The war on Vag

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Thats what psychos like Pelosi are ginning up now. The libertarian side of me says that there should be no federal law that bans abortion. However Why should I have to pay for somebodys abortion? People should have some personal responsibility. While Abortion is legal, making someone else pay for it, is not a right. Besides planned parenthood discriminates against men. They provide screenings for breast cancer but what about prostate cancer? Fuck you if you dont menstruate


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52793.html


It gets even better

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20110408/pl_dailycaller/replouiseslaughtersaysrepublicansareheretokillwome n_1


Why dont these rich progressives along with Celebrities pool their money together and open up abortion clinics with private money?

[Syd]

Why should I have to pay for a lot of shit I have to pay for?

Because I am part of society. Unless you go Thoreau and head out to the hills, you're part of society and obligated to chip in to it.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Why should I have to pay for a lot of shit I have to pay for?

Because I am part of society. Unless you go Thoreau and head out to the hills, you're part of society and obligated to chip in to it.

Yes, for essesntial services like roads and schools.

[Dan 'Hampton]

Your paying alot more for 18+ years of support when these kids grow up in real bad situations.

[Dudeman]

Your paying alot more for 18+ years of support when these kids grow up in real bad situations.

I've basically discontinued posting here, but I want to emphasize this point.

And this is even completely taking the whole abortion thing out of the question. Does funding the services of Planned Parenthood ultimately reduce societal expenditures by providing screening and preventive services.

Here is one example. I won't give background because I know WF is very well educated about things like GBS, folate, neonatal sepsis, and spina bifida, but let me paint 2 scenarios. Tell me which is more expensive (nevermind the humainty aspect of the people involved....)

1.
-A girl (22 yrs old)- we'll call her Bristol- has an unwanted pregnancy.
-She is told by the ER doctor, who diagnosed her "abdominal cramping" and secondary amenorrhea as the pregnancy, to go to an OB-Gyn to get prenatal care.
-She doesn't have insurance so she doesn't go to an OB-Gyn for prenatal care.
-She doesn't take prenatal vitamins, including folate. She doesn't have her GBS diagnosed or treated.
-She goes into labor, and she goes to the ER. (The ER doctor can't figure out she doesn't have insurance and kick her out to the street...)
-The baby is born. The neonate has signs of neonatal sepsis from GBS and has to have a septic workup, started on IV fluids and IV antibiotics, and therefore is admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit- DAMN expensive. The infant also had spina bifida- also requiring the NICU admission, as well as a neonsurgical evaluation, and possible repair- DAMN expensive. Someone is going to have to pay for these services or the baby will die.

2.
-A girl (22 yrs old)- we'll call her Bristol- has an unwanted pregnancy.
-She is told by the ER doctor, who diagnosed her "abdominal cramping" and secondary amenorrhea as the pregnancy, to go to an OB-Gyn to get prenatal care.
-She doesn't have insurance but she can go to Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood provides sliding scale prenatal care (http://pregnancy.about.com/od/prenatalcare/a/freeprenatalcare.htm)
-She does take prenatal vitamins (relatively cheap), including folate. She does have her GBS diagnosed and treated (relatively cheap).
-The infant is born without neonatal sepsis or spina bifida.


You can say it is her fault, her family's fault, etc, but no matter who's fault, once that baby is born, I don't think anyone (Right or Left) doesn't want to provide care. (Esp ironic for the Anti-abortion people to not want this if they care so much about babies???)

The moral of the story- it may suck to pay for someone else's preventive care, but the problem will eventually catch up to society, one way or another.

[PapaBear]

Why should I have to pay for somebodys abortion?
You don't. Federal aid for abortion has been banned for many years.

[Syd]

Yes, for essesntial services like roads and schools.

I'm already done with school and I don't drive on but a particular few roads. I only want to pay for those particular few roads and none of the schools.

[TjM]

You don't pay for abortions. Due to the Hyde Amendment, No federal funding can go toward abortion.

[Syd]

those are a lot of "facts", I think we'd all prefer to listen to politicians tell us the real truth instead

[sailor]

You don't pay for abortions. Due to the Hyde Amendment, No federal funding can go toward abortion.

That's a silly argument (not by you, the actual law itself). If the government gives money to a group that provides abortions, they are de facto paying for abortions. Like, if you give them 100 dollars, none of which can be spent on abortions, it instead goes toward folic acid. The money they would have otherwise spent on folic acid is then free to spend however they'd like. Once you give someone money you have zero control over it unless they are forbidden from spending ANY money on the item in question.

[epo]

The House GOP has been demanding that the District of Columbia can't use their own funds to pay for abortion.

That is the epitome of big government and a War on Vag if I've ever seen one. Pelosi is absolutely right.

[Pitdoc]

That's a silly argument (not by you, the actual law itself). If the government gives money to a group that provides abortions, they are de facto paying for abortions. Like, if you give them 100 dollars, none of which can be spent on abortions, it instead goes toward folic acid. The money they would have otherwise spent on folic acid is then free to spend however they'd like. Once you give someone money you have zero control over it unless they are forbidden from spending ANY money on the item in question.

No, Planned Parenthood uses PRIVATE funding and separate office to perform abortions . And abortions are about 3% of their business.But Republicans/Conservatives in their hindbrains think Planned Parenthood = Abortion, so IT MUST BE KILLED BY FIRE!!!! Yet they don't realize that , with all the pre-natal work and contraception work they do, abortions would go UP if they knocked off Planned Parenthood . Instead it looks like conservatives simply don't want to take care of any ladyparts (which is true; try to cut Medicare finding for Viagra and see how far that goes).They also have their religious heelocks thinking that contraception is against God's will,so that must be stopped too.

