Patterico's Pontifications

Lee – You are correct that people on the left take Media Matters as a credible source, to the point where people such as Maddow and Olbermann would frequently just rip and read material they put out on the air without any additional vetting. The often hilarious results of those practices are fun for the right to watch, but have not changed the influence of the organization on the left. Think Progress is another organization with similar practices.

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:04 am

i am honestly stunned the left believes in media mutters. they have been a joke for as long as i have known of them. they are not just liars, but bad, hacky liars.

Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:08 am

Mr. Stranahan, thank you for your calm and reasoned approach to this. I liked your comments that PP should just correct, apologize, and not attack its critics.

The folks at FIRE have a saying: the solution to “bad speech” is not restricting that speech; the solution is more speech. And I think that is true.

What I fear is that you will be vilified because of your mature and impersonal approach, and that saddens me.

But then, I don’t believe that this is about “a right to choose” or “health care” or anything similar. I think that this is about money and power, period.

I’m a cynic.

Anyway, thank you for posting these. It matters, even if it’s not part of the overall media (to try to pun off “Media Matters” self important title).

Simon Jester (c8876d) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:10 am

This is going to leave a mark.

JD (0b7af0) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:20 am

Well done, Lee. You get to the point and then just pile on the facts. That must drive some people nuts.

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:35 am

I think this doesn’t pass your own test Lee. The Lila Rose story is a distortion. I oppose federal funding of health clinics like PP.

However, they offer breast screening the way my primary care/internest ob/gyn’s do.

Women cannot self-refer for these tests. They cannot show up a mammography center, subsidized or no, and be tested.

I don’t know if you realize this, but PP offers primary care services in addition to OB/GYN services.

Why don’t women just go elsewhere? PP is cheap. And they will see you and charge you based on income and sometimes charge nothing.

A primary care physician who accepts insurance cannot do this, without violating his contracts with insurers. He must charge an inflated fee to cash customers, on which the insurer bases its discounted rate. Doc can’t charge the patient less.

Most urgent care or walk in practices charge a large up front fee to the uninsured, if any such practice is available in the first place.

Many primary care and ob/gyn physician will not see an unestablish patient who lacks insurance AT ALL.

So Planned Parenthood REALLY DOES provide access to basic screening tests that can’t be had otherwise, and especially in low income areas without other low-cost clinics.

They offer breast screening, access to mammography, and often can hook up women with subsidized screening because of their relationship with the clinics and special programs for poorer women.

Planned Parenthood provides general care to women in addition to the induced abortion services many believe is their raison
detre.

To deny this is to tell a sort of lie; at least to be mistaken.

Planned Parenthood provides valuable needed services, access to care that women can afford.

I happen to believe it should be a purely charitable organization operating without tax dollard – but I think that about all medical clinics that serve lower income and uninsured people.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 7:46 am

Does this ever become libel? If I release a clip that purports to show Sammons saying something he did not say and then clai,s he is lying, then that seems to encompass malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

Rick Caird (0ceb78) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:06 am

SarahW – that was a case they could have made. They chose not to.

JD (0b7af0) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:09 am

That was not really the purpose of PP, re the words of Margaret Sanger herself.

narciso (b545d5) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:10 am

Narciso, and yet it does provide these services, all the same.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:13 am

Readers and viewers absolutely must vet Media Matters’ every utterance (just as they need to vet some of Fox’s commentators, MSNBC’s, CNN, WSJ, CBS, and the LA Times, etc.). It is apparent that making the effort to view multiple sources for any given story, including foreign sources, (or noticing that some are not covering the story at all and wondering why) is really the only way citizens have a prayer of knowing the truth of what is going on anymore. Trouble is, it’s hard and takes a lot of time, and not every citizen has the commitment or the wherewithal to do it–or frankly even understands that such vetting is necessary. And that’s exactly what the fabulists at Media Matters are counting on.

And diligent vetting does not even begin to solve the “corrections” nightmare problem that prevails because of dishonest reporting that is left forever by caching.

