Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 35

Thread: Trump cuts 60 million from PP

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default Trump cuts 60 million from PP

    http://www.lifenews.com/2018/05/18/p...payer-funding/

    So for context what is 60 million? Is that 20% 50% ? something else? I couldnt find any sources.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  2. The Following User Groans At tsuke For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (05-19-2018)

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to tsuke For This Post:

    Oracle Of JPP 714 (05-19-2018)

  4. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Total annual revenue $1.3 B
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Rune For This Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (05-19-2018)

  6. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    What a shame...

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Margaret Sanger "What Every Girl Should Know'.
    I just found out she was against masturbation. I wonder what she would say if she were present today and saw all the masturbation devices in the Sex Shops?

  8. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    The United States spends about $260 million in Title X funds annually for family planning for low-income individuals, and Planned Parenthood is a huge recipient of those funds, as much as $50-$60 million annually.

    This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law,” a Trump administration official said. “Any grantees that perform, support, or refer for abortion have a choice – disentangle themselves from abortion or fund their activities with privately raised funds.”

    Of course, Planned Parenthood is unwilling to do so. Abortion is its primary focus, and it already is threatening a lawsuit to stop the defunding. However, the proposal is modeled after similar Reagan administration rules that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991.

  9. The Following User Groans At dukkha For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (05-19-2018)

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Stretch (05-19-2018)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    This possibly could be coordinated with the immigrant program. You know, get more poor people to have children, and then we need less immigrants to do the grunt work?

  12. The Following User Groans At Jack For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (05-19-2018)

  13. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    56,487
    Thanks
    25,104
    Thanked 20,414 Times in 16,403 Posts
    Groans
    129
    Groaned 1,433 Times in 1,355 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    That must be it...
    Or:
    Just separate the abortion services and facilities from everything else offered. That was easy...

  14. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    The United States spends about $260 million in Title X funds annually for family planning for low-income individuals, and Planned Parenthood is a huge recipient of those funds, as much as $50-$60 million annually.

    This proposal does not necessarily defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they’re willing to disentangle taxpayer funds from abortion as a method of family planning, which is required by the Title X law,” a Trump administration official said. “Any grantees that perform, support, or refer for abortion have a choice – disentangle themselves from abortion or fund their activities with privately raised funds.”

    Of course, Planned Parenthood is unwilling to do so. Abortion is its primary focus, and it already is threatening a lawsuit to stop the defunding. However, the proposal is modeled after similar Reagan administration rules that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in Rust v. Sullivan in 1991.
    They give long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) to poor women in the Third World and in Europe. So why can't they do the same in the US?

    https://sexwise.fpa.org.uk/contracep...raception-larc

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    dukkha (05-19-2018)

  16. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    They give long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) to poor women in the Third World and in Europe. So why can't they do the same in the US?

    https://sexwise.fpa.org.uk/contracep...raception-larc
    they can give whatever they want as far as im concerned. The problem is that they support Democrats exclusively. It doesnt make sense for the GOP to want to fund something that actively works to oppose it.
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  17. The Following User Groans At tsuke For This Awful Post:

    FUCK THE POLICE (05-19-2018)

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Yeah but defense contractors that donate to republicans aren't a problem.

    Are you proposing that any entity that qualifies for federal funds become a totally apolitical organization and that no part of it can donate to their preferred candidates? Because that's a violation of the 1st amendment. Or do you just wasn't to penalize the ones that give to democrats? Because that's also a violation of the first amendment.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    61,320
    Thanks
    7,144
    Thanked 8,821 Times in 6,166 Posts
    Groans
    5,805
    Groaned 1,532 Times in 1,444 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    The federal government is not the personal fiefdom of the party that controls it, it shouldn't abuse it's part to favor the party.
    "Do not think that I came to bring peace... I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

  20. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    5,115
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,177 Times in 991 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 313 Times in 276 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    This possibly could be coordinated with the immigrant program. You know, get more poor people to have children, and then we need less immigrants to do the grunt work?
    There is a down side to this. Poor immigrants with limited access to birth control will be having more babies, which will make whites the minority in America sooner.

