GOP can you explain this? 130k women without health program

" The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-11/texas-planned-parenthood/53483484/1>; that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program." WTF? Who are these measures appealing to? Is this entire party completely mad? They insist on removing the rights of women, and they will do anything to make it happen in the name of some religion. Rick Perry and his team must have known what the outcome would be when they passed that law, they must be aware of government funding rules and regulations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-loses-entire-womens_n_1349431.html?1331847590&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 Am I missing something??

Holy shit...I was expecting an Onion article...  They have guns...why don't they just shoot themselves.  That would a quicker and less painless suicide than this.  Wow... " The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry's (R) decision to implement a new law<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-11/texas-planned-paren thood/53483484/1> that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state's Medicaid Women's Health Program." WTF? Who are these measures appealing to? Is this entire party completely mad? They insist on removing the rights of women, and they will do anything to make it happen in the name of some religion. Rick Perry and his team must have known what the outcome would be when they passed that law, they must be aware of government funding rules and regulations. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-loses-entire-womens_n_1349431 .html?1331847590&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 Am I missing something??

Federal tax money being forced to abortion providers to pay for services for poor people who just take, take, take from the system in violation of a state state law based on religious freedom? What's not to love? That sounds like an almost perfect Republican plan. The only thing it is missing is guns and anti-immigration rhetoric. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

And evil commynism. Can't forget the eville commynism. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I mentioned Federal taxes and poor people. Thats exactly the same as communism. And socialism. On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > > And evil commynism. Can't forget the eville commynism. > >

no eville commynism is the one hiding under your bed ready to grab you the moment you relax your vigilance from freedom, guns and god. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

This is like an on going comedy. Do you anti-republicans even read the crap you post? "Republican Gov. Rick Perry pledged last week to find state money to keep the program afloat, but he hasn't offered specifics. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Friday that the federal funding would be phased out this year because the Texas law violates federal Medicaid regulations requiring that women be allowed to choose a qualified health-care provider. Perry disputes that claim, saying Medicaid rules give states the right to determine which clinics are qualified." So,  Sebelius is cutting funding for low income women because Texas won't give it to Planned Parenthood. But you see the Republicans as the ones cutting the funding. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- It's all a political game of distraction since the can't run on there record. http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=FCB7044F-74DF-4E91-AA01-634E48910FF9 Another cf site. And one that Larry says is super trustworthy because he works next door. .

Why even introduce measures that would remove assistance from the poor that need it on religious grounds? All of a sudden over the last 6 months or so this has been a focus of the GOP party, to remove health care and funding from women on the basis that they are possibly using that funding to get birth control and/or abortions. Is that really of primary importance to the GOP? What's the problem with birth control beyond some religious argument? It just baffles me. At least I am reasonably assured that this sort of thinking will not spread outside the US, but you never know. If the law says that Federal Funding is to be shared without prejudice then the Governor is fully aware that he has no grounds on which to withhold that funding from groups he doesn't agree with, but who are breaking no law. So yes Sam, it is the Governor's fault. And it may be politics, but the end result is that over 130k women as a result will not have the type of assistance which they need. What is going to be the societal fallout from that over time? On 16 March 2012 10:35, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

ideological purity. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Why even introduce measures that would remove assistance from the poor that > need it on religious grounds? They didn't. It's part of a federal law they are enforcing. It the Dems that decided to play politics and take away the money to make headlines. > All of a sudden over the last 6 months or so this has been a focus of the > GOP party, to remove health care and funding from women on the basis that > they are possibly using that funding to get birth control and/or abortions. That is a different issue that Obama came up with to change the fight from the economy to Republicans hate woman. Unfortunately most can't see it's a political game or ignore that point. > Is that really of primary importance to the GOP? What's the problem with > birth control beyond some religious argument? > It just baffles me. At least I am reasonably assured that this sort of > thinking will not spread outside the US, but you never know. Why does it have to be added now? Why make a new law that spends money when we're $trillions in the hole? Sad way to play politics. > If the law says that Federal Funding is to be shared without prejudice then > the Governor is fully aware that he has no grounds on which to withhold > that funding from groups he doesn't agree with, but who are breaking no > law. So yes Sam, it is the Governor's fault. The law says Federal funds can't be used for abortion. The countries largest abortion provider says the funds are separate. Texas is making sure. Why is the Federal government withholding funds for all to protect one company? That sounds illegal. > And it may be politics, but the end result is that over 130k women as a > result will not have the type of assistance which they need. What is going > to be the societal fallout from that over time? So why withhold the money?  Who took the money from the poor? .

