Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Planned Parenthood in teh Age of Obamacare?

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like

    Planned Parenthood in teh Age of Obamacare?

    PK's comment in another thread reminded me I REALLY want an answer to the following question:

    If Obamacare mandates that womens care (including a host of screenings, birth control, and more) is covered by all healthcare insurance, what purpose does Govt. funding of Planned Parenthood then serve?

    If everything they do, other than abortion, is now mandated covered and everyone is mandatesd to HAVE coverage, why would we continue to fund (with tax money) Planned Parenthood at that point?

    I'm honestly confused on this. If at that stage it's just for abortion, fine, it's a debate to have of course. But what ELSE would they be offering that would not be covered under the mandate/expansion of Obamacare?

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    But what ELSE would they be offering that would not be covered under the mandate/expansion of Obamacare?
    Everything that will NOT be covered once Obamacare is overturned.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,623
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm confused to how is abortion not murder?

  4. #4
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    I'm confused to how is abortion not murder?
    Detroit could use more abortions.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    7,949
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by detjetsfan View Post
    I'm confused to how is abortion not murder?
    Paulie... how long bro, srysly...

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Is there seriously not a single serious, content-posessing answer?

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Is there seriously not a single serious, content-posessing answer?
    That alone should tell you your answer

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,877
    Post Thanks / Like



  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,364
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Is there seriously not a single serious, content-posessing answer?

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,841
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by brady's a catcher View Post
    Detroit could use more abortions.
    wtf is this?

    that earns a week because it is sure to outrage someone even if you were joking

  11. #11
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    To attempt to anser WF's question.
    Based on MY understanding of PP, the only thing they would cover not covered by Obamacare is abortion. Hence, it should be UNFUNDED since abortion is NOT covered by Obamacare (according to them).

  12. #12
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    702
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by jetswin View Post
    wtf is this?

    that earns a week because it is sure to outrage someone even if you were joking
    wow

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    From what I can tell, Planned Parenthood would still serve a purpose for women who choose to not purchase private health insurance and are paying the no health insurance fee. This also applies to children under the age of 18 whose guardians are not actively participating in a health care plan.

  14. #14
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    From what I can tell, Planned Parenthood would still serve a purpose for women who choose to not purchase private health insurance and are paying the no health insurance fee. This also applies to children under the age of 18 whose guardians are not actively participating in a health care plan.
    Why would we need that?

    If they're paying the fee rather than buy due to fiscal constraints, they would qualify for the various low-cost options that will exist undr the State.

    If they're paying the fee for other reasons, why should taxpayer money go to support that choice?

    The mandate exists for a reason, to make everyone have insurance. Why then offer a direct duplicative contradiction, and provide additional taxpayer funding to a different service that specificly exists, then, to serve those who choose to suffer penalty of law rather than buy the insurance the law was designed to make everyone have?

    I'm not questioning why PP should exist. I'm more questioning why a dollar of taxpayer money would go to a service that should, by law, be being performed as part of insurance under the mandate and it's various assistence programs?

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,895
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    Why would we need that?
    It is not a need, but a luxury. Either we as a nation are deciding to treat women's reproductive services as a special subset of covered health services no matter what the circumstances or not.

    In a world where the individual mandate faultlessly realizes health insurance for all citizens, your question and point are logical. The reality of the situation dictates that not all people will have health insurance and a market place for Planned Parenthood remains.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parafly View Post
    It is not a need, but a luxury. Either we as a nation are deciding to treat women's reproductive services as a special subset of covered health services no matter what the circumstances or not.
    Which brings me back to the my question, WHAT (specificly) "Reproductive Services" are not already covered under Obamacare regulations?

    "Reproductive Services" sounds like, wow, a whole lot of important, easy-to-define stuff.

    So what is it, specificly?

    In a world where the individual mandate faultlessly realizes health insurance for all citizens, your question and point are logical. The reality of the situation dictates that not all people will have health insurance and a market place for Planned Parenthood remains.
    Whoa, I though the core of the Obamcare argument was that it would provide affordable insurance to those in need, and widen the poor by making (the mandate) everyone be IN the poor.

    Why would we then use taxpayer funding to support people who not only refuse to follow the law and be in the poor, but still seem to think we (taxpayers) owe it to them anyway, despite a State Option existing they could use?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us