The debate "Making policy decisions based on ideology has dire consequences" was started by
April 24, 2017, 6:27 pm.
10 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, PsychDave posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 13 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
historybuff, Nemiroff, PsychDave, siddusurv, Mr_Beuller, makson, ZiraShadow, MrLuke, SirIntegra and 1 visitor agree.
MrViktoryMudd, thereal and 8 visitors disagree.
I think it's not hard to see the difference between editing for time and falsifying the message. if it's for time, there should be no issue with presenting the full version when asked. also, to catch a predator was not used in court, at least not the edited version. that called tampering with the evidence and is illegal.
as to the morality of using other people's money, I'm assuming your not making a general argument against taxation. when it comes to 99% of the citizenry, it's as much my money as it is their, it is coming from a general PUBLIC fund. as for the few who pay a disproportionate share of taxes, we would have to get into a more broad discussion of how moral and "fair" our current economy really is.
but more importantly, PP takes pennies out of your taxes. how would you weight the morality of taking this relatively insignificant amount of money, often from people who can more than easily afford it, versus the morality of leaving a vulnerable population without critical care and opening whole communities to the risks of a variety of dealt and disabling epidemics? WWJD?
a businesses's foremost mission is not determined by its % of nation wide providers, but by the % of its internal focus. it could be 0.00001% of national reading program, but if reading is 75% of their programs and budget, they are primarily reading.
but this is not some education program that dictates what it offers, it is a business with a list of services, and the patients decide what they get. if 100% of the patients ask for abortions, that doesn't mean PP only provides abortion. if the next year nobody asks for abortions, did PP change their mission statement? no. customers come in and request the services they desire, and should be provided all relevant info to make an informed decision.
PP provides all basic gynecological services that can be provided outside of a hospital without any mandatory minimums or maximums. as it should be. and as long as abortion is legal, they should be allowed to provide that with no strings. if you argue abortion is immoral... maybe, but then we should debate its general legality and not scapegoat the only company offering it to people who can't afford it.
I'm not sure how we should fund it, I'd need more data like what their donations, incomes and expenditures have been over time, but no, I don't think that the healthcare for our poorest citizens should rely on the inconsistent whims of donors.
ideally I'd prefer to solve all of these issues by taking the private sector completely out of the equation and form a public program to take care of this issue, or go to single payer altogether, which will likely start a whole other debate, hopefully on a different thread, but that is my ideal solution to the question of funding PP.
stds are not only spread sexually. anything can be spread by blood contact, some are spread just by kissing (herpes for example, or even aids if your mouth had even a microcut.) the mode of spreading is irrelevant. it is spreadable, and if people have no idea they have it, it will spread fast.
everyone has an ideology, there is nothing wrong with that. the issue, as stated in the title, Is when that subjective ideology carries more weight in decision making then facts, studies, numbers, and objective REALITY.
for example, if your an old timer who grew up for decades thinking that marijuana is a highly addictive gateway drug that will turn your brain into scrambled eggs (like Jeff sessions), no matter how many studies, how many bipartisan voices including inside of the same administrations, no matter how many scientists or doctors say otherwise, reality is secondary to his gut feeling.
that is the type of ideology use that does not belong in our halls of power, and it can be applied to everything from drugs, to race, to economics, which is why this current war on truth is so scary. I a world without facts, all we have is ideology, hard lines, and extremism. no room for cooperation or negotiation.
Ideology as a broad term can cover both stances, but no harm done with calling it ideology.
Donations keep many programs afloat. The cost argument can go as far as desired to say that it cannot survive without stable funding, but then how much stable funding is expected? Should we expect donations to be zero and plan funding this way?
I will actually acknowledge the possibility for corruption if the money is looked at at over 1,000 clinics, but are we counting by affiliation or individual clinics? Price driving, and possibly the use of the sliding scale could be employed elsewhere (not that it is impossible, but with the funding that could be mandated?)
Free STD screening is agreeable, I may have to concede based on the treatment half, but in terms of sicknesses that are only spread sexually as well as the uncertainty of any disease spreading, it isn't fair to say a pandemic would occur. Still, a fair point.
