|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 11:32:11 GMT -5
Post by poindexter on Oct 4, 2011 11:32:11 GMT -5
Okay...now for something completely different.
I think for the most part we are all in agreement on the need to reduce government spending in general and eliminate wasteful spending as much as possible. This mantra has been the focus of recent elections and has resulted in a shift in the balance of power in the House of Representatives. The 2012 presidential election is showing an increasing focus here also, particularly in the republican primary.
Title X is the federal family planning grant that funds birth control and preventative health services for more than five million low-income people. Title X was established by President Nixon with bipartisan support and remained largely uncontroversial through the 1990's. President G. H. W. Bush actually sat on the board of Planned Parenthood, and during his term in office he approved giving Planned Parenthood about $2.2 billion in federal funds.
The cost of a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was estimated at roughly $13,000 in 2008. The cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics averages about $250 per client per year. Even I can do that math.
Here's what I don't get...GOP lawmakers are trying to axe the program for the second time this year in the name of slashing the deficit. The proposed legislation would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention and redirect it toward "abstinence only" programs.
Here's that math I was talking about...the government spends about $300 million a year on the Title X program, but in 2008 alone, it saved us $3.4 billion dollars in return.
So...what's the sense in this? Are we confusing family planning (contraception) with abortion? Isn't planning for a pregnancy the best way to prevent abortions? Are we going to try and legislate morality again? And what about the money? How can we say we want to reduce expenses and then remove some of the biggest cost saving measures we have?
Short term thinking. Let's discuss!!
Note: I borrowed some facts and figures from a recent article on HuffPo. Yes, I said Huffington Post...now have your fun!
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 12:16:02 GMT -5
Post by HoneyBadger on Oct 4, 2011 12:16:02 GMT -5
I believe that GOP lawmakers choose to equate family planning (contraception) with abortion. Contraception prevents those sneaky little swimmers from fertilizing that little egg. Therefore murder is being committed. Or maybe it's pre-murder.
I had written more (and then deleted it) but I'm so passionate about this particular subject that I'm going to do myself an immense favor and not look at it again.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 17:38:27 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 4, 2011 17:38:27 GMT -5
I think Planned Parenthood provides a valuable service to our community, and as a former client (albeit many years ago) education is a huge part of their program. It just isn't about handing out condoms and birth control pills. IMO it makes more sense to continue the funding to Planned Parenthood and educate people to make informed decisions and have (or don't have) children that are wanted, and accept the responsibility that goes along with that decision to have a child. I hesitate to use the word "afford", for if that were the case I don't think any of us would have children. I am also firmly pro-choice. To abort or not is a personal decision that for the vast majority of women is made after a lot of soul-searching. Government has no business interfering in this very personal decision.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 19:29:36 GMT -5
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 4, 2011 19:29:36 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the program or Planned Parenthood per se. What I do have a problem with is having the federal government being involved in ANY reproductive issues because they have no mandate to do so other than the one they artificially created themselves. If the individual states want to enact this legislation and fund it so be it but it doesn't belong in the hands, or under the control, of the feds.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 20:06:09 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 4, 2011 20:06:09 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the program or Planned Parenthood per se. What I do have a problem with is having the federal government being involved in ANY reproductive issues because they have no mandate to do so other than the one they artificially created themselves. If the individual states want to enact this legislation and fund it so be it but it doesn't belong in the hands, or under the control, of the feds. In my opinion it doesn't belong in the control of the states either. I believe we should educate, not legislate. No laws should have control over my body.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 21:11:16 GMT -5
