# House votes to defund Planned Parenthood 241-187



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/house-votes-defund-planned-parenthood

The House on Friday voted 241-to-187 to strip Planned Parenthood of some $500 million in federal family planning funds for a year. The move is intended to keep the public eye on allegations of illegal behavior by Planned Parenthood staffers but remove the possibility of a government shutdown by conservatives bent on defunding the organization.
The vote followed several grueling hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee into the undercover sting videos that allegedly show Planned Parenthood employees selling fetal parts, which would be a violation of federal law. The organization has denied the allegations, and state after state investigating the videos, which are heavily edited, has been found no evidence of wrongdoing. As the October 1 deadline for funding the government approaches, however, several conservative members of Congress, including presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), threatened to block any government funding bill that provided Medicaid or family planning dollars to Planned Parenthood. But it remains to be seen if this latest vote will satisfy conservative elements of the party.
Planned Parenthood is barred by law from using federal funds to provide abortions. The $500 million or so it receives each year from the government allows the group to provide family planning and other reproductive health services to mostly poor women on Medicaid. Ahead of the vote, conservative activists and lawmakers circulated a list of thousands of other family planning providers that could replace Planned Parenthood for the thousands of poor women who use its services. There is ample evidence to suggest that these alternatives to Planned Parenthood do not have the capacity to treat the group's patients.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

So.... If the PP is barred by law from using federal funds to provide abortions (the Hyde Amendment)... Why are Republicans trying to defund the other services it provides?  This is just another attack on women... particularly POOR women.  If you stop access to birth control... doesn't it make there will be more unplanned pregnancies.. and MORE abortions?  I really don't get that  convoluted reasoning.   Not to mention if cancer screenings, and STD treatments are defunded poor women will show up in emergency rooms with advanced diseases, which will cost MORE to treat.  More twisted reasoning...   OR... does the GOP REALLY hate women?    Sure sounds like it..


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

While there was a Democrat controlled congress they should have changed the rules to cover what they want to do and now there would be no argument at all.   And if the Republicans want it changed back, that would be their opportunity now.   But it seems they are just asking folks to keep to the written promises for a while.

Just how expensive is birth control these days?   I remember when a teen that many could purchase it with no problems at all.   Maybe it is just some of the more costly stuff that is being spoken of.

Sounds like it is just should have changed the rules when they could.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

Yes... the GOP should have changed the rules when they gained control of the Senate last year. But they didn't and they won't.   This bill will now go to the Senate for almost certain defeat with a filibuster by the Democratic minority.    The bill will not even reach the Presidents desk.   Republicans will not be able to muster the 60 votes it needs to beat the filibuster let alone the 67 votes it would need to defeat a Presidential veto.   The bill is dead, but hopefully this vote in the house will satisfy the radical House republicans.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Well, if it is so simple, why the big fuss in the first place.   Let the Congress do its job and let the government move on as it should.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

So what was the point of having that vote in the first place?   Well... let me tell you... To allow the House Representatives up for re-election next year to go on record as having voted to defund PP..and to satisfy their base.   It was a purely symbolic vote and a waste of time and taxpayer money.  The GOP will do anything to pander..  it's pathetic.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Well, then that sounds just like politics to me and others.    I am sure the Democrats also do the same  nonsense in their fiddling with the rules.   Look how the Obama care got through in its big vote in Congress.   It failed to have a passing vote so the vote was held open while the Democrats kept pulling more folks in to the winning side.   I think it was some late in the evening time before they finally had changed enough votes to support Obama care.   Politics happens for both parties.   I would like to see all that party voting removed by eliminating party from the Congress itself.   Let it all happen on votes by the persons involved, not by parties.    Like the Constitution describes our government.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Sep 20, 2015)

Arkansas, Alabama, and are three of the states that shut off state spending for PP.  In each of those three states, PP filed suit against the state.  A Federal judge ruled this past week that Arkansas has to reinstate the funding.  It is assumed that both Ala and La will also be required to.  It's difficult to justify to the courts defunding PP, based on simply some evangelical platform.  So far, PP has not been found guilty of doing anything illegal.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes... the GOP should have changed the rules when they gained control of the Senate last year. But they didn't and they won't.   This bill will now go to the Senate for almost certain defeat with a filibuster by the Democratic minority.    The bill will not even reach the Presidents desk.   Republicans will not be able to muster the 60 votes it needs to beat the filibuster let alone the 67 votes it would need to defeat a Presidential veto.   The bill is dead, but hopefully this vote in the house will satisfy the radical House republicans.



Actually the Republicans did not gain control of Congress last year.    They won the elections but control came about sometime in January of this year.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

You are just SOOO smart Bob...   They won the elections and thus control LAST year... they were instated in January of this year... got another hair to split?


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Hair splitting?   Not so.   The older Congress was still officially in charge till after Jan 1st sometime, when the new Congress got seated officially.   Facts, not splitting hairs at all.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

Bob....  THIS is SEPTEMBER... The NEW Republican majority was sworn in in January..  That's, according to my count, NINE months ago...  They could have changed the filibuster rule the day after they were sworn in...in January,   NINE months ago.. BUT they didn't.   And they WON'T..  why?   because they know they will not have majority control in the Senate forever, and they like the idea of being able to filibuster and require a super majority for every piece of legislation.   The Dems are using it now much to the discomfort of Republicans... BUT Republicans could have changed the rule nine months ago.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

I find it curious that those fringe elements of the Republican Party, which espouse a return to "America The Great" philosophy, somehow fail to perceive that the very respect they deem so important -globally speaking, is automatically forfeit  when their behaviour is seen as ludicrous by the majority of developed nations. Derision is not conducive to maintaining either respect or power. Sad to see a great nation reduced to this. The American people deserve better.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I find it curious that those fringe elements of the Republican Party, which espouse a return to "America The Great" philosophy, somehow fail to perceive that the very respect they deem so important -globally speaking, is automatically forfeit  when their behaviour is seen as ludicrous by the majority of developed nations. Derision is not conducive to maintaining either respect or power. Sad to see a great nation reduced to this. The American people deserve better.



How true...   Republicans knew that the House passing a bill to defund Planned Parenthood was simply symbolic and had no chance of becoming law.  but they did it anyway in order to appease their base.  Now WHY this base doesn't understand that it was only a symbolic vote... and why it would make them happy is beyond me.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I find it curious that those fringe elements of the Republican Party, which espouse a return to "America The Great" philosophy, somehow fail to perceive that the very respect they deem so important -globally speaking, is automatically forfeit  when their behaviour is seen as ludicrous by the majority of developed nations. Derision is not conducive to maintaining either respect or power. Sad to see a great nation reduced to this. The American people deserve better.



Have you taken time to read the post I put up recently?   Apparently 62 have so far.   It points out why the US government is different from those so called developed nations that are doing somewhat poorer than the US when measuring life styles and amounts of housing and such for the people themselves.   Not at all sure why you would try to say our government is no good.   Over 200 years on the present design and it is still solid and doing well, except in the recent years as our debt went from 7.7 trillion under Bush to now 18 trillion under Obama.   We are looking to another election and hope to replace our current bad President with a more realistic one of either major political party.   We need a real person who can realize that our debts just can not keep on getting bigger each year.

Your idea of the US needing to be like those other countries around the world makes no sense that I can see.   They have been broke for so long it is deplorable to use them as examples of better governments.  Over 200 years of good and growing in the US is nothing to be ashamed of and it is certainly been magnet to millions of people from the so called better governments that wanted to come here for better times.  My parents from England for my mothers family and from Germany for my fathers family.

Read this file and see the differences between other governments and the US governments.   We do not have a setup where one group can just out vote the other group and they no longer have any say in what goes on.   Some countries live under that type of majority rules idea but the US does not.

*Democracy and Republic are different than Democrats and Republicans - thankfully.*

https://www.seniorforums.com/showth...ent-than-Democrats-and-Republicans-thankfully


----------



## fureverywhere (Sep 20, 2015)

The GOP doesn't hate women exactly. As long as they only have lawfully wedded procreation. Birth control means women have the right to be cheap hussies without punishment. Then again prohibiting access to birth control means that women the GOP don't cater to might start having higher birth rates from lack of choice. Maybe they haven't considered that consequence. It's just ridiculous, Roe v. Wade passed in 1972. And they've been fighting it ever since.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

Fur, exactly what is a cheap hussy? What are the rules? Lol. Can I be one? Why should men have all the fun?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

I think I could be a hussy...... but never cheap....  I'd want the big bucks...   lol!!


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

What is so expensive about birth control that we need the government to pay the bills.   There are some not so expensive ways that I remember from my earlier days.  Also some methods that my wife had used after we had our son and daughter.   Never heard her complain about the cost and only some real poor person would.   Seems like there would have been working systems for those very poor folks.   With out expensive government agencies needed.   But many folks like to see big government agencies.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

Yeah, QS. Hussies R Us. I forgot about the financial aspect. Got carried away with all that freedom. Lol.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

Never give nothin' away for free...


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

Gotcha.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

I mean... if we're  going to be  hussies... why not make it worthwhile


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

GOP= Clearly anti woman.  My Gawd how obviously so....


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> GOP= Clearly anti woman.  My Gawd how obviously so....



Really not a true comment Jim.   We have a lot of women in the GOP and they all seem to be quite reasonable to me.   I think enough to give the guys a bad time if out of control.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

So ... do Republican women need birth control?


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> Really not a true comment Jim.   We have a lot of women in the GOP and they all seem to be quite reasonable to me.   I think enough to give the guys a bad time if out of control.



Since when can you, of all people, judge my comment to be incorrect?


