• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Medicaid Funds Cut Over Planned Parenthood

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Obama administration said Thursday it would stop funding a Texas women's health-care program after the state excluded Planned Parenthood from participating, the latest skirmish in a national battle over reproductive-health coverage.

Now before you start claiming that this is an "Obama agenda" to force Planned Parenthood onto the taxpayers, bear in mind that, during the Bush administration, Texas sought the same exemption for Planned Parenthood and was denied. Why? Because, under Federal law, states do NOT have the right to force their citizens to accept providers they do not want. Fact is that Planned Parenthood does an excellent job with cancer screenings, and because they are competent providers, people have the right to pick them as a provider, if they so choose.

What is this meme about Republicans wanting smaller government that stays out of peoples' lives? It's just a lie. Republicans, as well as Democrats, want the Federal government intruding into the lives of citizens, and the crap going on in Texas is the smoking gun which proves that fact.

Article is here.
 
Sounds like a lot like this: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Chief Justice Rehnquist said:
Our decisions have recognized that, in some circumstances, the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion.'
 
Last edited:
Now before you start claiming that this is an "Obama agenda" to force Planned Parenthood onto the taxpayers, bear in mind that, during the Bush administration, Texas sought the same exemption for Planned Parenthood and was denied. Why? Because, under Federal law, states do NOT have the right to force their citizens to accept providers they do not want. Fact is that Planned Parenthood does an excellent job with cancer screenings, and because they are competent providers, people have the right to pick them as a provider, if they so choose.

What is this meme about Republicans wanting smaller government that stays out of peoples' lives? It's just a lie. Republicans, as well as Democrats, want the Federal government intruding into the lives of citizens, and the crap going on in Texas is the smoking gun which proves that fact.

Article is here.

Yet another encroachment on states' rights. I don't know why people aren't enraged.
 
^

It is truly ridiculous, and it's a byproduct of our nation going so far off the reservation in terms of the roles of different units / levels of government.
 
Yet another encroachment on states' rights. I don't know why people aren't enraged.

no it's not. texas can do what it wants, and suffer the consequences.
 
Does PP operate as a not-for-profit?
 
Sounds like a lot like this: FindLaw | Cases and Codes

We can readily conclude that the provision is designed to serve the general welfare, especially in light of the fact that "the concept of welfare or the opposite is shaped by Congress . . . ."

The means it chose to address this dangerous situation were reasonably calculated to advance the general welfare.

so, the feds were upheld in this case, and you are arguing otherwise?
 
so, the feds were upheld in this case, and you are arguing otherwise?

South Dakota v Dole set the precedent that there is a tipping point at which Federal Funding becomes coercive, and thus, not allowed to be held against the states in lieu of performing something in which the Federal government would like them to do, but doesn't have the power to force.

In the Supreme Court case referenced above, it was 5% of their Federally allocated transportation costs. In this case, is 83% of Texas' Medicaid funding.

Later this month, the health insurance bill goes before the Supreme Court. It has a all or nothing federal monies tied to a state's setup of insurance exchanges. If the Supreme Court states that "no, that isn't coercive either", then fine, we've just given the Federal government unlimited power over the states. However, if it does state that its coersive, then we will at the very least understand what is coersive and what isn't, in respects to the Federal government and funding to the many states.

Its another case where states' rights are being challenged by the Federal government. I find it quite interesting.
 
South Dakota v Dole set the precedent that there is a tipping point at which Federal Funding becomes coercive, and thus, not allowed to be held against the states in lieu of performing something in which the Federal government would like them to do, but doesn't have the power to force.

In the Supreme Court case referenced above, it was 5% of their Federally allocated transportation costs. In this case, is 83% of Texas' Medicaid funding.

Later this month, the health insurance bill goes before the Supreme Court. It has a all or nothing federal monies tied to a state's setup of insurance exchanges. If the Supreme Court states that "no, that isn't coercive either", then fine, we've just given the Federal government unlimited power over the states. However, if it does state that its coersive, then we will at the very least understand what is coersive and what isn't, in respects to the Federal government and funding to the many states.

Its another case where states' rights are being challenged by the Federal government. I find it quite interesting.