Post by poindexter on Oct 4, 2011 21:11:16 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the program or Planned Parenthood per se. What I do have a problem with is having the federal government being involved in ANY reproductive issues because they have no mandate to do so other than the one they artificially created themselves. If the individual states want to enact this legislation and fund it so be it but it doesn't belong in the hands, or under the control, of the feds. RW, I understand the artificial mandate concern. But I have an issue with the whole let the states do their own thing thing. We've discussed this before...I know. You saw the numbers in this example. We're talking some major money here. I'm of the opinion that having one standard administered at one level has got to be more efficient than having 50 standards and 50 different bureaucracies to administer the program. My other concern is the variation that would exist from state to state. Some states would elect not to have a program at all, while others would take theirs to the opposite extreme. This would cause problems...hell, it could even contribute to mass geographical population shifts (I'm only half joking)! A strong federal program makes more sense to me on a lot of these issues. I can remember as a senior in high school, giving all of my business to the Ott House and the Blue Duck Inn because of differing state laws. And let me tell ya...we're talking a major economic loss for PA there folks.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 4, 2011 21:19:11 GMT -5
Post by poindexter on Oct 4, 2011 21:19:11 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the program or Planned Parenthood per se. What I do have a problem with is having the federal government being involved in ANY reproductive issues because they have no mandate to do so other than the one they artificially created themselves. If the individual states want to enact this legislation and fund it so be it but it doesn't belong in the hands, or under the control, of the feds. In my opinion it doesn't belong in the control of the states either. I believe we should educate, not legislate. No laws should have control over my body. I don't disagree at all LS. But if we educate the youth to do the right thing that either means abstinence, or birth control. It's been pretty well documented that low income havers-of-sex who can't afford birth control are more likely to crank out those $13k Medicaid babies. And again, Title X isn't about abortion, it's about birth control and reproductive health. As Townie mentioned, I think we've been duped into lumping them all together by the extreme right and evangelicals.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 7:03:35 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with the program or Planned Parenthood per se. What I do have a problem with is having the federal government being involved in ANY reproductive issues because they have no mandate to do so other than the one they artificially created themselves. If the individual states want to enact this legislation and fund it so be it but it doesn't belong in the hands, or under the control, of the feds. RW, I understand the artificial mandate concern. But I have an issue with the whole let the states do their own thing thing. We've discussed this before...I know. You saw the numbers in this example. We're talking some major money here. I'm of the opinion that having one standard administered at one level has got to be more efficient than having 50 standards and 50 different bureaucracies to administer the program. My other concern is the variation that would exist from state to state. Some states would elect not to have a program at all, while others would take theirs to the opposite extreme. This would cause problems...hell, it could even contribute to mass geographical population shifts (I'm only half joking)! A strong federal program makes more sense to me on a lot of these issues. I can remember as a senior in high school, giving all of my business to the Ott House and the Blue Duck Inn because of differing state laws. And let me tell ya...we're talking a major economic loss for PA there folks. Planned Parenthood has an operating budget over 1 billion. The Federal Government currently gives them about 330 million (at least that's the number being mentioned in cuts). In the grand scheme that's not a lot of money. Each individual State's share of that 330 million would be a bit more than 6.5 million if they choose to fund the gap. Of course, I doubt the States would need to pony up that much because I guarantee if Planned Parenthood's Federal funds are cut there are plenty of private contributors who would step up to help fill the void. Hell, George Soros could make up the difference by himself. Or maybe Warren Buffet, who complains about not paying enough taxes, would be willing to cut a check. And I don't care about variations from State to State (this is supposed to be a Republic after all). We already have those. Medical Marijuana is the biggest one I can think of. That didn't cause a huge population shift and roughly %40 of our population had admitted to using it.
