UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1720 times:
The Susan G. Komen foundation has cut funding from Planned Parenthood citing it's current investigation into alleged use of Federal Funds in performing abortions. While Komen maintains that this was not a political decision pushed by Anti-Abortionist and conservative ideology, their newly hired VP, Karen Handel, who was endorsed by both Mit Romney and Sarah Palin, and had advocated for the pulling of funding into planned parenthood during her race for governor of the state of Georgia before joining the Komen Foundation.
Outrage over the decision has been expressed heavily over the past few days on social networking sites and in the media. Many people have expressed that they will no longer donate to Komen, but instead have directed their donations to Planned Parenthood. In the past few days, Planned Parenthood has seen a huge spike in donations that have almost exceeded the entire funding from Susan Komen in 2011.
Komen had recently implemented a new policy that they do not support organizations that are being investigated by the government. The government investigation was started as a reaction by Americans United for Life President Charmaine Yoest, who wrote a report about Planned Parenthood. Yoest was worked for Mike Huckabee and The Family Research Council. When asked about the decision she said,
Quote: “I have to say, it was some of the best news of my entire life,” “We’re so used to seeing Planned Parenthood succeed at defining themselves as the trendy place to be, and for Komen to make such a smart decision in recognizing the reality behind Planned Parenthood spin,” she adds. “As a breast cancer survivor, I was always troubled with this whole idea that the nation’s largest abortion provider was enmeshed in the breast cancer fight when they weren’t actually doing mammograms. I look at this as smart stewardship.”
Political decision? My opinion is yes. Cancer knows no politics. It doesn't care if you have 20 kids or have had 20 abortions. This IS about abortions whether you like to think it or not, and this IS a political move, spawned by political pressures. Many of the women I have talked to about this are appalled at the decision. While most of us here are men, I think it says something when around 75% of people surveyed (Don't ask me to quote this, I saw it on CNN), believe that Komen made a horrible decision. Not to mention the outcry and spike in support for Planned Parenthood. Abortions only count for a very small percentage of what Planned Parenthood does for women. Breast cancer detection and awareness, as well as feminine health issues not including abortion account for the majority of what Planned Parenthood offers women, especially those who cannot afford healthcare.
mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2490 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
I've been giving to the Susan Komen foundation for over five years.
This year I'll be donating directly to Planned Parenthood - to their breast screening fund AND to their general fund.
I've received quite an education about the Komen foundation from several of my female friends. Don't like their balance sheet much. After hefty salaries, travel expenses and promotions are paid for, there's about 20% left over for actual research.
It's too bad the religious right is fixed on this take-no-prisoners approach. Apparently all they care about is ideological purity. Perhaps it was time to dispense with this bloated foundation anyway, but it's such a shame they would take actions they know will adversely affect charitable donations toward such an important cause.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 3, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1689 times:
Don't care. They are a private foundation, they can fund (or not fund) whoever they want.
If it were an organization that received contributions that are sucked out of contributors by coercion, (government, unions in non-Right-to-work states), then it would be a different story. then it would be a question of why are they funding PP in the first place.
I am Descartes of Borg. I assimilate, therefore I am
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1670 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2): I say it's her money and she can do as she wishes with it.
Actually it is a very large pile of contributions from around the country that was supposed to go towards research and care. So it is not "her" money.
'
The donations from the FOundation to Planned Parenthood was going to mammograms for women who can't afford the costs. About 170,000 women over the past 5 years.
I guess the Foundations new policy is for the poor to simply "die fast".
Overall I believe that the Foundation has gone from a very good thing to something that is becoming all about money, not breast cancer or the women at risk.
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2265 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1668 times:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1): I've received quite an education about the Komen foundation from several of my female friends. Don't like their balance sheet much. After hefty salaries, travel expenses and promotions are paid for, there's about 20% left over for actual research.
