i cant read that

Came up for me on multiple devices

i mean it is too small. i cant read the numbers so i dont know what math is bad.

its the scale and the slopes that are messed up.

Some context behind that chart:

Chaffetz, who chairs the committee, at one point showed a slide that had one straight line heading downward and another straight line heading upward. "You created this slide. I have no idea what it is," Richards said.

"Well, it is the reduction over the course of years — in pink, that's the reduction in the breast exams — and the red is the increase in the abortions," Chaffetz said. "That's what's going on in the organization."

Richards said that she had not seen the slide before and that it "absolutely does not reflect what's happening at Planned Parenthood."

"You're going to deny that —" Chaffetz said.

"I'm going to deny this slide that you just showed me that no one has ever provided us before," she said. "We've provided you all the information about everything — all the services that Planned Parenthood provides. And it doesn't feel like we're trying to get to the truth here. You just showed me this."

"I pulled those numbers directly out of your corporate reports," Chaffetz said.

"Excuse me," Richards said. "My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source."

Chaffetz, paused, stuttered a bit and said, "Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/j ... hood-chart

thanks taterdave

Taliban forces took over Kurduz, Afghanistan. Afghani defense forces appear useless. We're good at training.

Nice use of red and pink.

I actually watched the first 45-60 minutes of the actual hearing. That chart is hilariously bad, but I thought otherwise Chaffetz actually made a cogent argument in support of his position. Basically, his point was that Planned Parenthood is excellent at raising money on its own, and that PP actually puts a lot of money into stuff other than directly providing care for poor American women (Aid to foreign countries, lobbying, campaigning for candidates etc) and therefore it's an open question of whether or not they really "need" federal funding, and moreover if the federal government should be funding an entity that is so active politically.

He also pointed out that it's kind of crafty accounting to say no federal money goes towards abortions, because since they have the federal money to fund everything else, it inherently allows them to perform more abortions with the non-federal money than they otherwise could (He said 87% the non-federal money goes towards abortions. Not sure if that's true).

I didn't really agree with his positions (there are plenty of independently successful corporations that receive government funding, and they are cherry picking on PP for political reasons. Also personally I don't have a problem with the federal government indirectly funding abortions in this way) but it was refreshing to actually hear someone made a substantive argument in this rather than just grandstanding the way everyone else on both sides has been doing on this issue.

if the money is easily replacable, why hasn't it been replaced in states where they cut off state reimbursement (which is what we're mostly actually talking about when they want to cut it federally) of services? clinics have shut down.

the obvious reason they must put money into lobbying and campaigning is that politicians like Chaffetz don't want them to exist. everyone lobbies; if we were in a system where money wasn't involved in politics and he didn't get lots of money from anti-abortion sources, perhaps PP wouldn't need to lobby as well. They have a PAC, so do all the congresspeople that were on that stage (i'll call it a stage).

as far as the funding:

How much does the government pay to Planned Parenthood?
Bush is right that Planned Parenthood receives $500 million a year in government funding — or, to be more exact, $528 million last year, according to Planned Parenthood's latest annual report.
That totals more than 40 percent of Planned Parenthood's total $1.3 billion in revenue for the year, which suggests that the organization would be in some heavy financial trouble without that public funding.

the 87% stat is pretty funky math. it lives off of government reimbursement, donations and a small amount of in-clinic revenue (the money the women actually pay which, yes, does include abortions). they are probably including money that CAN theoretically be used for abortion and just saying it is for abortion. If you bat one lie down, another two seem to pop up so it's hard for me to keep track anymore.

he seemed to not know the difference between what a breast exam was and what a mammogram was, nor was he intereste din listening to someone who had actually experienced both.

page 19 of their own report shows a breakdown of their funding. their audited infancial statement is there, too, via KPMG.

Yeah, I don't know a lot about the context of the stats he provided. Just thought he made a decent argument, and it's something that's actually debatable rather than the grandstanding everyone else was doing.