----------



## fureverywhere (Sep 20, 2015)

The epitome of Hussys R Us


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

Mae West, my shero!


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

So, what do you call a house full of hussies, a hustle? HaHaHaHaHaHa. I just made that up!


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

I happen to resent all this hussy talk, it anti-Hussy and probably communist in origin, I am calling for a congressional hearing.  We will weed out the anti-hussy faction.  Jim (a known hussy)


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

Jim, blame me, a known agitator from the Great Communist Country Of Canuckhissystan! I have infiltrated the halls of Moral America, on a mission to subvert the purity of True American Womanhood.......in order to (fill in the blanks.)


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Jim, blame me, a known agitator from the Great Communist Country Of Canuckhissystan! I have infiltrated the halls of Moral America, on a mission to subvert the purity of True American Womanhood.......in order to (fill in the blanks.)



As a defender of "blanks", that pisses me off too.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 20, 2015)

HaHaHaHaHa.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> HaHaHaHaHa.



AND Laughter get's on my last nerve as well.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So ... do Republican women need birth control?



If they do, they can get it their way.   They don't need a big government agency to provide it for them.   There own doctors could likely provide low cost solutions to fit their needs.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> If they do, they can get it their way.   They don't need a big government agency to provide it for them.   There own doctors could likely provide low cost solutions to fit their needs.



Are you suggesting we should "deal" with the unwanted pregnancies of those poor women both republican and democrat having those children in a world already glutted with unwanted children because you as a GOPer feel justified in that position or is it just to bolster the mean spirited, non thinking flow of republican bullshit?  Feel free to answer with your usual nonsensical line...


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 20, 2015)

BobF said:


> If they do, they can get it their way.   They don't need a big government agency to provide it for them.   There own doctors could likely provide low cost solutions to fit their needs.



Hahahahahaha.... Or maybe it's just not an issue for them.  Maybe no one wants to have sex with them?


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Can anyone tell me just how expensive it is for birth control systems.   I know when I was young I always had some condoms available.   Not expensive at all.  Later after married my wife had some sort of creme and an applicator thing, also not expensive.  I am sure surgical solutions could be a bit more expensive.   Not all women need expensive solutions and we do not need to have large government run places to do this.   And it does not matter what their political feelings are anyway.   We can selectively help those in NEED of help and the rest can pay their way.

My opinion just like yours, but opposite of yours.


----------



## Lara (Sep 20, 2015)

Bob, birth control pills cost about 50 dollars a month and don't need a prescription. Today, on Face The Nation, Hillary Clinton says she is rolling out a proposal this week for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.


----------



## tnthomas (Sep 20, 2015)

I hear some folks being all concerned about " big government agency" providing for citizens.

Maybe they should contact the Social Security Administration and tell them that they don't want that monthly check they're getting, anymore.

Convenient link, call or click now:  http://www.ssa.gov/


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> I hear some folks being all concerned about " big government agency" providing for citizens.
> 
> Maybe they should contact the Social Security Administration and tell them that they don't want that monthly check they're getting, anymore.
> 
> Convenient link, call or click now: http://www.ssa.gov/



Wrong choice of an agency to pick on.   That is our money, taken while working, and due to us for the remainder of our lives.   Much is gained for us older folks when younger folks pass away before they have spent their savings.   Early deaths of workers help pay our way as we get older and pass our expected pay back dates.


----------



## BobF (Sep 20, 2015)

Lara said:


> Bob, birth control pills cost about 50 dollars a month and don't need a prescription. Today, on Face The Nation, Hillary Clinton says she is rolling out a proposal this week for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.



I guess this is one of the newer ways of preventing births.   Is that $50 per month for after Obama care has taken their turn to help?   That is less than $2 per day and I doubt if using regular methods as my wife did would cost near that much.  Maybe Hillary has a good activity planned.   Getting our medical and prescription costs down is good.   But how far down will the prescription companies go till they quite trying to invent newer or better solutions?   Some of that stuff takes years to develop and some never make the grade.   So those out front folks do need some assurance of making things work and have dollars to pay back the investors helping them along toward a victory and some profits to put aside toward their next efforts.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Sep 21, 2015)

Interesting that those leaning far right suggest any and all should be able to afford birth control.  Even if it is affordable, does that mean it will be used?  Hence, the importance of counseling available at PP.  After all, I doubt the daughter of a former governor and candidate for Vice President would have difficulty affording $50/month.  Had she gone to PP for counseling on family planning, perhaps she wouldn't have a couple of kids born out of wedlock.

PP offers much more than just the providing of a means of birth control.  They provide screenings for women's health issues and they provide counseling for family planning, STD prevention, AIDS awareness, etc., etc.   But, it is mainly for the female gender and if the GOP had their way the 19th Amendment would be struck down.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

$50 a month is pretty hefty for someone trying to support herself and her children on a minimum wage job.  That's almost one days pay.   But the cost of the medication is only part of it.  Since it's a prescription drug and must be prescribed by a doctor, she would also have to foot the bill for a Gynecologist visit which could cost upward of
$125 PLUS the cost the laboratory charges to process and read the pap test, as well as the pathologist doing the reading.


----------



## BobF (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> $50 a month is pretty hefty for someone trying to support herself and her children on a minimum wage job.  That's almost one days pay.   But the cost of the medication is only part of it.  Since it's a prescription drug and must be prescribed by a doctor, she would also have to foot the bill for a Gynecologist visit which could cost upward of
> $125 PLUS the cost the laboratory charges to process and read the pap test, as well as the pathologist doing the reading.



Post #40 says no prescription is required.   So maybe locally it is?   Anyway, is that pill the only way now allowed for birth control.   What has happened to those other methods, much lower cost, that did exist for when the need arrives?   Do all need to have full time(?) birth control?   Consoling is good, even without all the expensive prescriptions.   How about encouraging some of the low cost ways for birth control efforts.   I was not aware that the ending of the high cost birth control materials would close the Planned Parenthood offices.   Truly a very confusing topic.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Hormonal.. taken daily,  BC pills still require a prescription, and require a yearly Dr. visit and exam.      However, the plan B or the emergency contraception does not.  

http://contraception.about.com/od/pillquestions/f/Buy-Birth-Control-Over-The-Counter.htm


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> Interesting that those leaning far right suggest any and all should be able to afford birth control...Hence, the importance of counseling available at PP


I've never ever heard anyone say that ALL should be able to afford birth control. Of course, not all can afford $50 a month…that's $600 a year. BUT, the left seems to forget that FREE counseling is also available 24/7 with Pro-Life. I know, because I was a Pro-Life Hotline Volunteer a while back.

Bob, yes, the IUD is very popular and is a one time charge but still an expensive doctor's visit….and the IUD is not for everyone.


----------



## BobF (Sep 21, 2015)

Thanks folks.    I am not against birth control methods at all.   Happy the wife decided after our second child, a girl to keep her brother company, to let that be the end of our children.   I just have a problem with some thinking all should go this more expensive way.   There are other options available as those were what the wife chose to use for her possible years.   And those would be the lower cost options available for the low income folks too.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Lara said:


> I've never ever heard anyone say that ALL should be able to afford birth control. Of course, not all can afford $50 a month…that's $600 a year. BUT, the left seems to forget that FREE counseling is also available 24/7 with Pro-Life. I know, because I was a Pro-Life Hotline Volunteer a while back.
> 
> Bob, yes, the IUD is very popular and is a one time charge but still an expensive doctor's visit….and the IUD is not for everyone.



Do Pro-life groups provide birth control and screenings for cancer such as pap tests and mammos?  Because if they don't... the "Left" isn't forgetting anything Lara. It's not "counseling" that is needed..  It's medical care..   The "Right" seems to forget these are not synonymous.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Thanks folks.    I am not against birth control methods at all.   Happy the wife decided after our second child, a girl to keep her brother company, to let that be the end of our children.   I just have a problem with some thinking all should go this more expensive way.   There are other options available as those were what the wife chose to use for her possible years.   And those would be the lower cost options available for the low income folks too.



Condoms break and are the least reliable form of BC except for the Rhythm method.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Pro-Life focuses on the life of the unborn child and services needed relating to that. They also offer referrals for *FREE *birth control information and *FREE *services (free IUDs) but it's customized to your local area. You have to call your local "Birthright for ________". Put your city in the blank. Or just go straight to Medicaid.

Medicaid also covers *FREE *BIRTH CONTROL In NC the link is: http://www2.ncdhhs.gov/dma/medicaid/familyplanning.htm

Pro-life offers free education, free counseling for both the pregnant mother and post abortion, support for the mother and baby after birth (milk, diapers, clothing, etc), and offer referrals for *FREE *services within a network of supportive organizations which is more extensive than we have space for here…here is a start:  http://studentsforlife.org/prolifefacts/prolife-movement/
network referrals http://www.secularprolife.org/#!links/c19od


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

So no birth control and no medical care.  And WHY are we wanting to shut down PP when it's obvious that pro-life groups are geared to the fetus and the woman only as she relates to the fetus.     Women want and need the services PP provides.   Particularly poor women who cannot afford to go elsewhere.   It would seem to me that BOTH could exist simultaneously so women could decide which services they wanted and needed.  Why is it necessary to defund a vital service that women want and need.  Let the individual woman decide where she will go and for what.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Reread post #52 again….Yes, Pro-life refers people to wherever they need *FREE *birth control and *FREE *pregnancy tests. Medicare offers this to the poor for *FREE*. The answer to your other question is all over the news. They are under investigation.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Lara said:


> Reread post #52 again….Yes, Pro-life refers people to wherever they need free birth control and free pregnancy tests.