Not to paraphrase Doc but I do feel a lot like he does on this subject. Feel free to correct me DL if I we disagree. The Komen foundation carries a huge overhead in administrative fees that most non-profits don't. Breast cancer isn't even the #1 cause of death among women, lung cancer is, but it receives a disproportionate amount of donations when compared to other causes.
SGK also trademarked the use of words like "cure" and "for the cure" and is very litigious when it comes to the use of pink in fundraising. My wife participated in some of their events and its obvious how much money is spent to organize and run them.
In the end, it is their money. They aren't a public entity and can spend it how they wish. I'm just not convinced that SGK does as much as they could with the money and emotion they collect. One could make the very same argument about the Livestrong organization.
Take a look at the National Cancer Institute funding by type of cancer and tell me what we should be raising money for, and this is just public funding, private side funding of breast cancer research is much more lopsided:
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1663 times:
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 2): I say it's her money and she can do as she wishes with it. Rather simple.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 3): Don't care. They are a private foundation, they can fund (or not fund) whoever they want.
While you are correct, no one should care, it's easier to say that for a company who makes their own profits rather than one that relies and receives almost entirely, donations from private individuals who feel strongly (especially females) that planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health. Many women who are donors are seeing this as a political move and, for lack of a better word, are disgusted by it. Komen also donates (though I'm not sure to what capacity) to several other agencies which are under federal investigation but have not extinguished funding. When you have people donating money, it's harder to challenge with "I don't care they are a private organization" than if you rely entirely on donors. Even if that weren't the case, imagine if Apple said, "The iPhone will only be sold to those identifying as white males in their 20's."
Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 374 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1653 times:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 5): She's dead! What are you talking about?
Fine, it's her foundations money. The fact remains that they can use the donations as they wish. If others are so up in arms about them no longer supporting PP, they can do as you do and donate directly to planned parenthood.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 6457 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1649 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): While you are correct, no one should care, it's easier to say that for a company who makes their own profits rather than one that relies and receives almost entirely, donations from private individuals who feel strongly (especially females) that planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health
They can do what they want. I am myself pro-choice, but I find it funny how the left has embraced an organization founded by a raging racist who established her organization for the specific purpose of reducing the Black population through free abortion and, when they could manage it voluntarily or not, sterilization.
Quote: Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger's eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the "undeniably feeble-minded" from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 2697 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Well 1: the charity can do what it wants
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
Pyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, RR: 30 Reply 12, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1497 times:
Here we go again, the abortion industrial complex getting their panties in a twist about a non-issue. Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions. I guess that now since ACORN is out of the picture the left needs a new rallying cry and they don't care who they are.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7): planned parenthood is an integral part of women's health
An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): The donations from the FOundation to Planned Parenthood was going to mammograms for women who can't afford the costs. About 170,000 women over the past 5 years.
I guess the Foundations new policy is for the poor to simply "die fast".
So you either a) did not read about the part where the Foundation said the money would be used instead to pay directly to the clinics performing the actual mammograms (Planned Parenthood does not have the necessary equipment, if it is not a hose attached to a vacuum cleaner they couldn't care less about it) or b) did read it and are deliberately misrepresenting them to score cheap political points. I will wager my bet on which one...
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 1): I've been giving to the Susan Komen foundation for over five years.
This year I'll be donating directly to Planned Parenthood
Ok, so at least you admit you don't care about breast cancer screening, your main issue is free abortions for everyone.
Quoting canoecarrier (Reply 6): Breast cancer isn't even the #1 cause of death among women, lung cancer is, but it receives a disproportionate amount of donations when compared to other causes.
Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too). And frankly, this day and age lung cancer is almost 100% preventable - if you are stupid enough to keep smoking with all the information that has been out there on the topic for decades, then maybe it is just Darwin's way of saying you shouldn't be breeding. Have destroyed too many good clothes with the stench of tobacco just for entering a bar to feel any sympathy for smokers, sorry.