My dog knows that he has to keep sniffing the piles left around the neighborhood to know what’s actually going on. It’s good that at least a few journalists with integrity (such as yourself, Lee) keep sniffing around the piles left by Media Matters.

elissa (a4964b) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:29 am

As Reagan used to say, it’s pointless to look for the pony,

narciso (b545d5) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:32 am

Sarah stop shilling for PP you can go to a doctor not affiliated with PP who does those same things.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/31/2011 @ 8:35 am

DohBiden: Her point is that they do it far cheaper for the uninsured. Had you bothered to read her post, you would have seen that was the case.

Newtons.Bit (90be50) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:02 am

http://bigjournalism.com/retracto/2011/03/30/correction-request-media-matters-fudges-truth-on-planned-parenthood-services/

narciso (b545d5) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:02 am

“The Lila Rose story is a distortion.

However, they offer breast screening the way my primary care/internest ob/gyn’s do.”

Sarah W – Based on listening to the original Lila Rose video, not the clip above, can you explain the distortion? It sure sounded like all the PP offices merely offered to provide phone numbers for places to get screenings or mammograms rather than saying come on in and we’ll write you out a doctor’s referral. What did you or I miss?

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:25 am

“Sarah stop shilling for PP you can go to a doctor not affiliated with PP who does those same things.”

I guess you didn’t even read what I wrote, having written it off as “shilling”.

If you had, you would know I addressed that very point, and very specifically.

While it’s true that doctors can examine, evaluate and refer for tests that are appropriate,

It’s not very helpful that “any primary care physician” can refer if there is no primary care physician who will see you, let alone adjust his fee for the situation of his patients.

It’s a ridiculous assertion that PP does not improve access to basic care or breast cancer screening, because it does.

I’m on board with defunding planned parenthood because these clinics should be private charitable enterprises and not funded with tax dollars, your’s, mine or anyone else’s.

But this is a trumped up business, and I don’t need to distort reality to make the case for defunding.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:42 am

WOmen can’t self refer themselves for a mammogram.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:43 am

Daleyrocks – Services at PP vary by location.

The RIchmond PP for many years referred out to private clinics and physicians for induced abortions, too. Yet I doubt anyone would argue they didn’t facilitate access to abortion.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:48 am

SarahW – From PP’s own Website:

“But some women may put off breast cancer screenings. They may be afraid of being diagnosed with breast cancer, they might not know they should be screened, they may have a hard time finding the right health care provider, or they may have concerns about the exams. It is important not to let these fears and concerns get in the way of your health. You and your health care provider can work together to protect your health.

If you have questions or concerns about breast cancer, we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss breast cancer, breast exams, and breast health with you and help you find the services you need.”

So sure, if you are actually at a PP clinic talking to a doctor, I’m sure you could get the type of referral you are talking about. Just like I get a referral for colonoscopy or skin exam from my doc. Nothing there says they perform the screenings themselves. Sorry. Watch Lila’s video.

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:52 am

“Daleyrocks – Services at PP vary by location.”

Sarah W – Rly?

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:54 am

“Daleyrocks – Services at PP vary by location.”

Sarah W – So at how many do they actually perform breast cancer screenings now that you have made this admission. Any idea? Have you watched Lila’s video?

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 9:57 am

I like how the PP apologists never look up margaret sanger and her evil plans and yet those opposed to abortion are misogynists.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/31/2011 @ 10:40 am

SarahW, any county health department offers the same services. PP clinics are not the only low-cost or free option.

alwaysfiredup (349c3b) — 3/31/2011 @ 11:09 am

If you have questions or concerns about breast cancer, we are here to help. A staff member at your local Planned Parenthood health center can discuss breast cancer, breast exams, breast health, protect rapists by not reporting minors seeking abortions and help you find the services you need.”

FIFY

Bill M (dc386c) — 3/31/2011 @ 11:10 am

I’ve got a phone book, my computer and I can call information and provide the same “access” PP reportedly provides and as shown in that Lila Rose video.