It is, if you consider it is a comedy in a "I can't believe this" kind of way. So, a Republican is getting into a pissing contest with the Feds over states rights that causes harm in the short term.  Sounds about right. They are forcing the Fed's hand, so in a way, they are cutting off the funding. The reasonable thing to do would be to back off enough to continue to get the funding and only make a decision after the rules are clarified or the state can find another reliable source of money for the program. On 3/16/2012 10:35 AM, Sam wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

I should revise that to somewhat under the guise of state's rights.  It is obvious there is another agenda, as others have pointed out. On 3/16/2012 11:22 AM, PT wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The left is always right with you isn't it. Why are you not mad at the Fed for taking money from the poor? . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> The left is always right with you isn't it. We have been over this.  I lean left in some areas and right in others.   I guess I am moderate.  I don't know.  I wonder if you have trouble seeing this or understanding that there is more than my side and their side to most things. The reason it looks so left in this instance is because I was responding directly to your far right leaning and assertion that the Republicans are blameless, victims of an evil Democrat smear campaign, or something. > Why are you not mad at the Fed for taking money from the poor? I didn't say I wasn't.  Why are you not mad at the governor for trying to irresponsibly force the issue? On 3/16/2012 12:50 PM, Sam wrote:

>  > The left is always right with you isn't it. > > We have been over this.  I lean left in some areas and right in others. >  I guess I am moderate.  I don't know.  I wonder if you have trouble > seeing this or understanding that there is more than my side and their > side to most things. We're all moderates, except when we're not. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Actually, the Governor found out through the press that Obama was cutting medicaid to Texas. I find it amazing that anyone could turn around and say Obama is doing the right thing or was forced to strip medicaid from the poor. Also, you should note that PP is under investigation for $$millions in medicaid fraud in Texas thanks to a whistleblowers testimony. But that's not even newsworth

On 3/16/2012 3:42 PM, Sam wrote: > We're all moderates, except when we're not. I am not even sure what that means, or what it is supposed to mean. > I find it amazing that anyone could turn around and say Obama is doing > the right thing or was forced to strip medicaid from the poor. I don't think Obama is doing anything.  It sounds like it is the Department of Health and Human Services that is doing it.  Then again, since it was a cabinet member speaking about phasing out the support, Obama does bear some responsibility even if he is guilty of nothing more than allowing it to happen. > Also, you should note that PP is under investigation for $$millions in > medicaid fraud in Texas thanks to a whistleblowers testimony. But > that's not even newsworth so noted. It is a mess all around.

> On 3/16/2012 3:42 PM, Sam wrote: >> We're all moderates, except when we're not. > > I am not even sure what that means, or what it is supposed to mean. It means it's rare to find someone that agrees 100% with the left or the right which makes us all moderates. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- On a good note: Republican Gov. Rick Perry pledged last week to find state money to keep the program afloat, but he hasn't offered specifics. So, the State of Texas will help it's poor no matter what the Federal government does. .

"So, the State of Texas will help it's poor no matter what the Federal government does." Sam, Texas and Perry are still evil since they are not giving money to Planned Parenthood.  It doesn't matter if they still help the poor. Can't you see that? J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

They are evil for many reasons, that's just the message du jour . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> They are evil for many reasons, that's just the message du jour Sam believes republican states are evil. quote du jour.

Yes, anything to do with Republican or Conservatism is considered evil. I get it. . On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

> Yes, anything to do with Republican or Conservatism is considered > evil. I get it. > What do you think of Democrats or Liberalism? Evil...or just misguided?

I can't pass judgement on such a large group. I imagine there could be a few evil ones and bunches of misguided folks. But as a group I think they consist of all sorts. Now that I've given it  a little more thought, I think the bulk of folks that voted for Obama were either misguided or too lazy to give it any real thought. That also applies to Gore voters but not Kerry or Clinton voters. . > > > What do you think of Democrats or Liberalism? Evil...or just misguided?

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Can you think of any reason that a person, one who was not lazy and gave the deal a great bit of thought, could still have voted for Obama? Or is there simply no logical reason for doing so?