Funny, I am against abortion but can't help but wondering how much faster the slip of the U.S. into socialism would have been without Planned Parenthood. Maybe they are just buying us some crucial time. Now where did I put my check-book?
I would like to thank all the MSM that created this storm in a tea-cup for bringing this to my attention, though. I was looking around for ways to spend some more money in charity and was thinking about spending my entire tax refund to support the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation and the Institute for Justice (somehow just seemed like an appropriate use of proceeds) but I might just set aside some money for Komen too.
Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
Maverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions.
Obviously, you've never been to a PP, and never known anyone that's used their services. Nice try, though.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): I was looking around for ways to spend some more money in charity and was thinking about spending my entire tax refund to support the Heritage Foundation, the Tax Foundation and the Institute for Justice (somehow just seemed like an appropriate use of proceeds) but I might just set aside some money for Komen too.
I notice the lack of the Salvation Army in that list. Maybe you should research stuff more before going all boneheaded about it.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1476 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue. Pregnancy is not a disease.
Umm, buddy, Abortions are a VERY small percentage that Planned Parenthood does for women's health. I suggest you look up what that small percentage is, and while you're at it, look up what funding from Komen has gone towards in the past in terms of Planned Parenthood and get back to me. Such and idiot and ill-informed statement you just made. The money that Komen gave to Planned Parenthood went directly to supplying women of no means to pay for breast exams, ultrasounds, and general education about breast health and reproductive health. The number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood is a very small percentage of all the wonderful services they provide women who have less than adequate means or money to pay for the simple things they need to be healthy women, including breast cancer screenings. Get your facts straight before making some politically charged statement about Planned Parenthood and what they actually do.
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 11864 posts, RR: 67 Reply 15, posted (3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 13): Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12):
Planned Parenthood is as much about parenthood as Military Intelligence is about rationale usage of brain functions.
Obviously, you've never been to a PP, and never known anyone that's used their services. Nice try, though.
I'm not ashamed to admit that back in my promiscuous, fly-by-the-seat-of-my-pants days I used PP's services for HIV testing. While there - and mind you, I'm definitely pro-choice - I couldn't help but notice how much of their material was geared seemingly toward abortions, almost like they advocated that.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 8 Reply 16, posted (3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
To me the core problem is as the Komen Foundation has come to rely mainly on fees from licensing it's trademarks from corporations who in turn do not want hassles from even a tiny number of anti-abortion/'pro-life' customers who do not want any funding for any organization, especially Planned Parenthood, that supports legal abortion.
This conflict also raises a number of other issues including access to health care, providers and their history, morality, religion/faith and their groups, how not-for-profit groups operate, IP rights, politics, corporate power and others all well discussed here and elsewhere.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
The basis of judgement with regard to health issues shouldn't be what some people assume about a procedure. Especially if it's only a small percentage* of Planned Parenthood's business and that Planned Parenthood is a such a key source of health care for certain subsets of women. The Komen Foundation's stated mission is breast cancer health, and by extension women's health, and Planned Parenthood provides that.
*Last I heard, 3%, but, full disclosure, that number came from the chairwoman of the Pro-Choice Caucus in Congress, and there's a chance that, like Senator Jon Kyl's number on the same issue, "it wasn't intended to be factual."
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10022 posts, RR: 54 Reply 18, posted (3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1406 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Thread starter): While Komen maintains that this was not a political decision pushed by Anti-Abortionist and conservative ideology, their newly hired VP, Karen Handel, who was endorsed by both Mit Romney and Sarah Palin, and had advocated for the pulling of funding into planned parenthood during her race for governor of the state of Georgia before joining the Komen Foundation.
Why look at Karen Handel? Look at its founder and CEO! Nancy Brinker (Susan G. Komen's surviving sister) is a frequent political appointee by the Republican Party, going back to Reagan. She even has the title "Ambassador" due to her appointment as The Honorable United States Ambassador to Hungary.
