TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Sept 25, 2015 7:17:22 GMT -5
It actually is a refreshingly honest answer. It means she is annoyed that environmentalists are treating this pipeline as the defining issue of the day when it isn't, but she will oppose it so she can move the climate/environmental debate on to issues she thinks are much more important. It means she was dragged into this position by Sanders. Her first position was that she was inclined to approve Keystone, her second was a dodge that she couldn't answer the Keystone question until she was President, and finally she's dragged here. Her answer is a begrudging reality that given the change in tide in Canadian politics and with the market for oil right now, the market has already written off Keystone. What exactly does she think are more important in the climate/environmental debate? The only things she has on her website are some vague renewable energy goals that probably will be settled by the market in the timeframe she's proposing them.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 25, 2015 8:50:59 GMT -5
It actually is a refreshingly honest answer. It means she is annoyed that environmentalists are treating this pipeline as the defining issue of the day when it isn't, but she will oppose it so she can move the climate/environmental debate on to issues she thinks are much more important. The distortion of environmental priorities by groups looking for a fund-raising hook is a very common frustration among Democratic policy people in Congress but is rarely said out loud. Could not disagree more with this assessment. She wanted to walk the famous Clintonian line of waffling in the middle ground until it's safe to do something. She doesn't want to offend potential donors. It's not a distraction, it's part of the job. Her real issue is she is not used to being forced to confront a base that is no longer happy with 90's style triangulation. Like everything else, it was purely calculated. (Edit just to not add a new post) - www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/24/jeb-bush-win-black-voters-with-aspiration-not-free-stuff/Good ol' Jeb showing that just because he's a milquetoast version of his brother doesn't mean he can't outdo him on idiotic, racist b.s.
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Sept 25, 2015 20:45:39 GMT -5
The pipeline is just not that big a deal. There are pipelines all over the place. There are risks and rewards to be balanced but both are relatively small and more symbolic than real. There are many more important environmental policy concerns. Much better management of coastal and river watershed flood plains is a much bigger national priority. So is having competent and accountable management of the environmental laws and policies already in place. There are spills, illegal dumping, negligence, etc. all over the country that the federal government never detects because it trusts corrupt state and local governments to enforce the federal laws. I was always amazed when I worked on the Hill that in our coastal district the beaches and fisheries had to be closed because of bacteria and various toxic pollution every time there was a heavy rain yet all the local environmentalists cared about was the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 30, 2015 7:30:11 GMT -5
What idiot would waste $300M/day on a shutdown to stop $500M being spent on women's health? Oh, right: Daily Edge
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 30, 2015 9:02:08 GMT -5
What idiot would waste $300M/day on a shutdown to stop $500M being spent on women's health? Oh, right: Daily Edge Unless of course the equation is not about money and is about a conviction that baby parts should not be harvested and sold. Not my position by the way, but not everything revolves to dollars...