The Federal government is not the entity being coercive here. Citizens should get to choose who does their cancer screenings. IMHO, it is the State of Texas that is using government coersion to deny choice to it's citizens. This is not a states' rights issue. Rather, it is an issue of coersion by a state against it's citizens. This is just another instance of BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans forcing it's will upon the people. This isn't a Conservative move by Texas at all, since Conservatism demands that government stay out of peoples' lives.
 
Last edited:
"Conservatism demands" people pay for their own healthcare services, though. You're already outside of that realm, talking about coerced charity care, just arguing about which unit of government should be providing coerced charity care.


Preferably, neither, but if one must do it, as small a unit as possible, with tighter limits on power the higher you go up because the level of authority in terms of implementing those powers increases...

So yeah, 10th Amendment issue and specific enumerated powers of government issue.

ALL of these cases like this - this coercive use of overtaxing at the federal level for purposes of redistribution to the states, IF the states do what the federal government wants - relate back to the 10th Amendment and the notion of limited federal authority.
 
Last edited:
That's not what they're doing here. In this case, this is a question of using government dollars to score political points by artificially limiting choices.

Actually, it seems to be a reasonable limit on what coerced charity care can pay for given the desires of the people of the state.


While sure, in a broader sense, I don't want government involved in healthcare at all... if it's going to do so anyway I REALLY don't want my tax dollars going to abortion providers, in this or any other state. That's just insult to injury.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it seems to be a reasonable limit on what coerced charity care can pay for given the desires of the people of the state. I don't want my tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood, in this or any other state.

No, it's not a reasonable limit -- you're being told that you can't go *here* for an approved medical procedure, but you can go *there* for it, when the difference is political and not a question of quality of care.
 
I disagree. I think it's reasonable to limit taxpayer funding for purveyors of human rights abuses, not just say that the money cannot directly be used for human rights abuses and call it a day.

Regardless of what my representative in Washington does, I want my representative in Austin to do so.


All the feds are doing is drying up an opportunity for ethical alternatives to Planned Parenthood to grow in size and scope. Of course, the current regime promotes the pro-abortion agenda, so they don't want that.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I think it's reasonable to limit taxpayer funding for purveyors of human rights abuses, not just say that the money cannot directly be used for human rights abuses and call it a day.

If your argument is that abortion constitutes an abuse of human rights, it's meaningless in this context because abortion is legal and we're talking about a matter of law.
 
The Federal government is not the entity being coercive here. Citizens should get to choose who does their cancer screenings. IMHO, it is the State of Texas that is using government coersion to deny choice to it's citizens. This is not a states' rights issue. Rather, it is an issue of coersion by a state against it's citizens. This is just another instance of BIG GOVERNMENT Republicans forcing it's will upon the people. This isn't a Conservative move by Texas at all, since Conservatism demands that government stay out of peoples' lives.

By accepting Medicaid, you accept that the government tells you where and when you can go for health care offerings. Yes it sucks, and that's all the more reason to not have programs like that.

Clearly the Federals have reacted to the State's choice in spending their granted funds by cutting them. If the Federal government is allowed to selectively reduce funding to an individual State as a "punishment" for a non-enforceable position, then the Federal government can force the states to dance a jig(metaphorically speaking) through coercion.
 
I find myself wondering how many people who think it's okay to force drug tests on welfare recipients don't like that Feds are cutting funds to Medicaid in Texas.
 
Actually, it seems to be a reasonable limit on what coerced charity care can pay for given the desires of the people of the state.


While sure, in a broader sense, I don't want government involved in healthcare at all... if it's going to do so anyway I REALLY don't want my tax dollars going to abortion providers, in this or any other state. That's just insult to injury.

To paraphrase John Stewart a bit:
When I get a refund check for the war in Iraq, shady defense contracts, and abstinence-only education programs, I'll pick up the tab for you on abortions and breast exams.
 
I find myself wondering how many people who think it's okay to force drug tests on welfare recipients don't like that Feds are cutting funds to Medicaid in Texas.

You realizing you are comparing Federal v State and State v Citizen, right?
 
So the Democrats have a war on Texas women? WTF?
 
Back
Top Bottom