Over 50% of US babies were born on Medicaid

[Hutch Starskey]

Ray From Cleveland

Nothing is forced. If you don't want to be fixed, don't apply or accept taxpayer money. Get a job instead; buy your own birth control so you don't create the problems you would otherwise inflict on taxpayers.

No, you wrote this:

"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."

That is forced sterilization.

If one actually needs public assistance and are at child bearing age, they would be forced, under your program, to choose between potential 'life saving' assistance and never bearing a child for the rest of their life.

That was your proposal. Fixed!!!!!!!!

Yes, it is my proposal. Nobody "needs" government assistance, they take it because it's offered to them. Most women would not apply for public assistance with those restrictions. They would make sure they didn't get pregnant. It's that word liberals loathe so much--responsibility.

Medicaid for the elderly is unnecessary? For the mentally ill?

I don't know any elderly on Medicaid. Our elderly go on Social Security and Medicare.

I don't know any elderly on Medicaid. Our elderly go on Social Security and Medicare.

This is why you are truly a dope and should not be arguing anything related to poverty or healthcare.

seniors who use medicaid - Google Search

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Cradle to grave government dependence was Obamas big sell and anybody that made objections was racist.
Trumps working to toss that and all the loathing of Trump here has a lot to do with that

Exactly. Trump's own administration proudly admitted they created 20 million more new government dependents on Commie Care. Add to that the 20 million more new government dependents he created on food stamps. Those two programs alone created over 40 million more new government dependents. It was no accident by any stretch of the imagination.

Please post evidence that shows these people are govt dependents rather than short term users.

Once people are on Commie Care, they are not getting off unless it gets so expensive they can no longer afford it. Food Stamps are decreasing because of Republicans cutting funds and Republican governors enforcing requirements for people with no dependents. Other than that, people would stay on those programs for as long as we let them.

Bullshit!

Post up the data from the actual programs if you have the balls.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, repugs are opposed to abortion, birth control, planned parenthood, and sex education. You expected a different outcome?

I am opposed to killing babies. I think if you need birth control you should pay for it. Planned Abortion instead of Parenthood should stop doing abortions on my dime. I am not opposed to sex education, and I don't think I am alone. That makes you totally confused, doesn't it? I guess truth hurts.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting, dumbass.

Federal money goes to them in the form of reimbursement for covered Medicaid services that have already been provided.
Grants can only be used for the specified purpose.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

If they say they use 5 million in government funds for mammograms, birth control, and prenatal care, and 5 million in private donations for abortions, then when the 5 million from government is gone, they will need to take some of that 5 million in abortion money and use that to cover what government funds used to cover for mammograms, prenatal care and birth control.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

You are truly clueless.
It doesn't go into one fund, dope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It is a nationwide shame that so many employers pay such low wages and do not provide health insurance

Thank God for Medicaid

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

That is a childish view of the world.

How so? Tell me where I"m wrong.

Because unintended pregnancies have and will always happen. It's not simply a matter of responsibility. Poor people are poor for a variety of reasons over varying periods.

You blanket generalizations of people and wishful thinking for their behavior is in no way either accurate or a solution of any kind.

How do you imagine that you would bring such a variety of people from varied backgrounds and circumstances to behave the way you wish?

Your whole premise is superficial and childish.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Why would you support the govt paying for an orphanage rather than helping the family as a whole?
What kind of retarded thinking is that?

Are you suggesting that poverty be criminalized?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Why would you support the govt paying for an orphanage rather than helping the family as a whole?
What kind of retarded thinking is that?

Are you suggesting that poverty be criminalized?

How are we helping a family by rewarding their irresponsible behavior? It only encourages them to be even more irresponsible. That's how we got to this point

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Ray From Cleveland, post 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?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

And government isn't involved now? Government is not taking money from taxpayers and supporting these lowlifes?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

Except of course for the govt run orphanage you've suggested.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, so now it's still not their fault, it's the employers fault.

Employers don't control what you earn--you control what you earn. If your skill set (whatever that may be) doesn't pay the kind of money you want to earn, you have to find another line of work.

You're not going to be able to support yourself stocking shelves, flipping hamburgers, sweeping floors, or cleaning toilets, and you certainly won't be able to support children. You have to get into a line of work that not everybody can do.

Why do you continue to blame poor people for being poor? Why don't you try looking at the causes of poverty?

