(09-30-2015 09:37 PM)BEARCATDALE Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Also, this is a quote from Lummins interpreting something in the PP documentation. He likely didn't understand what he read or just lied about it.

Actually it is Ms. Cynthia Lummis. As in self-identified she. Also, she is simply stating what PP self-reported. Or you judging her on how she looks?

Is that photoshopped?

(10-01-2015 10:31 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 09:37 PM)BEARCATDALE Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Also, this is a quote from Lummins interpreting something in the PP documentation. He likely didn't understand what he read or just lied about it.

Actually it is Ms. Cynthia Lummis. As in self-identified she. Also, she is simply stating what PP self-reported. Or you judging her on how she looks?

Is that photoshopped?

Looks like David Letterman in a wig.

(09-30-2015 10:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Did you see that ass Chaffetz trying to pass off a misleading chart with no x/y axis as being from the PP reports, when in fact it was from a pro-life group and had the name of that group plastered right on his chart?



By any means necessary. It's sickening the levels of lying these Republicans stoop to.

To anyone with any experience with excel or charts whatsoever, there is no implication that this chart is PRODUCED by PP... and frankly, no reason PP would produce such a chart.

and the X/Y axis and labels are really immaterial.... it turns this into a simple red/green arrow chart which is also quite common when the 'basis' for the things being measured are so different. (300,000 vs 2mm)

The only thing that matters is if the data is correct. It should be fairly easily verifiable since the funding for one is public and the other is published by PP.

Abortions being up 15% over 7 years isn't good, but it also isn't horrible.

Cancer screening being down by over 50% is horrible... unless their federal funding is also down by 50%. Based on what I see, it's actually up marginally during that time.

I think it not unreasonable to ask why their funding is constant but their 'publicly funded services' are down by 50%. There may be a reasonable answer... but attacking how the question is posed is not it.

(10-02-2015 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it not unreasonable to ask why their funding is constant but their 'publicly funded services' are down by 50%. There may be a reasonable answer... but attacking how the question is posed is not it.

The bulk of their funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, so that would scale with the volume of services provided.

(10-02-2015 11:27 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it not unreasonable to ask why their funding is constant but their 'publicly funded services' are down by 50%. There may be a reasonable answer... but attacking how the question is posed is not it.

The bulk of their funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, so that would scale with the volume of services provided.

Exactly, but that isn't what we're seeing (from this data alone... obviously they do far more than just these two things).

We're seeing a 15% increase in abortions (from a relatively small number) and a 50% decrease in cancer screenings (from a relatively large number) and public funding being essentially flat (up a few percent). That doesn't sound remotely 'flat' in revenue to me... which is why you need more data.

I wonder how the 'donations' and 'lobbying' budgets compare over that time.

(09-30-2015 11:34 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I'm all for having a debate about PP funding, but let's stick to credible data, OK?

So, what you are saying is that PP is credible? REALLY? They've lied their butts off for years. They still push the nonsense that they provide mammograms, when it has been debunked over and over and over and over. They do not do mammograms - they provide referrals to other providers/facilities. If you don't believe me, have your wife or girlfriend call them and ask to schedule one.

(10-02-2015 06:11 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(09-30-2015 11:34 AM)Hitch Wrote:  I'm all for having a debate about PP funding, but let's stick to credible data, OK?

So, what you are saying is that PP is credible? REALLY? They've lied their butts off for years. They still push the nonsense that they provide mammograms, when it has been debunked over and over and over and over. They do not do mammograms - they provide referrals to other providers/facilities. If you don't believe me, have your wife or girlfriend call them and ask to schedule one.

This (if true... not doubting you but I can't verify it myself) is the sort of thing that often gets called healthcare, but isn't by any definition, healthcare.

You cannot submit a charge for such a referral to an insurer OR the government and get paid for it. Whether or not it is necessary is a different issue, but I suspect that lots of people, including I suspect their accountants call this 'providing healthcare services'

(10-02-2015 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 11:27 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think it not unreasonable to ask why their funding is constant but their 'publicly funded services' are down by 50%. There may be a reasonable answer... but attacking how the question is posed is not it.

The bulk of their funding comes from Medicaid reimbursements, so that would scale with the volume of services provided.

Exactly, but that isn't what we're seeing (from this data alone... obviously they do far more than just these two things).

We're seeing a 15% increase in abortions (from a relatively small number) and a 50% decrease in cancer screenings (from a relatively large number) and public funding being essentially flat (up a few percent). That doesn't sound remotely 'flat' in revenue to me... which is why you need more data.

I wonder how the 'donations' and 'lobbying' budgets compare over that time.

I posted links to their audited financial statements.