As well as Pap smears... and Mammograms... and STD diagnosis and treatment?   So the only beef with Planned Parenthood that you have is that 3% of their activity is abortion..   But are fine with everything else they provide.    So I must ask..  Why defund them?   Because no Federal money goes to fund abortion after all..  Read about the Hyde Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment


----------



## BobF (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Condoms break and are the least reliable form of BC except for the Rhythm method.



And I described what my wife chose as a creme item you could buy in the drug store.   No major expensive federal government run operation was required.   Still don't think needed now.   Other solutions could be used like state or county geared to that areas needs.   Big federal things are often wasteful of money and not very effective.   Just like what the VA is busy working on to get fixed and more helpful for local folks.   Some were apparently good and others were big ripoffs and little help.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:
			
		

> So the only beef with Planned Parenthood that you have is that 3% of their activity is abortion.. But are fine with everything else they provide.


Reread post #52 and #54 again (repeating this over and over)….Planned Parenthood is unnecessary since we have all their services covered between the Pro-Life organization's referral system and Medicaid's *FREE medical services (that includes mammograms and pap smears) and FREE birth control*. And you are totally ignoring that *Planned Parenthood is under investigation* *for selling LIVE Baby Parts….which is illegal*…not to mention that they say the baby is not a life and then sell it as live. Makes no sense.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Lara said:


> Reread post #52 *again *(repeating this over and over)….Planned Parenthood is unnecessary since we have all their services covered between the Pro-Life organization's referral system and Medicaid's *FREE *medical services and *FREE *birth control. And you are totally ignoring that they are under investigation for selling LIVE Baby Parts….which is illegal…not to mention that they say the baby is not a life and then sell it as live. Makes no sense.




Lara...  It has been debunked OVER AND OVER...  Planned parenthood does NOT sell live baby parts... that's silly.   Those videos were edited and phony..  The live kicking baby Fiorina described did NOT appear in a PP video..  That was proven...   Once more...  and I'm tired of repeating it over and over.   NO live baby parts for sale a PP..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...hind-that-shady-planned-parenthood-video.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...-is-Not-Selling-Baby-Parts-You-F-cking-Idiots

http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/07/14/attack-on-planned-parenthood-3-deceptive-edits/204419


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Omg….it's under federal investigation. There's a reason for that despite so-called "debunkers". Do you really think there would be an active Federal Investigation for no reason??? Plus, that's not the only important issue here even…reread posts #52 and #54 AGAIN to see why Planned Parenthood is NOT even necessary.

.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Lara said:


> OMG….it's under federal investigation. There's a reason for that despite so-called "debunkers". Do you really think there would be an active Federal Investigation for no reason???




Oh Puleeze...  Federal investigation...   just like Benghazi, and the IRS,  the Clinton Emails..   None of the trumped up scandals the Republicans have tried to use for political gain have turned up anything... and this one won't either..   It's an election year con... to get folks like you to vote GOP..

So in answer to your question... YES... without a doubt.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver, you seriously are saying that the liberal groups, The Daily Beast, Daily Kos (who has foul language in their link that Admin doesn't allow here), and MediaMatters are reliable sources?? You just want to narrow-mindedly believe anything that is an online extremely liberals site and ignore the Fed Govt investigation?? Okay. I've said all I can say then.

And reread #54 and #52 for the truth of things that matter.

I've said all I can say to you because you only follow your liberal leaders.

.


----------



## Misty (Sep 21, 2015)

In 2012, President Obama stated that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Both Snopes and FactCheck.org both say that is not true, that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. 







Planned Parenthood
*Claim:*   Planned Parenthood health centers do not perform mammograms. 

image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif








*TRUE*


Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mammograms.asp#XMMwbhofmAWdIoXS.99





"At the second presidential debate, President Barack Obama said that  women “rely on” Planned Parenthood for mammograms. Actually, mammograms  are not performed at the clinics; Planned Parenthood doctors and nurses  conduct breast exams and refer patients to other facilities for  mammograms."

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/planned-parenthood-and-mammograms/


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

Misty said:


> In 2012, President Obama stated that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Both Snopes and FactCheck.org both say that is not true, that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No Misty... we all know that... but they send women for them and pay for it.  Do they do mammograms in YOUR doctor's office?   They don't in mine... I have to go to the local hospital..


----------



## Misty (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> No Misty... we all know that... but they send women for them and pay for it.  Do they do mammograms in YOUR doctor's office?   They don't in mine... I have to go to the local hospital..



They do mammograms in my Dr's clinic, Quicksilver. From what I've read, Planned Parenthood does not use their money to pay for women's mammograms, it's clinics provide referrals and direct low-income  women toward resources to help pay for the procedure.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

You may be right... but I don't know what that has to do with defunding PP..   They refer women and follow up to ensure they get the care they need.... because PP doesn't to mastectomies... in case you want to state the obvious about that.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Misty said:


> In 2012, President Obama stated that Planned Parenthood provides mammograms. Both Snopes and FactCheck.org both say that is not true, that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.


Good job for clearing that up, Misty. So, the combination of Pro-Life and Medicaid do so much more for women medically, counseling-wise, and follow-up assistance-wise for post-natal needs than Planned Parenthood….and without all the drama and fees/costs. 

Planned Parenthood is not only unneeded but women go there without realizing they can get free healthcare (and free mammograms that PP does not do as Misty pointed out) and free counseling and referrals from Medicaid. It's interesting that Planned Parenthood pays for nothing for these women. No wonder they need to be defunded. Really, what does PP do that Medicaid doesn't do? And Medicaid does more. Much more.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

Guess what I just read…not only is Planned Parenthood *NOT *free but they charge for their services and if you can't pay then they send you to Medicaid or use a gov't Title X for a discount IF you are poor enough! Defund them. What a waste.

*Planned Parenthood - About Our Fees:*
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/p...ources/paying-your-health-care/about-our-fees

So, that 3% of what Planned Parenthood does, abortions, is the ONLY thing they do beyond Medicaid..and they charge for that too.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 21, 2015)

I've never used Planned Parenthood or have been on Medicaid, but it seems that their services are needed by some, along with their health insurance coverage.  Here's some facts and myths about Planned Parenthood, for anyone interested.  http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 21, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I've never used Planned Parenthood or have been on Medicaid, but it seems that their services are needed by some, along with their health insurance coverage.  Here's some facts and myths about Planned Parenthood, for anyone interested.  http://obamacarefacts.com/2015/07/23/do-we-still-need-planned-parenthood/



Thanks for posting the facts SB.... PP plays a vital role in the reproductive healthcare of low income women AND men. It is either free or based on a sliding scale on ability to pay.    It is definitely needed.


----------



## BobF (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Thanks for posting the facts SB.... PP plays a vital role in the reproductive healthcare of low income women AND men. It is either free or based on a sliding scale on ability to pay.    It is definitely needed.



Interesting that at one time the poor would be taken care of in doctors offices and hospitals and then they would be asked to pay.   If unable the charges could be reduced or forgiven and the patients were cleared of debt.   I know this worked right up to the beginning of the Obama care, but don't know if those days and forgiveness still operate.   Anywhere or anytime.   It did happen and low income folks were often found in the hospital emergency rooms where these meetings took place.


----------



## Lara (Sep 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> PP plays a vital role in the reproductive healthcare of low income women AND men. It is either free or based on a sliding scale on ability to pay.


That's not true. What exactly is free from Planned Parenthood? The sliding scale discount is offered from the government, a program called Title X. If the Dr.'s visit costs $50 and the government says you qualify for a 20% discount then the balance is $40. The woman is responsible for $40. If she can't pay it then ask Medicaid to pay it. The woman could have just gone to Medicaid in the first place.

*Planned Parenthood - About Our Fees:
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/pl...about-our-fees

.*


----------



## fureverywhere (Sep 21, 2015)

I think one of the important things about Planned Parenthood is providing contraception and safe sex info for low income women and teens. Many teens don't have the wherewithall to go get a referral from a doctor. Especially if it's something their parent find out about. No one has to get preachy about it. It's just a fact of life. If you were ever a sexually active teen girl then you understand. Planned Parenthood has offices throughout our neighboring urban areas. I'm sure for women who fall between the cracks of Medicaid it might be the only regular medical care they can get.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 21, 2015)

[h=1]Planned Parenthood Set To Sue The Criminals Behind Edited Video Smears[/h]Planned Parenthood is planning swift retribution against the perpetrators of the deplorable and illegal smear campaign that has been leveled against the vital women’s health non-profit by far-right wing anti-abortion extremists. The Center for Medical Progress, which does not employ any medical professionals, arranged a vast fraud by creating a fake biomedical company in order to attempt to “purchase” fetal tissues, secretly recording interviews with Planned Parenthood officials and then editing the footage to mislead and misrepresent the discussion that actually took place. 

Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens told The Hill that her organization is set to take action against the CMP: *“I absolutely do believe that they have violated laws in terms of how they secured these videos… But the fraud is also in how they have presented them and in the editing.”Several of the videos were recorded in California, where it is illegal to record a conversation without the consent of both parties.* 

Thirteen states have squandered countless tax dollars on “investigating” Planned Parenthood. Not a single one has uncovered any sort of questionable conduct or misuse of materials. The fetal tissue extracted from aborted fetuses is used in critical medical research, attempting to cure deadly diseases like HIV/AIDS. 

