Tail... I can't be azzed to look it up either but I'm 98.2% sure abortions are not funded by the ACA. I'm not even sure they're funded under medical emergencies...

victor809 wrote:

From a cost savings perspective, it makes sense to fund them opposed to funding the alternative.

Abortions save tax payers money. I've thought about it, and logically come to that conclusion every time.

1000 abortions is cheaper in the long run than funding one life long "should have been aborted"... especially if you can negotiate bulk rates.

bgz wrote:

Tail.... You find the idea of aborting a healthy unborn child horrific.
So?

I find the idea of a person having a child in this world horrific. Are you going to support my opinion? Somehow I doubt it. Both opinions are of as much value as a clump of aborted cells scraped out of the vacuum machine.... Actually less so... We could use those stem cells for research.

Do I think there is some inequality in the decision making between the woman and the man? Sure. But there's also inequality in the impact of having to feed the parasite for 9mo and the damage to ones body. There's also societal inequalities regarding the "deadbeat" status... So I'm fine with the woman being able to make the abort decision without the man's input. Ideally I'd like both sides to be able to pull the abort plug regardless of what the other side thinks, and make keeping it require both to sign on... But I know no one will agree with me on that.

victor809 wrote:

Census Bureau published new data that show why the United States will need more immigrants, not fewer, in the coming decades.

Demographers and economists have been warning that the aging baby-boomer population presents a serious challenge to the nation’s finances, as the ratio of seniors to working-age adults—the age-dependency ratio—rises. The reason is straightforward: Social Security and Medicare are largely financed on a pay-as-you-go basis, which means that some of the taxes paid by current workers are transferred to current retirees. If the dependency ratio rises, the financial burden on the working-age population also increases.

I looked it up, they're not that expensive.

bgz wrote:

As I stated earlier tail, I've paid for one. I literally gave them money for services. No one asked if she had insurance (there was no ACA at the time so I can't say for sure about the ACA) they simply gave me a cost.

victor809 wrote:

They're subsidized by donations tail.
The way planned Parenthood works is services prices vary based on your income. If you're claimed income is x, then services cost y.... Etc etc. People donate to planned Parenthood so that low income people can afford these services (any services from gynecology to birth control to abortion). The abortion side is funded solely through donations.

victor809 wrote:

I just looked it up...
Government $$ is approx 543MM
Non govt health services 318MM
Private donations 532Mm

The government pays for less than half of planned Parenthood operations.

victor809 wrote:

ya, really woulda saved a lot of money if we'd aborted einstein... or elon musk... or bill gates...

or are you just in favor of killing the kids of the poor (and jewish)?

opelmanta1900 wrote:

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants

IsaacNewton wrote: