2016 Postmortem

Scuba

(53,475 posts)

30. Please see reply 16 and my reply 18. Thanks.

Reply to JoePhilly (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 11, 2016, 09:59 AM

Jan 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sincere question: If we had Medicare for All, would we need Planned Parenthood? [View all] Scuba Jan 2016 OP

Conspiracy Theories belong in CREATIVE SPECULATION brooklynite Jan 2016 #1

+1 JoePhilly Jan 2016 #2

Add to which...Medicare for all doesn't eliminate health care providers, just payers brooklynite Jan 2016 #3

If they same services as provided by PP were paid by Medicare for All, wouldnt' they then be ... Scuba Jan 2016 #13

Why do you think the GOP would let federal funds be used to pay for abortion? JoePhilly Jan 2016 #24

Please see reply 16 and my reply 18. Thanks. Scuba Jan 2016 #26

Medicaid/care already pay for PP services. And no hospitals and existing clinics cannot cover the synergie Jan 2016 #49

Please explain how I'm attempting to destroy PP and what it is you consider a temper tantrum. Scuba Jan 2016 #54

See my post #97 re the Hyde Amendment. Abortion is not covered by a single cent of federal funds. Hekate Jan 2016 #99

Thanks. Someone else also educated me about that. Scuba Jan 2016 #100

yes handmade34 Jan 2016 #4

No question they're a wonderful organization. But would they be needed if we had M. for All? Scuba Jan 2016 #5

Medicare doesn't pay for everything. A person still has to have supplemental insurance. LiberalArkie Jan 2016 #35

PP is a healthcare provider, chaning how you pay for heatlhcare doesn't affect synergie Jan 2016 #50

That makes sense. I thought that they did provide some free services, but I guess those are paid LiberalArkie Jan 2016 #53

Well, in most other developed nations, their universal healthcare DOES cover every penny. kath Jan 2016 #81

I had a friend in England that did have an insurance plan in England as it paid for LiberalArkie Jan 2016 #82

The PP centers here polly7 Jan 2016 #84

One pays out of pocket for abortions at PP. Medicaid pays for birth control from PP or a Dr. Autumn Jan 2016 #112

This is the correct answer^^^ -none Jan 2016 #56

Yes. synergie Jan 2016 #47

You busted them. PP is fighting to provide women and families with great services. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #6

Can you believe this? Throw women under the bus. More, feed the war against women, Democratic style. seabeyond Jan 2016 #7

Wouldn't women be better off with Medicare for All than having to get charity care at PP? Scuba Jan 2016 #14

The willful blindness is unbelievable. Fuddnik Jan 2016 #22

They're not gettting "charity care" at PP, they're getting MEDICAL care at PP and if they qualify synergie Jan 2016 #48

"Charity care"? Is that what you think it is? Hekate Jan 2016 #101

To be fair, it's not Bernie that's doing this it's a certain faction of his supporters synergie Jan 2016 #51

It isn't Bernie. But, you know he knows and he has not stood up for women and PP and told his seabeyond Jan 2016 #78

I don't think anyone should be trashing PP, regardless of party, since they serve synergie Jan 2016 #113

Good post seabeyond Jan 2016 #114

You avoided the question while impugning my character. Nice attempt at diversion. Scuba Jan 2016 #9

Impugning your character? Calling you out your attack on PP. As a Democrat, we still do have the seabeyond Jan 2016 #11

There was no attack on PP. Fuddnik Jan 2016 #23

PP isn't a charity. It's a health care provider, and what do you imagine medicare for all means? synergie Jan 2016 #52

Two words: Hyde Amendment. Damn straight we still need Planned Parenthood. Hekate Jan 2016 #103

+1 DawgHouse Jan 2016 #104

Thanks all. I am really kinda disgusted with our Dem ability to attack PP and women in general. seabeyond Jan 2016 #115

"while impugning my character" NCTraveler Jan 2016 #12

Well,congrats,this is a new low.nt sufrommich Jan 2016 #8

Support of the status quo has nothing to do with it. nt edgineered Jan 2016 #10

In a single payer system.. 99Forever Jan 2016 #15

Per their own website, 79% of PP patients are low income. Why would they travel ... Scuba Jan 2016 #17

What location do you image the women will go to instead of a PP location? JoePhilly Jan 2016 #28

Please see reply 16 and my reply 18. Thanks. Scuba Jan 2016 #30

That does not answer my question about the locations. JoePhilly Jan 2016 #31

Yeah it does. They'd still go to PP as it would still be needed. Scuba Jan 2016 #38

Well, unless "medicare for all" or whatever also provides for transporation costs and synergie Jan 2016 #55

After 32 years as a hospital administrator, yeah I know how healthcare works. And I also know ... Scuba Jan 2016 #58

And if that hospital is catholic and won't provide abortion services? mythology Jan 2016 #90

Medicare applies to people over age 65, who are not the main consumers of family planning services, Tanuki Jan 2016 #19

Take a deep breath. 99Forever Jan 2016 #29

I understand it quite well, but that is not the term you used in the post to which I responded. Tanuki Jan 2016 #36