The right-wing’s vicious smear campaign against women’s rights and healthcare will ultimately amount to naught. President Obama has already threatened to take action against states that cut Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood, which are not used for abortions in anyway. Senate Democrats have already stymied one attempt to cut the group’s federal funding entirely. The polls show that Planned Parenthood is more popular among Americans than every single Republican candidate for president. The American people recognize the incredible work that Planned Parenthood does across the world. The non-profit deserves much better than to be besmirched by religious zealots. 


http://linkis.com/occupydemocrats.com/wJzKi 
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...reatens-legal-action-against-makers-of-videos


----------



## BobF (Sep 21, 2015)

And how long now till the Senate debates and votes.    Only then will anything start to happen or it all ends.

Even if the Senate says yes, do any of you think Obama will allow it to pass?   I sure don't so many are wasting their time and efforts making judgements.


----------



## tnthomas (Sep 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> .   Much is gained for us older folks when younger folks pass away before they have spent their savings.   Early deaths of workers help pay our way as we get older and pass our expected pay back dates.



I'm curious as to just how exactly this works, it seems to me that we(as prospective SS recipients) would want more young contributors to the SS system so as to keep the fund solvent.     
I don't understand how young folks dying prematurely can possibly help SS.   Plus, any savings that young people might possess is their own assets, and would simply belong to their designated heirs.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Sep 22, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> I'm curious as to just how exactly this works, it seems to me that we(as prospective SS recipients) would want more young contributors to the SS system so as to keep the fund solvent.
> I don't understand how young folks dying prematurely can possibly help SS.   Plus, any savings that young people might possess is their own assets, and would simply belong to their designated heirs.



I'm assuming he meant that the elder generation pass earlier.  IOW, if you start drawing SS at age 66 and live until 96.... you've drawn a lot more than you put in.  OTOH, if you start drawing at 66 and pass as 67 you've used very little of what you contributed.  But, that's not the entire story.
We, as a Nation, are living longer.  The life expectancy is going up every year.  So, we are apt to use more than what we contributed to the system.  To keep the system solvent, we either need to raise the full retirement age or lower the benefit amount.  Since we are living longer and remaining in fairly good health, let's move the full retirement age to 70.  Most can start drawing limited benefits at 62.  Move that to 65.  Those two moves would make a world of difference in keeping the SS system operating in the black.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> I'm assuming he meant that the elder generation pass earlier.  IOW, if you start drawing SS at age 66 and live until 96.... you've drawn a lot more than you put in.  OTOH, if you start drawing at 66 and pass as 67 you've used very little of what you contributed.  But, that's not the entire story.
> We, as a Nation, are living longer.  The life expectancy is going up every year.  So, we are apt to use more than what we contributed to the system.  To keep the system solvent, we either need to raise the full retirement age or lower the benefit amount.  Since we are living longer and remaining in fairly good health, let's move the full retirement age to 70.  Most can start drawing limited benefits at 62.  Move that to 65.  Those two moves would make a world of difference in keeping the SS system operating in the black.




Not to the guy who has been doing construction work, or a steelworker or bricklayer.    Bodies don't stand that kind of abuse at 70.. They would be forced to take an early retirement and therefore less money.    The only way to fix SS is to raise the cap on FICA contributions from $117,000 to  $250,000 or perhaps $500.00.   It's not fair that people making $117,000 a year or less are paying FICA on virtually all their income, while a multi-millionaire pays on only a very small percentage.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

No need for a construction type to continue to do the same work for ever.   It is the 10 best years of your working history that counts to set the basis for your life long take out from the SS funds.   A construction worker could check his 10 best years and then go to some other job, not so strenuous, to finish working his older years out.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> No need for a construction type to continue to do the same work for ever.   It is the 10 best years of your working history that counts to set the basis for your life long take out from the SS funds.   A construction worker could check his 10 best years and then go to some other job, not so strenuous, to finish working his older years out.




Of course he could bob... because jobs are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to come by..  Especially for older workers.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Of course he could bob... because jobs are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to come by..  Especially for older workers.



They certainly are easy to find if you are not longer looking for the best income of your life.   From construction jobs to grocery helpers, or parking lot attendants, or what ever, as you are no longer damaging your already shown to be your best 10 years of income to establish your SS take home for life numbers.

Or maybe even in construction but now a land level type of job.   A shovel jockey around cleanup projects.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

I don't know very many people who are able to cut down from a good paying income to minimum wage at age 62..  Some of us still have obligations to finish.. Lucky for you Bob that you are in a good position to be able to live on $7.25 an hour from 62 to 70 when SS would kick in.


So what is wrong with the plan to increase FICA withholdings from the cap of $117,000 to $250,00?   That would insure SS remain solvent forever.. No reason to force people to work until 70.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

I had no choice at the time as I was laid of at the age of 60.   I did find temp jobs for a few months at a time.   I also finished paying off my house mortgage using my part time work and savings to do so.   There are ways to work, like them or not.   I ended up working for one of the worlds large merchandise companies.   A bit of a change from machine design and leadership positions and income for sure.   Eventually I tried to do Real Estate but was not good at getting the pen out and signing contracts so after 10 years of that with part time jobs too, I finally said good by to jobs and ended my working days on early SS at 62 and then restarted my working efforts which continued for about 10 more years.    After getting my debts paid I became a volunteer alongside my paying part time jobs and held a position in our state run travel office and also as a volunteer to go into the mountains and walk through the ancient Native American ruins sites.   Taking notes and pictures that I would then send to the federal agency responsible for the site.   I never really stopped wanting to do things.   

This person you speak of can work at lessor jobs and still pay down his debts.   We all should be able to see our years ending and pay down our debt.   I was a bit short but managed to survive anyway.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

I find it sad that the average American, the one who worked hard all his life and paid his bills, is always the one asked to make do with less, or alter his lifestyle in order to survive.. while the wealthy and large corporations are never asked to sacrifice in the least.   It's a very sad state we find ourselves in.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> I find it sad that the average American, the one who worked hard all his life and paid his bills, is always the one asked to make do with less, or alter his lifestyle in order to survive.. while the wealthy and large corporations are never asked to sacrifice in the least.   It's a very sad state we find ourselves in.



I see nothing wrong with folks having to change their careers or lifestyles in order to keep shelter, have foods, and keep healthy.   Aging does cause us to change our ways of working and living.

How many of our billionaires were always so rich.   Some came from near nothing and worked their way to the higher levels of income.   One never even finished college as he saw an opportunity to go for the big money.   Ever hear of the guy that built Micro Soft?    Bill Gates for example.   It can be done, and is done by many who come from little and grow it into plenty.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Why do people on the Right, who ARE average Joes always come to the defense of the billionaires who are rigging the system and moving more and more money to the top at the expense of the middle class..  For every Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs.. there are hundreds of members of the lucky sperm club sitting around the pool and collecting a check..   and STILL complaining about paying taxes...  I call big time Tough cookies...  They need to pay up.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 22, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> Since when can you, of all people, judge my comment to be incorrect?



Yeah, but they have to hide it from their husbands, who want to keep women pregnant and barefoot.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 22, 2015)

Lara said:


> Bob, birth control pills cost about 50 dollars a month and don't need a prescription. Today, on Face The Nation, Hillary Clinton says she is rolling out a proposal this week for lowering the cost of prescription drugs.



Back in the day, when I was using them, birth control pills DID need a prescription.  They still do here in New Mexico.  Are you sure of your facts when you say they don't need a prescription?  Where?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Fortunately, I've never been involved with a man that wanted me "barefoot and pregnant"...  I've always been out there slogging it out bringing home the bacon..


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Back in the day, when I was using them, birth control pills DID need a prescription.  They still do here in New Mexico.  Are you sure of your facts when you say they don't need a prescription?  Where?




They still do require prescriptions and exams..... everywhere...  It's only the emergency birth control... like the "Plan B"  that can be bought over the counter.. those are for major contraception fails, like broken condoms.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Interesting that at one time the poor would be taken care of in doctors offices and hospitals and then they would be asked to pay.   If unable the charges could be reduced or forgiven and the patients were cleared of debt.   I know this worked right up to the beginning of the Obama care, but don't know if those days and forgiveness still operate.   Anywhere or anytime.   It did happen and low income folks were often found in the hospital emergency rooms where these meetings took place.



What planet do you live on?  This certainly has never been true here, at least not since the early 50s.  Doctors and hospitals hound patients for payment, unless they are on medicaid, etc.  It may come as a surprise to you that in the real world, patients often forego needed car because they cannot pay.  AND doctors and hospitals are in business to make a living, just like the rest of us. They don't hand out their services for free right and left, any more than you an you can go into Wal-Mart and expect to gt things for free because you cant pay.  Geez!

And hospital emergency rooms are required to give care to indigent people without charge only for life or limb threatening conditions, or infectious diseases that threaten the public health.


----------



## Lara (Sep 22, 2015)

Butterfly said:


> Back in the day, when I was using them, birth control pills DID need a prescription.  They still do here in New Mexico.  Are you sure of your facts when you say they don't need a prescription?  Where?


There are many forms of birth control (like emergency birth control, morning after pill) and some do not need a prescription...but pills do. When I saw an ad for birth control in a bottle that said, "does not need a prescription", I was assuming it was a bottle of pills. http://contraception.about.com/od/pillquestions/f/Buy-Birth-Control-Over-The-Counter.htm

This link from *USA Today says, "California and Oregon will allow for over the counter birth control pills without a prescription"*:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...irth-control-without-a-prescription/29990205/


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

I believe I included the emergency room in my post.   That is where they are required to take care of you first and then attempt to get paid.   That is where free comes from and if fixed and unable to pay then the cost is handled some other way.   That was the way it was prior to Obama care.   I don't have any idea how it is handled these days.   The wife and I have used the emergency room often for our illnesses that often come on weekends.   Not going to wait till sometime next week for a doctor to be open.   We always pay but looking around the entry room there are many others that may not be able to pay - and should not have too if actually broke.    At least they will get a doctor to check them out before they are fixed and then told to leave.

