Texas liberals shamefully protest Perry's measures to safeguard women's health

Every condition has a worst case scenario. Is it your position that every clinic in the state is equipped for every worst case scenario that might occur? This is why data is important. Is it one out of 1,000 patients? 1 out of 5,000 patients? Data, give me data. What is the cost benefit of a problem and what is the depth of the problem exactly. That's how real problems are solved. We don't determine problems exist because I listened to some testimony and we need to do something.

It's a common conservative position to push vouchers. Since I don't really know your positions I used general conservative positions.

Maybe 15 to a class isn't feasible but it's an idea. It's something to try, it's something to aspire to. I don't think there's a lot out of doubt that fewer students per teacher increases the amount of one on one time that a teacher can spend with a student which should in turn have some effect, especially if you increase the quality of the teachers by having stricter educational requirements.

I dunno what part of health care spending is Medicaid but we spend six times as much on the military as we do education. That's absurd.



http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_pie

I don't know that's accurate that Medicare is wasteful and poor quality.




http://www.gallup.com/poll/122663/private-public-health-plan-subscribers-rate-plans-similarly.aspx

MYTH ONE: MEDICARE COSTS ARE OUT OF CONTROL
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/15/us-column-miller-medicare-idUSBRE87E15N20120815

Facts: Medicare spending will soar in the years ahead as the number of seniors grows, but its per-capita growth is slower than private health insurance - and it is getting better. "We may be reaching the point now where Medicare healthcare expenses are growing no more quickly than growth of the economy overall," said John Rother, chief executive officer of the National Coalition on Health Care (NCHC). "That's important, but it might as well be a state secret as far as the public and Congress goes."

The average annual per-capita spending growth rate through 2019 is projected at 3.1 percent for Medicare, compared with 4.9 percent for private insurance plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. The 3.1 percent projection even includes higher payments to doctors as part of a long-term solution to the long-running problem of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) used under current law to control Medicare spending on physician services.

The 3.1 percent projection also is smaller than the 3.7 percent annual growth in gross domestic product for that period projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

Although we hear plenty about fraud and abuse in Medicare - which is a legitimate area of concern - the program is dramatically more efficient than private insurance. Medicare spent just 1.4 percent of every dollar on administrative overhead, even including money spent to fight fraud and abuse, compared with 25 percent overhead in private plans, according to Richard Kaplan, a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law who specializes in elder law matters.


This was on Reuters but I'm sure some conservative site will give their own whatever about the wastefulness of Medicare but the cry that it's wasteful and whatnot seems pretty overdone, especially considering the fact that a lot of Medicare recipients are the elderly and disabled who can't afford or cant' get private insurance. They'd be dead without Medicare.

I don't think anyone's asking for perfection. I think effort is what we're looking for. Some effort to use the tools of government to improve society, to improve the lives of the needy, to provide people the opportunities to do the whole bootstrap thing that you guys are so crazy about. Instead we hear about how government sucks, my taxes are way too high, how having clean air and water is costing us our jobs, and how we should privatize government services because companies are so darn efficient!

I gotta get to bed, haha. Later.

 

What factors do you think make some people contributors to society and some people drains on society? Do you think being a planned pregnancy by a stable financially able, loving family is better? proper pre-natal health practices? good nutrition? early education? good schools? affordable college?

Worker drones are becoming more obsolete every day in this country. The jobs that just anybody could do are being replaced with automation and offshore manufacturing. There's not that much left for under educated and under motivated to do.. services and retail, things that do not promote self-reliant tax payers.

You probably want to support eugenics instead of pro-life. Come on over to the dark side... support mandatory reversible vasectomies for every 14 year old male. They have to prove economic viability before they can get licensed to have it reversed. That would eliminate most needs for abortion too.

 

No. If you decide to keep the baby, supporting it is on you. If you give it up for adoption and that adoption does no occur, the child becomes a ward of the state. In that instance, it is up to society to pony up for their beliefs.

 

That's more or less what I was getting at.

 

Ah...my bad.

 

Dozens of women testifying on the official state record, broadcasting to the world their deeply personal and traumatic experiences of complications and their instructions by their abortionist is quite revealing. You wouldn't expect but a fraction to be able to give that kind of personal testimony.

And as for reporting, ER doctors testified that they don't keep track of these statistics and they don't have anything to link them with any clinic. These complications don't happen immediately, that is why it is important that they be encouraged to have multiple visits.

Don't really think many Republicans in Texas outside of Dan Patrick have supported vouchers, could be wrong there.

Personally I think we should do away with summer, or at least shorten it. 3 months is a huge break for kids learning the fundamentals of their educations. And as for increasing the quality, that's not easy to do when no one wants to teach in these low income areas. For better or for worse, they (inner city schools) have reputations and money isn't going to change that. And those high quality teachers don't want to teach out in West Texas or East Texas. Though I agree, better teachers are certainly necessary for progress.