I didn't imply that there was a pressuring for abortion. We could argue that, but first, I want to clarify, conflating the services when provided in such small comparison isn't completely together. Say there's a physical education and reading program that rivals schools. But their reading programs only compromise 1 to 2% nationwide of the reading services, and lack higher than 8th grade level books. Their physical education programs make up 1/3 of the nationwide activity. Would they be a reading program foremost, or physical one?
There's is a broad definition for doctoring tapes, O'Keefe and his videos included, if a video is cut down for time or an individual is mislead in a "sting". Regardless of right or wrong, it could be said Chris Hanson's "to catch a predator" is highly doctored.
It is odd to say it is moral to use another person's money, and savings may be unaffected. I'm not entirely convinced the program saves money collectively. Again, heavily biased against most money collections. Ideology? I guess I can't fight the label.
either way, It seems your primary concern is either a) paying for a service you don't directly benefit from, or b) abortion.
if b) abortion is the law of the land, you are free to fight against that, but as long as it's legal, a legitimate medical provider is within their rights to provide that service to people who ask for it. if (as you kinda implied) they are pressuring people into abortions that is horrible and even suggesting it unsolicited as an option without offering alternatives would be wrong. but there is no evidence to that, not even doctored, edited evidence.
if a), this will save you money in the long run. not only will this prevent increased costs and damage from this choice, raising up the bottom has always benefited the nation as a whole. a rising tide clearly did not lift all ships, but (keeping to analogies) raising the floor will bring up the whole house.
this refusal to make a smart and logical investment in our nation that actually save you money because of short sighted ideology ("not with my money" for example) is exactly the type of ideological thinking this thread was talking about. if something makes both moral sense (your own admission) and fiscal sense... why would you not do it? your just shooting yourself and the rest of the nation in the foot!
oh man. typed up a bunch of stuff and then lost it all :'(
I'm going to try to address 3 points.
2. alternative clinics
3. std bulwark
1. donations are not a stable source of money. this is not some food bank which requires a small warehouse serving the local population, maybe a truck and a few low wage workers... this is a medical facility that needs to be near transportation, have adequate facilities, a not cheap inventory (obviously not the super expensive stuff but this is medicine, even cheap isn't cheap), and staffed with doctors and nurses!!!
let's not forget the hospital grade standards the right has applied to many of them and seeks to expand it, expecting donations to cover this is Looney. and as I said before, it is in the common good to have this program.
2. wouldn't you still have an issue with alternative local clinics performing cheap abortions using your money? I don't understand how where the services are provided affects the services or how you feel about them? if anything this plan will only cost more as individual clinics lack the economics of scale advantage, while now we have to distribute and monitor 1000 different clinics instead of 1 organization creating a bureaucratic nightmare and just asking for corruption to steal money.
3. PP is absolutely the bulwark against the spread of stds. providing free std screening is one of their main missions, a mission that no one else Is doing.
I believe I did explain that while these tests on a pregnant woman (forgetting the abortion part for a minute) can be lacking, do lack by a compared frequency, and that the organization will survive regardless by donations. There is no danger of the things you like disappearing! If anything, the compulsory money funds the cheaper services provided, services with options outside exist!
Playing to the amount contributed doesn't change the fact that if someone thinks the money could be better used elsewhere, and showing there are options, there is no need to.PP is one of many options, nobody needs to support more options to support an issue.Again, PP will survive. And again, a clinic could do more with the money.
I'm not switching between services, I wanted to explain how the gathering of statistics based on services, which ties back to the first paragraph. It's all connected, it's a firm basis that doesn't move. Conflating general health with pregnancy health doesn't change that. Funny you mention cancer screenings, mammograms were mentioned earlier. Planned Parenthood doesn't do these. Is it an oversight on health, in your opinion?
It is literally my complete argument. People have options, people will privately fund what they care about, there are no losses. I feel money could be used better elsewhere, and an appeal to general benefit can be lacking. Sure I can use MY emotions to decide general benefit, but what about the individual that decides it by their own benefit? At this point, it merely seems Morally based. Immorality does not demand that funds are denied in any capacity, and so I must disagree.