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 30, 2015 9:20:59 GMT -5
What idiot would waste $300M/day on a shutdown to stop $500M being spent on women's health? Oh, right: [g" alt=""] Daily Edge Unless of course the equation is not about money and is about a conviction that baby parts should not be harvested and sold. Not my position by the way, but not everything revolves to dollars... Agree with you there. This isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about lying and cynical demagoguery.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 30, 2015 11:28:27 GMT -5
Unless of course the equation is not about money and is about a conviction that baby parts should not be harvested and sold. Not my position by the way, but not everything revolves to dollars... Agree with you there. This isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about lying and cynical demagoguery. What's the lie? PP does harvest organs and it does provide abortions. I fail to see why PP needs federal funds.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,906
|
Post by Filo on Sept 30, 2015 12:17:18 GMT -5
Agree with you there. This isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about lying and cynical demagoguery. What's the lie? PP does harvest organs and it does provide abortions. I fail to see why PP needs federal funds. Do you really? So you throw the baby our with the bathwater (bad imagery here, I know)? PP does a helluva lot of good. It would be a tragedy for a lot of women if they lose access to medical services provided by PP.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 30, 2015 12:21:53 GMT -5
A quick google search will show you that the videos were intentionally manipulated and edited to present a false story. The use of fetal tissue or PP providing abortions is neither new nor news, outside of the fact that the right-wing outrage machine has dictated to its followers that this is the month's focus. If you don't believe that PP should receive federal funds, that's fine. But that has nothing to do with the videos in question.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Sept 30, 2015 12:59:48 GMT -5
What's the lie? PP does harvest organs and it does provide abortions. I fail to see why PP needs federal funds. Do you really? So you throw the baby our with the bathwater (bad imagery here, I know)? PP does a helluva lot of good. It would be a tragedy for a lot of women if they lose access to medical services provided by PP. But Obamacare covers all of that. Again, no one says PP has to go away. But why should the federal government fund the organization?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Sept 30, 2015 13:44:35 GMT -5
Do you really? So you throw the baby our with the bathwater (bad imagery here, I know)? PP does a helluva lot of good. It would be a tragedy for a lot of women if they lose access to medical services provided by PP. But Obamacare covers all of that. Again, no one says PP has to go away. But why should the federal government fund the organization? The federal government (whether through Obamacare or not) wants to fund places where women in need can receive essential medical care. You can debate whether even that is a good idea or not, but that is the idea. Just because Obamacare pays for it doesn't mean there's actually somewhere for women conveniently to get the service. PP has an infrastructure in place to provide precisely those services, so it makes sense from an efficiency standpoint to pay the organization to provide the services. The problem (to a portion of the electorate) is that they also do other things; hence the rule that the funding can't go toward those other things. If the right wing were serious about dealing with the issue, they'd also propose -- very specifically -- how they're going to ensure that the exact same population of women will have equivalent access to care. Sure, they've said they'll take the "same money" and use it for existing "community health centers," but the problem is that those existing centers don't cover nearly as many women. So, to provide equivalent coverage, you'd actually have to spend MORE money than you spend now by funding PP. That is, you'd have to spend new money to set up new clinics to cover women in areas where existing non-PP clinics don't provide coverage. That's simply a fact. An inconvenient one. But a fact nevertheless. And that's the problem: You've got two ends of the Republican base (we can't spend more / kill PP) at direct odds. So, instead, you get grandstanding.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Sept 30, 2015 15:23:46 GMT -5
And that's the problem: You've got two ends of the Republican base (we can't spend more / kill PP) at direct odds. So, instead, you get grandstanding. Is it really two ends? Or is it the same people being outraged at both things alternately depending on what the conserva-Internet has ginned up that week?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 30, 2015 15:26:50 GMT -5
So I might be clear on this. The argument is that the videos are faked, or is it okay to harvest and sell baby parts?
Which?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Sept 30, 2015 15:33:54 GMT -5
So I might be clear on this. The argument is that the videos are faked, or is it okay to harvest and sell baby parts? Which? Your clever rhetorical trap is going to end abortions, great job!