|
|
|
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 8:48:56 GMT -5
RW, I understand the artificial mandate concern. But I have an issue with the whole let the states do their own thing thing. We've discussed this before...I know. You saw the numbers in this example. We're talking some major money here. I'm of the opinion that having one standard administered at one level has got to be more efficient than having 50 standards and 50 different bureaucracies to administer the program. My other concern is the variation that would exist from state to state. Some states would elect not to have a program at all, while others would take theirs to the opposite extreme. This would cause problems...hell, it could even contribute to mass geographical population shifts (I'm only half joking)! A strong federal program makes more sense to me on a lot of these issues. I can remember as a senior in high school, giving all of my business to the Ott House and the Blue Duck Inn because of differing state laws. And let me tell ya...we're talking a major economic loss for PA there folks. Planned Parenthood has an operating budget over 1 billion. The Federal Government currently gives them about 330 million (at least that's the number being mentioned in cuts). In the grand scheme that's not a lot of money. Each individual State's share of that 330 million would be a bit more than 6.5 million if they choose to fund the gap. Of course, I doubt the States would need to pony up that much because I guarantee if Planned Parenthood's Federal funds are cut there are plenty of private contributors who would step up to help fill the void. Hell, George Soros could make up the difference by himself. Or maybe Warren Buffet, who complains about not paying enough taxes, would be willing to cut a check. And I don't care about variations from State to State (this is supposed to be a Republic after all). We already have those. Medical Marijuana is the biggest one I can think of. That didn't cause a huge population shift and roughly %40 of our population had admitted to using it. RW, did I forget to mention that I'm moving to Cali soon...just don't Bogart on me friend! Seriously though, the $300 million is what is spent. It's estimated that the $300 million saves about $3.4 billion. So if $300 million isn't a lot of money in your opinion, is $3.4 billion? I don't think we can count on private contributions to make up for the huge cuts in social programs that are being considered. And actually, as a share of the overall economy, fed taxes this year will be the lowest since 1950. For the third straight year, families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under President G. W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.
|
|
|
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 9:28:21 GMT -5
You can say all you want about how low Federal taxes are but I'll argue they should be zero and that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Constitutionality aside, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was." Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified the Supreme Court has refused to examine the evidence. A case can also be made that the federal income tax may in fact violate the 5th amendment which states the government cannot compel citizens to submit information that may be used against them later. But I digress so back to the funding issue. This is social engineering at its worst and the government shouldn't fund it with taxpayer money. There ought to be a good hard long look taken at the government funded programs that would end up ponying the $3.4 billion that is being "saved" by spending 350 mil on Planned Parenthood.
|
|
dspitz17325
Need to Get a Life!
I came to chew bubblegum and kick some ass and i am all out of bubblegum .
Posts: 543
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 10:32:56 GMT -5
Post by dspitz17325 on Oct 5, 2011 10:32:56 GMT -5
I believe that GOP lawmakers choose to equate family planning (contraception) with abortion. Contraception prevents those sneaky little swimmers from fertilizing that little egg. Therefore murder is being committed. Or maybe it's pre-murder. I had written more (and then deleted it) but I'm so passionate about this particular subject that I'm going to do myself an immense favor and not look at it again. It's kind of like the movie Minority Report where they arrest the guy before he commits the crime the sperm get confined for what we think they might do therefore no crime/ baby is commited GOD i need a damn beer.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 11:00:22 GMT -5
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 11:00:22 GMT -5
You can say all you want about how low Federal taxes are but I'll argue they should be zero and that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Constitutionality aside, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was." Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified the Supreme Court has refused to examine the evidence. A case can also be made that the federal income tax may in fact violate the 5th amendment which states the government cannot compel citizens to submit information that may be used against them later. But I digress so back to the funding issue. This is social engineering at its worst and the government shouldn't fund it with taxpayer money. There ought to be a good hard long look taken at the government funded programs that would end up ponying the $3.4 billion that is being "saved" by spending 350 mil on Planned Parenthood. Fair enough. Now I've got some work to do! Let me educate myself a bit and we'll continue. At the start, it doesn't look like google will be very nice to Mr. Benson, but I'll try to wade through the BS.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 11:16:20 GMT -5
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 11:16:20 GMT -5
Fair enough. Now I've got some work to do! Let me educate myself a bit and we'll continue. At the start, it doesn't look like google will be very nice to Mr. Benson, but I'll try to wade through the BS. There will be BS because this is truly a subject where this is no no middle. Federal Income Tax advocates as well as the government will attempt to smear and discredit for obvious reasons but so will those making a living indirectly off the income tax i.e. tax attorneys and even non profit taxpayer advocacy groups because with no income tax they're all out of business. Do you think H&R Block and the like, whose sole purpose is to help you get as much money BACK from the IRS, really wants you to pay no tax? Not if they want to keep working they don't.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 17:45:17 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 17:45:17 GMT -5