  21. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    hvilleherb.
    Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.
    We import immigrant Labor to do work. Americans could do the work, but they would want a Living Wage, immigrants will work for less.
    So. If we (the State) create MORE proletarians (poor working class Americans) we can eliminate the 'immigrants' (foreigners).

    As it is now with birth control (it's many forms, abortion being one) First World Nations aren't producing enough offspring. By eliminating PP, the State can force poor women into bearing more children. Naturally, the well-off can afford flights to Canada or where ever. But, the point would be an increase of American children.

  22. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    15,536
    Thanks
    1,378
    Thanked 3,981 Times in 3,024 Posts
    Groans
    130
    Groaned 841 Times in 781 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Wokest View Post
    Yeah but defense contractors that donate to republicans aren't a problem.

    Are you proposing that any entity that qualifies for federal funds become a totally apolitical organization and that no part of it can donate to their preferred candidates? Because that's a violation of the 1st amendment. Or do you just wasn't to penalize the ones that give to democrats? Because that's also a violation of the first amendment.
    the second one brother watermark
    is on twitter @realtsuke

    https://tsukesthoughts.wordpress.com/

  23. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    land-locked in Ocala,FL
    Posts
    27,321
    Thanks
    30,862
    Thanked 16,758 Times in 11,557 Posts
    Groans
    1,063
    Groaned 889 Times in 847 Posts

    Default

    Taxpayers already pay for the poor's Medicaid. No need for us to fund another agency for women's health issues.

    *****

    States establish and administer their own Medicaid programs and determine the type, amount, duration, and scope of services within broad federal guidelines. Federal law requires states to provide certain “mandatory” benefits and allows states the choice of covering other “optional” benefits. Mandatory benefits include services like inpatient and outpatient hospital services, physician services, laboratory and x-ray services, and home health services, among others. Optional benefits include services like prescription drugs, case management, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. See a list of mandatory and optional benefits for Medicaid programs.
    https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/benefits/index.html

    *****

    List of Medicaid Benefits
    The list below outlines mandatory Medicaid benefits, which states are required to provide under federal law, and optional benefits that states may cover if they choose.
    Mandatory Benefits

    •Inpatient hospital services
    •Outpatient hospital services
    •EPSDT: Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Services
    •Nursing Facility Services
    •Home health services
    •Physician services
    •Rural health clinic services
    •Federally qualified health center services
    •Laboratory and X-ray services
    •Family planning services
    •Nurse Midwife services
    •Certified Pediatric and Family Nurse Practitioner services
    •Freestanding Birth Center services (when licensed or otherwise recognized by the state)
    •Transportation to medical care
    •Tobacco cessation counseling for pregnant women

    Optional Benefits

    •Prescription Drugs
    •Clinic services
    •Physical therapy
    •Occupational therapy
    •Speech, hearing and language disorder services
    •Respiratory care services
    •Other diagnostic, screening, preventive and rehabilitative services
    •Podiatry services
    •Optometry services
    •Dental Services
    •Dentures
    •Prosthetics
    •Eyeglasses
    •Chiropractic services
    •Other practitioner services
    •Private duty nursing services
    •Personal Care
    •Hospice
    •Case management
    •Services for Individuals Age 65 or Older in an Institution for Mental Disease (IMD)
    •Services in an intermediate care facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disability
    •State Plan Home and Community Based Services- 1915(i)
    •Self-Directed Personal Assistance Services- 1915(j)
    •Community First Choice Option- 1915(k)
    •TB Related Services
    •Inpatient psychiatric services for individuals under age 21
    •Other services approved by the Secretary*
    •Health Homes for Enrollees with Chronic Conditions – Section 1945

    *This includes services furnished in a religious nonmedical health care institution, emergency hospital services by a non-Medicare certified hospital, and critical access hospital (CAH).

    ***********************

    Contraception in Medicaid: Improving Maternal and Infant Health

    Medicaid and CHIP are payers of about half of all births in the U.S.