Quoting Stabilator (Reply 8): The fact remains that they can use the donations as they wish.
No, I don't think that's quite right. This foundation (as shitty as it is) had put itself out as one that will funnel funds to research and treatment of breast diseases. It is not their money to use as they please.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 6127 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (3 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1303 times:
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too)
Smokers pay a pretty stiff tax for their sins so the governments already have user based funding to treat them. Maybe add another 50¢ to $1 in tobacco taxes if more money for treatment is needed.
Same with alcoholics, which is a disease. Add a $1 to a fifth to self fund their treatment.
And, of course, we have diabetics which is where the big time, long term treatment costs come into play for taxpayers. That indicates that we need to put a self funding tax on sugar and other products that lead to diabetes. And a tax on products that promote over consumption. Like the "Big Gulp" instead of a normal drink.
The money from the Diabetics Self Funding can also be use to bring back Physical Education to schools. Help pay so we can make it mandatory. Minimum would be Aerobics For Fat Kids. But make it fun. Start off slow, eliminate Doctors Letters, etc. ANd toss in some Fat Kids Education ever week.
All that self funding can address medical issuers related to consumption.
Now we need to address medical issues NOT related to consumption and Breast Cancer is a major one. THe help provided by PP and others is critical as they address the need for screening and education that SHOULD be done in a core care government program.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): An abortion is like a boob job - just because it is done by a medical professional doesn't mean it is a health issue.
Does not mean it is NOT a health issue either.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Ok, so at least you admit you don't care about breast cancer screening, your main issue is free abortions for everyone.
Easy way to address the issue - provide core level health care as a universal right for all Americans.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Mortality rates from lung cancer is a lot higher, that is why more women die from it, but breast cancer affects a lot more women (and some men, too).
We can self fund cancer treatments through self funding treatment taxes.
But breast cancer is not something that is caused by consumption.
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 12): Funny, I am against abortion
Really?
I don't "support" abortion as I find it horrid. Far, far better to distribute birth control (including the morning after pill) and have strong sex education for kids before they are old enough to get pregnant.
I also support women being given the choice because of rape, incest, or other equally difficult choices.
ANd I support it when the woman's life is in danger. A good example was a women about 3 months pregnant diagnosed with one of the blood cancers. No options for her. It was straight to the hospital, a fast termination of the pregnancy and immediate commencement of chemo. The poison used as chemo was obviously going to kill the fetus and not going on chemo was going to kill the mother BEFORE she could take the baby to a point where a C-Section was possible.
Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 13): I notice the lack of the Salvation Army in that list.
Or John 3.16
Or a kids hospital like St. Jude's
Or the local food bank
Or Disabled Vets
Or a very long list of important charities that need help.
2: who says it's "political?" Abortion often gets political, but I (and many others) don't see it as political. I don't want to start another abortion debate, but just assume for a minute that you believe abortion is killing (despite whether you think that or not.) Would you give money to an organization that kills people even if most of what they do is breast cancer treatments and stuff? I wouldn't
The basis of judgement with regard to health issues shouldn't be what some people assume about a procedure. Especially if it's only a small percentage* of Planned Parenthood's business and that Planned Parenthood is a such a key source of health care for certain subsets of women. The Komen Foundation's stated mission is breast cancer health, and by extension women's health, and Planned Parenthood provides that.
Well to each's own. I have many charities I'd give to before PP, but if I was in the position to give to them, I wouldn't give one cent that could potentially go towards abortion. But:
Quoting mbmbos (Reply 19): Planned Parenthood has created a donation space on their website just for breast cancer screening.