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 11:17 am

I tried to find the video about bill sammons on media matters. It was not there. How can I find a copy of the video?

bryan bates (33a832) — 3/31/2011 @ 11:33 am

Thanks for this post, Lee. I appreciate your commitment to truth and accuracy.

BTW, in our rural county, the health department has provided low-income family planning/routine female exams for over 25 years. Mammograms with breast checks are available without referral for a much reduced price at a “Breast Diagnostic Center” at a nearby city.

Hal Dall, MD (afd713) — 3/31/2011 @ 12:14 pm

@SarahW –

Then you’ll have no objection to federal funding for the KKK, so long as they provide a service to someone?

PP is every bit as evil as the KKK; both orgs having been founded for the purpose of killing blacks. The only difference is that the KKK never provided employment services.

Considering that blacks are 12-13% of the population, yet obtain 35% of the abortions, I’d say PP is still doing its job as the founders envisioned it.

AngryMobster (e1ffd7) — 3/31/2011 @ 12:49 pm

*clarification* by ‘founders, I mean PP founder Margaret Sanger.

AngryMobster (e1ffd7) — 3/31/2011 @ 12:50 pm

I’ll just jump into say that I appreciate Sarah writing a detailed comment and I think others should show basic civility. Just because your Mom would probably want you to. I appreciate all the comments for everyone…

I think the referrals would be handled elsewhere and as someone pointed out, it didn’t seem liek PP was saying ‘come on in’ – it was more ‘we’ll give you a name.’

Stranahan (708cc3) — 3/31/2011 @ 12:58 pm

Often the American Cancer Society along with a hospital, health dept, etc. will essentially do a breast cancer screening for women on self-referral.

All a group has to do is say they are an “independent” commentary on the news and they are given respect as such by the MSM unless they defend conservatives. Give yourself a name like “Media Matters” and say you are committed to the truth being reported in the media and you are treated at face value, as long as you don’t start defending conservatives (becuase then you would be a front for the evil Koch brothers, even if they provided only 1% of your budget).

MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:00 pm

Nothing there says they perform the screenings themselves

Daleyrocks, I addressed that. It was the point of my post.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:08 pm

ANgrymobster – I wrote out in plain English that I don’t think PP or any other similar clinic should be funded with tax dollars.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:08 pm

Anyone who defends funding for planned parenthood better not call our military babykillers.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:09 pm

I don’t read Media Matters very often but I assume its target audience is the far-left, liberals and 20-somethings. Some of each group may realize these MM arguments are more like hyperbole, overstatement, and/or propaganda than reasoned analysis. However, it seems to me the real danger in this is two-fold:

1. Those who aren’t regular media consumers will view this as reliable information rather than propaganda, and thus their world views will be seriously misinformed.

2. Those who are regular media consumers and realize this is propaganda may conclude all media reports are similarly slanted and unreliable. Thus, instead of encouraging discriminating media consumers, this facilitates polarization by encouraging people to tune out anything they don’t agree with.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:11 pm

Sarah

Why don’t women just go elsewhere? PP is cheap. And they will see you and charge you based on income and sometimes charge nothing.

Okay am I the only person creeped out by the fact that an organization founded by a person who said this:

The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded.

is offering abortions on the cheap to the poor? are we certain they are doing so with good intention, or to keep the “undesirables” from over breeding?

Btw, when she talks about segregation, Sanger doesn’t just mean that they sit on the back of the bus or something like that. she means in concentration camps. You can read all the fun stuff, here.

Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:12 pm

let me add that i am not swiping at sarah for saying that or trying to say she is a eugenicist or anythign like that. just that the issue leapt out at me.

Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:15 pm

SarahW,

I’m open to your point that PP facilities indirectly provide women’s medical health services like mammograms. However, do you know of any PP facilities that routinely offer services other than abortions, and that women typically go to for such services? It certainly isn’t the case in my community. Instead, low-income women rely on a range of community health centers for OB/GYN. The PP facility is exclusively for abortions and everyone knows it.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:17 pm

Hall Dal Ml – Splitting a hair here, but that breast center doesn’t allow self referral for the mammogram itself, but will evaluate the patient and do screening (or diagnostic) one if indicated. (I’m sure they offer evaluation at low cost.)