Well there's Elle MacPherson. As for the rest of the non-bulk Obama voters, many got what they wanted and are happy. . > Can you think of any reason that a person, one who was not lazy and gave > the deal a great bit of thought, could still have voted for Obama? Or is > there simply no logical reason for doing so?

> Well there's Elle MacPherson. > > As for the rest of the non-bulk Obama voters, many got what they > wanted and are happy. > I got my stem cell research...that was huge. I got my withdrawal from Iraq, that was nice. Afghanistan has an end in sight, that's good. I'd bail out now, but oh well. I didn't give a shit about Gitmo. I'm not a huge fan of the health care overhaul, but I'm willing to give it a try. Way to early to tell if it's going to be a success. Let's see...what are the other biggies.....the bailout. Obama followed the advice of most economic experts suggesting that a bailout was necessary to prevent a near total collapse. So while all that is WAY too advanced for my understanding, when in doubt, listen to the experts. So did I "get what I wanted"? Yeah, I guess so, though mostly what I wanted was just someone who I thought was going to THINK...and make decisions based on honest reason and intellect with an eye towards what he thought was best for this country. This is why I thought McCain would have been OK too. I don't think he would have presided as the staunch conservative he paraded himself as during the election...but we'll never know. I'm not liberal....far from it....and Obama is certainly more left than I am...but Bush was more right than I am, and i supported him for as long as I could too. Obama's been an OK president. Bush was too in his first term, 'cept for his stem cell demagoguery.

> I got my stem cell research...that was huge. Bush was the first President to pay for Embryonic Stem Cell research > I got my withdrawal from Iraq, that was nice. Nice? 10 years wasted. We turned our back moments before a success. > Afghanistan has an end in sight, that's good. I'd bail out now, but oh well. Afghanistan was never winnable but it was manageable. It's not anymore. > I didn't give a shit about Gitmo. > > I'm not a huge fan of the health care overhaul, but I'm willing to give it > a try. Way to early to tell if it's going to be a success. It will now cost $6.7 trillion more than we were told. Wait to see what the bill is when it actually kicks in. Most people in the US wanted a solution to the health care problem. This was a backroom deal. > Let's see...what are the other biggies.....the bailout. Obama followed the > advice of most economic experts suggesting that a bailout was necessary to > prevent a near total collapse. So while all that is WAY too advanced for my > understanding, when in doubt, listen to the experts. I don't think it was most experts, I think it was most of the ones working for him. > So did I "get what I wanted"? Yeah, I guess so, though mostly what I wanted > was just someone who I thought was going to THINK...and make decisions > based on honest reason and intellect with an eye towards what he thought > was best for this country. This is why I thought McCain would have been OK > too. I don't think he would have presided as the staunch conservative he > paraded himself as during the election...but we'll never know. I don't think we've ever been in such a long recession and perpetually high unemployment is not caused by the banking crisis since the banks were paid for their failure. The only explanation I can think of is the President and his policies. > I'm not liberal....far from it....and Obama is certainly more left than I > am...but Bush was more right than I am, and i supported him for as long as > I could too. Obama's been an OK president. Bush was too in his first term, > 'cept for his stem cell demagoguery. I'm liberal on many social issues and even a few conservative ones. Like NCLB, I figured it was worth a try and it helped improve minority grades across the country but overall it seems to be a failure. As for stem cells, it's politics. You give a little and take a little. We got stem cell research paid for but there was a cap. If a Dem spent money but added a cap it wouldn't be news. .

Wrong Sam, he forbade any federal funding for stem cell research except using certain cell lines. And made sure you had to go through some real ugly hoops before getting the cells lines. Moreover those line were more likely to develop cancers than other non approved lines because of their age. Remember I was working for one of the official repositories for those stem cell lines at the time. I had to write the code to make sure that the scientists went went through the appropriate regulatory hoops. BTW that was extra regulation over and above the normal regulatory process that still had to be met. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

President Bush was first in providing funding by the US government for human stem cell research. But you knew that. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Who removed the funding? On 20 March 2012 10:08, Sam <sammycode@gmail.com> wrote: > > President Bush was first in providing funding by the US government for > human stem cell research. > > But you knew that. > >

There was no funding. Bush created the funding with limitations. Before that, nothing. Clinton was back and forth about it and finally proposed a go ahead with funding but never approved it. Bush made it so. . > > Who removed the funding?