This is good. I'd support this. IMO (and probably not to many others) if they're gonna supply abortions, they should separate funding for that and have no government assistance in that capacity. That way any donations to the 'abortion fund' or whatever would be given by people supporting abortion and my tax money wouldn't be going to that (I don't think it does now but I wouldn't like it in the future.) And yes, I am aware that PP is a wonderful organization besides the abortion part (IMO)
apodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3386 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1253 times:
What Komen was trying to do is take planned parenthood out as the middle man. In other words, the money that was donated to the Komen foundation for breast cancer screening and prevention would have been donated to planned parenthood first and then allegedly for breast screening. By sending the money directly to the providers (Remember PP doesn't do mammograms, as Lila Rose has revealed through undercover work), this ensures that the money is being used for what its intended for.
I am not a fan of PP at all for various reasons. But the thing that astounds me is that people claim that if you don't donate to them, you are anti woman. I am anything but anti woman. Most of the services that are provided by PP can be obtained at other locations, namely community health centers, and these all help the same poor women that PP helps. But yet the way PP talks, they have a monopoly on women's health care, and a lot of powerful people on the left back them up on this as well. But they have many people so brainwashed these days that this looks to be true. And while I am going to keep the abortion debate to a minimum, Abortion may be only 3 percent of the services they provide, but it makes up about 37 percent of their total revenue. Unfortunately its a very lucrative business, and money talks. I would never give a dime to this organization, and I do believe they manipulate their books to hide the truth. It's an organization that is ripe with corruption. I recommend everyone watch the movie Blood Money, and read the book Unplanned, by Abby Johnson, as these explain it better than I can in a post.
As for the SGK foundation, I don't know whether to trust them or not. It is obvious there was a lot of political motivations here, and their statements later on didn't help matters. And the fact that there is a lot of Overhead at this organization makes me very suspicious on that end. I don't know, and until this is all sorted out, they won't get a dime from me either.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 576 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1250 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 22): IMO (and probably not to many others) if they're gonna supply abortions, they should separate funding for that and have no government assistance in that capacity
This might already be the case, not completely sure. It's a position that makes sense, at least.
25 DocLightning: Let me get one thing straight: For the last decade at least, and probably longer, SGK has been about NOTHING BUT money. Less than 30% of their funds
27 DeltaMD90: Not saying you're right or wrong, but please explain this
28 Pyrex: Obviously I should - or at least be more patient. I guess it took a day to realize the spineless twits they are, caving to blackmail from the extreme
29 DocLightning: Have you ever worked in medical research? You can't do medical research, even commercial research, without places like MSK. In order to do a trial of
30 mbmbos: Oh really? I'll buy it right away! Please, we've all heard the tired, hack argument that money is fungible. It's fungible for about five minutes. But
31 DocLightning: The entire Social Conservative viewpoint is that if you've made bad choices, you should suffer for them. Their twisted version of religion dictates t
32 Ken777: We spend money on research ever day for breast cancer as well as other cancers. When my wife got the Dx of ALL she was able to benefit from years of
33 Pyrex: Why do you need to deliberately confuse Social Conservatism with religion? I am an atheist and believe people should be held accountable for their ow
34 Ken777: By not using taxes to help with self pay care you are basically increasing the costs for health insurance companies, which flows to employers and emp
35 DocLightning: Because almost every "social conservative" strongly identifies with one. There are rare exceptions, apparently such as yourself. I have no idea what
36 Pyrex: Moral Relativism is the unspoken philosophy, defended usually by the left but not always, that says there are no good or bad/evil decisions, just "ci
37 DocLightning: Then it doesn't exist. Certainly not what you describe. It appears to be a fabrication of the social conservatives.
38 Pyrex: Good think I made it up, then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
39 DocLightning: Yeah, what's described in Wikipedia is not anything like you describe.
40 jamincan: I guess you have to read in between the lines, causing I'm not seeing his definition either.