That’s exactly what I mean when I say a patient can’t self refer that test.

The larger point is that this is not only not available everywhere, but that discussion of breast screening would be part of ordinary exam at PP if relevant to the patient.

Most women coordinate breast screening in similar fashion with their own physician. This is just the truth – PP helps women get access to primary and ob-gyn care at lower cost.

FWIW, In Virginia you can’t get an x-ray without it being ordered by a licensed health care professional.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:18 pm

DRJ

you know, i don’t even care if they provide more services to the poor than abortion. why is it my job to fund it. in case people missed it we are $14 T in debt, okay?

Aaron Worthing (b1db52) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:20 pm

Why do you all hate teh womynz?

JÐ (d56362) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:22 pm

AAron, I am well aware that most people for defunding PP want to because they see it as nothing but a eugenics-for-profit murder mill.

DIffidulty, it might be all that, but it is more. It actually does provide care, basic health care, to women that is more affordable.

I am all for any other organization that wants to step into the breach and provide that care, but it doesn’t mean PP doesn’t provide it.

And none should be funded with Federal dollars, – it’s just not proper function of the federal government.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:23 pm

I can see how a pregnant/abortion client might get routine GYN services like breast screening, mammogram, PAP smear, etc., but those would be incidental to the pregnancy. However, to me, the point is what if a woman went to PP solely for GYN services that did not involve a pregnancy? What happens to her? My impression is she is always referred out, often to low-cost charity and community clinic.s

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:24 pm

Aaron,

Odds are your taxes are already funding those services at some level, but I agree it would be preferable they be funded at the local level. That way it is more likely there is a realistic evaluation whether the funds are being used wisely and effectively, or whether there are better uses for the same money.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:26 pm

SarahW is doing a good job of highlighting Lee’s point, that there were honest ways mediamatterz could have approached this, but they chose to be deceitful instead.

JÐ (d56362) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:26 pm

I get it Sarah.

DohBiden (984d23) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:28 pm

DRJ –

That kind of use is common; I can’t speak for you location, and PP notes that services vary.

The Richmond PP I mentioned does provide checkups, treatment for minor illness, routine exams, STD checks and birth control as a woman would normally get at her OB/GYNs, at least if she saw a nurse practitioner.

The one in this town did not actually have any PP-operated induced abortion facilities for many years, and exclusively provided the other, but also facilitated abortions through referral.

.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:31 pm

DRJ,
You wrote:” what if a woman went to PP solely for GYN services that did not involve a pregnancy? What happens to her? My impression is she is always referred out, often to low-cost charity and”community clini

In Richmond she would get the in-house GYN services.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:33 pm

DRJ

you misunderstand me. i don’t want it funded period. your health is your business, not mine.

Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:34 pm

Thanks, Sarah W. That’s important to know. Now how widespread is this? Can we fairly extrapolate from the Lila Rose experiment that if there are 27 PP locations that say they don’t provide such services, there are at least 23 more (1 per state) that do? Or is Richmond the only one?

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:36 pm

Aaron,

Some communities and states have chosen to fund low-income health care. In my community and state, we primarily do it to relieve the burden on emergency rooms — because otherwise low-income people use the ERs for all their health care and are judgment-proof. This is especially common because of the high number of illegal aliens in our state. It makes far more sense to set up community health centers that use basic equipment and nurse practitioners, as opposed to burdening the high-tech, high cost ERs with floods of patients. I think communities and states should be able to do that if they choose, don’t you?

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:40 pm

By the way, Aaron, the patients are charged for using the community health care centers but the costs are much more within their means. They could never afford the ER bills. And to keep non-emergent patients from using ERs and avoiding all costs, I’ve seen ER docs prescribe medications that are brand name (no generics) and thus cost a lot to fill. (I’ve never seen this happen with true emergent patients.)