[underdog]

No, Planned Parenthood uses PRIVATE funding and separate office to perform abortions . And abortions are about 3% of their business.But Republicans/Conservatives in their hindbrains think Planned Parenthood = Abortion, so IT MUST BE KILLED BY FIRE!!!! Yet they don't realize that , with all the pre-natal work and contraception work they do, abortions would go UP if they knocked off Planned Parenthood . Instead it looks like conservatives simply don't want to take care of any ladyparts (which is true; try to cut Medicare finding for Viagra and see how far that goes).They also have their religious heelocks thinking that contraception is against God's will,so that must be stopped too.

I was arguing about PP with someone on facebook (the stage for all great conversations) and they chimed in with contraception is actually a type of abortion. They called them "abortifacients".

then they provided all these links on religious websites as "proof" backing up their claims. I just stopped arguing at that point.

But I think sailor's point (and I agree with him) is that because they receive money for other programs, they're able to use that saved money to perform cheaper abortions, or whatever else they want. It's just money going to Planned Parenthood.

[Dudeman]

That's a silly argument (not by you, the actual law itself). If the government gives money to a group that provides abortions, they are de facto paying for abortions. Like, if you give them 100 dollars, none of which can be spent on abortions, it instead goes toward folic acid. The money they would have otherwise spent on folic acid is then free to spend however they'd like. Once you give someone money you have zero control over it unless they are forbidden from spending ANY money on the item in question.

STORK BUCKS !!!!

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><embed src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:video:thedailyshow.com:374867" width="512" height="288" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" base="." flashVars=""></embed><p style="text-align:left;background-color:#FFFFFF;padding:4px;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:0px;font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-22-2011/mother-f--kers---stork-bucks">The Daily Show - Mother F#@kers - Stork Bucks</a></b><br/>Tags: <a href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/'>Daily Show Full Episodes</a>,<a href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/'>Political Humor & Satire Blog</a>,<a href='http://www.facebook.com/thedailyshow'>The Daily Show on Facebook</a></p></div></div>

[KnoxHarrington]

It's just amusing how every strategy the Republicans use seems to alienate a potential voter base. The Planned Parenthood shit, along with all the other craziness about trying to refine rape, is going to kill their chances to attract young female voters. The illegal immigration shit is killing their chances with Latinos. The general tenor of racism in the Tea Party is destroying what small chance they had with black voters.

They're totally mortgaging their future for political gain now.

[Pitdoc]

But I think sailor's point (and I agree with him) is that because they receive money for other programs, they're able to use that saved money to perform cheaper abortions, or whatever else they want. It's just money going to Planned Parenthood.

Gee, I don't think there's a high profit margin on abortions. So I guess PP should not perform any, but simply refer patients to abortionists.Until ,of course, the conservatives write a bill that simply REFERRING patients for an abortion cuts off all federal spending on women's health issues. Those guys won't be satisfied until the return of the coat hanger ( of course, their young daughters who get pregnant out of holy wedlock will have simple "procedures" done quietly).

[A.J.]

I'd rather pay to have people neutered.

[Jujubees2]

I'd rather pay to have people neutered.

http://tailsmagazines.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/bob-barker.jpg

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I'd rather pay to have people neutered.



Don't give Jesse Jackson any new ideas

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I've basically discontinued posting here, but I want to emphasize this point.

And this is even completely taking the whole abortion thing out of the question. Does funding the services of Planned Parenthood ultimately reduce societal expenditures by providing screening and preventive services.

Here is one example. I won't give background because I know WF is very well educated about things like GBS, folate, neonatal sepsis, and spina bifida, but let me paint 2 scenarios. Tell me which is more expensive (nevermind the humainty aspect of the people involved....)

1.
-A girl (22 yrs old)- we'll call her Bristol- has an unwanted pregnancy.
-She is told by the ER doctor, who diagnosed her "abdominal cramping" and secondary amenorrhea as the pregnancy, to go to an OB-Gyn to get prenatal care.
-She doesn't have insurance so she doesn't go to an OB-Gyn for prenatal care.
-She doesn't take prenatal vitamins, including folate. She doesn't have her GBS diagnosed or treated.
-She goes into labor, and she goes to the ER. (The ER doctor can't figure out she doesn't have insurance and kick her out to the street...)
-The baby is born. The neonate has signs of neonatal sepsis from GBS and has to have a septic workup, started on IV fluids and IV antibiotics, and therefore is admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit- DAMN expensive. The infant also had spina bifida- also requiring the NICU admission, as well as a neonsurgical evaluation, and possible repair- DAMN expensive. Someone is going to have to pay for these services or the baby will die.

2.
-A girl (22 yrs old)- we'll call her Bristol- has an unwanted pregnancy.
-She is told by the ER doctor, who diagnosed her "abdominal cramping" and secondary amenorrhea as the pregnancy, to go to an OB-Gyn to get prenatal care.
-She doesn't have insurance but she can go to Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood provides sliding scale prenatal care (http://pregnancy.about.com/od/prenatalcare/a/freeprenatalcare.htm)
-She does take prenatal vitamins (relatively cheap), including folate. She does have her GBS diagnosed and treated (relatively cheap).
-The infant is born without neonatal sepsis or spina bifida.


You can say it is her fault, her family's fault, etc, but no matter who's fault, once that baby is born, I don't think anyone (Right or Left) doesn't want to provide care. (Esp ironic for the Anti-abortion people to not want this if they care so much about babies???)

The moral of the story- it may suck to pay for someone else's preventive care, but the problem will eventually catch up to society, one way or another.

How about parents take care of their own children. Why are we obligated to take care of someone elses child for 18 years. The parents should have some responsibility. It seems like we are born in debt to someone who can not keep their legs closed or use a trojan.

[foodcourtdruide]

How about parents take care of their own children. Why are we obligated to take care of someone elses child for 18 years. The parents should have some responsibility. It seems like we are born in debt to someone who can not keep their legs closed or use a trojan.