In the 1950's, you had a 20% chance of working yourself up from poverty to middle class. Today's you have a 2% chance. Why do you continue to blame those who don't succeed when the system has been totallly stacked against them?

While poverty and dependency has increased, more and more of the country's wealth and assets are being transferred to the top 5%, less and less money is going into public education in poor districts. It's like tossing the poor overboard with rocks tied to their feet and then criticizing them for not being able to swim to shore.

Poverty is a very simple problem with very simple solutions. Poverty is the state of not having enough money to live on if any money at all. The solution to poverty is money. To obtain money, you need to get a job.

There, poverty is now solved. But wait! There is more........

Once you have a job, save the money you make. Get an apartment with others in your situation or answer some ads of people looking for roommates to share expenses with. DO NOT HAVE ANY CHILDREN until you have a secure job and career. If you cannot get a good job or secure a career, don't have any children. Avoid going into debt and buying things you cannot reasonably afford. Instead of taking your money to buy the newest I-phone, put that money in your savings account.

If your savings account starts to accumulate into the thousands or tens of thousands, it's time to start thinking about investments. You have an array of investments to choose from. You can use your money to start your own business like lawn care. You can use that money for a trade school. You can invest that money in the stock market, commodities market, real estate, treasury bonds.....

There. Now tell me why anybody cannot do what I just wrote.

That is a childish view of the world.

How so? Tell me where I"m wrong.

Because unintended pregnancies have and will always happen. It's not simply a matter of responsibility. Poor people are poor for a variety of reasons over varying periods.

You blanket generalizations of people and wishful thinking for their behavior is in no way either accurate or a solution of any kind.

How do you imagine that you would bring such a variety of people from varied backgrounds and circumstances to behave the way you wish?

Your whole premise is superficial and childish.

If your dog craps on your living room carpet, do you give him a treat? If your child goes into the kitchen cabinet, pulls out a glass dish and busts it on the floor, do you give him a cookie?

50% of babies being born to poor people are not unintended pregnancies, those are deliberate acts. They wanted to have babies or otherwise didn't care if they got knocked up. When you reward people for being irresponsible, you create more irresponsible people. It's that simple to understand unless you're a liberal.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well Duh! How about the solution being if you can't afford to have children, don't have them?

So, let's get right to the heart of your argument, Ray. What political solution do you propose for poor people having children? Let me guess. You would stop feeding the children. THAT would keep poor people from having sex, right? After all, they have already failed to feed them, so, somehow you think that withholding food from their kids is going to make them suddenly responsible for what they do on Saturday night with their sex organs? Seriously, Ray, I hear nothing but bitching, but no solutions from the Right.

You've read the solutions (at least from me) but refuse to acknowledge them. If people are on any kind of government assistance, it should be a fixed amount no matter if they have children or not. If that fixed amount does not give them the capability to support children, those children should be taken away and put into an orphanage.

As this OP points out, supposed poor people have children with no concern or pressure as to how to support them. In fact, they are rewarded by having those children. Take the reward away, and you'll create more responsible poor people.

So, here we have a person who is dead set against the government getting involved with health care, and complains of oppressive over regulations by said government, but wants the feds to have the power to decide if you can properly support your kids, and if they decide that you can't, such government we take those kids away and have strangers raise them

And government isn't involved now? Government is not taking money from taxpayers and supporting these lowlifes?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

Hey, I'm all for getting government totally out of raising families, how about you?

Except of course for the govt run orphanage you've suggested.

You leftists really have comprehension problems, don't you? I said as long as government is involved (since we can't get government out of it) then let's use government more productively.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am opposed to killing babies. I think if you need birth control you should pay for it. Planned Abortion instead of Parenthood should stop doing abortions on my dime. I am not opposed to sex education, and I don't think I am alone. That makes you totally confused, doesn't it? I guess truth hurts.

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting, dumbass.

Federal money goes to them in the form of reimbursement for covered Medicaid services that have already been provided.
Grants can only be used for the specified purpose.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

If they say they use 5 million in government funds for mammograms, birth control, and prenatal care, and 5 million in private donations for abortions, then when the 5 million from government is gone, they will need to take some of that 5 million in abortion money and use that to cover what government funds used to cover for mammograms, prenatal care and birth control.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

You are truly clueless.
It doesn't go into one fund, dope.