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:45 pm

“A primary care physician who accepts insurance cannot do this, without violating his contracts with insurers. He must charge an inflated fee to cash customers, on which the insurer bases its discounted rate. Doc can’t charge the patient less.”

SarahW, how, exactly, do you know the contractual obligations between a PCP and an insurer as implied in your first sentence? Does that information apply to all PCPs/insurers? Seems like a overly sweeping statement, yes? I consider your second sentence a bald faced lie because neither I nor my sister had insurance when we utilized our PCPs at the Austin Regional clinic in Austin, TX who gave us, each, a substantial discount for paying in cash. There was no “inflated” fee. Also, you are mistaken as to what a “doc” can or can’t charge for. I was not charged for a follow up visit that took only 5 minutes of my PCPs time. Are you going to attempt to employ the weasel word “less” in the last sentence I quoted? I think you will.

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:46 pm

The SEO point is well-taken. I searched bing.com on “lila rose” and media matters came up first.

Poisoning the well, indeed.

rrk (302043) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:51 pm

“Daleyrocks, I addressed that. It was the point of my post.”

Sarah W. – I understood the point of your post, a lecture to idiots about the need for referrals and PP as a low cost provider of services, gaping holes in the womens’ health care landscape which would be left unfilled if they were to go out of business. Given the availability of other low cost or other free providers of such services, at least in my community, I see no hardship from PP disappearing. They are not the only game in town, although their PR machine would like people to believe they are.

daleyrocks (9b57b3) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:54 pm

The SEO stuff is a huge point — and there’s nobody I see on the right getting similar results.

Stranahan (708cc3) — 3/31/2011 @ 1:55 pm

What is the solution to the search engine issue, Lee?

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 2:10 pm

Lee, I agree that more civility would serve all, better, and foster a more fruitful dialogue. I could do without others leveling an accusation of “shilling”, as well as Angrymobster’s (nomme apropos?)mistaken (Sarahw does NOT want FED $ for PP)stance. I will now apologize for considering one of her statements a bald faced lie. Sorry. I will now consider the statement to be mistaken.

MD, I remember volunteering to help spread the word about the American Cancer Society’s push to make available various screenings for women (breast exams) and men (colorectal) at low or no cost. Those were good days. Do they still do that?

Before I forget; thank you, Lee, for your posts. I appreciate the voice you bring.

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 2:22 pm

Felipe, The cash-discount you mention is a common practice, but it’s based on an inflated fee, sometimes many times over what the physician has agreed to accept as reimbursement on that standard fee. And the physician will want it up front.

Uninsured Patients who can’t pay all at once have a reputation as patients that don’t pay at all.

Some physicians don’t accept new patients without insurance at all, though they will not abandon established patients who lose coverage.

And I do or did run the danger of oversimplificaton on that point.

The billing craziness associated with third party payer, the rules and obligations are a frequent topic of conversation at KevinMD, a popular medblog, including implications for patients and physicians.

I was hoping to retrieve a link directly on point – but comments on this post about balance billing might fill you in on some of the issues.

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2010/07/understanding-balance-billing-primer-patients.html

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 2:26 pm

I must say, few people would ever think that a search engine was actively shaping the perspective one obtained in accessing info on the web. Some kind of government oversight would be just as bad.

I’d heard mention of bias about some topic on Google before, but have zero recollection of the details or legitimacy.

With so much specialized information today one is dependent on someone having integrity somewhere, but then again the standard version of the depression and FDR and Vietnam and Reagan and who knows what else has variable correlation to the truth.

MD in Philly (f0e1bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 2:36 pm

MD, I can see how the search engine results could influence our opinions, but I’m not sure what the solution is other than Google-bombs or changing the mindset at Google/Bing/etc.