Last note, the bullwark against STDs is lost with an existing but defunded planned Parenthood? I'd like clarity on our last line of many, many defenses.
how could you say you don't benefit from women's care? women are half our population, including about half the members of your family.
women's rights benefit us all, and I would want my mother, grandmother, and wife to have screening for the various cancers that go on down there.
as a young man i would also like the women in my area to be screened and treated for std, which rarely remain just the women for long if no one knows about them.
you are risking unleashing the epidemics we have long fought to bring under control.
think about it, how much would it cost to treat all these last minute late stage cancers and widespread std epidemics compared the that fraction of a penny your sending to PP now.
as I said, I have no attachment to PP, I have an attachment to what PP does, and I'm sure that the name PP is not where the core of your issue with it lies, so we are still in disagreement there, regardless of PP, or something else.
and I have no idea what your talking about switching between pre abortion services and carrying services. there are no exclusive pre abortion services. it's a simple procedure.
and it's exactly the feed an African child for 10 cents a day, except these are our women. A military serves everyone, but our overblown military budget is in no way just defensive. it looks like we are gearing up to conquer the world and may actually suceed with our military. that is not doing anyone any good unless they really are rooting for imperialism. to be honest, the pennies we send to PP is far more beneficial, even to men.
I found comparing the military to PP lacking. I can concede the difficulties in being so basic on comparisons. Then again, it is only part of the argument. I don't outright agree with subsidies for oil companies, donors can do what they wish.
what about subsidies to oil companies? this week the state department was adversitising for Trump's private club. if you want a list of things the government spends your money on that doesn't directly benefit everyone, it will be a very, very long list.
PP benefits a large and vulnerable demographic. just because you don't belong to that demographic does not diminish the good they do for them or for society as a whole.
I accept bad wording on my behalf, and I would hope that the emphasis on the idea that other providers do just the same for care without the funding.
Not trying to backpedal, but I will own up, just want to clarify and be less confusing.
See, necessity decides taxes, and as easily as we can argue that, I will say everyone benefits from a military, and no nation can survive without. Planned Parenthood, not as a practice, but a brand name, is no equivalent. And as a man, what do I get out of paying for women's care? A selfish statement, possibly, but not immoral to say. Again, donations allow them to survive, there is no way around their self sufficiency, not to mention negligible result overall. This isn't feed an African child for 10 cents, if you catch the train of thought.
Abortion isn't only the mind, though I will concede a focus. Look, you list that certain proceedings are expected of a pregnant person, abortion or not. So, if someone chooses an abortion, and subsequently chooses the services a pregnant person would, the abortion is statistically half, a third, a fourth, until you reach 12% along with added, miniscule other services.
So health is on the table, but not all women health tests, more of them focus around pregnancy health, which in a turn of risks, sells abortion. What I would say is that they are selling a "healthy pregnancy" which is devalued when general health tests are so miniscule in the picture (1%,2%), and to say defunding is an attack on women's health is fundamentally flawed.
can you name some alternative options that will adequately cover this in need group? or should the poor just rely on donations and leave their health care up to fate with no gaurantees?
do you think the nation would be better off if these people were left untreated or undertreated? everything has a cost. you could help people now, or clean up the mess later. cleaning up later has time and time again shown to be much more expensive on your tax dollars, while also weakening the nation for the next generation instead of moving us forward.
"and I don't believe I said that PP wouldn't offer services to pregnant women so pregnancy and other tests would be available."
"It wouldn't be completely honest to say someone intending to carry to full term would use PP's services."
implying people planning on carrying the child have no business in PP. the only reason to go there is for abortions, and they don't provide services relevant to keeping a child, such as monitoring. which they do.
the strawman i was referring to was not the payment, but the implication that all or the majority of their procedures were in reference to abortion procedures, while I'm stating that most of what you consider as preabortion procedures are routine regardless of whether the parent is planning on keeping or aborting.
framing your point that all of these universally routine procedures were done solely with an abortion goal in mind was the strawman.
and the "your tax dollar" argument seems fallacious to me. if everyone made that argument for the program they don't like, the gov would be paralyzed. think of how many people would be against their tax dollars being used to rain bombs on other nations. well, there goes the military.
it all goes to the general fund, and it's all taken from the general fund, from the 100 dollars you give the gov (for simplicity sake) about a 100th of a penny goes to PP if that. and providing medical care to a population that cannot access/afford it is beneficial to everyone including yourself, because medical conditions don't become cheaper to treat if left alone, and unprepared parents (emotionally or financially) often don't raise productive responsible children, especially when they are still children themselves.
It's not so much of a straw man as it is "why is my money required?" I won't disagree that abortions are a choice, and can be done, but then I would suggest money is better off elsewhere, and it has been said there's no emotional attachment to PP
I concede the sliding scale payment argument, and I don't believe I said that PP wouldn't offer services to pregnant women so pregnancy and other tests would be available. I fault only myself for the wording and will say in consideration of having an abortion, certain things would need to be known, thus more testing. Nothing out of the way, many tests exist for multiple purposes, so I stand by my part and parcel statement.
Again, the 88% might be significant, if the values that were considered a service didn't go as far as counting pregnancy tests (again, only a few dollars at CVS). Perhaps there might be disagreement in the idea that "You can go elsewhere for just as little" but in many cases that occurs.
I had hoped when providing statistics between general tests and abortions, the focus wouldn't be that abortions happen as frequently. I get it, 1/3 of abortions by PP means 2/3 are elsewhere, but then why for every 33, only one or two occur?
Furthermore, is your arguments that defunding planned Parenthood wouldn't allow for a sliding scale payment? Or is it that these services would be more difficult? Because defunding doesn't mean planned Parenthood will be gone, just that taxpayers won't directly give to them. They survive off donations, and if that's what matters to the public there'll be no difference. Furthermore, options do exist for alternatives.
I don't entirely concede to the time constraint argument, though I recognize its value. How does the waiting process at planned Parenthood work? I know even walking into the door at a hospital establishment, clinic, the wait isn't all day in America. Maybe delayed by 2 hours at most, which is tragic in some ways but not Canadian levels of waiting.
the only preabortion process you mentioned is a prego test... wouldn't that be standard for people planning on keeping the baby?
same with sonograms, blood work etc. abortions are simple procedures, there isn't much prep work required and I am highly suspicious that every test your thinking off would be done for women planning on keeping the pregnancy.
unless you plan on naming some abortion exclusive procedures commonly done in PP and not in other clinics, I'm afraid your attacking a strawman.
"It wouldn't be completely honest to say someone intending to carry to full term would use PP's services."
why would you say that. everything from prenatal care to regular checkups like sonogram are available. not going to your gynecologist during pregnancy is just asking for complications! are you trying to imply that PP does not provide pregnancy checkups?
"Also, if the focus on the individual services is important, why are these services provided only 2% nationally, but 1 out of 3 abortions?"
are you suggesting they are pressuring people into getting abortions they don't want? that would be horrible! if you can prove that that would be a game changer.
otherwise, they are a business that is providing medical services. if people are coming in asking for medical care, are they supposed to tally how many they did that month and refuse the care? i dont see how you can be blaming them for that.
That's because you are saying it without a great deal of thought. No, it would not be disingenuous.
First, if 12% of people using planed parenthood are having an abortion, the remaining 88% are not. Defending them is stripping that 88% of people they serve of health care.
Next we can look at your argument about them providing 1 out of 3 abortions. Could there be other factors that weigh into it? They serve people who can't afford anything else. Would that factor into abortion rates? You are citing numbers without ever examining them to see if planned parenthood itself is causing the higher abortion rates, or just serving the demographic wth this highest abortion rates.
With respect to the being a small slice of national health care, how do you find that surprising? They offer free clinics to the low income. These are people who often can't afford medicine, and don't want to go to the doctor unless they are have to because they can't afford it. They can't take a day off to wait at the clinic, and if something was found they can't afford treatment.
But wouldn't it be just as disingenuous to say that the purpose of using some tests isn't part and parcel? Sure, if a person changes their mind then the procedures leading up to are not abortion, but how many of those tests are used with the standalone expectation? That being, how many of those tests/services can be avoided if abortion isn't intended? It wouldn't be completely honest to say someone intending to carry to full term would use PP's services.
Also, if the focus on the individual services is important, why are these services provided only 2% nationally, but 1 out of 3 abortions? Bringing it back to the breasts, why not mammograms? There is little reason behind such a lacking standard and high discrepancy when compared nationally, unless of course we conclude services are for the purpose of abortion, otherwise they are not checked or used.
I appreciate the links, but forgive me if the 2nd's statistics aren't too far separated from what I'm trying to say.
