Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Planned Parenthood doesn't do abortions on your dime.
That would mean that money is not fungible. Which, I hope even you will acknowledge.
Simple solution. Planned Parenthood I which does not perform or refer abortions. They're eligible for taxpayer money.
Planned Parenthood II, they perform abortions only and they operate on their profits from abortions, contributions to them specifically and receive nothing from tax payers.
Problem solved.
That would mean that money is not fungible.
But, since PP has been brought up, I find it amusing that Trump's campaign promise to defund it on day one has failed, along with everything else he has promised, and surely that must have been the easiest promise to keep.
Not really. PP funding was mixed in with Medicaid, and that has to be rewritten all over again which is a lot of work. But I do agree with you that it's a failed promise. Of course, it's only been six months. And I'm sure if they defund PP, some liberal activist judge will stop it like they have with his other agendas. Democrats don't believe in the separation of powers.
Ray From Cleveland, postAnd why is my solution so terrible?
That is your solution?
The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.
A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.
What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.
That is no solution. You are a fraud.
Claiming you have posted solutions.
Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?
Well, duh! That's not a solution. It's wishful thinking and in no way addresses the problem.
I think I've addressed the problem quite well. Since poor people are generally irresponsible, we can't expect them to take precautions when having sex which leads to pregnancy. So if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.
Why is it necessary for every single worker in the US to pass a drug test? That's insane, unless you're operating heavy equipment or driving. What does it matter if your waiter smoked a joint with his friends last night?
Because that waiter is representing ME, the owner of that restaurant. I don't want someone representing me who was stoned the night before. If that's MY requirement for MY business and you want to work for me, those are the conditions. If you can live with that requirement, go down to my competitor's restaurant.
So what to do ? Simple question.
Simple answer: if you apply for any kind of public assistance, you don't get a dime until you are fixed first. Problem solved.
Well at lest that's an answer ! A terrible one , but an answer none the less.
Really ? How many people can afford to pay for child birth on your own.
You don't follow along very well, do you? As I said, if you plan on having children, make sure you have a health insurance plan that covers it.
And why is my solution so terrible?
So, you approve of an individual mandate?
No, I approve of personal responsibility, that's all.
As it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.Actually, why should insurance cover child care at all? It's totally elective . Might as well pay for nose jobs .
Why should other insured pay for it ? The only people who should have kids are those who can pay for it out of pocket .
Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.
The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.
Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.
Translation: Meaning American taxpayers pick up the tab.So among those of you who think we should let poor kids die for lack of healthcare, to I guess teach their parents a lesson of some sort,
shouldn't we also deny those kids an education?
So how would you stop it? Oh, that's right, you're a liberal so you want it to go on forever.
It has nothing to do with teaching parents a lesson. It has to do with stopping the cancer that we currently have.
If you can't afford to pay your rent, you get evicted from your apartment.
If you can't afford to make mortgage and insurance payments on your home, the bank forecloses on you.
If you can't afford your car payments, the repo man comes along and tows the car out of your driveway.
That's the way it's supposed to work when you take on a responsibility.
So you DO support letting the kids die to teach the parents a lesson.
No, but I do support government taking the kids out of the household if the parents can't support them, just like they do when the parents are hooked on dope, or the father is abusive to the rest of the family, or the parents end up in prison.
As it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.Actually, why should insurance cover child care at all? It's totally elective . Might as well pay for nose jobs .
Why should other insured pay for it ? The only people who should have kids are those who can pay for it out of pocket .
Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.
The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.
Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.
Good question30 million families receive government assistance. Working three jobs means 60 million unfilled jobs out there waiting to be filled
Your buckle down and work harder makes a great bumper sticker for your conservative buddies, but as a practical solution on a national level it is ridiculous
It's only a ridiculous notion to someone lazy and entitled like yourself. There were plenty of times in the past I worked more than one job and I would do it again if ever needed. There used to be an understanding in this country that you earned your own keep. Then LBJ came along with his welfare state and the result is people like you who somehow feel working hard is beneath you.
Used to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials
That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America
Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.
"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.
More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.
Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference
Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
Why is it necessary for every single worker in the US to pass a drug test? That's insane, unless you're operating heavy equipment or driving. What does it matter if your waiter smoked a joint with his friends last night?
Because that waiter is representing ME, the owner of that restaurant. I don't want someone representing me who was stoned the night before. If that's MY requirement for MY business and you want to work for me, those are the conditions. If you can live with that requirement, go down to my competitor's restaurant.
How does the person who was stoned the previous night represent you differently than the person who had a few cocktails the previous night?
Good questionIt's only a ridiculous notion to someone lazy and entitled like yourself. There were plenty of times in the past I worked more than one job and I would do it again if ever needed. There used to be an understanding in this country that you earned your own keep. Then LBJ came along with his welfare state and the result is people like you who somehow feel working hard is beneath you.
Used to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials
That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America
Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.
"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.