SarahW — I have to leave for awhile so I’ll skip to my point. Excluding the Richmond PP services, let’s assume PP facilities typically provide limited non-abortion services or that the non-abortion services are generally incidental to the abortion services. If that’s true, then I think the Lila Rose expose makes a good point. However, while we might not agree on that point, I think we agree we don’t see the need for federal funding when local communities can make better decisions about what services are needed and how much should be allocated to pay for them.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 2:47 pm

Hot Air has an interesting article with a slightly different focus on this same subject: Many people contributing money to the Susan G. Komen Cancer Foundation and running in the Race for the Cure do not perceive it as a controversial or political non-profit. But, the Komen foundation then regularly donates money to PP. Apparently, there is, uh, some confusion as to how the Komen funds are designated and used once they arrive at PP.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2011/03/30/what-are-the-planned-parenthood-contributions-from-the-susan-g-komen-for-the-cure-foundation-used-for/

elissa (a4964b) — 3/31/2011 @ 3:24 pm

I should have mentioned in my comment above that a “Sarah W” entered on the linked HotAir website, a very similar post with the same essential points and caveats as the initial one she posted here. Sarah seems to have more than a casual, concerned, bloggy interest in this “does PP facilitate mammograms or not” subject. There is, of course, nothing wrong with perusing and contributing to multiple sites and offering clarification and information to readers when warranted. But if Sarah W is providing covert PR support of some kind either for MM, PP, or Komen, (or some other interest group) or is posting to optimize search engine hits, then it would be decent of her to say so, I think.

elissa (a4964b) — 3/31/2011 @ 3:57 pm

Sarahw, I like you tone and I respectfully submit the following.

“Felipe, The cash-discount you mention is a common practice” – a moment ago it did not exist, why did you not mention it in your original comment? Because it would have undermined it? “but it’s based on an inflated fee,” Do you mean in the same way “Inglorious Basterds” was based on history? I think your statements are based on conjecture. I state this because you give no support to your assertion. See? I supported my statement with a self-evident fact. “sometimes many times over what the physician has agreed to accept as reimbursement on that standard fee.” more sweeping statements meaning, what? Proved how? “And the physician will want it up front” – Yes, AND? McDonald’s wants their fee up front, too.

I think you like to read your own words more than you like answering others questions because you do not answer mine. It seems you like to make many statements that do not have the merit of refuting or supporting anything in particular.

So, Sarahw, you tacitly admit you do not know the contractual obligations between any PCP and any insurer by ignoring the question. I am disappointed that you could not bring yourself to say so. It would have engendered respect in me for you.

The link you provided, which I read (thank you), however, reminded me of the time I went to my cell-phone service provider with a bill that overstated my usage. The first thing the service rep asked was “would you like me to explain your bill to you?” To which I responded “I understand my bill, perhaps I should explain your error to you.”

“Uninsured Patients who can’t pay all at once have a reputation as patients that don’t pay at all.”

“Some physicians don’t accept new patients without insurance at all, though they will not abandon established patients who lose coverage”

Two one-sentence paragraphs signifying – nothing. How disappointing. You are kidding, right? SARAHW:I’ll just throw out some stuff and he’ll forget I’m not answering his question.

And I do or did run the danger of oversimplificaton on that point.

I think “oversimplification” is putting it very kindly. Obfuscation is how I would characterize it.

You failed to answer Daleyrocks (daley, you have the patience of a saint) question @#16. I, too am waiting for that answer. I would like to add a question to hers:

“I think this doesn’t pass your own test Lee”

How did this not meet Lee’s criteria?

Do I really expect a straight answer from Sarahw without changing the subject? Does Sarahw argue in good faith? Is this microphone on?

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:09 pm

I, for one, still think Media Matters is generally more accurate than some of Ed’s articles on Hot Air, which tend to mischaracterize (or simply omit) facts unfavorable to Ed’s position.

Jim (87e69d) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:11 pm

Thank you for the information, Elissa. I would not have gotten carried away in my response to Sarahw had I known what you found. My apologies to all. I need to contribute to the dialogue, not pursue my petty concerns.

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:16 pm

Felipe, I thought your post at 4:16 was perceptive and very well done. I do not see why you feel the need to apologize.

elissa (a4964b) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:28 pm

I thought your comment was helpful, Felipe, not to mention entertaining.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:29 pm

I, for one, think Jim is only slightly smarter than a tuna fish sandwich on rye.