And help for the poor is around elsewhere than the hospital emergency room.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Bob.. do you have any idea how expensive a visit to the ER is?  And it's certainly NOT free.   Hospitals BILL people and will send them to collection if they cannot pay.  Nice way to lose your house and your savings.. or be forced into bankruptcy.  If they absolutely cannot pay, the cost is shifted on to everyone else.   The Emergency room is the LAST place someone should go for routine illnesses...  and only if they are literally dying...  It's a HORRIBLE healthcare plan.


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 22, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Planned Parenthood Set To Sue The Criminals Behind Edited Video Smears*
> 
> Planned Parenthood is planning swift retribution against the perpetrators of the deplorable and illegal smear campaign that has been leveled against the vital women’s health non-profit by far-right wing anti-abortion extremists. The Center for Medical Progress, which does not employ any medical professionals, arranged a vast fraud by creating a fake biomedical company in order to attempt to “purchase” fetal tissues, secretly recording interviews with Planned Parenthood officials and then editing the footage to mislead and misrepresent the discussion that actually took place.
> 
> ...




Here is more on this.....seems the defendants want to use the fifth amendment in this lawsuit..lol, after spreading their lies around left and right....anyway, the judge ruled against it...I hope they throw the book at them.

http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/...les-anti-abortion-group-cant-plead-the-fifth/


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> Here is more on this.....seems the defendants want to use the fifth amendment in this lawsuit..lol, after spreading their lies around left and right....anyway, the judge ruled against it...I hope they throw the book at them.
> 
> http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/...les-anti-abortion-group-cant-plead-the-fifth/



You and me both..  I am so sick of the Right manufacturing and doctoring videos.   How many have there been now?   First with ACORN.. totally false and doctored yet the GOP managed to shut them down..   then all the videos about the President..   now this..   What's sad is people are actually taken in by this.  These people need to go to jail for this.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Bob.. do you have any idea how expensive a visit to the ER is?  And it's certainly NOT free.   Hospitals BILL people and will send them to collection if they cannot pay.  Nice way to lose your house and your savings.. or be forced into bankruptcy.  If they absolutely cannot pay, the cost is shifted on to everyone else.   The Emergency room is the LAST place someone should go for routine illnesses...  and only if they are literally dying...  It's a HORRIBLE healthcare plan.




Yes, I know all about Emergency Rooms and have often seen the legal requirements for ER's to first take care of the patients and then check for insurance or means to pay.   So I looked for some information about this and found a section on US Legal requirements.   

https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html

*Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA)*

                                 In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency  Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to  emergency services *regardless of ability to pay.* Section 1867 of the  Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on  Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to  provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for  examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC),  including active labor, *regardless of an individual's ability to pay.*  Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for  patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient  within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate  transfer should be implemented.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Yes, I know all about Emergency Rooms and have often seen the legal requirements for ER's to first take care of the patients and then check for insurance or means to pay.   So I looked for some information about this and found a section on US Legal requirements.
> 
> https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html
> 
> ...




I am well familiar with EMTALA...  It simply means critically ill patients, regardless of their insurance status,  must be stabilized and not dumped on other facilities.  It does NOT mean that ERs are meant to be used as doctors' office.  It also doesn't mean that the patient is NOT charged for his treatment Bob..   They are Billed.. or the family is billed..  and if they cannot pay?  They get sent to collections, or taken to court for a judgment against them, property taken or wages garnished.  Most are forced into bankruptcy...     The cost of caring for them is then added to our bills..   Do you really believe the EMTALA means hospitals cannot charge to treat uninsured people..  what dream world are you living in?  Many people return home from the hospital to find $100,000 bills in their mailboxes..


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

The words are to treat ALL prior to making any decisions.    And that is how hospitals can and do perform if they have a public accessed emergency ward.   Many folks to use this avenue for quick service and it is often posted as a way to get service.   What you are saying does not work if the hospital is working per the words on the agreement.   Fixed first, than challenged for personal knowledge and ability to pay.   No price list given to the patients as they enter the area.   First they get met by medics to check them out.   Then the hospital staff can make choices available to the patients.   Who pays for what is already done if the patients have no money?   Will the hospital toss them out if it has been discovered to be a more major issue, like appendix?    Not likely.    And who will pay that surgery bill?   We don't yet know, but the patient is still in the system and will get taken care of.   Now the costs are rising so what will the hospital likely do?   Certainly not a law suite as that is even more expenses to the hospital.   Likely will turn to the charity groups that are there to help the very poor folks and get some of their cost paid for.  

It is not just a lot of hard headed folks running a hospital.   I have seen this operation in several states I have lived in.   And the laws support the helping the poor folks to get medical help.   Right through the hospitals emergency rooms.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> The words are to treat ALL prior to making any decisions.    And that is how hospitals can and do perform if they have a public accessed emergency ward.   Many folks to use this avenue for quick service and it is often posted as a way to get service.   What you are saying does not work if the hospital is working per the words on the agreement.   Fixed first, than challenged for personal knowledge and ability to pay.   No price list given to the patients as they enter the area.   First they get met by medics to check them out.   Then the hospital staff can make choices available to the patients.   Who pays for what is already done if the patients have no money?   Will the hospital toss them out if it has been discovered to be a more major issue, like appendix?    Not likely.    And who will pay that surgery bill?   We don't yet know, but the patient is still in the system and will get taken care of.   Now the costs are rising so what will the hospital likely do?   Certainly not a law suite as that is even more expenses to the hospital.   Likely will turn to the charity groups that are there to help the very poor folks and get some of their cost paid for.
> 
> It is not just a lot of hard headed folks running a hospital.   I have seen this operation in several states I have lived in.   And the laws support the helping the poor folks to get medical help.   Right through the hospitals emergency rooms.



And right to the Collections agency...   Bob.. I've worked in hospitals for 35 years... Yes.. they DO write off bills of the truly indigent...in order to keep their not for profit status they have to write off a percentage of bad debt.. but  then pass the cost on to the next patient... Hospitals couldn't stay open if they didn't. 

  However.. if you have ANYTHING... anything at all.. a small savings... a job... You will be hounded until you die for the  money.. your wages will be garnished and you will be forced to file medical bankruptcy.   This is NOT a healthcare system to be proud of...  Thank GOD for Obamacare and people now being able to afford some kind of coverage..  So they are not afraid to see a doc.. or to go to ER in an emergency.


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And right to the Collections agency...   Bob.. I've worked in hospitals for 35 years... Yes.. they DO write off bills of the truly indigent...in order to keep their not for profit status they have to write off a percentage of bad debt.. but  then pass the cost on to the next patient... Hospitals couldn't stay open if they didn't.
> 
> However.. if you have ANYTHING... anything at all.. a small savings... a job... You will be hounded until you die for the  money.. your wages will be garnished and you will be forced to file medical bankruptcy.   This is NOT a healthcare system to be proud of...  Thank GOD for Obamacare and people now being able to afford some kind of coverage..  So they are not afraid to see a doc.. or to go to ER in an emergency.



Well, finally you have come around to what I have been saying.   They treat you first than ask for financing or what ever.   That is what I have been saying and this has been said on TV for all to hear.   It is no secret at all.   People who are short of means are told to take the emergency room approach.   Often they get reduced charges that they can afford or they get free services.   Just like the law says.   Fix first then find out if they can pay or not.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> Well, finally you have come around to what I have been saying.   They treat you first than ask for financing or what ever.   That is what I have been saying and this has been said on TV for all to hear.   It is no secret at all.   People who are short of means are told to take the emergency room approach.   Often they get reduced charges that they can afford or they get free services.   Just like the law says.   Fix first then find out if they can pay or not.



I have never said otherwise... Of course hospitals will treat you.. They will also take everything you have to pay for that treatment if you don't have insurance.   Is that a reasonable healthcare plan?   And I agree.. the people that have ZERO in assets have a better chance of having their bills written off..  But, it's the working poor.. and the people who are just getting by.. those who have a small nest egg... or a modest house that will be hit the hardest by collection agency and court judgements... forcing them into bankruptcy.. People like YOU Bob.  You would have been decimated financially if you didn't have health insurance and you faced a catastrophic illness.    Do you not see anything wrong with that?  You were fortunate.. Your employer provided insurance.  Not everyone is that lucky.. again THANK GOD FOR OBAMACARE!!!


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

Obama care may be good for some but for others it is not the best thing to have happened.   I had much better health insurance prior to Obama care.   It was paid by my retirement company and kept up to date.   After Obama care came on they backed off and said they could not afford the cost of Obama care so we now get a fixed sum set aside for us to draw towards.   Once it is gone we pay our own way.  Pretty sad as now our insurance we buy ourselves is going up.  We are still in pretty good shape compared to the broke and never will have folks.   I don't see how they will be able to buy this health insurance either.   And so far not many folks are covered by Obama care.   Recently read the number and was really surprised at how low the number was.   So it is still not the answer to the US health problems at all.   A few are better and folks like me not doing as well as prior to Obama care.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Well bob...  You can save your angst..  Obamacare is the law... and it's here to stay... it's not going to be repealed and it's not going to be replaced..  It is a blessing to so many..  Perhaps your previous insurance, while cheap did not meet the basic standards of decent coverage set by the ACA...  Now your company cannot provide that substandard insurance any longer.   You may pay more but in reality you are better off...   By the way.. Don't you have Medicare anyway?