More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.
Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference
Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise ratesAs it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.Actually, why should insurance cover child care at all? It's totally elective . Might as well pay for nose jobs .
Why should other insured pay for it ? The only people who should have kids are those who can pay for it out of pocket .
Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.
The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.
Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.
So if you don't own a car and use public transportation, would you buy car insurance? Would you buy house insurance if you rent an apartment? If not, why should people who will never need abortions or birth control have to pay for such coverage?
Ray From Cleveland, postAnd why is my solution so terrible?
That is your solution?
The working poor could not afford an insurance plan out of employer group plans prior to the ACA.
A private plan covering pregnancy and childbirth was probably a few thousand a month.
What are people in poverty supposed to do? Sell Drugs to make the payments.
That is no solution. You are a fraud.
Claiming you have posted solutions.
Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?
Well, duh! That's not a solution. It's wishful thinking and in no way addresses the problem.
I think I've addressed the problem quite well. Since poor people are generally irresponsible, we can't expect them to take precautions when having sex which leads to pregnancy. So if we made a regulation that states you can't get one dime from the government until you are fixed first, that would greatly reduce the amount of poor children being born that the taxpayers no longer have to support.
No, you've addressed nothing. You've simply stated what you think it ought to be. That's wishful thinking.
Good questionUsed to be more "extra jobs" available
Used to be you could get a low skilled job that still paid the bills
Used to be you could get a union job and be set for life
Used to be minimum wage would pay for some life essentials
That is before Republicans sold out to corporate America
Yeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.
"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.
More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.
Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference
Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.
Good questionYeah, sure, tard, automation and technological advances would have never happened if it weren't for evil Republicans colluding with corporate America. I'm sure the buggy makers were pretty upset when Henry Ford starting cranking out automobiles. Good thing Bernie Sanders wasn't around then to halt the production of Fords and rein in that greedy corporatist making them.
"Used to be" sounds like a wonderful Utopia, but this is now. Learn a new skill. Make yourself needed and if all else fails, well, the world needs ditch diggers too. Who's responsibility is it to make sure you have the skills to get a job? Oh, yeah, yours.
More excuses and finger pointing at everyone else but yourself.
Same thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference
Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.
Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left
Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise ratesAs it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.Insurance has contracts. You BUY a contract that covers child birth. It will probably cost you more than buying insurance that doesn't cover child birth, but there is nothing wrong with insurance that wishes to offer such plans.
The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.
Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.
So if you don't own a car and use public transportation, would you buy car insurance? Would you buy house insurance if you rent an apartment? If not, why should people who will never need abortions or birth control have to pay for such coverage?
Do you think women should have to pay more for their insurance because they can become pregnant?
Good questionSame thing happened when they invented electricity and the internal combustion engine
Yet we, as a society, used to value labor
Now we have sold out to capitalists and labor is just a necessary evil for them to make more profit. A smaller percentage of corporate profit now goes to workers
Taxpayers have had to make up the difference
Why would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.
Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left
Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.
Good questionWhy would taxpayers have to do that? Ask yourself that question.
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.
Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left
Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.
Outlaw sex unless you have at least a $20,000 bond.
I'm surprised that this is not one our your solutions, Ray. it makes as much sense as bring back orphanages..
Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise ratesAs it should. Just as they still pay in to public schools even when their kids are grown just as the previous generation before them did.The ACA mandates that it's covered, fool.
Yes it does, even for people in their 50's or 60's.
So if you don't own a car and use public transportation, would you buy car insurance? Would you buy house insurance if you rent an apartment? If not, why should people who will never need abortions or birth control have to pay for such coverage?
Do you think women should have to pay more for their insurance because they can become pregnant?
Sure, as you said, that's the way insurance works.
That's besides the fact it has little to do with abortions or birth control. It has to do with vote buying which is what Commie Care was and is.
The medication I need to survive is about $250.00 a month. If I don't have my medication, I die. Now whats more important, a woman getting free this and free that so she can screw around, or people that need life sustaining medication? Well...... people who need life sustaining medication are a much smaller voting block than one half of our society. That's why there is no government mandate for insurance to provide that medication, but there is for birth control and abortions.
Good question
We do it because we are a great society. Great societies take care of their less fortunate
Only savages want to live in a survival of the fittest society
And how did this great society do? Well......the poorest among us are now producing 50% of the babies, that's how good it worked.
Fucking is free.......one of the last pleasures they have left
Fucking may be free, but supporting children are not, and it shouldn't be the productive in our society providing that support. It only leads to more irresponsibility.
Outlaw sex unless you have at least a $20,000 bond.
I'm surprised that this is not one our your solutions, Ray. it makes as much sense as bring back orphanages..
Yes it does, because then there would be no benefit to having children you couldn't afford. If you have a child and you can't support them, then put them in an orphanage. If we did it that way instead of the way we're doing it now, I guarantee we could cut Medicaid babies in this country by at least half or more.