JD (318f81) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:35 pm

I am not surprised that the “Left” thought of this first. I remember talking with a group of friends who know I am an independant and they wanted all of us to vote in the 2000 Republican primary for the “worst candidate possible”.

I must have been slow on the uptake because I asked what this would accomplish. When they explained their scheme to me, I was repulsed by the very idea. I told this story to a family member who is a Republican and I was asked “can you do that?

I understand that there is a not uncommon idea that McCain won his party’s nomination quickly due to a similar scheme. Is my memory correct?

Perhaps I am naive (likely) and this practice is as old as politics itself. I had never heard of it. Gerrymandering, yes. This, no.

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:37 pm

On phone, so please excuse brevity…
Elissa, I have No relationship with any organization along the lines you suggest. (I’m a long time commenter at both sites fwiw. ) see my post to Aaron above. We ought to acknowledge scope/need of pp services. Denying it weakens case against funding

SarAhw (d5ec03) — 3/31/2011 @ 4:45 pm

“But this is a trumped up business, and I don’t need to distort reality to make the case for defunding.”

You seem fond of that phrase “trumped up,” SarahW.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Patterico (c218bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:01 pm

We ought to acknowledge scope/need of pp services. Denying it weakens case against funding

Why in the world do you keep drastically shifting the discussion to PP services? You have already conceded these aren’t services they can be expected to offer! The best you can do is say PP sometimes figures out who is offering them, and refers women.

If these services are so valuable, why not just point to the people who are offering them, not Planned Parenthood? It seems like a smokescreen to repetitively divert attention from the harm Planned Parenthood was caught doing to society by pretending they are some kind of exclusive and needed organization that they clearly are not.

And your logic is really hard to understand. You say we need to acknowledge the need for something or we weaken the case for funding it. I think what you really mean to do is repeatedly assert, while ignoring the repeated truthful points contrary, that we need Planned Parenthood, because you know this will bolster the case for taxpayers funding it. You then say you’re opposed to funding it in order to avoid the consequences of your argument, while knowing you have offered no convincing argument behind this anti funding position you claim to take.

It’s like someone saying Obama is great for these 40 reasons, even though you’re a Mccain supporter, while offering zero Mccain points.

This sleight of hand combined with your ignoring Daley and Elissa and Felipe’s specific points is why they are very suspicious of you.

Also, there’s nothing trumped up about a business you repeatedly say we need. Mammograms are a valuable service, especially to self referring women (who despite your claims, do exist all the time). I think they get something worth their $200.

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:09 pm

Felipe, it’s crazy you’d apologize for your great comments. Obviously you’re just a really nice guy trying to meet Sarah halfway.

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:12 pm

I would like to see SarahW answer Felipe’s questions, when she gets off the phone.

And to explain, with more specificity, exactly what is “trumped up” about Lee’s post and videos. That’s pretty much an accusation of dishonesty, and while people seem to be applauding her tone, I would like to see a little more meat on an accusation like that. Something that grapples with Lee’s actual words, directly.

Then again, the last time I asked SarahW to detail an accusation that *I* had trumped something up, I went looking later and didn’t see a response.

Maybe this time will be different?

Patterico (c218bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:14 pm

I confess I took SarahW’s “trumped up” claim to refer to Lila Rose’s points about PP, something I disagree with SarahW about and tried to discuss with her. However, I agree SarahW needs to explain herself if she was referring to Lee Stranahan’s post, because I don’t see anything “trumped up” about his points.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:21 pm

Thank you, Elissa, DRJ, and Dustin. I was apologizing for the perceived (by me) offense of feeding a troll.

Felipe (d37996) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:21 pm

DRJ:

You’re right, it wasn’t clear. I probably jumped to a conclusion, having had her use that phrase to refer to something I said a few days ago.

Patterico (c218bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:32 pm

No, re-reading this comment thread, I hope SarahW will answer some of our questions and clarify the confusion many of us have about her positions.