----------



## BobF (Sep 22, 2015)

Absolutely have Medicare.   But that does not cover a lot of items that we have had to take care of with our additional insurance.   If not, our bills would be much more to concern about.   People keep saying we don't have to pay for this or that since our insurance will cover that.   So I like that idea a lot.  Was just told this today at a testing place.   Since I have a certain insurance I got the tests free until after the it goes through the system and the 'no payment' attitude gets applied.   Then I take a form to my doctor that said this test was necessary and signs a form.   Then it is taken care of by Medicare and the insurance won't be needed this time.   So for many items it becomes a game with Medicare to get the payments, or have some backup insurance to help.    

All this insurance is a game but little more.   A person really needs more than just Medicare to help in times of sickness.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 22, 2015)

Bob... for as long as Medicare has been around, People have carried a supplemental insurance to cover what Part A and Part B do not.   Also, Premiums go up as you get older.  That has nothing to do with Obamacare.. it means you are older..  and your private insurance company feels justified in charging you more..


----------



## tnthomas (Sep 22, 2015)

BobF said:


> I see nothing wrong with folks having to change their careers or lifestyles in order to keep shelter, have foods, and keep healthy.   Aging does cause us to change our ways of working and living.
> 
> How many of our billionaires were always so rich.   Some came from near nothing and worked their way to the higher levels of income.   One never even finished college as he saw an opportunity to go for the big money.   Ever hear of the guy that built Micro Soft?    Bill Gates for example.   It can be done, and is done by many who come from little and grow it into plenty.




Some time in the future you may enjoy an improvement in your credibility, if you check your statements for accuracy.  

Bill Gates Wikipedia


----------



## tnthomas (Sep 22, 2015)

Grumpy Ol' Man said:


> I'm assuming he meant that the elder generation pass earlier.  IOW, if you start drawing SS at age 66 and live until 96.... you've drawn a lot more than you put in.  OTOH, if you start drawing at 66 and pass as 67 you've used very little of what you contributed.  But, that's not the entire story.
> We, as a Nation, are living longer.  The life expectancy is going up every year.  So, we are apt to use more than what we contributed to the system.  To keep the system solvent, we either need to raise the full retirement age or lower the benefit amount.  Since we are living longer and remaining in fairly good health, let's move the full retirement age to 70.  Most can start drawing limited benefits at 62.  Move that to 65.  Those two moves would make a world of difference in keeping the SS system operating in the black.



I understand each of these points, all too well.      However, the statement:



			
				BobF said:
			
		

> _. Much is gained for us older folks when younger folks pass away before they have spent their savings. Early deaths of workers help pay our way as we get older and pass our expected pay back dates._



...refers to older folks benefiting from the deaths of younger folks....???


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 23, 2015)

Never use the ER for things that are NOT a true emergency.  First off, you will wait forever because true emergencies are taken before you, and second off, it will cost you a fortune for treatment you could have gotten much cheaper in an urgent care faciilty.  I think, but am not sure, that many insurances won't cover emergency room charges if it is not a real emergency -- like going to the ER for a cold or some such.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

There are two kinds of hospitals..   Not for Profit..... and For Profit.     The "Not for Profit" hospitals receive a tax break for being a not for profit.  They are expected to do certain percentage of "charity" care for the community in order to keep their not for profit status.  They require the people applying for it to be litterally asset free.. No Job...   No savings,  no house, no car, or a junkey one.   then and only then will you receive free care.   If you have anything?  They will go after it.   Your small savings.. or any other asset.  This is why medical bankruptcy is the leading cause of filings.  In addition, all of the cost of caring for the uninsured and the write offs due to bankruptcy are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher healthcare costs and higher premiums.  That's a pretty poor system. 

A "For Profit" hospital has no obligation to do any charity care..  They will be like any other creditor and turn your account to collections withing 90 days.

The Republican claim that anyone can get free care anytime... just go to a hospital... is pure BS.   Who needs Obamacare?  Well that's simple, anyone with no other insurance and with a small savings or house.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

Well, here is a fact, not just more BS as you say.   Over my life time I have always used the local hospitals where ever I lived.   In small towns and larger cities.   On weekends I always entered the emergency rooms rather that wait for next week some day.   Many areas did not have those special care centers so none to use.   Where we live now they do have special care services and we have used it but they are definitely limited in their capabilities so we do just go to the hospitals more often.

Your idea that some hospitals don't take care of such and have closed their emergency rooms is fact.   Some well known hospitals made sure of that after the emergency rules were changed some years back.   I remember reading of such happening back when the emergency room laws were made back in the 1980's.

And none of this is what you call a Republican claim.   Hospitals take care of all and politics is never asked.   More of your biased and nasty posting.

Have your own twisted ideas and I will keep presenting my facts as I see them, as experience is more for teaching than all this high and might nonsense some like to preach.   Come into my area an see just how well the hospital emergency rooms work to help walk in types.   How they collect after the patients have been received and helped I have no idea.   Blowing out fear inspiring nonsense is not the way to encourage the poor to try to get help that is available at all.   It is there for all of us to use when doctors offices are closed.   Why put it down with wrong information.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

Yes Bob...   I see there is no reasoning with you as you have closed your mind.  ...  Keep your views... and I will keep my facts... thanks..


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> Some time in the future you may enjoy an improvement in your credibility, if you check your statements for accuracy.
> 
> Bill Gates Wikipedia



OK, I checked the posting on Bill Gates.   I only talks of the days when his folks were keeping him in special schools and colleges.   When Gates decided to start a business he was using small ideas and small business methods.   He even complained the he needed money from his efforts.   A good comment from someone who is trying to start a business.   Nothing in that article to say he was backed by millions of dollars to do this project, but I suspect he is well supported by his parents, not his own wealth at all.  

A bit twisted in your post.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> I understand each of these points, all too well.      However, the statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...refers to older folks benefiting from the deaths of younger folks....???



Another twisted and confused post about SS.   

Yes, a younger persons death prior to SS or even while in SS is a bonus to the older ones still drawing from SS.   Those monies taken from our employers and our own wages are not returned to any one at all.   It just stays in the big fund set up for paying the living retired folks.   

And yes, in recent years we have more retiring than working, so a bit of a problem.   We need to get more of the living working again, reducing the unemployed list as much as possible.   Still lots of folks that were once working, not working again, yet.

Or as suggested, some new words in the SS law to provide a comfort zone for savings and payouts.   One thing would be to end this business of politicians doing the temporary borrowing of funds for this or that.   It needs to be locked in reality, not just in words.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Yes Bob...   I see there is no reasoning with you as you have closed your mind.  ...  Keep your views... and I will keep my facts... thanks..



The closed mind is yours.  You have no ability to see beyond your own nose.  The facts are taken from my life experiences.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

Bob..  You don't have ANY of the money that you contributed to SS set aside with your name on it.   None of us have an "account" with our contributions set aside for us.    Our FICA contributions made while we were working went to pay the SS benefits of our parents and grandparents.  OUR SS checks come from the FICA contributions of the younger people still working.  Young workers dying off would not be a benefit to seniors in the least.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> The closed mind is yours.  You have no ability to see beyond your own nose.  The facts are taken from my life experiences.



And a rather limited and myopic set of experiences at that.   You are sadly mistaken.. but will NEVER listen to anyone who may know... so again there is no point in carrying on this discussion.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> And a rather limited and myopic set of experiences at that.   You are sadly mistaken.. but will NEVER listen to anyone who may know... so again there is no point in carrying on this discussion.



I was hoping that soon you would get tired of your distortions and quite.  I speak of experiences and have no idea where your twist ideas come from.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Bob..  You don't have ANY of the money that you contributed to SS set aside with your name on it.   None of us have an "account" with our contributions set aside for us.    Our FICA contributions made while we were working went to pay the SS benefits of our parents and grandparents.  OUR SS checks come from the FICA contributions of the younger people still working.  Young workers dying off would not be a benefit to seniors in the least.



Again you have a twisted idea.   All moneys taken in stay there and will not be needed for paying off their retired years at all.   That is a benefit to all still living.   It is definitely how a person decides to see the benefit or hardship of not being here any more.   A persons death is a benefit to those still living and the sooner the death the better it is for those remaining alive in the system.

If you actually read my earlier post I said just what you are trying to say I did not say.   Time for you to end your constant bickering and picking on others posts.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> I was hoping that soon you would get tired of your distortions and quite.  I speak of experiences and have no idea where your twist ideas come from.




From having worked in a hospital for 35 years?    In addition to working  15 years in a hospital Case Management department  with 8 years in Health Information Management,  working closely with the billing department..       SO....  let's see...   Bob's "experiences" vs.   QS's facts....  no contest Bob..   But I have to admit your simplistic assessments based on your "experiences"  are very amusing to me.... and I would imagine to most people here..  lol!!


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> Again you have a twisted idea.   All moneys taken in stay there and will not be needed for paying off their retired years at all.   That is a benefit to all still living.   It is definitely how a person decides to see the benefit or hardship of not being here any more.   A persons death is a benefit to those still living and the sooner the death the better it is for those remaining alive in the system.
> 
> If you actually read my earlier post I said just what you are trying to say I did not say.   Time for you to end your constant bickering and picking on others posts.



Bob...  No one has any money "staying there".... for their retired years...  It all goes to pay current recipients.   Less young people working to pay the benefits of the older people does not bode well for the benefits of the older people..  This is why all the hysteria exists about the vast number of Baby Boomers retiring and not having equally vast numbers of younger workers.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Bob...  No one has any money "staying there".... for their retired years...  It all goes to pay current recipients.   Less young people working to pay the benefits of the older people does not bode well for the benefits of the older people..  This is why all the hysteria exists about the vast number of Baby Boomers retiring and not having equally vast numbers of younger workers.