Most everything I have stated has been in regards to state government, not federal. I don't follow federal as close as state. Texas spends something like 60 billion on Medicaid and Medicare, out of a 190 something billion budget.

Again, speaking in regards to Texas, I can think of two cases in Houston alone, where they had scammed over 60 million from the state. Most of the fraud comes from procedures that are not necessary, or are never done, but are billed to the state. The Houston cases had to do with ambulances.

And nobody is pushing to kick them off of Medicaid. They are looking to kick the people who don't actually need to be on there off, and stop those providers who are scamming the state.

I think you are ignoring their efforts. Dozens of bills are filed every session on issues related to educations and healthcare by Republicans and Democrats. Sorry that they are not all headline grabbers with catchy nicknames like Obamacare.

Government does suck, in the respect that it has historically proven to be grossly inefficient. Best left to the free market, best left to the individual to decide what is best for him or herself.

And clean air and water is important, but for the most part, OUR air is not disgusting, e.g. Beijing. Our water should be kept clean, and we should have strenuous safety guidelines to avoid Horizon like disasters. But oil and gas creates more revenue and more jobs for the state. That allows for more money to all the programs you want beefed up. Wind farms don't create jobs outside of crane operators and short term manufacturing. And our power grid is so outdated it can barely sustain itself as it is, that will be the next tackle of the legislature, I predict.

As for taxes, I look at it like this. You made your money following the laws. You deserve your money. Just because you had a better plan or maybe you were born lucky into the right circumstances, doesn't give the government a right to TAKE more from you. I think we should ALL pay something, a percentage of our income. Those who make more should not be subject to taxes that amount to nearly half their income like in California.

 

It is not the governments job to ensure you are financially fit to get pregnant. The woman is already pregnant. The life has already begun. There are emergency facilities and there are many non-profits and other charity organizations that assist unplanned pregnancies. There are over 200 non-profit Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Texas alone. They provide many of these services along with diapers and formula and classes for expecting mothers all for free.

Affordable college? Certainly, but I would prefer more trade schools. Not everyone needs to go to college. Why waste thousands of dollars on an education that you'll never use and you have no interest in. Lower demand = lower cost. Businesses should be encouraged to hire trade school graduates.

Perry has also been pushing at higher education to freeze tuition rates to allow more to go to college, part of the reason for the rift at UT between Bill Powers, the regents, and Perry.

Why does everyone need a fancy job? I am sorry that they are unable to find something that adequately fulfills their inner needs, but jobs are necessary means to an end and no job should be done in shame. There is always room for innovation, for succession, just because it isn't always easy doesn't mean it's not possible.

My mom worked two jobs. My grandfather worked nearly to his death at 75. The American dream is not guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed, but LIFE (important in this thread), liberty (equally important in this debate), and PURSUIT of happiness. The Constitution does not guarantee nor does it instruct the government to ensure happiness. I worked in customer service for 6 years. Did it suck? Yes. But I KNOW you can make money doing it, as annoying and soul sucking as it may be.

lol, that's quite a solution.

 

Perry and Dewhurst support vouchers. So do many urban Republicans in the Lege. Rural Republicans, however, generally do not. Why? Because in much of rural Texas, the public schools are all there is for the children in their districts. There aren't Catholic schools in many areas (they are frequently voucher supporters for obvious reasons), nor are there charter schools, most run for profit, because of the scattered population in those areas. Not enough "synergy" for charter schools there, and not enough profit. They don't want to pay out of their budgets for very long bus rides to collect students that parents might want to send to charter schools. Cuts profits. Also, there are deep rural traditions tied to their high schools. One obvious tradition? Football. And there are other traditions important to rural communities that are tied to their public schools. So when rural Republicans vote against vouchers, they are protecting those schools, those traditions, and most importantly from a political viewpoint, the interests of those who vote for them. Combine those rural Republican members of the Legislature with the Democrats there in both chambers, and you have your majority vote against vouchers, and that isn't likely to change. In fact, as the democraphic of the population of Texas continues to evolve, the change you desire is even less likely to occur. Texas will become more Democratic, and there will be even less support for vouchers, in my opinion. It is inevitable.