Because we live in a society where we want to take the burden of poor decisions by parents off their children and allow them to have a chance to, say, eat a meal.

In angrymanworld I totally see your point, however, things like paying taxes and government spending would lose a lot of meaning if I looked out my window and saw starving children.

Statements like this make me think you don't have a grasp on reality, and you have very simple ideas about very complicated issues.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Because we live in a society where we want to take the burden of poor decisions by parents off their children and allow them to have a chance to, say, eat a meal.

In angrymanworld I totally see your point, however, things like paying taxes and government spending would lose a lot of meaning if I looked out my window and saw starving children.

Statements like this make me think you don't have a grasp on reality, and you have very simple ideas about very complicated issues.

Paying taxes for necessities like roads, the post office and the other enumerated powers yes.

Eat a meal at whose expense? Thats why there are charities. Governments arent in existance to have empathy for people rich or poor unfortunately today it does for both extremes.


Before you make some judgement that I want people to starve or taKe food away for children, realize that its not the Federal governments responsibility. Let people decide to assist the needy and they all certainly do for the most part.

I have a grasp on this and its called personal responsibility. Theres nothing too complicated about that.

[Dudeman]

How about parents take care of their own children. Why are we obligated to take care of someone elses child for 18 years. The parents should have some responsibility. It seems like we are born in debt to someone who can not keep their legs closed or use a trojan.

I hope you will re-read what I wrote because you seem to address a situation very different than what I presented. The issue is about a 22 yo girl (same could be said for a 25 yo or a 32yo) who gets pregnant without insurance. Should society make sure she receives prenatal care? The prenatal care I spoke about (prenatal vitamins and screening and treatment for GBS) are really about the health of the baby, not the mother, who I know you want to hate for lack of personal responsibility.

From the social conservative standpoint, if you are so worried about the life of an unborn child, you should make sure the mother takes prenatal vitamins so the baby doesn't get spina bifida, and you should make sure the mother is screened and treated for GBS so the baby doesnt get neonatal sepsis.

From the fiscal conservative standpoint, this baby will be born and the doctors can't ignore the baby. No matter how much you hate the mom (even if she is 32 yo) for getting pregnant without insurance, this baby will be brought into the world. If the mom didn't get prenatal care, the chances of neonatal sepsis and spina bifida are much higher than if she had. The cost of treating one baby with those problems is much, much, much greater than giving a lot of women some prenatal care (and is a lot less humane.)

It seems that the fiscal conservative would want to pay for the cheaper preventive care than really expensive NICU hospitalization for neonatal sepsis or spina bifida.

[foodcourtdruide]

Paying taxes for necessities like roads, the post office and the other enumerated powers yes.

Eat a meal at whose expense? Thats why there are charities. Governments arent in existance to have empathy for people rich or poor unfortunately today it does for both extremes.


Before you make some judgement that I want people to starve or taKe food away for children, realize that its not the Federal governments responsibility. Let people decide to assist the needy and they all certainly do for the most part.

I have a grasp on this and its called personal responsibility. Theres nothing too complicated about that.

First of all, you have come on this board MANY times and wanted the government to pay for things that are CLEARLY not part of the enumerated powers (remember your insanely expensive solutions to the illegal immigration problem?)

Secondly, the idea that charities would be responsible for the poor of our country EATING is both naive and a threat to democracy itself. I know you've stated on here before that only people with wealth should be allowed to vote, but having a tiny group of people (non-elected officials) overseeing the food supply of a much larger group of people seems EXTREMELY dangerous. Do you understand why? I'm not being a jerk, but I'm really asking, do you want me to explain why this is?

Governments arent in existance to have empathy for people rich or poor unfortunately today it does for both extremes.

This is really your personal belief, and I'm sorry, but reality is way different. Almost every government in the world cares for their poor or needy (except maybe some batshit crazy ones).

[foodcourtdruide]

I hope you will re-read what I wrote because you seem to address a situation very different than what I presented. The issue is about a 22 yo girl (same could be said for a 25 yo or a 32yo) who gets pregnant without insurance. Should society make sure she receives prenatal care? The prenatal care I spoke about (prenatal vitamins and screening and treatment for GBS) are really about the health of the baby, not the mother, who I know you want to hate for lack of personal responsibility.

From the social conservative standpoint, if you are so worried about the life of an unborn child, you should make sure the mother takes prenatal vitamins so the baby doesn't get spina bifida, and you should make sure the mother is screened and treated for GBS so the baby doesnt get neonatal sepsis.

From the fiscal conservative standpoint, this baby will be born and the doctors can't ignore the baby. No matter how much you hate the mom (even if she is 32 yo) for getting pregnant without insurance, this baby will be brought into the world. If the mom didn't get prenatal care, the chances of neonatal sepsis and spina bifida are much higher than if she had. The cost of treating one baby with those problems is much, much, much greater than giving a lot of women some prenatal care (and is a lot less humane.)

It seems that the fiscal conservative would want to pay for the cheaper preventive care than really expensive NICU hospitalization for neonatal sepsis or spina bifida.

I don't think you can put people like WF and fiscal conservatives into the same category. He has stated many times on the board before that he would throw fiscal responsibility out the window for his own personal satisfaction. The best example is that his illegal immigration solution would far out-cost how we are currently addressing the issue.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

First of all, you have come on this board MANY times and wanted the government to pay for things that are CLEARLY not part of the enumerated powers (remember your insanely expensive solutions to the illegal immigration problem?)

Secondly, the idea that charities would be responsible for the poor of our country EATING is both naive and a threat to democracy itself. I know you've stated on here before that only people with wealth should be allowed to vote, but having a tiny group of people (non-elected officials) overseeing the food supply of a much larger group of people seems EXTREMELY dangerous. Do you understand why? I'm not being a jerk, but I'm really asking, do you want me to explain why this is?