before bush it was almost treated as any other research funding request, while there were funding restrictions they had some significant exceptions that allowed researchers to do work with human stem cells. After Bush's presidential order only 19 lines of approved stem cells could be used. All federal funding was withdrawn from any institution that did any research using stem cells from a non-approved line.  In other words the Bush administration's new regulations basically said that if you do any research without using these difficult to obtain stem cell lines you cannot accept any federal funds. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You lie... No Federal funding was ever used hESC research until Bush made it so Aug 9, 2001. Private funding was always available. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

LOL *shaking head* You lie... No Federal funding was ever used hESC research until Bush made it so Aug 9, 2001. Private funding was always available. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own reality Sam. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

The Dickey-Wicker Amendment, which Clinton signed, prohibited it. Bush was able to get around it by using existing lines. . > > You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own > reality Sam.

"if Iraq wants armed US contractors working on infrastructure improvements, that's their business." I'll have to disagree.  The US kicked Iraq's ass all over Mesopotamia. It's the US's business, and it's all about business (oil). "They obviously OK'd such arrangement." Damn skippy they ok'd it. "If not, they could kick every single American out of there if they wanted." I'll have to disagree again.  The US owns Iraq right now.  The government of Iraq's only duty is to say "Yes boss." J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

> I'll have to disagree.  The US kicked Iraq's ass all over Mesopotamia. >  It's the US's business, and it's all about business (oil). > Ah, you mean to the victor goes the spoils. We invaded a sovereign nation because we accused them of having weapons they didn't. Our advanced weaponry made it a one sided ass kicking from a military standpoint...and so now, as the conquering invader, we should be able to tell these weaklings exactly what is, and what isn't. Yes, i see your point. Interesting. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Trying to discern if you're kidding.....

Whether he's kidding or not he's right. Iraq is the US's largest foreign base for over a decade across 2 presidents from different parties - what does that implicitly tell us about our foreign policy priorities? US strategic petroleum reserve = Iraq On Mar 21, 2012, at 9:09 AM, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

"Ah, you mean to the victor goes the spoils. We invaded a sovereign nation because we accused them of having weapons they didn't. Our advanced weaponry made it a one sided ass kicking from a military standpoint...and so now, as the conquering invader, we should be able to tell these weaklings exactly what is, and what isn't." I am not saying we "should" be able to tell Iraq what to do.  I am saying that we "are" telling Iraq what to do. "Trying to discern if you're kidding....." Of course I am not kidding. Also, I really doubt Iraq wants us to leave.  If the US left with all of the unrest in the Middle East, Iraq could be in for a serious butt whipping from Iran, Turkey or even the Kurds or be susceptible to a civil uprising like the Arab Spring. There is one thing all leaders in all countries have in common.  They want to stay in power.  The best way for the Iraqi leaders to stay in power is to toe the "company" line.  They will be allowed to verbal express disagreement, but not actually act on it. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

> I am not saying we "should" be able to tell Iraq what to do.  I am saying > that we "are" telling Iraq what to do. I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens.

"I got my withdrawal from Iraq, that was nice." Somewhat. The US exchanged troops for armed contractors working for the State Department. Nothing could go wrong with that. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- if Iraq wants armed US contractors working on infrastructure improvements, that's their business. They obviously OK'd such arrangement. If not, they could kick every single American out of there if they wanted.

Really? And then what would happen to them :-) On 20 March 2012 10:55, GMoney <gm0n3y06@gmail.com> wrote: > if Iraq wants armed US contractors working on infrastructure improvements, > that's their business. They obviously OK'd such arrangement. If not, they > could kick every single American out of there if they wanted. > >

> Yes, anything to do with Republican or Conservatism is considered > evil. I get it. > > > All politicians are leading us down the path to Marxism and revolution if they keep on neglecting needs of everyone apart from Corporations and Religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production>;, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena ? including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology ? arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure>;, for which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productive_forces>;, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress.[*citation needed<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>; *] These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle>;. Under the capitalist mode of production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_mode_of_production>;, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeoisie>;) who own the means of production<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production>;, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat>;) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea that social change<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_change>occurs because of the struggle between different classes <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class>; within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism>oppresses the proletariat <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat>;, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletarian_revolution>; .[*citation needed <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed>;* ]