Here's the 2012 numbers for you, broken down into where the money went:

The Medicaid Numbers:

Medicaid as a percentage of Texas budget, SFY 2011: 26 percent

Percentage of Texas Medicaid budget spent on children, SFY 2011: 33 percent

Dollars spent on Texas Medicaid, FFY 2011: $29.4 billion

Texas Medicaid payments to nursing homes, FFY 2010: $2.3 billion

Texas Medicaid prescription drug expenditures, SFY 2011: $2.5 billion

Percentage of Texas Medicaid clients under age 21, SFY 2011: 77 percent

Percentage of Texas children on Medicaid or CHIP, CY 2011: 47 percent

Percentage of nursing home residents covered by Medicaid, CY 2010: 59 percent

Percentage of births covered by Texas Medicaid in 2011, CY 2011: 56.4 percent

Percentage of Texas Medicaid clients in managed care, SFY 2011: 76 percent

Unduplicated number of Texans receiving Medicaid, SFY 2011: 4.57 million

Average number of Texans with Medicaid each month, SFY 2011: 3.54 million

Percentage of Texas population covered by Medicaid, CY 2011: 14 percent

www.hhsc.state.tx.us/medicaid/reports/PB9/PinkBook.pdf

Looking at the numbers above, do you still seriously believe that insuring that our citizens are taken care of and have a decent life, whether they are the elderly, children of low income parents, those who are seriously ill, or would be without medicines vital to maintaining their health (so they are not a burden on society), should be left to "the private sector?" The private sector is out to make a profit. That's our system, our economic model, and I personally don't have a problem with that. However, in a modern society, we don't leave the disadvantaged without a roof over their heads, enough to eat, the medicines to keep them healthy, the medicines they need if they are ill, and the care of the medical profession to insure that that happens. We care. It's who we are. Why do we care? A big reason is because we once left all those things "to the individual." We once left it "to the private sector." Then we had something called The Great Depression. My parents were teenagers during the Great Depression. Those of my own generation grew up hearing about what happened to those tens of millions, a huge percentage of our population, who had the floor fall out from beneath them, had their businesses destroyed, lost their jobs and so much else I could talk about, if I felt like taking the time (I don't).

I find people like you incredibly unrealistic. I don't doubt that you mean well, but the nut of it is that you simply don't understand what you are talking about when you make your suggestions about these issues. You use the talking points of "radio talking heads", GOP primary election political talking points, things Republican members of both the state and federal level use to get the nomination of their party, and very often don't personally believe in themselves. Reality is serious business. Talking points that sound groovy to you, apparently, aren't grounded in reality. Reality is laid out right there in that chart. Look at it, and explain how the private sector will take care of those people. Reality is that they can't, and don't want to if they can't make a profit, and in a modern country interested in the welfare of its citizens in all aspects can't base that on profit. That's why we have local, state, and federal governments. They have jobs to do, and it takes our tax dollars to be able to do those those jobs. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but again, it is simply reality.

 

It's not a perception. It's the history. People pay taxes to get services from government, whether its road construction or unemployment. That's not charity.
You have failed to learn from history. There were times when government did little and they weren't great times for anyone but the very wealthy. No charity has the ability to do work on the scale of government. That's just reality. It's why government took these services on in the first place. In a society, it's every citizens responsibility to contribute. That's what a society is. It is precisely the place of government. You're trying to reinvent history with this selfish Rand-like ideology.

Let them die isn't a solution. Universal payer is a widely accepted and successful solution all across the world.

 

2 months later:

BREAKING: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit strikes down a large part of sweeping abortion regulations that threatened existence of most abortion clinics in Texas. Justices specifically cited the 20-week ban as "unconstitutional, from a legal tradition that dates from Roe. v Wade", and said the other sections of the law warranted extra scrutiny because it was clear lawmakers were intending to impose an undue burden on the constitutionally assured rights of women to seek abortions.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/arizona-20-week-abortion-ban-unconstitutional

don't hold your breath.

there has to be some outrage out there for implementing clearly unconstitutional laws that are a waste of taxpayer's money, but apparantly fiscal responsibility or any sense of logical reasoning flies out the window on certain issues.

 

I personally know Republican women, Republican women of decades standing, that voted for Obama simply because of the assault on women's rights by the Republican Party. Those on the far-right of that party seem oblivious to what they are doing to themselves, their own party. These are women who are conservative on economic issues, but lean towards being socially moderate. Not liberal, moderate, but today's GOP has no room for moderate conservatives. They are busy losing Hispanics. They are busy losing women. They already lost Blacks. Back when "White" Americans made up 80% of the demographic of this country, and I remember when that was the case, it wouldn't have mattered so much to lose 75% of this ethnic group, 90% of that ethnic group, and 60% of that particular sex. Back when White housewives that stayed at home actually existed (and I recall that, as well), they tended to vote the way their husbands voted. No longer.

I'm so glad the extremists of the GOP, who control the GOP because they are organized, have scads of money, and most importantly, vote in the primaries, are driving the Republican Party off a cliff. They shouldn't expect all Republicans to dive off that cliff with them, however.

 

I'd love to see you argue how a ban is not an undue burden on a woman's constitutionally afforded right to get an abortion to the age of viability.

 

It prevents women from making their own decisions about their own health. You fail.

 

for the purposes of this debate, above 20 weeks, that's for sure.