Again, your twist of ideas to fit your perceptions, but that does not say what I posted was wrong at all.   Start thinking a bit before you post those triumphant ideas of yours.   Those that have died are no longer taking from the funds so that is a benefit to those still living.   We are having problems for the future and I never said any different at all, I have just pointed out how someones death is a benefit to those still living.   You disagree.   How unfortunate for you to be so negative all the time.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> From having worked in a hospital for 35 years?    In addition to working  15 years in a hospital Case Management department  with 8 years in Health Information Management,  working closely with the billing department..       SO....  let's see...   Bob's "experiences" vs.   QS's facts....  no contest Bob..   But I have to admit your simplistic assessments based on your "experiences"  are very amusing to me.... and I would imagine to most people here..  lol!!



I hope you can keep your ego pumped up with your posts.   They are no good for others as what I have posted is what I have lived with and still do these days.  I use doctors when they are open, medical services places when the concern is mild, and emergency rooms when the concern is more serious.   It all works out well.   And the use of our ER is by even the very poor in the area for various reasons, children sick, parents sick, how they pay is up to them and the hospital.   Seems to be no end to those sitting and waiting to be called in the ER waiting room.   Reality seems to be in favor of those that are sick.   Checkouts prior to challenges seems to work pretty well.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> I hope you can keep your ego pumped up with your posts.   They are no good for others as what I have posted is what I have lived with and still do these days.  I use doctors when they are open, medical services places when the concern is mild, and emergency rooms when the concern is more serious.   It all works out well.   And the use of our ER is by even the very poor in the area for various reasons, children sick, parents sick, how they pay is up to them and the hospital.   Seems to be no end to those sitting and waiting to be called in the ER waiting room.   Reality seems to be in favor of those that are sick.   Checkouts prior to challenges seems to work pretty well.



It's not an EGO thing Bob...   I KNOW what I am talking about as I have experience in the field...  that's all.   It's NOT my opinion, but actual fact that I speak of.  I'm sorry if that upsets you or makes you jealous.   That is not my intention.  Just trying to educate you...   However, you know what they say about leading a horse to water.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> It's not an EGO thing Bob...   I KNOW what I am talking about as I have experience in the field...  that's all.   It's NOT my opinion, but actual fact that I speak of.  I'm sorry if that upsets you or makes you jealous.   That is not my intention.  Just trying to educate you...   However, you know what they say about leading a horse to water.



You are so busy teaching everyone that you know what you are speaking of that some I know of will no longer post on this forum.   Please do post whatever you want but that is exactly what everyone else is supposed to be able to do, including me.   It has to be your personal ego that makes you think you can put others down, it is not intelligence at work at all.   Loosen up and allow others to speak for themselves.

Your experience must have been in a pretty tight fistted type of hospital as the ones I have been too were much more simple that what you describe.   Go in to the ER, sign in, get checked out and fixed.   Then the payment requirements must be discussed.   I remember one time I was trying to negotiate a payment schedule.   Notice, not objecting, just stating that I had no money or resources but would gladly make payments on a schedule.   Well, that hospital surprised me after a couple small payments to them, and wrote off the charges to something.   I don't remember anymore, but I was written off and set free of the debts.

Good hospitals are usually OK to talk to and either arrange payments, have insurance, pay cash, whatever, just as long as both sides do agree.

One big problem with those that do have insurance is that those with insurance get fixed to the limits of the insurance and those with out insurance can have further care and repairs covered by the doctors or hospitals.     I have more than just Medicare so I get some extra coverage's.  Examples of this type of treatment were made in NYC when that ferry slammed into the dock and lots of folks were hurt.   I wish I could find the news coverage of the aftermaths of some of those hurt in the ferry crash.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> You are so busy teaching everyone that you know what you are speaking of that some I know of will no longer post on this forum.   Please do post whatever you want but that is exactly what everyone else is supposed to be able to do, including me.   It has to be your personal ego that makes you think you can put others down, it is not intelligence at work at all.   Loosen up and allow others to speak for themselves.



Well NOW you ARE feeding my ego...   But I am well aware that hundreds.... no.. more than likely THOUSANDS of people no longer post on SF because of MY political views..   lol!!!     You are a real character Bob.... and very amusing..

I hope I never get to the point where I am unwilling to learn from people who have more knowledge on a particular topic than I do though...  But perhaps it's nice living in your own little world and making it just the way you want it not the way it actually is.   Reality can be very daunting.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 23, 2015)

I would love to see the day when this guy could make his observations without suggesting anyone else's ideas are in his over worked word, "TWISTED".  Go back through his post and count the number of times he has used that word.  It's freakin' amazing.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

And rightfully so.   You, I, she, are all entitled to post what we see and believe.   I do as I am speaking from experience about my medical trials.   And also from reading about other experiences.   So far that is fine.   But when someone else jumps in and says I am wrong and should not be posting that thought, then I feel I am entitled to defend myself Jim.   So I do.   I have not told her to stop posting what ever she thinks is more important than what others post.   Putting others down is not what I am doing but certainly this other person is when she says anyone disagreeing with her are 'whatever'.   That is not for her, me, or anyone else to do on this or any forum.

Never heard of some of the things being talked about by this other person.   ER's are there for everyone.   Not just the ambulance situations only.   My hospital here takes on all.   By the looks of many of them sitting in the waiting room for their turn, men and women with children.   They don't look to be doing well by the clothing they are wearing.  In time they do get taken care of as those ER's are supposed to be doing.   Where we came from, a small town of 8,000 there was an ER that would take anyone that asked to be seen.   We went in, was examined by some ER folks and soon they called a doctor who put me in a room for closer examination.   Then after they had a determination they did ask for my ID, insurance or other means to pay.   Yep, this is all my experience in how they work and why.   Nothing in the current hospital rules that say they first need to ascertain payment before they do anything.

Now this is all my experience and not some nasty lie I have made up.    So someone does have some thinking to do.   Post her experiences and no more calling names or told about lies.   She can believe what she wants to believe and leave it at that.    Same with me or you or anyone else.   And yes there are some that have told me they won't be posting anymore because of a certain few that think only their thoughts have any merit and the rest should just stop post if they disagree with others posts.

Have a good day Jim.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> I would love to see the day when this guy could make his observations without suggesting anyone else's ideas are in his over worked word, "TWISTED".  Go back through his post and count the number of times he has used that word.  It's freakin' amazing.



Guess spending 35 years working in various hospitals... big and small.... with 15 of those years directly involved in Case Management and billing ONLY counts as my opinion... not fact...  Well... whatever..   I KNOW the facts and his posts on this topic are pretty much devoid of them..

Anyway...  here's a cute hospital Smiley...  :kissmy:


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

There you go again.   Claiming that your experience means you know more than how things are really going in this medical world.   I speak from street level, not some high level interior job.   Where many of the hospital facts likely do not reach.   I speak from experiences in Ohio, Colorado, Arizona, California, Florida, and Mississippi.   Mostly California, Colorado, and Arizona.   If you don't believe what I have posted, fine.   But that is no reason to say I am telling lies.   It is just somethings that for some reason you have not had experience with.

You called me a nasty Republican in one of your hate episodes.    Well, I agree, we should get rid of the Republicans.   And we should also get rid of those evil Democrats too.   We should put this country back into it's constitutional structure and have no political parties to try to destroy our US ways and turn it into something else.   We should just have the Representatives and Senators elected from their districts, go to Washington and decide what is best for their electing districts and work it out with the rest of the elected folks.   No more of all this outside political pressures that only work for their own very selfish wants and needs. 

Both political parties are no longer thinking of the needs of the people but the wants of the political parties.   Pretty small minded folks on both sides.   That is not the way our constitution was designed as it was first, for the people and second for the towns and territories (states) involved.   This federal government was intended to be second to the people, not some demanding self centered power house.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 23, 2015)

It's clear Bob doesn't understand the importance of your vast experience of 35 years and it's effect on your comments.  It's like a layman going into a operating theater and telling the surgeon how to perform the operation.  He is in his own world on this issue.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

Bob... I'm * IN *the medical world..  I WORK in the medical world..  I am involved in documentation and BILLING... It's NOT just my opinions... it's what is actually going on in the medical world..  It's not your fault that you don't understand what happens.  You don't have inside knowledge of it..   Just don't negate the facts coming from someone who does... I don't feel bad about saying this, but seriously.. I happen to know more about it than you do..


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> It's clear Bob doesn't understand the importance of your vast experience of 35 years and it's effect on your comments.  It's like a layman going into a operating theater and telling the surgeon how to perform the operation.  He is in his own world on this issue.



Yes.. and as silly as if a doctor joined our group and posted in the "Health" section..about how to perform a procedure.  I certainly wouldn't argue with him and tell him.. WELL... "that's just your opinion"   It really is sad though... Sometimes Bob could really learn something if he would just realize he doesn't know everything.

Everyone, of course,  is entitled to their opinions,  Just not their own facts.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

AZ Jim said:


> It's clear Bob doesn't understand the importance of your vast experience of 35 years and it's effect on your comments.  It's like a layman going into a operating theater and telling the surgeon how to perform the operation.  He is in his own world on this issue.



Jim, now your are talking just as biased as she is.   I did not say her years were lies or nonsense.  I believe I was saying that my experience is what I went through and have spoken of.   Her experiences are hers and mine are mine.   If she can not accept that to be the way it is, too bad.   Both of us are telling what we have seen and known.   Now I wonder just what I have spoken of is so nasty and bad that my words can not be accepted by some.   I know that some hospitals have open ER's, is that wrong?    I know that some folks with no money have no insurance and no money.   Is that wrong?  

