Nothing surprises me about this campaign.

[lawgator1]

But it's not shutting them down like Dems want to claim

Show me what's incorrect in the ad.

 

[utvolpj]

Show me what's incorrect in the ad.

how would he prevent anyone from getting help at PP?

 

[volinbham]

You don't think cutting over $300 million of their funding (yes, about a third of the total) would pose serious problems for PP to offer the services it does, and where it does?

Of course it would. That's all the ad does. Its one person -- a famous person -- explaining that when they weren't famous she used PP services. And she's saying it was for common health care problems of women, not abortions. That's the whole point.

On more than one occasion GOP lawmakers have dramatically over-claimed how much of what PP does is provision of abortions, And they have outright lied about federal money paying for abortions.

The ad defends continued funding of PP. Obama is for that. Romney is against it. The ad is perfectly reasonable and is accurate.

Okay let's go through this one by one.

1) PP would survive without government funding. You sound like Obama in suggesting an organization cannot survive without government help.

2) Simply because government funding doesn't go through PP doesn't mean it will be discontinued altogether - there are plenty of organizations that could and would provide the contraceptive services. Funding would be shifted to them (as it already goes through them). PP is not some sacred cow.

So - the GOP isn't trying to end PP as you claimed and even if they stopped Federal funding of PP there is nothing to suggest contraceptive funding would go away; it would merely shift and Ms. Banks would have gotten her needs served via a different organization.

 

[lawgator1]

how would he prevent anyone from getting help at PP?

LOL, cutting their budget by a third might put a hitch in their system, don't you think?

 

[lawgator1]

Okay let's go through this one by one.

1) PP would survive without government funding. You sound like Obama in suggesting an organization cannot survive without government help.

2) Simply because government funding doesn't go through PP doesn't mean it will be discontinued altogether - there are plenty of organizations that could and would provide the contraceptive services. Funding would be shifted to them (as it already goes through them). PP is not some sacred cow.

So - the GOP isn't trying to end PP as you claimed and even if they stopped Federal funding of PP there is nothing to suggest contraceptive funding would go away; it would merely shift and Ms. Banks would have gotten her needs served via a different organization.

Come on. Losing a third of their budget is going to severely restrict services and it stands to reason would mean closing clinics somewhere. Maybe not everywhere but some women who depend on it would lose that access to health care.

 

[golfballs]

LOL, cutting their budget by a third might put a hitch in their system, don't you think?

If people think there services were worthwhile, they can donate to them. They are a tax-deductible charity

 

[volinbham]

LOL, cutting their budget by a third might put a hitch in their system, don't you think?

Actually, we've lost nearly 50% of our state funding over the last 3 years and we have found other revenue sources and are doing more than we ever did.

That said, I don't doubt it would impact PP but to imply that means women won't be able to get contraceptive service is simply not true.

 

[utvolpj]

LOL, cutting their budget by a third might put a hitch in their system, don't you think?

If the govt has taught us anything then this doesn't cut their budget, it cuts their funding. If they think it's so important then they can go find funding elsewhere. The govt doesn't need to be in the business of handing out tax dollars to every group that claims a need

 

[Gramps]

Overstating the ad and misstating the emphasis and point of the ad. Pretty much par for the course for Romney supporters these days.

I am far from a Romney supporter. That ad is ridiculous.

What is next ? If a man has a short pecker vote Obama, enlargements will be made mandatory through the ACA.

 

[lawgator1]

Do you understand the mechanisms by which government funding of PP occurs?

You make it sound like they just write them some kind of check, and PP spends it how they want. Not so.

Of the $363 million they got in 2009, $293 million was from Medicaid. That's reimbursement for care, just like your local hospital gets for providing medical care to a Medicaid recipient who comes in for any sort of treatment there. Analogizing the PP situation to just some charity is extremely misleading.

 

[volinbham]

Do you understand the mechanisms by which government funding of PP occurs?

You make it sound like they just write them some kind of check, and PP spends it how they want. Not so.

Of the $363 million they got in 2009, $293 million was from Medicaid. That's reimbursement for care, just like your local hospital gets for providing medical care to a Medicaid recipient who comes in for any sort of treatment there. Analogizing the PP situation to just some charity is extremely misleading.

Suggesting contraceptive health funding would disappear if PP was defunded is extremely misleading.

Clearly they are plenty of alternative HC providers that could absorb the funding.

To Gramps point (as far as i can tell) - the ridiculousness is that with all the issues facing us this ad seems trivial at best. If this is the reason not to vote for a candidate we are all screwed.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Abortion funding as an election issue is pathetic, but it's an absolute need on the left. Avoid broader economy, tout past giveaways while promising more and threaten people with with calamity in the event the gravy train is stopped.

 

[golfballs]

Abortion funding as an election issue is pathetic, but it's an absolute need on the left. Avoid broader economy, tout past giveaways while promising more and threaten people with with calamity in the event the gravy train is stopped.