No. Apparently you don't even have the first clue. 99Forever Jan 2016 #43

Right, I don't know wtf I'm talking about. Thanks for Bernsplaining. That really helps women whose Tanuki Jan 2016 #46

Fuck the GOP. 99Forever Jan 2016 #68

Actually, you carry their water, albeit inadvertently, when you urge PP to "stay the fuck Tanuki Jan 2016 #71

Bullshit. 99Forever Jan 2016 #74

Instead of a reasoned rebuttal, all you can do is sputter with insults and cussing. Tanuki Jan 2016 #75

"Reasoned rebuttal" to false accusations and personal insults? 99Forever Jan 2016 #80

you just made it restorefreedom Jan 2016 #94

For the record, I wasn't the one who alerted on this. n/t Tanuki Jan 2016 #95

Thanks, Tanuki. PP's political fight for its life reminds me of a Woody Guthrie song... Hekate Jan 2016 #107

It would seem that you need to calm down because there is a whole lot synergie Jan 2016 #57

Bernsplaining? mcar Jan 2016 #85

Hillarious, huh. 99Forever Jan 2016 #86

He thinks he actually sent me someplace? Tanuki Jan 2016 #88

Yes, because there are exclusions of using public funds to cover abortion in most states. Tanuki Jan 2016 #16

Finally an answer that makes sense. Thank you. Scuba Jan 2016 #18

that is very helpful, since I too shared the OP's question and didn't understand the attacks zazen Jan 2016 #32

I thought it was pretty funny that I was "throwing women under the bus" because I want M4A. Scuba Jan 2016 #42

I think it's kind of odd that you chose to take that from what was said. synergie Jan 2016 #61

Sarah Palin would be proud of that word salad. Scuba Jan 2016 #63

You give her WAY too much credit. She wouldn't get by the first two words before walking away, BlueCaliDem Jan 2016 #87

Are you serious? ismnotwasm Jan 2016 #20

Pleaser see reply #16 and my reply #18. Scuba Jan 2016 #21

Perhaps I've been following what PP does a bit closer that what is considered usual ismnotwasm Jan 2016 #25

No problem. Scuba Jan 2016 #27

single payer would almost certainly benefit them dsc Jan 2016 #33

You have selected #2. Please confirm. randome Jan 2016 #34

so if 16/18 are true, then PP should issue release talking about their role in Single Payer zazen Jan 2016 #37

+1. Nt JudyM Jan 2016 #39

They did, they found that he wasn't the best advocate for them. They don't need synergie Jan 2016 #60

In the UK Bad Dog Jan 2016 #40

No, we'd do away with clinics altogether. joshcryer Jan 2016 #41

Yes, because of the Hyde Act Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #44

Thanks for this useful answer. Scuba Jan 2016 #45

Scuba, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. shraby Jan 2016 #64

It's primary season, and emotions run hot. I tend to excuse that. Scuba Jan 2016 #66

I've no idea what the above exchange was about. Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #83

My original reply to you was meant as a sincere complement. Your answer was useful... Scuba Jan 2016 #89

You're reply was OK, Le Taz Hot Jan 2016 #91

When I had mcaid I preferred pp gwheezie Jan 2016 #59

It seems unlikely that Medicare for all or any single payer MineralMan Jan 2016 #62

yes, we would need non-profit charities like pp for persons with no insurance or medicare. Sunlei Jan 2016 #65

So for undocumented immigrants. That makes sense. Scuba Jan 2016 #67

a lot of 'citizens' make below the poverty lvl, don't have* to have insurance & are younger/healthy Sunlei Jan 2016 #69

If we had Medicare for All, all citizens would be covered. That's the premise of my OP. Scuba Jan 2016 #70

charities like PP 'organize/Admin.' for example, breast exams, prenatal healthcare, Sunlei Jan 2016 #72

I agree that federal monies should cover abortion and would like that included in Medicare for All. Scuba Jan 2016 #73

Probably (nt) bigwillq Jan 2016 #76

Here is the Planned Parenthood site nearest me, in Regina, SK. polly7 Jan 2016 #77

Now that is a good question Android3.14 Jan 2016 #79

Bernie fully supports PP. Hillary has only qualified support for PP. ieoeja Jan 2016 #92

Forget the paradigms. Bernie wants Not For Profit Health Care. Bernin4U Jan 2016 #93

Yes, because Planned Parenthood is considered a provider. Karma13612 Jan 2016 #96

Two words: Hyde Amendment. Damn straight we still need Planned Parenthood. Hekate Jan 2016 #97

Yes. Agschmid Jan 2016 #98

I think the people who run PP actually do hope for the day when they are unnecessary. randys1 Jan 2016 #102

That depends RandySF Jan 2016 #105

Medicare is geared to serve the older populations who usually don't get pregnant therefore need no Hiraeth Jan 2016 #106

Thank you for this excellent addition to the thread!!! Scuba Jan 2016 #108

yw Hiraeth Jan 2016 #110

No. We never should have needed planned parenthood. Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #109

FUCKING PATHETIC. AMEN. Hiraeth Jan 2016 #111

No. People will just go to the Medicare Office to get their abortions Freddie Stubbs Jan 2016 #116