It goes to one entity dope, and they can distribute that money any way they desire.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cradle to grave government dependence was Obamas big sell and anybody that made objections was racist.
Trumps working to toss that and all the loathing of Trump here has a lot to do with that

Exactly. Trump's own administration proudly admitted they created 20 million more new government dependents on Commie Care. Add to that the 20 million more new government dependents he created on food stamps. Those two programs alone created over 40 million more new government dependents. It was no accident by any stretch of the imagination.

Please post evidence that shows these people are govt dependents rather than short term users.

Once people are on Commie Care, they are not getting off unless it gets so expensive they can no longer afford it. Food Stamps are decreasing because of Republicans cutting funds and Republican governors enforcing requirements for people with no dependents. Other than that, people would stay on those programs for as long as we let them.

Bullshit!

Post up the data from the actual programs if you have the balls.

Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So you want someone else to work 3 jobs and support your children because you "won't," or can't?

I don't want anyone's children to die, but I want you to put forth, as you expect me to put forth, the effort to contribute to supporting your children's needs.

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.

Yes, because being in need for a short period of time should cost you your ability to ever procreate.

Nothing that can't be reversed once you're off social programs.

You can't reverse sterilization.

In most cases you can reverse vasectomies. In most cases you can untie tubes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Pointing out your hypocrisy and the irony of it isn't a medical condition. You are confused Poor White Trash. You really have no excuse. You've had all the advantages of being born white in this racist as shit society, and you still fail.

Pointing it out over and over again for months on end is a mental condition. It's an obsessive compulsive disorder.

You are the one who brought schools into it... by saying they weren't doing a good job. Cutting the teen pregnancy rate in half - GREAT JOB!

When did I bring up schools in this topic? Maybe be a little more specific.

No, but REpublicans do make the policies. You tell girls that they need to pray toJesus to not get preggers, and they are probably going to get preggers.

Just because Republicans make the policies doesn't mean that Democrats in those red states won't continue to be irresponsible. That's besides the fact that some of those red states are not really red at all. They consider a red state as one that voted Republican the last Presidential election. That's about 2/3 of our country.

That would be a tragedy. It might actually force us to fix poverty in this country. Maybe even address things like racism.

Another obsession of yours. How do you fix poverty, especially when you belong to a party that promoted single-parent homes which are directly related to poverty? How do you fix poverty when you incentivize poor people making more poor people?

Since this supposed war on poverty began, we spent trillions and trillions of dollars on it doing it your way, and what have we got to show for it? A very minute drop in poverty after 50 years. Your way is a failure.

Or they just don't see the problem the way you do. If there are more poor people having babies, it's because 40 years of Republicans trying to dismantle the middle class have pushed a lot of people into the "poor" category.

Even if that were true (which it's not) that's no excuse for having children you can't afford. It's no excuse for the public to support the things you want in life.

One of our major problems not mentioned enough is the importation of the poor and needy from other countries to lower wages and overburden the safety nets we have in place. This makes everyone poorer. Democrats can't talk against immigration because.... well why can't they? It hurts them too.

It hurts them even more because many Democrats are poor, particularly in the black communities. Immigrants taking their jobs and lowering their pay is very damaging to them and the rest of America.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Unfortunately you are correct, nobody would have the guts to address this problem, and that in itself is the problem. My solution would work however.

Your "solutions" don't address the problem, they address the results of the problem. The problem isn't that the poor are breeding. The problem is that Republican policies have made it all but impossible to get out of poverty.

Your solutions - find a job, save your money, avoid debt, and invest, may have worked when you and I were growing up and even a "starter" job paid a living wage. It's difficult to save money when your wages don't pay enough to keep a roof over your head or food in your belly.

It's hard to avoid debt when tuition has gone up 500%, and you can't the low wage summer jobs you used to get to pay tuition are now taken by former production workers looking to feed their families.

Your solutions blame poverty on the poor. And yet other countries are doing better. They don't have the extremes of wealth and poverty the US has, they don't spend their nation's wealth on foreign wars and protecting corporate interests abroad. They spend their tax dollars at home, on education, infrastructure and on their citizens, not their corporations.

Their people are happier, healthier, and aren't bitching about every dollar they pay in taxes.

