Planned Parenthood Greed Without Bounds
Like many addicted to public subsidy, Planned Parenthood complains that taxpayers are too stingy with their dope.
Rebecca Poedy, Commander Idaho Planned Parenthood just published a guest opinion in the Idaho Statesman (12.20.07) whining about the fact that Congress has just adjourned without raising the subsidy for birth control pills. She charges that Congress will force young women in college to pay $40 per month for their birth control pills as a result of changes made in some formula or other to cut federal outlays for health subsidies.
Her piece fails to tell readers that her interest in this whole matter is pure business: What Congress really did in 2006 was challenge the sweetheart contracts Planned Parenthood had leveraged with various drug makers to obtain birth control pills at below-market prices. These questionable arrangements allowed Planned Parenthood to make huge mark-ups on their so-called “clients” – and make millions in profit.
But let us set aside that matter for a moment.
Poedy’s whiny complaint comes on the same day the Statesman printed an article about the plight of low-income seniors in Idaho and the doctors who treat them. Because of rising budget costs, Congress has been trying to reign in Medicare reimbursements for doctors. Susie Pouliot, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association is quoted in the article as saying that doctors were spared a major hit last week, when Congress put off a substantial cut in payments to doctors treating Idaho seniors.
Still, the cuts are coming later next year – and could amount to some $50 million in lost revenues for Idaho doctors. Those cuts mean Idaho seniors will have an ever more difficult time finding medical care, especially in smaller communities, as doctors find they simply cannot afford to treat Medicare clients.
It is in this context that one can truly see the self-centered nature of Poedy’s demand for more taxpayer subsidy of birth control pills: Is it more important that seniors on fixed incomes get the medical care they need to survive – or for girls in college to get cheap birth control pills so they can happily engage in recreational sex between exams?
The answer, unless you are part of the evil abortion empire, is more than obvious. But just because it is obvious, do not foolishly assume that Planned Parenthood will ever concede the point.
Rebecca Poedy, Commander Idaho Planned Parenthood just published a guest opinion in the Idaho Statesman (12.20.07) whining about the fact that Congress has just adjourned without raising the subsidy for birth control pills. She charges that Congress will force young women in college to pay $40 per month for their birth control pills as a result of changes made in some formula or other to cut federal outlays for health subsidies.
Her piece fails to tell readers that her interest in this whole matter is pure business: What Congress really did in 2006 was challenge the sweetheart contracts Planned Parenthood had leveraged with various drug makers to obtain birth control pills at below-market prices. These questionable arrangements allowed Planned Parenthood to make huge mark-ups on their so-called “clients” – and make millions in profit.
But let us set aside that matter for a moment.
Poedy’s whiny complaint comes on the same day the Statesman printed an article about the plight of low-income seniors in Idaho and the doctors who treat them. Because of rising budget costs, Congress has been trying to reign in Medicare reimbursements for doctors. Susie Pouliot, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association is quoted in the article as saying that doctors were spared a major hit last week, when Congress put off a substantial cut in payments to doctors treating Idaho seniors.
Still, the cuts are coming later next year – and could amount to some $50 million in lost revenues for Idaho doctors. Those cuts mean Idaho seniors will have an ever more difficult time finding medical care, especially in smaller communities, as doctors find they simply cannot afford to treat Medicare clients.
It is in this context that one can truly see the self-centered nature of Poedy’s demand for more taxpayer subsidy of birth control pills: Is it more important that seniors on fixed incomes get the medical care they need to survive – or for girls in college to get cheap birth control pills so they can happily engage in recreational sex between exams?
The answer, unless you are part of the evil abortion empire, is more than obvious. But just because it is obvious, do not foolishly assume that Planned Parenthood will ever concede the point.
Posted at 12/22/2007 06:58:00 AM Link to this article 
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home