• 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!

Judge blocks Texas cutting Medicaid to Planned Parenthood

SocialD said:
Oh come on now you know there isn't a way to actually determine how PP uses the money given to them. They can just report tax payer money was spent on say a mammogram and that they spent private money on the abortion they did. you cant really prove either way.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what is REIMBURSEMENT? They are not given money they are reimbursed to money they spent for the services they render. Have someone explain it to you.
 
Chillfolks said:
I approve of the preexisting clause rule. I wish it did more to cover dential and vision. I would of like to of seen more emphasis on preventative measures like diet and exercise. I don't approve of the mandate and how the penalties are assessed.

So my final answer is kinda just depends.
Click to expand...

Well, my example came from how Obamacare is handled. Which by the by, that part has nothing to do with the mandate.

The point is that reimbursement is giving money for money that is already spent. As such that money that is reimbursed has to go to that same thing in order for that thing to continue. No amount of creative accounting can change that fact. Particularly when the organization that receives such money has to show that it went for that particular thing and not something else. Line item by line item.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Well, my example came from how Obamacare is handled. Which by the by, that part has nothing to do with the mandate.

The point is that reimbursement is giving money for money that is already spent. As such that money that is reimbursed has to go to that same thing in order for that thing to continue. No amount of creative accounting can change that fact. Particularly when the organization that receives such money has to show that it went for that particular thing and not something else. Line item by line item.
Click to expand...


Then we shall disagree on this issue
 
prometeus said:
Cutting of funding, which is actually a misnomer since they are not funded but reimbursed for services is the same as denying services because in most instances states can not pick up the slack and the women receiving those services are entitled to them under the law.

Spare me the ignorant moronic drivel. It only works on you and the like minded.
Click to expand...


Denying federal funding is not the same as denying services. It would mean folks like you can send your money to support this organisation and folks like me can choose other organizations.


Get the funds from private sources instead of taxpayers. Why is that So much to ask?
 
prometeus said:
Do you understand what is REIMBURSEMENT? They are not given money they are reimbursed to money they spent for the services they render. Have someone explain it to you.
Click to expand...

yes and I also know how companies can manipulate that. have someone explain that to you.
And the money they get from the government is not all in reimbursement either. They get a pretty large amount in up front grant money. Yes there is a rule its not supposed to go to abortion services. but its pretty hard to enforce that.
 
Chillfolks said:
Denying federal funding is not the same as denying services.
Click to expand...
The services provided to those women in need are in accordance with the law and irrelevant of the organization. If PP is not reimbursed for the services it provides to those women it will no longer be able to provide the services and in far too many cases there are no other providers that can step in. So in effect the net result is the denial of services.

It would mean folks like you can send your money to support this organisation and folks like me can choose other organizations.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with the organization but ensuring the women get the services to which they are entitled under the law.

Get the funds from private sources instead of taxpayers.
Click to expand...
They are not getting funds.

Why is that So much to ask?
Click to expand...
Because it is still a stupid argument. The law makes certain health services available to women who can not afford them, so in effect you are again attempting to deny poor women health care services.
 
We will just disagree considering we both seem to think the others position is foolish and neither plan to change.
 
prometeus said:
The usual ignorant partisan drivel from you. Here is a clue. They did not regulate government spending. They prevented discrimination advocated by idiots.
Click to expand...

There was no discrimination. If it was, then the government would owe subsidies to every single private business in the country. Is it discrimination to give cash subsidies to wind turbine companies, but not give equal cash subsidies to oil companies?

I'm going to have fun with your post for years...thank you!
 
apdst said:
There was no discrimination. If it was, then the government would owe subsidies to every single private business in the country. Is it discrimination to give cash subsidies to wind turbine companies, but not give equal cash subsidies to oil companies?
Click to expand...
Just more ignorant drivel from you as usual. At least attempt to educate yourself on the topic before making stupid comments. The discrimination is in the form of denying PP reimbursements for services while providing it to others who supply the same.

I'm going to have fun with your post for years...thank you!
Click to expand...
I am sure you will. There is nothing unusual about people considering things funny when they are clueless about them.
 
prometeus said:
Just more ignorant drivel from you as usual. At least attempt to educate yourself on the topic before making stupid comments. The discrimination is in the form of denying PP reimbursements for services while providing it to others who supply the same.

I am sure you will. There is nothing unusual about people considering things funny when they are clueless about them.
Click to expand...

Just more vitriol, because you know I'm right.
 
apdst said:
Just more vitriol, because you know I'm right.
Click to expand...
No just facts. Now you can go and pat yourself on the back. Your self declared correctness, while expected is only proving my point.
 
apdst said:
What did you mean, then?
Click to expand...

I meant that the court in this case stood for decency, justice and common sense. It came down on the side of those qualities.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I meant that the court in this case stood for decency, justice and common sense. It came down on the side of those qualities.
Click to expand...

But, it overstepped it's authority. Just because you agree, doesn't mean it's legal. Therefore, they didn't come down on the side of justice.
 
apdst said:
But, it overstepped it's authority. Just because you agree, doesn't mean it's legal. Therefore, they didn't come down on the side of justice.
Click to expand...

Well as you've noted, that is a matter of perspective, isn't it. In my book they did the right thing. In your book, they angered some religious figure I suppose?
 
apdst said:
There was no discrimination. If it was, then the government would owe subsidies to every single private business in the country. Is it discrimination to give cash subsidies to wind turbine companies, but not give equal cash subsidies to oil companies?
Click to expand...

"Every single business in the country" doesn't fall under the relevant provisions of the Social Security Act.

Under section 1902(a)(23) of the Social Security Act, Medicaid beneficiaries generally have the right to obtain medical services “from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required . . . who undertakes to provide . . . such services.” This provision is often referred to as the “any willing provider” or “free choice of provider” provision. Implementing regulations at 42 C.F.R. § 431.51(b)(1) require a state plan to allow a beneficiary to obtain Medicaid services from any institution, agency, pharmacy, person, or organization that is (i) qualified to furnish services and (ii) willing to furnish them to that particular beneficiary. There is an exception for beneficiaries enrolled in certain managed care plans (to permit such plans to restrict beneficiaries to providers in the managed care plan network), except that such plans cannot restrict free choice of family planning providers. See section 1902(a)(23)(B); 42 C.F.R. § 431.51(b)(1); 42 C.F.R. Part 438.
Click to expand...
The “free choice of provider” provision is specific with respect to the free choice of family planning providers. Consistent with the reasonable standards guidance above, states may not deny qualification to family planning providers, or take other action against qualified family planning providers, that affects beneficiary access to those providers—whether individual providers, physician groups, outpatient clinics or hospitals—solely because they separately provide family planning services or the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care, including abortion services1 (not funded by federal Medicaid dollars, consistent with the federal prohibition), as part of their scope of practice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom