- Joined
- May 1, 2012
- Messages
- 27,375
- Reaction score
- 19,413
- Location
- Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I did expect an answer what you gave me was a deflection
care to try again, why should the govt fund charity that has been proven to be successful with private funding?
Dumb and dumber. I get that people think they shouldn't have to pay for birth control for people but it has been proven to reduce teen births and therefore, save money. As a fiscal conservative, I think this is totally ridiculous.
How is this any different than any other company giving a freebie to one locality so that the state will then pay for the product statewide with taxpayer funds? Normally you would go ballistic about this sort of thing.
Ummmm how is this a "freebie"? And if you mean "freebie" by possibly having to purchase IUD's from a private company via government contract, I mean, you do realize that this is how our government all around, and many state governments all around function? Example construction contracts for roads, construction contracts for new buildings, etc...
Given by a private donor. Which is precisely how corporations who want state contracts for their goods do a test market. It's the hook. Provide free, but limited funding for certain equipment, getting sold on it's use, relying on it and boom, you have a new large state contract.
Republicans don't want to help poor people have access to contraception or abortions, and when their children are born they complain about poor people breeding.
Basically, you tally up your income and then take deductions that the government isn't allowed to tax you on. So, there is no subsidy involved at all. The government doesn't give you money, you give the government money, they just take less of it depending on what your taxable income ends up being.
And, they don't ever save money, they spend it, more than they should, and none of it belongs to the government. It's ours.
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..Given by a private donor.
Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work...Which is precisely how corporations who want state contracts for their goods do a test market.
:lamo So any evidence to actually back up any of these claims?It's the hook. Provide free, but limited funding for certain equipment, getting sold on it's use, relying on it and boom, you have a new large state contract.
what's wrong with that if the outcome is beneficial?
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..
Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work...
:lamo So any evidence to actually back up any of these claims?
I really didnt know it was common practice for private organizations to give legal grants to state governments in hopes of future contracts... :roll:
the real question is if it was such a successful private program why did the govt take it over?
Wonder how many millions it saved in medical costs, welfare and such. bets are enough to have paid for the program.
5 Million in costs.
Now if it saves money, why would the Republicans be against that. Right they want to control lives.
Nope, not cronyism. A tried and true sales technique.
Oh, I do. And any other issue you'd be arguing against this **** flying.
Talk to any police force, and fire departments anywhere. They get grant offers from private companies all the time. Taser manufacturers did it. As do armor manufacturers.
Heck, even the federal government does it in their own way. Right now any county government can apply for a federal grant to hire more police officers. Of course the grant is a one time deal and it only covers the first nine months of hiring a new officer and the county is on the hook thereafter. But hey, it's FREE and has a short term good outcome.
So essentially we are not arguing about really anything and essentially agreeing. Now do you think the state should move forward with the policy?
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..
Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work....
In this case and context, yes. And you can drop the silly attempt to bundle in "immunisations" to the discussion. IUDs for teens are contraindicated, that means not recommended. The reasons have been explained to you and sourced.
No, as I've been clear about since the beginning of the thread. I disagree that our government, local, state or federal should be funding anyone's birth control. But as to this particular program, I think it especially stupid to have the method being funded to be IUDs. That makes it doubly objectionable.
Are you talking about an RFP, or is a "RFPs" an abbreviation for something else?
I'm talking about charitable donations... But you knew that.
Request for Proposals
And what's your experience with how RFPs and etc. work?
One, it rarely is beneficial for anyone but the company. Two, again, IUDs are not as safe under general conditions as the company spin doctors are reporting. If you're relatively sedentary, have a long term stable relationship and no chance of STDs, they're good, or at least some of them are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?