Governments arent in existance to have empathy for people rich or poor unfortunately today it does for both extremes.

This is really your personal belief, and I'm sorry, but reality is way different. Almost every government in the world cares for their poor or needy (except maybe some batshit crazy ones).

Ive changed my views on the solutions for ridding the country of illegal aliens. It would cost too much to simply just round them up . However a more cost effective way is to deny all social services to them and they will simply leave. Starve them out, kill the gravy train and they will go back to their countries. This includes not employing them so cracking down on the employers needs to happen too. No opportunity to work , live or eat and adios.

Another approach is that we can do the Arizona model on a bigger scale. Many illegals left AZ for more illegal friendly states

For elections you seem to think only millionaires and people with huge stock portfolios should vote. My point is anyone with a tax liability. A zero liability voter always votes for someone who promises a raise.

In regards for the poor and needy, governments should only assist the helpless, many poor people are not helpless, they can go out and find some sort of work. Look what NYC wanted to do

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/04/04/mta-to-restore-wep-program/


Government only continues the dependency. Charities can provide services but the recipient could pay back in some sort of way, It doesnt have to be with money.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I don't think you can put people like WF and fiscal conservatives into the same category. He has stated many times on the board before that he would throw fiscal responsibility out the window for his own personal satisfaction. The best example is that his illegal immigration solution would far out-cost how we are currently addressing the issue.

How would deny billions of dollars in social services and entitlements be anti fiscal conservative? Read my solution for kicking out the illegals.

[foodcourtdruide]

Ive changed my views on the solutions for ridding the country of illegal aliens. It would cost too much to simply just round them up . However a more cost effective way is to deny all social services to them and they will simply leave. Starve them out, kill the gravy train and they will go back to their countries. This includes not employing them so cracking down on the employers needs to happen too. No opportunity to work , live or eat and adios.

Another approach is that we can do the Arizona model on a bigger scale. Many illegals left AZ for more illegal friendly states

For elections you seem to think only millionaires and people with huge stock portfolios should vote. My point is anyone with a tax liability. A zero liability voter always votes for someone who promises a raise.

In regards for the poor and needy, governments should only assist the helpless, many poor people are not helpless, they can go out and find some sort of work. Look what NYC wanted to do

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/04/04/mta-to-restore-wep-program/


Government only continues the dependency. Charities can provide services but the recipient could pay back in some sort of way, It doesnt have to be with money.

Again, your solution has no basis in reality. While many of us agree that it is a good idea to make it harder for companies that benefit off illegals to operate, your "LEAVE OR DIE" mentality simply is not the way this country operates. There are SO MANY complexities for this situation that your bumper sticker mentality is just words, with no real answers.

Just a few questions I can think off of the top of my head:
1. What about those who don't leave, who are literally starving? Who may not even have the means to go from, say, new york city to guatemala? What about people who are sick and wouldn't be able to travel? What about people who are in long-term relationships that are looking towards marriage with a legal citizen?
2. What do you do about families where parents are illegal and the children aren't? Before you start screaming about disallowing "anchor babies", please keep in mind that BY DOING THAT YOU HAVE LEFT THE REALM OF REALITY. That will NOT happen.
3. Why are we ignoring the many, many, many situations where illegal immigrants are actually A PLUS TO THIS COUNTRY FINANCIALLY? Your "LEAVE OR DIE" solution just makes you seem like an angry person that only has a concern for his own agenda, rather than what will be best for all of us.

For elections you seem to think only millionaires and people with huge stock portfolios should vote. My point is anyone with a tax liability. A zero liability voter always votes for someone who promises a raise.

Please introduce me to the person you're having this debate with, because it isn't me. I said "people with wealth", which to me is pretty much the same as "people with a tax liability". I never said anything about millionaires.

In regards for the poor and needy, governments should only assist the helpless, many poor people are not helpless, they can go out and find some sort of work. Look what NYC wanted to do

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/04/04/mta-to-restore-wep-program/


Government only continues the dependency. Charities can provide services but the recipient could pay back in some sort of way, It doesnt have to be with money.

No one, democrat or republican, wants to foster a system of government dependence. You may disagree with the way people who oppose your view points go about it, but no politicians mission statement is: "We want people to rely on us.. always!"

There will be people who abuse the system, of course. We are all for that being corrected, but the idea that charities can handle the HELPLESS of this country is quite honestly, laughable.

[foodcourtdruide]

How would deny billions of dollars in social services and entitlements be anti fiscal conservative? Read my solution for kicking out the illegals.

I was referring to your "round them up" stance that you debated us on for many months. Don't you remember? You were going to get rid of the department of education to pay for it.

[Dudeman]

I hope you will re-read what I wrote because you seem to address a situation very different than what I presented. The issue is about a 22 yo girl (same could be said for a 25 yo or a 32yo) who gets pregnant without insurance. Should society make sure she receives prenatal care? The prenatal care I spoke about (prenatal vitamins and screening and treatment for GBS) are really about the health of the baby, not the mother, who I know you want to hate for lack of personal responsibility.

From the social conservative standpoint, if you are so worried about the life of an unborn child, you should make sure the mother takes prenatal vitamins so the baby doesn't get spina bifida, and you should make sure the mother is screened and treated for GBS so the baby doesnt get neonatal sepsis.

From the fiscal conservative standpoint, this baby will be born and the doctors can't ignore the baby. No matter how much you hate the mom (even if she is 32 yo) for getting pregnant without insurance, this baby will be brought into the world. If the mom didn't get prenatal care, the chances of neonatal sepsis and spina bifida are much higher than if she had. The cost of treating one baby with those problems is much, much, much greater than giving a lot of women some prenatal care (and is a lot less humane.)