You can say all you want about how low Federal taxes are but I'll argue they should be zero and that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Constitutionality aside, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was." Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified the Supreme Court has refused to examine the evidence. A case can also be made that the federal income tax may in fact violate the 5th amendment which states the government cannot compel citizens to submit information that may be used against them later. But I digress so back to the funding issue. This is social engineering at its worst and the government shouldn't fund it with taxpayer money. There ought to be a good hard long look taken at the government funded programs that would end up ponying the $3.4 billion that is being "saved" by spending 350 mil on Planned Parenthood. Just got done watching the videos. Wow. But now, back to Title X. So are you saying that there should not be funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you think there is value in the things that Planned Parenthood does? If you support what Planned Parenthood does but don't think Planned Parenthood should be federally funded where do you think the funding should come from?
|
|
HoneyBadger
Poster Child
HoneyBadger don't give a shit.
Posts: 373
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 18:05:21 GMT -5
Post by HoneyBadger on Oct 5, 2011 18:05:21 GMT -5
You can say all you want about how low Federal taxes are but I'll argue they should be zero and that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Constitutionality aside, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was." Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified the Supreme Court has refused to examine the evidence. A case can also be made that the federal income tax may in fact violate the 5th amendment which states the government cannot compel citizens to submit information that may be used against them later. But I digress so back to the funding issue. This is social engineering at its worst and the government shouldn't fund it with taxpayer money. There ought to be a good hard long look taken at the government funded programs that would end up ponying the $3.4 billion that is being "saved" by spending 350 mil on Planned Parenthood. Just got done watching the videos. Wow. But now, back to Title X. So are you saying that there should not be funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you think there is value in the things that Planned Parenthood does? If you support what Planned Parenthood does but don't think Planned Parenthood should be federally funded where do you think the funding should come from? No offense meant to RW or anyone else but the money should come from the same place all poor people get money - nowhere because they don't deserve any help. Anyone remember Dr. Mehdi? He brought multiple senior family members to Gettysburg from India or where ever he was from. After 3 months or so they were able to draw social security. Never worked a lick in the country but were supported until death. The Patel's are doing it. Most foreigners with elderly parents are doing it. Foreigners come here and can apply for a $75,000. interest free loan to start a business and are permitted 3 years to pay it back. People born here get shafted. So hell yes, cut Title X and let women who can't pay for birth control get pregnant and have babies we all support. Better yet, sterilize them all. How dare they have sex? I believe that America should support the entire world except for people with U.S. birth certificates. Screw them.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 18:24:33 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 18:24:33 GMT -5
In my opinion it doesn't belong in the control of the states either. I believe we should educate, not legislate. No laws should have control over my body. I don't disagree at all LS. But if we educate the youth to do the right thing that either means abstinence, or birth control. It's been pretty well documented that low income havers-of-sex who can't afford birth control are more likely to crank out those $13k Medicaid babies. And again, Title X isn't about abortion, it's about birth control and reproductive health. As Townie mentioned, I think we've been duped into lumping them all together by the extreme right and evangelicals. I think it means more than the choice between abstinence and birth control. It is the problem that once you are in that cycle of poverty that it is almost impossible to get yourself out. If Planned Parenthood can do anything to educate their clients on responsible parenting this may reduce some of those Medicaid babies that are born. And by the way, condoms are free at Planned Parenthood if you are unable to pay. All fees are on a sliding scale.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 18:33:04 GMT -5
Post by poindexter on Oct 5, 2011 18:33:04 GMT -5
I don't disagree at all LS. But if we educate the youth to do the right thing that either means abstinence, or birth control. It's been pretty well documented that low income havers-of-sex who can't afford birth control are more likely to crank out those $13k Medicaid babies. And again, Title X isn't about abortion, it's about birth control and reproductive health. As Townie mentioned, I think we've been duped into lumping them all together by the extreme right and evangelicals. I think it means more than the choice between abstinence and birth control. It is the problem that once you are in that cycle of poverty that it is almost impossible to get yourself out. If Planned Parenthood can do anything to educate their clients on responsible parenting this may reduce some of those Medicaid babies that are born. And by the way, condoms are free at Planned Parenthood if you are unable to pay. All fees are on a sliding scale. LS, don't they offer medical services as well; breast cancer screenings, PAP, etc.?