41 Mir: Oh, it exists. It's a lot like judicial activism - it's a convenient, but ultimately meaningless, attack on those who you disagree with. There's neve
42 DocLightning: The closest I can get is normative relativism, which is not a generally accepted philosophy.
43 AirframeAS: Agreed. It is nothing but a scam. They are not even out to solve the breast cancer problem. They are not really committed into finding a cure, really
44 stasisLAX: That's the stark reality of the situation. Without a single payer healthcare system in this nation, this situation will continue to repeat itself ove
45 DocLightning: To be fair, there has been a lot of progress on breast cancer. But you have to understand that there is no such disease as "Breast Cancer." There are
46 Maverick623: This. Those against single-payer/government run health care argue that systems like the NHS are wrought with inefficiencies and don't perform any bet
47 AirframeAS: The only reason as to why I oppose that single payer system sponsored by the Federal Government is because of the mandatory requirement to have it. W
48 DocLightning: This is the biggest BS argument I have ever heard in my life. You could be in an accident. You could slip and fall getting out of bed. You could wake
49 DeltaMD90: Can anyone clear up why anyone would be "forced" to buy health insurance? If the government took over, wouldn't it make most sense to just have it com
50 Asturias: In countries where government "takes over" health care, in the sense that the government pays all medical doctors for providing health care, there is
51 DeltaMD90: Thanks. I am all for "power of the people" and all and don't like the government to force anything on us. But the more I think about it, the more I t
52 DocLightning: As a physician, the problem I have with a single-payor system is that I want it guaranteed in the Constitution that payments to physicians for service
53 Pyrex: Quality of care in many countriees that have a "single-payer" healthcare system is often so crap that if you want to be seen in any reasonable amount
54 Asturias: I'm sure there's a million different ways to implement a single-payer system, but in general in such a system the medical profession either as a whol
55 Quokkas: I agree with pretty much all of Asturias's comments regarding both payment for medical services and the quality of care provided under universal care
56 Ken777: Core health care via a Medicare system would be paid for with a tax, just like Medicare today is paid for with a tax. Note I said "core" health care.
57 DocLightning: But it wasn't because one side or the other of Congress keeps playing games. And until I can be 100% sure that these games will NEVER EVER EVER happe
58 D L X: I've been out of the loop on this thread for a few days. Can someone provide the executive summary of how The Komen Corporation issue is tied up in un
60 Ken777: I'm not so much a supporter of a single payer system as I am about core health care under Medicare. The difference is that core care coverage makes i
61 DeltaMD90: Komen doesn't want to support abortion > some people don't want to support abortion in universal healthcare > universal healthcare
62 Ken777: It's probably stemming from the reality that many people thee days don't have the financial access to health care, PP is providing that access for wo
63 DocLightning: Back that up. Komen doesn't want to provide funds to PP because PP performs abortions. None of the funds that SGK provides would have gone to any sor
64 DeltaMD90: oh, well whatever the main topic was about: Unless you're saying that the donations don't equate to abortions... I'm not arguing that I was just tryi
65 DocLightning: SGK said that they were pulling funding because they don't fund organizations that are under investigation. Except that's stupid because anyone could
66 Ken777: The "under investigation" crap was because of some yo-yo politician bowing to the pro-life group. I consider it far from a legitimate investigation t
67 ATCtower: Look, plain and simple, no matter your stance on abortion, this is money DONATED, not earned, but GIVEN to an organization. If for whatever reason I d
68 DocLightning: Because we too have the right to refuse to DONATE money. And if nobody DONATES money to SGK, which is what has been happening, then SGK ceases to exi
69 Pyrex: I speak from personal experience. But that is an issue with quality of care as well, is it not? I never said the doctors were incompetent, but having
70 UAL747: Looks like as of today, Karen Handel, VP of Susan G. Komen, and driving force behind pulling funds from PP has officially resigned. http://www.cnn.com
71 AirframeAS: I think you are missing my point. I don't like being told what to do when it comes to MY money. I should not be forced to buy health insurance by the
72 Asturias: I can say I do too, which would be equally true - I am sure your experience is well reflected in your words. It appears my experience has simply been
73 Pyrex: Tell that to the Greeks... In the end of the day would much rather for my retirement money (for instance) to be an account under my name with funds I
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3212 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