It seems that the fiscal conservative would want to pay for the cheaper preventive care than really expensive NICU hospitalization for neonatal sepsis or spina bifida.

Back to Planned Parenthood, I'm still trying to see if WF is, regardless of his opinion of the mother, interested in providing relatively inexpensive prenatal care (prenatal vitamins and GBS screening) for the unborn child versus having the baby be put at risk for neonatal sepsis or spina bifida (which it the baby was born with would result in a very expensive NICU admission- or refusal of care and death.) From a fiscal standpoint, not to mention the humanitarian standpoint, it seems reasonable??

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I was referring to your "round them up" stance that you debated us on for many months. Don't you remember? You were going to get rid of the department of education to pay for it.

After seeing how much it would cost, The better way would be to end the entitlements.


I'd still ove to see the Dept of Ed closed but thats for another time

[foodcourtdruide]

After seeing how much it would cost, The better way would be to end the entitlements.


I'd still ove to see the Dept of Ed closed but thats for another time

Great, maybe soon you'll realize that leveraging the benefits of a poor working class that we didn't have to educate would far outweigh the benefits of some inhumane crusade to deny dying people visits to emergency rooms.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Again, your solution has no basis in reality. While many of us agree that it is a good idea to make it harder for companies that benefit off illegals to operate, your "LEAVE OR DIE" mentality simply is not the way this country operates. There are SO MANY complexities for this situation that your bumper sticker mentality is just words, with no real answers.

Just a few questions I can think off of the top of my head:
1. What about those who don't leave, who are literally starving? Who may not even have the means to go from, say, new york city to guatemala? What about people who are sick and wouldn't be able to travel? What about people who are in long-term relationships that are looking towards marriage with a legal citizen?
2. What do you do about families where parents are illegal and the children aren't? Before you start screaming about disallowing "anchor babies", please keep in mind that BY DOING THAT YOU HAVE LEFT THE REALM OF REALITY. That will NOT happen.
3. Why are we ignoring the many, many, many situations where illegal immigrants are actually A PLUS TO THIS COUNTRY FINANCIALLY? Your "LEAVE OR DIE" solution just makes you seem like an angry person that only has a concern for his own agenda, rather than what will be best for all of us.

For elections you seem to think only millionaires and people with huge stock portfolios should vote. My point is anyone with a tax liability. A zero liability voter always votes for someone who promises a raise.

Please introduce me to the person you're having this debate with, because it isn't me. I said "people with wealth", which to me is pretty much the same as "people with a tax liability". I never said anything about millionaires.

In regards for the poor and needy, governments should only assist the helpless, many poor people are not helpless, they can go out and find some sort of work. Look what NYC wanted to do

http://secondavenuesagas.com/2011/04/04/mta-to-restore-wep-program/


Government only continues the dependency. Charities can provide services but the recipient could pay back in some sort of way, It doesnt have to be with money.

No one, democrat or republican, wants to foster a system of government dependence. You may disagree with the way people who oppose your view points go about it, but no politicians mission statement is: "We want people to rely on us.. always!"

There will be people who abuse the system, of course. We are all for that being corrected, but the idea that charities can handle the HELPLESS of this country is quite honestly, laughable.

The illegal aliens came here on their own, No one forced them here. They were the ones who took that risk and sometimes there is failure. Sorry but sometimes life does not always turn out positive.

For the ones who simply can not afford to leave the US gov't can work with the consulates of the illegals home country. It has been done before.


Come on with the no one wants to have people on permanent dependence. Do you really believe that?


What is your definition of wealth? That is such a vague term. A 25 yr old jr accountant might have a car or cell phone but has not accumulated wealth like land, portfolios, jewelry etc

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Great, maybe soon you'll realize that leveraging the benefits of a poor working class that we didn't have to educate would far outweigh the benefits of some inhumane crusade to deny dying people visits to emergency rooms.

Dying people like people with a hangnail, drinking too much or a small bruise?


Some cases might have an illegal with a knife stuck in the chest but most go to the ER for the sniffles. Thats why hospitals are closing

I know the hippocratic oath do no harm etc. However if a patient can not provide some form of identification AFTER being treated and its perceived that they are an illegal Immigration authorities should be contacted.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Back to Planned Parenthood, I'm still trying to see if WF is, regardless of his opinion of the mother, interested in providing relatively inexpensive prenatal care (prenatal vitamins and GBS screening) for the unborn child versus having the baby be put at risk for neonatal sepsis or spina bifida (which it the baby was born with would result in a very expensive NICU admission- or refusal of care and death.) From a fiscal standpoint, not to mention the humanitarian standpoint, it seems reasonable??

There are tons of free health clinics that do not need government financing. This country has loads of extremely wealthy people who can pool their money together.

Maybe the elites can open up the Dr Tiller memorial womens health clinic.

[foodcourtdruide]

Dying people like people with a hangnail, drinking too much or a small bruise?


Some cases might have an illegal with a knife stuck in the chest but most go to the ER for the sniffles. Thats why hospitals are closing

Yes WF. You're right. No illegal immigrant has ever used an American hospital for anything but a hangnail, drinking to much, small bruises or a cold.

[underdog]

It's just amusing how every strategy the Republicans use seems to alienate a potential voter base. The Planned Parenthood shit, along with all the other craziness about trying to refine rape, is going to kill their chances to attract young female voters. The illegal immigration shit is killing their chances with Latinos. The general tenor of racism in the Tea Party is destroying what small chance they had with black voters.

They're totally mortgaging their future for political gain now.

A lot of women agree with the conservatives. It's insanity.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Yes WF. You're right. No illegal immigrant has ever used an American hospital for anything but a hangnail, drinking to much, small bruises or a cold.

Forgot to mention the explosive rates of having Anchor babies.

[underdog]

And it's funny to see you people still arguing with WF like he has any grasp of reality or you have any chance of swaying him one bit.