    Related Resources
    FAQs: Medicaid Family Planning Services and Supplies (PDF 76.29 KB)
    Maternal and Infant Health Care Quality
    Contraception in Medicaid: Improving Maternal and Infant Health Questions and Answers (PDF 212.46 KB)
    Medicaid Family Planning Services and Supplies (SHO 16-008) (PDF 148.43 KB)
    Family Planning and Family Planning Related Services Clarification (SMD 14-003) (PDF 110.03 KB)
    State Medicaid Director Letter (SMD 10-013) (PDF 175.39 KB)
    Collaborative Improvement & Innovation Network to Reduce Infant Mortality
    CDC's Reproductive Health Contraception Page
    U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010

    The Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services (CMCS) has established a Maternal and Infant Health Initiative (PDF 114.29 KB) (the Initiative) for the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under the Initiative, CMCS will promote the use of effective methods of contraception in order to improve pregnancy timing and spacing and in turn, the health outcomes for both women and children.

    A variety of contraceptive methods are available today such as barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms, and sponges), hormonal methods (pills, patches, rings, injectibles) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants). Each method has different characteristics that influence an individual’s choice; these include: effectiveness , side effects, frequency of use, and cost. In order for an individual to be able to select and use the most appropriate method for his or her circumstances, the method of choice must be both accessible and affordable.

    Improving birth outcomes is both a public health and a budgetary priority for Medicaid and CHIP. By ensuring individuals have access to the contraceptive method of their choice, and the support necessary to use their chosen method effectively, states can support not only the health of women and their children, but also reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

    Opportunities

    States have a variety of tools available to address the factors that influence access to, choice of, and use of contraception. There is no single solution that addresses all of the factors that may affect a consumer. States should consider a multi-faceted approach that engages state and federal staff, the provider and stakeholder communities, and consumers.

    State Plans and State Plan Amendments

    States that are interested in learning more about the flexibility available under the state plan or the family planning state plan option should contact their CMS regional office. For more information see the State Plan Amendments (SPAs) page.

    Section 1115 Demonstrations

    States that are interested in section 1115 family planning demonstrations should contact the family planning demonstration team at Family_Planning_Demos@cms.hhs.gov to learn more about this option. For more information Demonstrations & Waivers page, or learn how to apply.

    Other Federal Programs

    A number of federal agencies, in addition to CMS, work on issues related to improving the health and wellbeing of women and children, including on the issue of contraception. States may wish to consult with these programs when considering how to address the factors that affect contraception access and use. Examples of these programs include the Title X program overseen by the Office of Population Affairs and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Winnable Battles , which include a focus on teen pregnancy . The CDC’s Division of Reproductive Health offers information on maternal and infant health and contraception, as does the Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA’s) Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) .

    State Initiatives

    States have significant flexibility under the Medicaid program regarding the provision of contraception, allowing states to identify ways to improve access to contraception.

    For example, some states are looking at ways to alter bundled payments to support postpartum insertion of LARC for women who are interested in this option.

    In 2012, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (SCDHHS) updated its Medicaid payment policy to unbundle payment for delivery and for the costs associated with immediate postpartum insertion of LARC. Under this policy, providers are reimbursed specifically for both the insertion procedure and the costs of an IUD or an implant in addition to the costs of the delivery. While it is too early to quantify the impact of this policy change, it is expected to increase LARC utilization and reduce rates of mistimed and unintended pregnancy (for more information, please see Have You Heard April 2013 ).

    Other states have taken different payment approaches to improve access to LARC in Medicaid. CMS issued an Informational Bulletin (PDF 233.24 KB) that describes emerging payment approaches that several state Medicaid agencies have used to optimize access and use of LARC. States interested in exploring the flexibilities that exist under current rules and regulations should contact their regional office.
    https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/qu...ion/index.html
    Abortion rights dogma can obscure human reason & harden the human heart so much that the same person who feels
    empathy for animal suffering can lack compassion for unborn children who experience lethal violence and excruciating
    pain in abortion.

    Unborn animals are protected in their nesting places, humans are not. To abort something is to end something
    which has begun. To abort life is to end it.



  24. The Following User Groans At Stretch For This Awful Post:

    Rune (05-19-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 59
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 03:41 PM
  2. Trump cuts UN $; minus 285 million :)
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-25-2017, 12:43 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-22-2013, 07:41 AM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 09-05-2011, 01:33 PM
  5. Replies: 84
    Last Post: 02-24-2011, 11:08 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

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