And yet people are always trying to sneak into this country, imagine that. In fact, 8 bodies were pulled out of a tractor-trailer in Texas just yesterday. They fried in that thing. That's how bad people want to get into this country.

You and other leftists are trying to say that pregnancy is unavoidable, so blame the rotten USA for not having enough jobs for those people. Don't blame those poor people for being irresponsible, no,no,no, the blame belongs to others.

"Liberals measure success by their intent. Conservatives measure success by results."
Rush Limbaugh

We have plenty of jobs here in the US for anybody that wants them; jobs that don't pay too badly either. The problem is not that we don't spend enough on social programs, the problem is we spend way too much. That's what made these people so irresponsible in the first place.

There are plenty of young people who are doing just fine. I work with them. The have a job, have a house or apartment, drive later model cars. They are doing fine. But jobs don't come knocking on your door. You have to go out and get one for yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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..

He goes beyond orphanages and wants to bring back poor farms
Round up the children of the poor and send them to work farms until their parents can scratch up the money to buy their freedom

Really? Why don't you quote me on that liar?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

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?

Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise rates

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.

All medications that have been approved by the government, and recommended by the AMA, and are not more expensive versions of something else that works, and is not experimental, are covered by insurance. I'm not buying it, Ray. Don't forget that I spent 50 years in the health insurance business, and my wife was a pharmacist, and my daughter is a nurse.

What does this have to do with the AMA or approval?

There is no mandate in Commie Care or any other law that states an insurance company has to provide life sustaining medication.

In my 50 year career in health insurance, in which I worked, or consulted with 12 companies, not one has excluded a life sustaining medication that was approved by the FDA, the AMA, was not experimental, and was not available in a cheaper form under another name. I'm not buying it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

But running orphanages are free? I would like to see the cost analysis that you have done to bring you to that conclusion.

No, I didn't say they were free, but if we're going to spend money to raise other people's kids, then at least lets do it in a way that will deter people from having those kids in the first place.

Taking kids away from people who don't care enough to support them is going to discourage them from having other kids? Sounds like that makes as much sense as anything else you have said on the subject.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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?

Because that is how insurance remains cost effective. If you sell it as ala carte you will have to raise rates

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.

All medications that have been approved by the government, and recommended by the AMA, and are not more expensive versions of something else that works, and is not experimental, are covered by insurance. I'm not buying it, Ray. Don't forget that I spent 50 years in the health insurance business, and my wife was a pharmacist, and my daughter is a nurse.

What does this have to do with the AMA or approval?

There is no mandate in Commie Care or any other law that states an insurance company has to provide life sustaining medication.

In my 50 year career in health insurance, in which I worked, or consulted with 12 companies, not one has excluded a life sustaining medication that was approved by the FDA, the AMA, was not experimental, and was not available in a cheaper form under another name. I'm not buying it.

You never heard of prescription coverage? What kind of agent were you anyhow? Prescription coverage is an option, not a mandate, especially under Obama Care.

 

[Vandalshandle]

You do not pay for Planned Parenthood abortions.

How do you figure that? Liberal BS????

How can one separate funds that all go into an entity and say X money is going for this and X money is going for that? You can't. It's impossible.

It's called accounting, dumbass.

Federal money goes to them in the form of reimbursement for covered Medicaid services that have already been provided.
Grants can only be used for the specified purpose.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

If they say they use 5 million in government funds for mammograms, birth control, and prenatal care, and 5 million in private donations for abortions, then when the 5 million from government is gone, they will need to take some of that 5 million in abortion money and use that to cover what government funds used to cover for mammograms, prenatal care and birth control.

No, it does't work that way. You can use all the accounting tricks you want. You can't separate money that goes into one fund.

You are truly clueless.
It doesn't go into one fund, dope.

It goes to one entity dope, and they can distribute that money any way they desire.

False. Separate accounting required by law.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements

A point you don't want revealed. From your link.

"And while they made sense in the early part of the recession when unemployment was higher, that is no longer the case,” said Robert Doar, a fellow in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute."

The "they" is "dropped work requirements". They made sense because of the Great Bush Recession. They were dropped not because poor people were lazy. They were dropped because of hyper irresponsibility from leaders in the investment and high rolling financial sector. They were dropped because of the Great Republican Recession that Obama was bestowed upon to deal with.

I guess you would blame poor folk for the Great Bush Recession along with everything else you conjured up in your right winger tainted mind.