CLASSIC democrat ploy

 

[PKT_VOL]

Abortion funding as an election issue is pathetic, but it's an absolute need on the left. Avoid broader economy, tout past giveaways while promising more and threaten people with with calamity in the event the gravy train is stopped.

Yeah, because the GOP is really tackling the big economic issues by presenting a coherent detailed plan. Nor do they engage in vague talking points or deflect to social issues to fire up their base. Not at all. Only the "left" engages in such "pathetic" tactics.

Pot meet kettle.

 

[BigPapaVol]

How was the tea party started there chef?

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

So do we really have three parites now - I really see Rupublicans and Team Party Republicans as the same.

 

[PKT_VOL]

How was the tea party started there chef?

Lulz @ the tea party...now.

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

How in the world do you get the idea that said birth control medicine should be provided by insurers? Insurance is a loss preventer and should have nothing to do with quality of life. All quality of life medicine should come at a cost and the actual consumer should eat that cost so the market could again be a market. I don't give a crap about the details. Every person on earth has some reason that something should be free.

Insurance has long ago stopped being about preventing loss. Is that right, probably not. I'll take the highest deductable I can get and lower my costs. BUT - what riles the left and women up is that the only "quality of life" medicine being focused on here is birth control. Which fits in perfectly with the extreme Right's religious agenda.

Now - if we pull all quality of life treatments out of insurance - that woudl be fair. But of course there is a line drawing issue. Is a prosthetic limb quality of life or medical necessity?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Lulz @ the tea party...now.

what? It was a movement borne out of pure spending cut and it was vilified as fast as humanly possible as a bunch of racists.

The minimalist government movement isn't new and has been the domain of the GOP for decades. The D hasn't even tried to address the issue and won't, because it's not how they get votes.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Insurance has long ago stopped being about preventing loss. Is that right, probably not. I'll take the highest deductable I can get and lower my costs. BUT - what riles the left and women up is that the only "quality of life" medicine being focused on here is birth control. Which fits in perfectly with the extreme Right's religious agenda.

Now - if we pull all quality of life treatments out of insurance - that woudl be fair. But of course there is a line drawing issue. Is a prosthetic limb quality of life or medical necessity?

Are you kidding me? You think the right pushed the dumbass agenda that shoved this down religious org's throats? Clearly the loony left co-opted the birth control as a right crowd and crammed it down everyone's throats. Don't act like the extreme right had anything to do with this being an agenda item.

Every quality of life medical decision - all of them - should absolutely have a cost / benefit angle to the decision. That has been removed. Those that fall under life altering decisions that trigger the true insurance reason for buying the policy, should allow for exercising the policy. Not sure you meant for the question to be a layup.

 

[BigPapaVol]

So do we really have three parites now - I really see Rupublicans and Team Party Republicans as the same.

was this intended to make sense? Maybe we could break the dems down in factions. Which one is going to be about addressing the broken spending system in DC?

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

Are you kidding me? You think the right pushed the dumbass agenda that shoved this down religious org's throats? Clearly the loony left co-opted the birth control as a right crowd and crammed it down everyone's throats. Don't act like the extreme right had anything to do with this being an agenda item.

Every quality of life medical decision - all of them - should absolutely have a cost / benefit angle to the decision. That has been removed. Those that fall under life altering decisions that trigger the true insurance reason for buying the policy, should allow for exercising the policy. Not sure you meant for the question to be a layup.

The cost benefit analysis you speak of is too subjective for my tastes. Either allow doctors to make the decisions on what medication/treatment is necessary (i.e. if the write the scrip for birth control, it's necessary) or remove all life improving treatments.

With regards to your first comment - here's the "cramming down the throat" you refer to:

• Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.

• Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

• The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage.


But I forgot, the religious nut jobs don't believe in science, only in what Jeebus tells them.

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

was this intended to make sense? Maybe we could break the dems down in factions. Which one is going to be about addressing the broken spending system in DC?

We weren't talking about Democrats were we? We can. Think I've made my position clear - they suck too.

 

[hog88]

The cost benefit analysis you speak of is too subjective for my tastes. Either allow doctors to make the decisions on what medication/treatment is necessary (i.e. if the write the scrip for birth control, it's necessary) or remove all life improving treatments.

With regards to your first comment - here's the "cramming down the throat" you refer to:

• Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.

• Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

• The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage.


But I forgot, the religious nut jobs don't believe in science, only in what Jeebus tells them.

All fine and dandy but please tell me who pays for all of this? There is no such thing as "free of charge"!!

 

[TruthIsOutThere]

All fine and dandy but please tell me who pays for all of this? There is no such thing as "free of charge"!![/QUOTE

The recommedation comeing from the Nation Academy of Sciences balaces the costs of providing a service now versus the costs of providing a service later. In many cases, preventitive medicine will lower costs long term.