Your method of defining what is part of the abortion funding is unrealistic, and frankly childish. If you consider the pregnancy test and preliminary visits part of the abortion services, you have missed the point. That is where they explore other options, like adoption, and see if there are medical reasons abortion might be necessary. If they provide a pregnancy test, preliminary screenings and health checks, and then help them decide to carry the child to term and adopt them out, do you still consider that part of the abortion process since that was an option?
If you want to see how they are funded, and how much goes towards abortion, take a look. The numbers are publicly available.
About 4% goes towards abortion services. And between 3 and 12 percent of the people using their services receive abortions. Considering they tend to serve the people most in need, how exactly do you justify the belief that they shouldn't have health care available?
If you wanted just the numbers rather than having them interpreted for you and explained, here you go.
no one disagrees that needle sharing is bad, however many do disagree whether clean needle exchange programs should be provided. these conflicts are based on ideology and beliefs such as enabling or dependance rather than efficacy and results.
planned parenthood can certainly survive privately, but will it be able to continue serving communities that need it, instead of communities who can support it. that's the point of the public money. if a public organization or any other organization is capable of providing this same service with similar quality, I have no specific attachment to the name PP, just their results.
hospitals have other concerns and can't really move and open that easily. I'm guessing you meant a clinic, which is more than acceptable provided you (as a representative of right wing ideas in this discussion) don't put in some of the usual social investment games like numerous conditions and massive limits. this will go back to the debate whether social assistance creates dependence or the opportunity to finally achieve independence. by ripping the rug out from people finally getting on their feet, we shouldn't then laugh when they fall. I know that is a bit of a tangent, but that detail aside, I don't care if you fund a different for profit, non profit, or a government agency to do this work. just no games.
I would like to bring attention to how planned Parenthood calculates their services.
How does a service get defined? By a "discrete clinical interaction". This includes a pregnancy test that can be bought at CVS for a few dollars. Think about it like this, if before an abortion birth control pills are provided for future use, 50% of the services are considered abortion. That means any test or service in preparation to abortion, which is part of planning for an abortion, is factored in. suggesting over a mere two visits 2 services are provided, abortions are now listed at 25%. I don't imagine abortions are done so quickly. (Could we get a list of tests/services/gift bags provided up to an abortion?)
Also, in terms of health services, (nationally) only 1% of cervical cancer screenings are done there, 2% of breast exams (not including mammograms, which is fairly important), and 1/3 of the nation's abortions. This is not to mention the argument that planned Parenthood can survive off private funds, a similar argument exists for PBS. Should we be in disagreement if planned Parenthood funding were moved to other hospitals, as they do cover more services?
Needle sharing is unsanitary, there is no argument about that.
true. I can see why that wouldn't be fully good. it needs to be more than just keep everything or take it all down.
I can understand and I would say that I would do such funding while trying to find an alternative so more people can get off the stuff.
If planned parenthood only funded abortion, they I could see you perspective. But they also help take care of pregnant women and help with family planning. By removing funding, you are making abortion impossible (which you agree with), but you are also making having a healthy baby difficult as well. You remove health care, counselling, and many other services, which results in sickness and deaths. While I disagree with your opinion on abortion, I can at least see where you are coming from. How can you stop women of their access to medical care when they are the most in need and consider it a good thing?
Needle exchanges don't help people do drugs. They give people access to clean needles. These are people who are already addicted and are going to do it no matter what. By supplying clean needles, you are lowering the chances of them getting AIDS and other diseases by sharing. This helps them live longer, but it is also good for the taxpayers since there aren't years of them being a drain on the health care system whole dying of a disease that could have been prevented.
we shouldn't fund it. though we are of diff. opinions on that.
it's illegal to do drugs. why would we run a program that helps them do drugs? could we not instead help them get off it?
I would say policies based on ideology and reason would be perfectly fine.
The current day example is the attempt to defund planned parenthood in an attempt to undermine women's right to have an abortion.
But since this hasn't happened yet I will use an example from recent history.
Mike pence, based on his conservative ideals, adamantly refused to allow a needle exchange program that had been proven to be effective in many other places. he only reversed course after a flood of HIV cases forced him to acknowledge reality. he let dozens of people contract an incurable desease based on nothing but ideology.