[foodcourtdruide]

Forgot to mention the explosive rates of having Anchor babies.

Whatever, you know your argument on this point is stupid. No one will tolerate allowing people to die in the streets, illegal or not.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

A lot of women agree with the conservatives. It's insanity.

They do ?

[foodcourtdruide]

And it's funny to see you people still arguing with WF like he has any grasp of reality or you have any chance of swaying him one bit.

Well, he did give up on his insane plan to round up every illegal immigrant using money allocated to educating our children.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Whatever, you know your argument on this point is stupid. No one will tolerate allowing people to die in the streets, illegal or not.

Agreed but the illegal must be forced to pay something. If its deportation, or taking money away for foreign aid, so be it.

[underdog]

Well, he did give up on his insane plan to round up every illegal immigrant using money allocated to educating our children.

But now he's arguing that the federal government shouldn't be responsible for taking care of it's society. It's just lunacy at this point.

[underdog]

They do ?

Religious ones, yes.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Religious ones, yes.

No ones denying that, Of course Bachmann and Palin will get the evangelical womens vote,They might get a good piece of the Catholic womens vote, maybe not the majority However on a larger scale women vote for the Dems

In regards to single mothers and having children out of wedlock, if a woman is able to support the children on their own then fine. I dont fall into the Huckabee camp when he criticizes Natalie Portman for not being married

[WRESTLINGFAN]

But now he's arguing that the federal government shouldn't be responsible for taking care of it's society. It's just lunacy at this point.

It should be up to the people to take care of its vulnerable.

No matter what peoples political leanings or religious beliefs or non beliefs its morally right to help the poor, It is immoral for a government to confiscate to give to another person

Jesus encouraged to help the poor, but not at the tip of a Roman spear.


Who gives more? It sure ain't progressives


http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

[foodcourtdruide]

It should be up to the people to take care of its vulnerable.



Um, yes. We agree. This is the role of government. The government are elected by the people. Are you anarchist? I don't understand this statement at all.

[StanUpshaw]

I want the government to decide all ethical matters for me.

[underdog]

Um, yes. We agree. This is the role of government. The government are elected by the people. Are you anarchist? I don't understand this statement at all.

You don't get it. The government is not the people. It's a nameless, faceless entity controlled by someone else.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Um, yes. We agree. This is the role of government. The government are elected by the people. Are you anarchist? I don't understand this statement at all.

Anarchy in the USA!!!!!!



My point is that the people authorized the federal government to have limited powers, Unfortunately this country veered wayyyyyyy off course 100 years ago and as a result we have a top down 1 size fits all central government.

Why was there such an objection to Obamacare? Because of the failures of Social Sec and medicare. Sure some people want a cradel to grave society but the majority do not.

In its simplest form we have morphed from a federal constitutional republic into a quasi Western European social democracy with a powerful National government.

[foodcourtdruide]

Anarchy in the USA!!!!!!



My point is that the people authorized the federal government to have limited powers, Unfortunately this country veered wayyyyyyy off course 100 years ago and as a result we have a top down 1 size fits all central government.

Why was there such an objection to Obamacare? Because of the failures of Social Sec and medicare. Sure some people want a cradel to grave society but the majority do not.

In its simplest form we have morphed from a federal constitutional republic into a quasi Western European social democracy with a powerful National government.

So, social security, a program which has been working for, what? 80 years? Is a failure? Really? And many people who opposed Obamacare VERY MUCH support medicare. The reason there was such an objection to Obamacare was:
1. The republicans saw a huge loss by Obama on healthcare as a great opportunity for them.
2. The medical insurance companies are incredibly powerful, and after it was clear that THEY wouldn't be hurt by Obamacare, it was passed.

Comparing Obamacare with healthcare in western europe is an absolute stretch and can you please tell me the reasons we leaned towards a social democracy starting a little over 100 years ago? Could it have been because monopolies were basically turning the working class of this country into slaves?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

So, social security, a program which has been working for, what? 80 years? Is a failure? Really? And many people who opposed Obamacare VERY MUCH support medicare. The reason there was such an objection to Obamacare was:
1. The republicans saw a huge loss by Obama on healthcare as a great opportunity for them.
2. The medical insurance companies are incredibly powerful, and after it was clear that THEY wouldn't be hurt by Obamacare, it was passed.

Comparing Obamacare with healthcare in western europe is an absolute stretch and can you please tell me the reasons we leaned towards a social democracy starting a little over 100 years ago? Could it have been because monopolies were basically turning the working class of this country into slaves?

Yes, as it is nothing but a ponzi scheme on steroids. Social security along with medicare has turned into programs, massively underfunded with unintentional consequences. The worker to recipient rate has gone down massively over the decades. The money you put into it you will never reap all of it bac. Its not like putting your money into a savings account and collecting interest. When you want your money you can access it any time. CD's of course work differently. The people on medicare were forced to pay into it so they are really not hypocrites for wanting a return on their "investment"

If anything those programs should be voluntary. Also the whole HMO model should have never been devised. I think regular checkups should be paid in cash. Health insurance should be available in case of catastrophic care, not so that junior needs a checkup in order to join the little league team.

While Obamacare is not a total takeover and singlepayer, it will eventually explode medicaid. I think by 2018 The states are on their own


Some of my friends who lean towards the left think that Obamacare is a derogatory word. How so? It was supposed to be one of his crowning glories

Social democracy.