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Sept 30, 2015 18:36:45 GMT -5
Most of the "federal funding" of PP, about 75%, consists of Medicaid pmts. By making the organization ineligible for Medicaid, low income individuals suffer reduced access to healthcare. As we all know, abortion drives the defund PP effort, yet only about 3% of PP's healthcare services last yr were abortion related. That's 3% of over 10MM healthcare services provided.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 1, 2015 13:52:34 GMT -5
Most of the "federal funding" of PP, about 75%, consists of Medicaid pmts. By making the organization ineligible for Medicaid, low income individuals suffer reduced access to healthcare. As we all know, abortion drives the defund PP effort, yet only about 3% of PP's healthcare services last yr were abortion related. That's 3% of over 10MM healthcare services provided. You're right on the dollars, but misleading on the 3%. If you combine federal, state, and local government funding, PP got $528 million (41 percent of its revenue) during FY 2013–2014. That's up from $203 million (30 percent of Planned Parenthood’s consolidated revenue) during its fiscal year 2000–2001. However, the 3% claim is very misleading. That claim counts each “discrete clinical interaction” as a separate “medical service,” meaning simple tests or routine provision of birth control are given the same weight as surgical or chemical abortions. For example, if a woman in the course of a year receives a free condom, a pregnancy test, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) test, and an abortion, Planned Parenthood would say abortion was only 25 percent of the services provided. One of these things is not like the others. Based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year, Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP does 1/3 of all abortions. Those numbers are troubling to a lot of people. That's why many think we should make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive Medicaid reimbursements (and Title X grants to be honest) if they continue to perform abortions. There are more than 9,000 federally qualified health center sites throughout the country that provide comprehensive primary health care without the stain of abortion. Redirect taxpayer money to those entities.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 1, 2015 13:56:50 GMT -5
And that's the problem: You've got two ends of the Republican base (we can't spend more / kill PP) at direct odds. So, instead, you get grandstanding. They're not at odds. Make PP ineligible for Medicaid and Title X funds. That will "kill PP"* and allow those funds to go to other health providers without spending more. * "Kill PP is an awfully strong, isn't it. Why don't you use something more palatable like "harvest the organs of PP?"
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 1, 2015 19:41:47 GMT -5
Most of the "federal funding" of PP, about 75%, consists of Medicaid pmts. By making the organization ineligible for Medicaid, low income individuals suffer reduced access to healthcare. As we all know, abortion drives the defund PP effort, yet only about 3% of PP's healthcare services last yr were abortion related. That's 3% of over 10MM healthcare services provided. You're right on the dollars, but misleading on the 3%. If you combine federal, state, and local government funding, PP got $528 million (41 percent of its revenue) during FY 2013–2014. That's up from $203 million (30 percent of Planned Parenthood’s consolidated revenue) during its fiscal year 2000–2001. However, the 3% claim is very misleading. That claim counts each “discrete clinical interaction” as a separate “medical service,” meaning simple tests or routine provision of birth control are given the same weight as surgical or chemical abortions. For example, if a woman in the course of a year receives a free condom, a pregnancy test, a sexually transmitted infection (STI) test, and an abortion, Planned Parenthood would say abortion was only 25 percent of the services provided. One of these things is not like the others. Based on the approximately 300,000 abortions they perform each year, Planned Parenthood affiliates perform about 20 abortions for every prenatal care visit and about 200 abortions for every adoption referral. PP does 1/3 of all abortions. Those numbers are troubling to a lot of people. That's why many think we should make Planned Parenthood ineligible to receive Medicaid reimbursements (and Title X grants to be honest) if they continue to perform abortions. There are more than 9,000 federally qualified health center sites throughout the country that provide comprehensive primary health care without the stain of abortion. Redirect taxpayer money to those entities. You are correct in that whatever gets medically coded counts as a service. Nonetheless, abortions represent a small percentage of the healthcare provided to economically disadvantaged people. The majority of healthcare services provided by PP involve contraception and addressing STD health issues. No matter how you slice it, the non abortion services swamp abortions. Less than 20% of the number of patients seen terminate pregnancies. PP is a large business. The fact that the organization performs a significant number of abortions should be expected, since this particular large business targets the sexual and reproductive health segments of the medical industry. Would the same people who find PP's abortion numbers troubling be less troubled if that service were provided at its current level by more providers? PP is just an easy target to make a political point, once again at the expense of those who need it most. IMO.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Oct 1, 2015 19:52:54 GMT -5
No one disputes that PP performs valuable services often in disadvantaged areas.
However, the harvesting and sale of body parts from aborted babies is abhorrent and indefensible.
Doing a lot of good for a lot of people is not a free pass to commit atrocities. It just isn't.
PP should stick to providing health services, including legal abortion, and get out of the horror business ASAP.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Oct 6, 2015 14:55:14 GMT -5
Clinton took unemployment from 7% to 4% Bush from 4% to 8% Obama has taken it from 8% to 5%. Questions?
|
|