomes (check out infant mortality figures for example). So a decent universal healthcare system that provides 100% coverage for all US citizens will not only prevent tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths annually, be more equitable financially, result in higher health standards but actually cost an awful lot less than you currently pay.

It's such an obvious no-brainer on every level that I have difficulty ascribing kind motives to any one opposed to universal health care schemes.

quote:

Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?

Be careful what you wish for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Are you ok with tax dollars being used to secure airports? Or should the passengers bear the entire responsibility for their own security?

How about all these unconstitutional, undeclared wars? Why are my tax dollars used for these RELIGIOUSLY OFFENSIVE military acts?

quote:

Really? Who can't walk into an emergency room and get care? Anyone? Nope. Hospitals are not allowed (by law) to turn anyone away, except in cases where they do not have beds available (there have been times in my area where local hospitals have shut down ER's because a local "epidemic" of the flu has inundated their facility and they physically can not handle more patients). That stands for insurance holders, those without insurance, those here legally or not, and for those with or without pre-existing conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?
Be careful what you wish for.

My tax dollars go to train those Doctors, build those hospitals and clinics.
One of those government funded health care programs is the funding for training physicians in this country.
What I am saying is that health care has been priced out of reach because of greed.
As far as tweak, she isnt in the US.
As far as me... I am all for national health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Really? Who can't walk into an emergency room and get care? Anyone? Nope. Hospitals are not allowed (by law) to turn anyone away, except in cases where they do not have beds available (there have been times in my area where local hospitals have shut down ER's because a local "epidemic" of the flu has inundated their facility and they physically can not handle more patients). That stands for insurance holders, those without insurance, those here legally or not, and for those with or without pre-existing conditions.

Um... you are wrong.

Non emergency... they dont have to see. They have been turning people away for years. Triage...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?
Be careful what you wish for.

My tax dollars go to train those Doctors, build those hospitals and clinics.
One of those government funded health care programs is the funding for training physicians in this country.
What I am saying is that health care has been priced out of reach because of greed.
As far as tweak, she isnt in the US.
As far as me... I am all for national health care.

Some of your tax dollars go towards training those physicians. We agree on that. We disagree on what that means. You want national health care. I want to stop funding their educations. Government funding their educations (and, while we're at it, how about we open up the credentialing process to more than just the AMA? A Government created monopoly that can limit the amount of doctors in the country, maintaining an undersupply to keep demand up, resulting in.....?) is a terrible reason for Government funding health care, btw.

But, Greed on who's part? Should the Government use taxpayer money to build hospitals and clinics? I say, 'no,' unless it is a VA or tricare only hospital/clinic. Most hospitals are not built using Gub'mint money.

How has health care been priced out of reach? Who has done it? How can it be fixed?

quote:

How has health care been priced out of reach? Who has done it? How can it be fixed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

Really? Who can't walk into an emergency room and get care? Anyone? Nope. Hospitals are not allowed (by law) to turn anyone away, except in cases where they do not have beds available (there have been times in my area where local hospitals have shut down ER's because a local "epidemic" of the flu has inundated their facility and they physically can not handle more patients). That stands for insurance holders, those without insurance, those here legally or not, and for those with or without pre-existing conditions.

Um... you are wrong.

Non emergency... they dont have to see. They have been turning people away for years. Triage...

No Tazzy, he has a point.
You see, Reagan was a communist, and he figured out how to set up a communist health care system. He required hospitals to take care of anyone with life threatening illness or injury, without funding. Now, who pays for that? Why, all the folks with money or insurance, of course.
Obamacare on the other hand, threatens that communist system, by requiring that everyone have insurance, meaning that hospitals will no longer take from those who have the means to give to those who have the needs.
No wonder the Right is against it...

quote:

quote:


Why healthcare, or healthcare funding comes under the heading of personal responsibility is unclear to me.

Seriously?!? Got a good laugh at that one. What you are saying is that your health isn't your responsibility. You're saying that paying for the care you need to maintain your health isn't your responsibility. If it isn't your responsibility, who's is it? Does the person paying for your care get to choose what care is given? Does the entity that is responsible for your health, healthcare, and pays for the latter, control that which impacts your health?

Be careful what you wish for.