Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
????? I can think of no particular reason why PP should emulate Catholic hospitals and choose to stop providing abortions.
PP doesn't get a pass. They employ the same kind of professional accounting practices that all medical facilities use. Do you *really* think that only PP provides abortions in this country?
No one told PP to stop providing abortions.
They asked PP to separate their abortion business.
PP does get a pass.
Hospitals do provide abortions when they fall under the Hyde Amendment.
What they don't do is provide abortions as a means of birth control.
No one told PP to stop providing abortions.
They asked PP to separate their abortion business.
PP does get a pass.
What are you talking about?
PP, like all medical facilities that provide abortions, keeps their accounts separate. They use standard accounting practices to do so, just as your local hospital does.
No one told PP to stop providing abortions.
They asked PP to separate their abortion business.
PP does get a pass.
Exactly how do they get a pass? They use the same accounting methods that other facilities do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Hospitals do provide abortions when they fall under the Hyde Amendment. What they don't do is provide abortions as a means of birth control.
I don't know for certain, but my guess is that most non-Catholic hospitals and clinics (including PP) that provide abortions do so regardless of whether the abortion falls under the Hyde amendment exceptions or not.
Patient A gets an abortion because she was raped. The abortion is paid for by federal funds because she is low-income. Patient B, next bed over, gets an abortion because she's over 40. The abortion is paid for partially by her insurance and partially out of her own pocket. It's a trivial accounting issue, dealt with successfully thousands of times every day by medical facilities all over this country.
Have you ever done any bookkeeping for a not-for-profit organization? I have.
Yes I have. If there was a culture within our entire non-profit to cook the books for a specific reason, it'd be pretty easy to do that and still pass a federal audit.
Quote:
There are accounting standards for allocating overhead costs among funding sources.
Of course shady bookkeeping and accounting can occur in *any* organization. That's why there is a whole profession dedicated to auditing.
Please cite an actual instance of PP violating those standards.
Yes shady bookkeeping can occur anywhere. I think Planned Parenthood has significant motivation to engage in shady bookkeeping. They are big supporters of abortion. Undoubtedly, many if not most of them believe that abortions should be federally funded. Do I have specific examples of PP fraud off the top of my head? No. I don't work for PP or any entity affiliated with them, so obviously I wouldn't know. But a simple google search turned up this:
Forty‐five audits found numerous improper practices resulting in significant Title XIX‐Medicaid overpayments of nearly $8.5 million to Planned Parenthood affiliates for family planning and reproductive health services claims.
In combination with the $4.3 million settlement in the Reynolds False Claims Act lawsuit, auditors and investigators have specifically identified Planned Parenthood affiliates as the source of at least $12.8 million in waste, abuse, and potentially fraudulent overbilling and penalties. Former Planned Parenthood employees and others allege many millions more.
Fifty‐seven federal audits of state family planning programs by HHS‐OIG found over $121 million in overbilling, yielding a total of over $129.7 million in overbillings based on audits alone. In the last year, audits limited in location, time frame, and type of service examined have found overbilling, yielding a total of over $129.7 million in overbillings based on audits alone.
Of the 57 federal audits, the federal share of the audited amounts is known for 55; of these, 31 audits found 10% or more overbilling. These federal audits have detailed “unbundling†or “fragmentation†billing schemes related to pre‐abortion examinations, counseling visits, and other services performed in conjunction with an abortion; and improper billing for the abortions themselves.
Numerous former PP employees have said that there's a whole lot of fraud and shady stuff going on and PP isn't doing so well on it's audits apparently. I didn't know that till I googled it. Very enlightening.
But you've failed to answer my question. If abortion is getting zero funding from the taxpayers, why can't they just open up separate independent clinics that do nothing but abortions? If they can do that then I'd feel a lot more confident that my tax dollars are not being used to pay for abortions. If they can't afford to do that, then I know for certain that taxpayers are in fact paying for abortions.
????? I can think of no particular reason why PP should emulate Catholic health care providers and choose to stop providing abortions.
PP doesn't get a pass. They employ the same kind of professional accounting practices that all medical facilities use. Do you *really* think that only PP provides abortions in this country?
Exactly. Dr's offices and hospitals all perform abortions, are we to seperate them all out with a Scarlett Letter as well? I'm sure quite a bit of the 40K my husband and I pay in taxes goes for federally funded projects I do not support morally, WAR being the main one. Tough t***y said the kitty.
But you've failed to answer my question. If abortion is getting zero funding from the taxpayers, why can't they just open up separate independent clinics that do nothing but abortions? If they can do that then I'd feel a lot more confident that my tax dollars are not being used to pay for abortions. If they can't afford to do that, then I know for certain that taxpayers are in fact paying for abortions.
Ridiculously simple, isn't it?
Why should they have to separate it out just to soothe the paranoid brows of some people?
Another thing I dont understand about conservatives: they care so much about unborn babies, yet they lose all interest once these babies are born. Next, they are asking why do poor people have so many children....(and the concern is they need government support...) Nobody sees the contradiction?
To fight abortions they resort to the lame argument "we don't want to fund it with our taxes". However, they are opposing abortion and the tax argument was invented only to justify their stand. On top of that "other places provide the same services and PP is redundant".
I on the other hand, oppose the war on drugs. Just don't want my tax money be wasted on this pointless "wars". On top of that, other agencies (like police) provide redundant services, so no need for the extra billions.
But, what can I personally do if they use my taxes for purposes I object? Apparently not much, but conservatives don't see my point.
your tax dollars do not pay for abortions. abortions are legal. conservatives are great at personal responsibility. first, stay out of a woman's reproductive life it is not your business. second, keep care of your own sperm and you won't have to worry about your offspring being aborted.
Exactly how do they get a pass? They use the same accounting methods that other facilities do.
I don't know for certain, but my guess is that most non-Catholic hospitals and clinics (including PP) that provide abortions do so regardless of whether the abortion falls under the Hyde amendment exceptions or not.
Patient A gets an abortion because she was raped. The abortion is paid for by federal funds because she is low-income. Patient B, next bed over, gets an abortion because she's over 40. The abortion is paid for partially by her insurance and partially out of her own pocket. It's a trivial accounting issue, dealt with successfully thousands of times every day by medical facilities all over this country.
17 states allow abortion outside of the Hyde Amendment.
But those abortions have to be paid for by state medicaid funds, not Fed medicaid funds.
That creates a huge complexity.
All PP has to do is legally separate their abortion business into a subsidiary.
Then you know for sure that no Fed Funds are being used.
If their accounting was as straightforward as you say then why are they fighting Congress when asked to separate it. Why do they say "Trust us that we aren't using that money for abortions" ?
Obviously their accounting is not as black and white as you think.
17 states allow abortion outside of the Hyde Amendment.
But those abortions have to be paid for by state medicaid funds, not Fed medicaid funds.
That creates a huge complexity.
All PP has to do is legally separate their abortion business into a subsidiary.
Then you know for sure that no Fed Funds are being used.
If their accounting was as straightforward as you say then why are they fighting Congress when asked to separate it. Why do they say "Trust us that we aren't using that money for abortions" ?
Obviously their accounting is not as black and white as you think.
even if PP did separate abortion from the rest of their services you would still have conservatives opposed to it's operation. separating the services is just a smoke screen to try to further regulate and dismantle abortion and PP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