 Sometimes charges are set quite high so negotiations can take place depending on the situation.   Far too much is kept secret and we only get to see our personal charges and insurance coverage of that amount.   Most prices would scare me pretty badly.   We never see a list of charges in any medical place I have gone to.   Only when we get to the low lever tests do we see any fixed prices.    Such and such for this, do you want to pay up front or by insurance etc.   

One charge I never saw and it was in two hospitals, one in New Mexico and one in Arizona.   My brain tumor, suspected in Colorado, sent to New Mexico for the brain tumor operation, then on to Arizona for the radiation follow up.    Then back to New Mexico for the follow up meetings and tests.   Never heard of the charges asked, nor the amounts paid by the insurance.   But did get final notice payments of some amount.


----------



## BobF (Sep 23, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Bob... I'm * IN *the medical world..  I WORK in the medical world..  I am involved in documentation and BILLING... It's NOT just my opinions... it's what is actually going on in the medical world..  It's not your fault that you don't understand what happens.  You don't have inside knowledge of it..   Just don't negate the facts coming from someone who does... I don't feel bad about saying this, but seriously.. I happen to know more about it than you do..



So you are in the medical world.   Does that make you a know it all genius of some sort?    You can claim all you want but don't say what my experiences are are wrong.   You are not in my shoes and have no idea what experiences I have had.   We do have ER's that accept sick folks on weekends and they also help these folks to get better.   Sometimes I understand they do not charge these folks and just put it aside.   I even spoke of one we had in California that wrote me off my debts, and they were quite high as my son was premature and ended up in Stanford Hospital critical care unit for over a month when he was allowed to come home with us.   Tough times do get recognized and excused by some hospitals.   For anyone to say my experiences are not real is wrong as wrong can be.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 23, 2015)

BobF said:


> Jim, now your are talking just as biased as she is.   I did not say her years were lies or nonsense.  I believe I was saying that my experience is what I went through and have spoken of.   Her experiences are hers and mine are mine.   If she can not accept that to be the way it is, too bad.   Both of us are telling what we have seen and known.   Now I wonder just what I have spoken of is so nasty and bad that my words can not be accepted by some.   I know that some hospitals have open ER's, is that wrong?    I know that some folks with no money have no insurance and no money.   Is that wrong?
> 
> Sometimes charges are set quite high so negotiations can take place depending on the situation.   Far too much is kept secret and we only get to see our personal charges and insurance coverage of that amount.   Most prices would scare me pretty badly.   We never see a list of charges in any medical place I have gone to.   Only when we get to the low lever tests do we see any fixed prices.    Such and such for this, do you want to pay up front or by insurance etc.
> 
> One charge I never saw and it was in two hospitals, one in New Mexico and one in Arizona.   My brain tumor, suspected in Colorado, sent to New Mexico for the brain tumor operation, then on to Arizona for the radiation follow up.    Then back to New Mexico for the follow up meetings and tests.   Never heard of the charges asked, nor the amounts paid by the insurance.   But did get final notice payments of some amount.



Thank you for this last post.   You have cleared up a lot of things.   Now I understand a whole lot better..


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 24, 2015)

Defunding would cost the government dearly, more here. 


On Thursday, the Senate will vote on a bill to keep government operations running that also includes a measure to defund Planned Parenthood. That vote comes after the House passed a bill stripping the women’s health organization of all federal funding last week.

The issue of defunding Planned Parenthood has now gotten tangled up in the question of whether Congress can successfully pass a bill with enough funding to keep the government open before a shutdown would kick in on October 1. Some Republicans are demanding that the organization lose its funding in return for any support of a bill that would keep the government open.

But for the party that bills itself as fiscally responsible and concerned with deficits, the move doesn’t make much sense. Beyond the fact that a shutdown itself is costly, defunding Planned Parenthood would come with a huge price tag.

Earlier this week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the nonpartisan agency tasked with determining the costs of proposed legislation, released its findings that permanently stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would increase government spending by $130 million over a decade.

Federal funding constitutes about a third of the organization’s overall revenues, most of it from Medicaid. It’s not clear whether, how, and when Planned Parenthood would be able to replace that money with other sources, but the CBO estimated that any ability to cover the gap would eventually dry up. 

That would reduce reproductive care for somewhere between 5 and 25 percent of the people it currently serves, mostly women in low-income areas where few other options exist. The Guttmacher Institute recently found that among the 491 counties with Planned Parenthood clinics currently, there are no other centers in 103 of them where low-income patients can get affordable contraceptive services.
Without those services, the women in those areas would have a harder time avoiding unwanted pregnancies. The additional births would have to be covered by Medicaid, as would the needs of the children as they grew up and potentially other social safety net programs. 

Given all of those factors, Medicaid spending alone would increase by $650 million over 10 years, and even with the estimated savings of not giving funding to Planned Parenthood, net spending would increase.

Some places have faced the reality of these numbers. In 2011, Texas lawmakers slashed family planning funding by $73 million — but after learning that it would mean the delivery of 24,000 babies that women wouldn’t have otherwise had, at a cost of $273 million to cover the medical expenses and care for the infants, lawmakers of both parties worked to reinstate funding. Still, they pursued a state-wide family planning network that excluded Planned Parenthood, and the workaround is estimated to cost the state between $5.5 and $6.6 million. And today, more than half of Texas women say they’ve faced at least one barrier to getting needed reproductive health services.

In general, funding family planning services is incredibly cost effective. For every dollar spent on providing women with access to contraception through these programs, the federal government saves $3.74 by avoiding unwanted births. In general, every dollar spent on publicly funded family planning services come with huge savings — more than $7 — thanks to preventing unwanted births as well as through other preventative care measures such as STI testing and Pap smears.

Unplanned pregnancies also come at a financial cost to the women who have them, beyond potential emotional and physical costs. In a study, women who weren’t able to obtain an abortion were three times more likely to fall into poverty in the subsequent two years than those who were able to get one. Among women who seek abortions, one of the most frequently cited reasons is because they can’t afford to have a baby.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

The Senate Dems defeated the bill yesterday...  Oh well....


----------



## BobF (Sep 25, 2015)

That means the Republican Senators were not fully aboard with the Republican House ideas.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

BobF said:


> That means the Republican Senators were not fully aboard with the Republican House ideas.



NO.... that means that they didn't have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster.  There isn't 60 Republican senators in the Senate.

BUT that's a moot point anyway..  With boehner stepping down the end of October, and the budget deadline October 1st.  He is now free to put a budget up for a vote with the help of the House Democrats.  A budget that will pass the Senate with the help of the Democrats.    And the loonie toons can just suck eggs.. because there is nothing they can do to him..


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

Why is Boehner stepping down?


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 25, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Why is Boehner stepping down?



He is tired of trying to run the House and do what is right for the country, at the same time trying to appease the loony Right Wing Teaparty caucus who want to destroy the government..  Who knows.. maybe the Pope got to him.. but by stepping down the end of October, he has time to get a budget passed with the help of the House Democrats... and there is nothing the Teaparty can do to him.  They can't threaten to boot him out as speaker because he is already going..   I think Boehner actually does care about the country and sees how they are destroying it.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

Wow, good for him. The teabagger contingent must be postal. How did the Teaparty come by it's name?


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> Wow, good for him. The teabagger contingent must be postal. How did the Teaparty come by it's name?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Tea_Party


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 25, 2015)

I understand the reference to the original Boston Tea Party which was included in Canadian high school curriculum, but I am unclear how that resonates with the modern Teabaggers.


----------



## AZ Jim (Sep 25, 2015)

Shalimar said:


> I understand the reference to the original Boston Tea Party which was included in Canadian high school curriculum, but I am unclear how that resonates with the modern Teabaggers.



I don't know what they do or say that resonates with normal people.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 29, 2015)

I caught part of this hearing on TV today, glad to hear Rep. Cummings speak up about the hypocrisy....more and video here.


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 29, 2015)

I've seen bits and pieces.. That was no hearing... it was political theater


----------



## Jackie22 (Sep 30, 2015)

Republican/Tea Party trying to defund Planned Parenthood is just another wasted effort of time and money, same with their efforts on ACA and investigating Hillary.

Instead of producing positive, constructive legislation they are constantly looking for a boogie man in every corner.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 30, 2015)

Producer of the misleading edited Planned Parenthood videos admits they're a fraud.  More here. 


Daleiden has had a lot of practice crafting false videos in the name of manipulating public opinion against a woman having access to legal and safe abortions. He also had a lot of practice in deception, such as when he created a phony company called BioMax.

Based on the interview with CNN, he is less competent at deception when he’s asked questions

For Republicans, letting Daleiden speak meant the truth might slip out. Daleiden might admit that in the 43 edits he took quotes out of context and falsely attributed quotes to Planned Parenthood employees. He might remind people that the “full version” of the video is just a less edited version.

Daleiden’s organization Center for Medical Progress is part of a network of anti-choice groups.

One of Daleiden’s long-time friends is Lila Rose, president of the anti-choice group Live Action. She pointed to the benefits of spacing out the release of those videos.The power of having time to evaluate each exposé is very helpful in public education,” Rose said, adding that they also deserve the scrutiny of people in “regulatory bodies.


​For Republicans, Daleiden was the perfect choice to produce and doctor the video attack on Planned Parenthood. He has ties to Operation Rescue. Interestingly, Planned Parenthood was awarded an $880,000 judgment in 1999 because of Operation Rescue’s harassment and intimidation of PP’s staff.


----------



## Shalimar (Sep 30, 2015)

SB  will any fraud charges be leveled do you think?


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 30, 2015)

I have no idea Shalimar, but charges would be fitting.


----------