DRJ (fdd243) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:36 pm

I, for one, think Jim is only slightly smarter than a tuna fish sandwich on rye.

And I think that is an insult to tuna fish sandwiches everywhere.

I wouldn’t normally say that about a commenter, but given some of the things Jim has said about me in the past — things like “Fuck you Patterico” and “Patterico really wanted to work in a car wash or be a server at Starbucks, but he wasn’t qualified” — I’m not as inclined to be polite.

Right back atcha, Jim.

Patterico (c218bd) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:39 pm

My new catch phrase, Patrick!

I stand by the assertion that it is a “trumped up
business” to say “access to mammograms” isn’t access to mammograms because the mammograms aren’t performed on site.

In other words, PP is relied upon by women without a lot of discretionary income or insurance – and they can get it for a low fee, a sliding fee, or sometimes no fee.

Women cannot self-refer themselves to a radiologist and order a mammogram for themselves, every point about lower-cost alternatives mentioned above not only stipulated but honestly admitted.

Access to a primary care physician, a specialty ob/gyn doctor or low-cost clinic actually is limited for many of the women PP serves.

All of this is getting away from my overarching point – I think it weakens the argument against taxpayer funding to make its provision or non-provision of services a point of contention.

Assume they do (and they do), THAT IS NO ARGUMENT for federal funding. It does not follow that because a college student gets a free exam and script when she has the flu, or a pelvic exam and pap smear and/or discounted birth control pills, and this is nice, and she doesn’t know what she would have done without PP,
that FEDERAL FUNDING of pp is needed, let alone a function of government.

Does anyone here allow that if they DO provide health services otherwise difficult to obtain, that they SHOULD be subsidized by money confiscated from taxpayers?

SInce PP does provide an array of services beyond the eugenics-for-profit murder mill mentioned above, its counterproductive and does not deal with the core issue at all.

To Felipe: It may have been wrong for me to point you to dozens of comments that would make an ordinary person’s eyes roll back in their head to get my point. I apologize for I did not intent to dismiss your argument, or fail to address it.

I did not mean to say in the first place what you aver I did, and I will simply – a discount for cash is not the same thing as charging a lower fee in the first place.

PP provided an advantage to patients who cannot pay a large fee up front. PP doesn’t turn away patients without insurance. PP can use a sliding scale, which a physician who is a participating provider with some other plan, cannot use and be in compliance with his contract.

There are distortions in the market with regard to physician reimbursement that are beyond the scope of this discussion, but they do contribute to access to care problems for uninsured patients with lower incomes.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:41 pm

What’s so horrible about washing cars or making mocha frappes, Jim?

It’s hilarious how people who think they are speaking truth to power wind up being extremely hostile towards honest work.

Dustin (c16eca) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:42 pm

I would like to know if Lee stands behind Van Jones. He misspoke in the video floating around the internet, saying we deserved 9/11.

Valerie Jarrett (f763b8) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:44 pm

I feel in my hurry to get to what I see as my bugaboo about all of this – I fell short in the, um, editing of the above.

Patrick – It took me a minute to remember but I think I know the post of yours you refer to. I confess I didn’t respond, not because I didn’t have a response I was eager to make but It was days later and I didn’t want to annoy you by dragging on the conversation when it had gone around the track several times.

I had to talk myself out of bugging you in chat mode.

SarahW (af7312) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:51 pm

Planned Parenthood helps teh people! They’re like our friendly neighborhood porn clinic what just fighted the power and is back in business. Yay!

It would be better for America if Planned Parenthood found a way to fund itself what was independent of America’s dreadfully broke and corrupt government. That’s just common sense though.

happyfeet (ab5779) — 3/31/2011 @ 5:52 pm

My new catch phrase, Patrick!

This should have been all I ever wrote on the subject and I wish I had. These exact words too.

“It would be better for America if Planned Parenthood found a way to fund itself what was independent of America’s dreadfully broke and corrupt government. That’s just common sense though”. – happyfeet