1. Progressive Income tax
2. New dealand other FDR policies
3. Great society
4, Cloward-Piven strategy

Those are some examples . Throw in the bank and GM bailouts in there too. Now I am not in the school of the Becksters and saying that it is full communism. Private property rights havent been taken away on a large scale

[brettmojo]

Fuck you if you dont menstruate
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee103/brettmojo/tumblr_left4tCTPB1qf8yek.gif

[Syd]

Yes, as it is nothing but a ponzi scheme on steroids. Social security along with medicare has turned into programs, massively underfunded with unintentional consequences. The worker to recipient rate has gone down massively over the decades. The money you put into it you will never reap all of it bac. Its not like putting your money into a savings account and collecting interest. When you want your money you can access it any time. CD's of course work differently. The people on medicare were forced to pay into it so they are really not hypocrites for wanting a return on their "investment"

It's smoke and mirrors when anyone claims Social Security isn't solvent -- it's just someone looking to distract you while they take your money and hand it over to bankers/war profiteers/whoever bought and sold the most senators from shitty meth belt states.

Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 -- unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest

While Obamacare is not a total takeover and singlepayer, it will eventually explode medicaid. I think by 2018 The states are on their own

No matter what it and any other healthcare are going to explode because of heart disease/heart attacks/diabetes/mish-mash of obesity related cancers.


Social democracy.

1. Progressive Income tax
2. New dealand other FDR policies
3. Great society
4, Cloward-Piven strategy

Cloward-Piven strategy? Jesus, man, you're off the fucking deep end. That's some real truther/birther/out there bullshit. That shit got started by someone making a name for themselves on Fox. It's just something the right uses to scare their children into voting for whoever is going to fuck them harder in the future. How the Catholics aren't in power is a mystery unless they're still scared of campaigning in Texas.

Those are some examples . Throw in the bank and GM bailouts in there too. Now I am not in the school of the Becksters and saying that it is full communism. Private property rights havent been taken away on a large scale

Bank and GM bailouts aren't social democracy, they're American capitalism in action. What private property rights have been ever taken away? Minus the whole debt-servitude structure of the nation, you or your bank that actually owns most of your stuff generally have ample property rights.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

It's smoke and mirrors when anyone claims Social Security isn't solvent -- it's just someone looking to distract you while they take your money and hand it over to bankers/war profiteers/whoever bought and sold the most senators from shitty meth belt states.





No matter what it and any other healthcare are going to explode because of heart disease/heart attacks/diabetes/mish-mash of obesity related cancers.




Cloward-Piven strategy? Jesus, man, you're off the fucking deep end. That's some real truther/birther/out there bullshit. That shit got started by someone making a name for themselves on Fox. It's just something the right uses to scare their children into voting for whoever is going to fuck them harder in the future. How the Catholics aren't in power is a mystery unless they're still scared of campaigning in Texas.



Bank and GM bailouts aren't social democracy, they're American capitalism in action. What private property rights have been ever taken away? Minus the whole debt-servitude structure of the nation, you or your bank that actually owns most of your stuff generally have ample property rights.

SS is not solvent as they are basically handing out IOU's. There is no trust fund at all. Its nothing but treasury bonds that need to be redeemed in which the gov't will have to borrow even more money. Its not just shitty senators from flyover country. NY and CA have some of the worst ones in the upper house. Feinstein has done greatly from war profiterring


The great society has destroyed the black family structure, created endless dependency and continued poverty. 45 years later the majority of black children are born out of wedlock

Cloward Piven has been around for 40 + years . I knew about that wayyy before the Beckster was talking about it.

From Clowards own words"activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation"...

So he wants to make an economy even worse and to create and manage crises. Thats not conspiracy theory talk.


When the gov't picks winners and losers and greases the palms of the UAW thats not capitalism, Thats payback to their union masters. Capitalism would have been to let the companies go thru bankruptcy, not let the taxpayer be on the hook for hundereds of billions of dollars, then tout that GM is making a profit when in fact they aren't.

[StanUpshaw]

It's been said that the chickens are coming home to roost. Comments?

[Syd]

So he wants to make an economy even worse and to create and manage crises. Thats not conspiracy theory talk.

The economy has been shit since the early 80s. Was Reagan part of the Cloward Piven conspiracy as well?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The economy has been shit since the early 80s. Was Reagan part of the Cloward Piven conspiracy as well?

Remember that pesky Tip O'Neill who controlled the purse strings?. Obama and the Democrat majority congress exploded the debt 5 trillion over 2 years. Took dubya 8 years. And no dubya and the majority he had were not fiscally conservative

[Syd]

The debt has been continually increasing since the 80s when we decided deficit spending on war machines was a great idea.

[A.J.]

Because we live in a society where we want to take the burden of poor decisions by parents off their children and allow them to have a chance to, say, eat a meal.

And so we continue to reward people who bring a child into a life of poverty...

[Dudeman]

And so we continue to reward people who bring a child into a life of poverty...

It isn't really a "reward". This is especially the case if the services are for the child, who had no role in getting into the situation they or their family is in. Here is an example. I think the money put toward the social services for the child in this case really actually helps the child and all of society, more than it "rewards" the parent.


Lets use the example of a 25yo woman who works as a waitress in Kentucky, doesn't have insurance, but gets pregnant. Her family has strong ties to their church (sort of like Fez's mom), and so the woman doesn't tell them about the pregnancy until it shows. And the mother is not very interested in dealing with the daughter anymore because she is an embarassment (think Fez's mom and her relationship with her daughter when she had an affair.)

Providing prenatal care (prenatal vitamins and GBS screening and treatment) are services that really help the child, not the mom, and it ultimately reduces healthcare expendatures. Giving those relatively cheap interventions greatly reduce the chances of neonatal sepsis and spina bifida. If the baby is born with either of those complications, the choice will either be to let the baby die or treat the baby, which would be very expensive. Someone would have to absorb the costs of the intensive care required for those complications- and ultimately it is the type of thing that is in part driving up our healthcare costs.