I do think that it is not a ridiculous opinion to hold that a company that receives a substantial part of their budget from direct federal funding shouldn't be lobbying. I can see how someone can find that especially problematic.

I also think that it is fair to point out that the revenue they receive from the federal government reimbursement exceeds the costs of providing the services, and that surplus at least partially allows them to do more of the things that many Americans do not like about PP. Personally I don't have a problem with them providing abortions, or aid to people in foreign countries, or lobbying. But a lot of people do.

PP acting like those two aspects are completely separate ("No federal money goes towards abortions") is a political ploy and obscures the real question: Whether or not the federal government should be providing significant funds that indirectly support abortion, as well as advocacy for pro-choice.

So Norman f'ing Braman is funding Rubio's campaign.

LOL

MoBettle wrote:Yeah, I don't know a lot about the context of the stats he provided. Just thought he made a decent argument, and it's something that's actually debatable rather than the grandstanding everyone else was doing.

I do think that it is not a ridiculous opinion to hold that a company that receives a substantial part of their budget from direct federal funding shouldn't be lobbying. I can see how someone can find that especially problematic.

I also think that it is fair to point out that the revenue they receive from the federal government reimbursement exceeds the costs of providing the services, and that surplus at least partially allows them to do more of the things that many Americans do not like about PP. Personally I don't have a problem with them providing abortions, or aid to people in foreign countries, or lobbying. But a lot of people do.

PP acting like those two aspects are completely separate ("No federal money goes towards abortions") is a political ploy and obscures the real question: Whether or not the federal government should be providing significant funds that indirectly support abortion, as well as advocacy for pro-choice.

well i think we should explicitly pay for abortion. it's a medical procedure. we should not be making moral judgements regarding this, IMO.

also, it seems completely arbitrary to go after PP on lobbying and on how much procedures cost when we are not really doing this with anyone else. there is no special committee investigating JP Morgan Chase, for a random example. any corporation or non-profit under this scrutiny would be faced with plenty of questions.

it remains to be seen when the Center for Medical Progress will be called to this special committee to testify.

but it's an ELECTIVE medical procedure (most always anyway)

Yeah I mean I agree with all that, just saying that I can see the other side and it's not completely irrational. Saying "why don't you go after everyone else?" isn't really a positive argument.

lots of things are elective that medicaid picks up

MoBettle wrote:Yeah I mean I agree with all that.

Yeah, I'm not attacking you, I'm just a tad fired up after seeing about an hour of that thing yesterday.

pacino wrote:lots of things are elective that medicaid picks up

right, i guess in theory EVERY surgery is elective though

i guess what i meant is "medically necessary". like joint replacement is totally elective, but doctors may deem it medically necessary to maintain quality of life

traderdave wrote:Some context behind that chart:

Chaffetz, who chairs the committee, at one point showed a slide that had one straight line heading downward and another straight line heading upward. "You created this slide. I have no idea what it is," Richards said.

"Well, it is the reduction over the course of years — in pink, that's the reduction in the breast exams — and the red is the increase in the abortions," Chaffetz said. "That's what's going on in the organization."

Richards said that she had not seen the slide before and that it "absolutely does not reflect what's happening at Planned Parenthood."

"You're going to deny that —" Chaffetz said.

"I'm going to deny this slide that you just showed me that no one has ever provided us before," she said. "We've provided you all the information about everything — all the services that Planned Parenthood provides. And it doesn't feel like we're trying to get to the truth here. You just showed me this."

"I pulled those numbers directly out of your corporate reports," Chaffetz said.

"Excuse me," Richards said. "My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source."

Chaffetz, paused, stuttered a bit and said, "Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/j ... hood-chart

lol

I got alot of complements for wearing pink yesterday. #plannedparenthood

Kevin McCarthy lets us know the reason for these committees:

What you’re going to see is a conservative speaker, that takes a conservative Congress, that puts a strategy to fight and win. And let me give you one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right?

But we put together a Benghazi special committee. A select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known that any of that had happened had we not fought to make that happen.