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 18:49:28 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 18:49:28 GMT -5
I think it means more than the choice between abstinence and birth control. It is the problem that once you are in that cycle of poverty that it is almost impossible to get yourself out. If Planned Parenthood can do anything to educate their clients on responsible parenting this may reduce some of those Medicaid babies that are born. And by the way, condoms are free at Planned Parenthood if you are unable to pay. All fees are on a sliding scale. LS, don't they offer medical services as well; breast cancer screenings, PAP, etc.? Yes, I think they do. At least they did when I went there. And there are also other programs in the area for free mammograms as well.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 19:00:15 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 19:00:15 GMT -5
Poindexter wrote: Our paths have crossed before, I'm sure of it.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 20:03:54 GMT -5
Post by Rainier Wolfcastle on Oct 5, 2011 20:03:54 GMT -5
You can say all you want about how low Federal taxes are but I'll argue they should be zero and that the 16th Amendment is unconstitutional. Constitutionality aside, Bill Benson, a former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue, began in 1984 to examine the ratification of the 16th Amendment, state by state. After a massive search of state archives and other repositories of the relevant documents, he determined that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified. His work is contained in a two-volume book set called "The Law That Never Was." Despite the fact that there is substantial evidence that the 16th Amendment was never legally ratified the Supreme Court has refused to examine the evidence. A case can also be made that the federal income tax may in fact violate the 5th amendment which states the government cannot compel citizens to submit information that may be used against them later. But I digress so back to the funding issue. This is social engineering at its worst and the government shouldn't fund it with taxpayer money. There ought to be a good hard long look taken at the government funded programs that would end up ponying the $3.4 billion that is being "saved" by spending 350 mil on Planned Parenthood. Just got done watching the videos. Wow. But now, back to Title X. So are you saying that there should not be funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you think there is value in the things that Planned Parenthood does? If you support what Planned Parenthood does but don't think Planned Parenthood should be federally funded where do you think the funding should come from? I absolutely believe there's a value in the services Planned Parenthood provides I just don't think they need to be in business with the Federal Government. People wrongly assume that cutting Federal funding for these institutions means they will cease to exist. If the public wants them the public will find a way to keep them around.
|
|
|
Title X
Oct 5, 2011 21:00:48 GMT -5
Post by lifesaver on Oct 5, 2011 21:00:48 GMT -5
Just got done watching the videos. Wow. But now, back to Title X. So are you saying that there should not be funding for Planned Parenthood? Do you think there is value in the things that Planned Parenthood does? If you support what Planned Parenthood does but don't think Planned Parenthood should be federally funded where do you think the funding should come from? I absolutely believe there's a value in the services Planned Parenthood provides I just don't think they need to be in business with the Federal Government. People wrongly assume that cutting Federal funding for these institutions means they will cease to exist. If the public wants them the public will find a way to keep them around. Yes they can. IF they can find interested individuals committed to invest, volunteer, or help to contribute to the cause. If this were happening today do you think "the public' would understand the importance of Planned Parenthood services and the positive impact it can have on our community, or would it become a moral/ethical issue on right to life and abortion?
|
|