Secondly, dealing with the question of school lunches for this child, once he/she enters school: Yes, we all want the mother or the family to be responsible enough to pay for the kid's food. But sometimes, like for a single mother who works a minimum wage job without benefits and with poor relations with her family, it isn't happening. The bottom line, however, is that the kid is here, a legal citizen of our country. It is in our benefit to have the kid able to concentrate in school- hungry kids (no breakfast, no lunch) just don't do well in school.


I actually really wish we could all say, "hey you fucked up, now you have to deal with the consequences." The problem is that by doing that (ie. not giving prenatal care, not giving school lunches), it ends up hurting the rest of us too- the cost of the baby with preventable causes ruins our healthcare, and the result of a child not able to pay attention is school because of hunger leads to an uneducated member of our society.

[hanso]

Remember that pesky Tip O'Neill who controlled the purse strings?. Obama and the Democrat majority congress exploded the debt 5 trillion over 2 years. Took dubya 8 years. And no dubya and the majority he had were not fiscally conservative

dubya left all war measures off the books.

[A.J.]

It isn't really a "reward". This is especially the case if the services are for the child, who had no role in getting into the situation they or their family is in. Here is an example. I think the money put toward the social services for the child in this case really actually helps the child and all of society, more than it "rewards" the parent.


Lets use the example of a 25yo woman who works as a waitress in Kentucky, doesn't have insurance, but gets pregnant. Her family has strong ties to their church (sort of like Fez's mom), and so the woman doesn't tell them about the pregnancy until it shows. And the mother is not very interested in dealing with the daughter anymore because she is an embarassment (think Fez's mom and her relationship with her daughter when she had an affair.)

Providing prenatal care (prenatal vitamins and GBS screening and treatment) are services that really help the child, not the mom, and it ultimately reduces healthcare expendatures. Giving those relatively cheap interventions greatly reduce the chances of neonatal sepsis and spina bifida. If the baby is born with either of those complications, the choice will either be to let the baby die or treat the baby, which would be very expensive. Someone would have to absorb the costs of the intensive care required for those complications- and ultimately it is the type of thing that is in part driving up our healthcare costs.

Secondly, dealing with the question of school lunches for this child, once he/she enters school: Yes, we all want the mother or the family to be responsible enough to pay for the kid's food. But sometimes, like for a single mother who works a minimum wage job without benefits and with poor relations with her family, it isn't happening. The bottom line, however, is that the kid is here, a legal citizen of our country. It is in our benefit to have the kid able to concentrate in school- hungry kids (no breakfast, no lunch) just don't do well in school.


I actually really wish we could all say, "hey you fucked up, now you have to deal with the consequences." The problem is that by doing that (ie. not giving prenatal care, not giving school lunches), it ends up hurting the rest of us too- the cost of the baby with preventable causes ruins our healthcare, and the result of a child not able to pay attention is school because of hunger leads to an uneducated member of our society.

I get all that. My point is that the parents of this child commit what should be considered a criminal act by bringing a child into a life of poverty and dependency, and yet they get off scot-free.

At what point do we have too many children for the village to take of?

[Dudeman]

I get all that. My point is that the parents of this child commit what should be considered a criminal act by bringing a child into a life of poverty and dependency, and yet they get off scot-free.

At what point do we have too many children for the village to take of?

I don't know??? They aren't running around with yachts and season tickets to the Yankees that we can confiscate. Teaching sex-ed and keeping abortion legal are starts, I guess. Improving public education, increasing the minimum wage, ensuring workers access to benefits are other ways to decrease the societal burden.

But in the meantime, (1) it is a mischaracterization to call those services "rewards" for the parents, when they are really just trying to protect the baby/child and to protect the rest of us (unnecessary healthcare expenditures that can be decreased with preventive care and helping a child do better in school); and (2) it does us and the baby as much, if not more, harm than it does to the parent if we withhold the services.

[StanUpshaw]

I think it's time we revisit the ideas presented here. (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=86731)

[Misteriosa]

i was without medical insurance from the age of 18 to 24. i made too much to qualify for medicaid but too little to pay for my own plan. planned parenthood helped me so much during that time for my medical care.

some of you may not be aware, but it doesnt take much to throw off the health of ladybits. too hot out? ladybits get sick. swim in the pool and cant get your bathing suit off fast enough? ladybits get sick. eat too much yogurt or too many mushrooms? ladybits get sick. needing PP health services isnt always because you have sex. PP helped me take care of basic and necessary medical care that i couldnt afford otherwise.

and for those bitching about health care for teh menz, PP does offer care for them. when i went in for my routine care, there were guys waiting to get treatment for their misterbits:

Men’s Sexual Health Services at Planned Parenthood
Services offered at Planned Parenthood health centers vary by location. Some of the services include

checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
colon cancer screening
erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
jock itch exam and treatment
male infertility screening and referral
premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
routine physical exams
testicular cancer screenings
prostate cancer screenings
urinary tract infections testing and treatment
vasectomy


http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/men-4285.htm

[A.J.]

ladybits get sick.

I'll kiss it and make it better.

[Misteriosa]

:rolleyes:

[Jujubees2]

i was without medical insurance from the age of 18 to 24. i made too much to qualify for medicaid but too little to pay for my own plan. planned parenthood helped me so much during that time for my medical care.

So you're a hooker?

Glenn Beck suggests only 'hookers' use Planned Parenthood, jabs Lawrence O'Donnell for crying (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/12/2011-04-12_glenn_beck_suggests_only_hookers_use_planned_pa renthood_jabs_lawrence_odonnell_f.html#ixzz1JJzGu2 AQ)

[Misteriosa]

So you're a hooker?

Glenn Beck suggests only 'hookers' use Planned Parenthood, jabs Lawrence O'Donnell for crying (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/04/12/2011-04-12_glenn_beck_suggests_only_hookers_use_planned_pa renthood_jabs_lawrence_odonnell_f.html#ixzz1JJzGu2 AQ)

http://www.mazeguy.net/expressive/shhh.gif