So now that you understand you’re wrong, you’ve shifted your position to, poor women shouldn’t have access to the low cost healthcare they do now?
It’s so repugnant a stance that I’d hate to attribute to anyone unfairly.
That is not my stance. And it’s not cricket to state otherwise.
What is it then? What are you arguing?
Because you had no idea how many FQHCs there were, and scoffed at how many there were compared to PPs.
But since there are only 2000 total low cost clinics now, and if PP goes away there would be 1300 total, the low cost clinics would have tremendous overloads of capacity.
So where do the PP clients go, when the GOP defunds them, based on the outright lies of those video tapes?
Do they magically get more money for their healthcare?
When asked if the other for-profit clinics had the same pricing, you said, “Who cares?”
What did you mean by that? It seems like you meant what I wrote above. I’d like to know what you actually meant.
Yeah, what exactly did you mean?
I don’t understand what this means. How does this differ from funding PP and then expanding the health care budget by a few billion dollars to capture all the clinics that you want?
You seem to be assuming that funding PP is the baseline position, which cannot be changed. That just isn’t true.
Sure, and we could disestablish the Army, too. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. So rather than just your two line drive by posts, tell me why the government shouldn’t fund PP and all these other health clinics. Seems like it would help a lot of people.
No. It’s up to you to tell us why the government SHOULD fund PP.
Several other posters and I have done that already. It isn’t incumbent upon us to repost things because you missed them the first time. On the other hand, you don’t seem to have explained why PP should not be funded.
No, as a proponent of funding PP, the burden of proof is on you.
Do you simply have no opinions to share at all? You know, debates - like any other conversation - work better when one person speaks and the other listens, and then the first person listens while the other speaks. So far, you don’t seem to have deigned to enlighten us of any of your thoughts or opinions.
Perhaps we should just consider this debate like a court case. Sure, the plaintiff has to prove his case, but if the defense doesn’t say anything substantive, it ends up being a summary judgment for the plaintiff.
So, I notice you have nothing to say about my post, above.
Only if the plaintiff proves his case “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “by a preponderance of the evidence”, depending on the type of case.
You haven’t met either standard, by a longshot.
You haven’t actually made a post that addresses, refutes, or even disagrees with any of the points made so far in this thread of why various posters support PP. I assume you oppose PP, but I don’t know why. Did you get a bunch of parking tickets on your last visit to PP? Did they tell you that you could only take two condoms out of the fishbowl on the reception desk? Did you used to date a PP employee, but you lost your best Van Halen records during the breakup?
You really don’t understand, do you?
Going by your posts, you seem to assume that funding PP is some sort of default position. It’s not.
Millions of women use PP currently to fulfill their needs. Defunding PP would leave those women with insufficient options.
I notice you still haven’t responded to my post above.
Only three million, versus 40 million that are served by community health care clinics.
And?
It is the default - or better to say the status quo - because PP is currently funded by the Federal government. Many Republicans want to change that. “Change” is pretty much the exact opposite of “default.” If the law isn’t changed, PP keeps being funded.
A few million homeless people are served by community health centers. Should the government stop funding homeless clinics in order to give more money to centers that serve tens of millions of non-homeless people?