What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not sure it's info anyone will ever be able get the complete facts on. If you ballpark PP's numbers of 330K procedures at $500 each you get $165M. Not chump change by most peoples estimation.
If it is so profitable, why aren't there lots of companies jumping in to share in the profits? And don't tell me they're all afraid of protests or moral objections..that doesn't stop people from peddling cancer sticks.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If it is so profitable, why aren't there lots of companies jumping in to share in the profits? And don't tell me they're all afraid of protests or moral objections..that doesn't stop people from peddling cancer sticks.
If you believe PP that 1 in 3 women have had an AB, then people are certainly making significant $$. PP is the franchise while your local OB/GYN is the family owned business.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

So what you are saying is that every for-profit effort that offers any service wants an increase in the need for that service. Right?

Hint: I really, really don't think you should take this path, but boy do I want you to...
Obviously there are many factors that play in, but if something is extremely profitable, it's ridiculous to pretend, as you seem to, that there isn't a motive to reap those profits. This particular piece is basic economics. But, hey, argue against basic economics if you wish.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not sure it's info anyone will ever be able get the complete facts on. If you ballpark PP's numbers of 330K procedures at $500 each you get $165M. Not chump change by most peoples estimation.
$500 is for an early abortion. Later ones or ones with complications are much more expensive. Don't have the book in front of me, but IIRC it was like $3,500 or $4,000, and that was a number of years ago.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

If you believe PP that 1 in 3 women have had an AB, then people are certainly making significant $$. PP is the franchise while your local OB/GYN is the family owned business.

Not really.
(Reuters Health) - Nearly all obstetrician-gynecologists in the U.S. have patients who want abortions, but only a small percentage of the doctors provide them, suggests a new study that finds access to abortion remains limited, especially in certain areas of the country.

In a survey of 1,144 ob-gyns, researchers found that while 97 percent said they'd had patients who sought abortions, only 14 percent ever provided them. Doctors refusing to perform the procedure were especially concentrated in rural areas, the South and Midwest.

The 14 percent figure is lower than was found in a 2008 survey, where 22 percent of ob-gyns said they performed abortions. However, that study focused on younger doctors who had all been certified after a 1996 rule that made abortion training a required part of ob-gyn residency programs.

Since the current study included doctors up to age 65, that could be the reason for the lower number performing abortions, said lead researcher Dr. Debra B. Stulberg of the University of Chicago.

But the bottom line is the same, she told Reuters Health: Only a small percentage of ob-gyns offer abortion services, despite a high demand for them.

Again, if this was such a money-making business, wouldn't more OB/GYN or other providers jump in to reap the benefits? There is obviously high demand since 97% of OB/GYN's have at least one patient who has had one, yet only 14% provide the service...sounds like a business opportunity! Unless of course you don't actually make mountains of money providing that service...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Not really.


Again, if this was such a money-making business, wouldn't more OB/GYN or other providers jump in to reap the benefits? There is obviously high demand since 97% of OB/GYN's have at least one patient who has had one, yet only 14% provide the service...sounds like a business opportunity! Unless of course you don't actually make mountains of money providing that service...
Edit:I started to type out a really snarky reply but erased it since it was rather condescending to say the least.

It was stated by Bob that PP made big $$$ on abortions. You cried BS. I showed you that they certainly could make significant $$ from ABs based on PP's own stats. Now you say that all since all GYNs don't jump at the opportunity to make their $$ in this fashion that money can't be made by providing ABs. I can't argue that kind of logic. Come on, you're better than this.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Edit:I started to type out a really snarky reply but erased it since it was rather condescending to say the least.

It was stated by Bob that PP made big $$$ on abortions. You cried BS. I showed you that they certainly could make significant $$ from ABs based on PP's own stats. Now you say that all since all GYNs don't jump at the opportunity to make their $$ in this fashion that money can't be made by providing ABs. I can't argue that kind of logic. Come on, you're better than this.

"Make money" implies profits. Do you know how much an abortion costs PP?

Also, how the fark did this thread get turned to abortion when abortion hasn't been in front of SCOTUS for 10 years?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

Edit:I started to type out a really snarky reply but erased it since it was rather condescending to say the least.

It was stated by Bob that PP made big $$$ on abortions. You cried BS. I showed you that they certainly could make significant $$ from ABs based on PP's own stats. Now you say that all since all GYNs don't jump at the opportunity to make their $$ in this fashion that money can't be made by providing ABs. I can't argue that kind of logic. Come on, you're better than this.

He said they make money (ie: profit).
I said BS.
As part of my argument that it is BS I said if it was a money-making venture, more people (not specifically OB/GYN) would get into the business to get their share of the profits.
You said local OB/GYNs were the "family owned business" who met that standard.
That story from Reuters shows that, no, OB/GYN offices do NOT meet that standard.
My contention remains that if Bob is right and PP makes a ton of profit off abortion, other businesses would crop up to handle the demand and get a cut of the profits.
I have seen no evidence that
A) PP makes money off abortion
B) Abortion is a profitable business
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

"Make money" implies profits.
not to a lot of people who work for wages, to them "make money" means "collect a paycheck." Only the people who run the business care about profits....though more people should merely to make sure their wages keep getting paid!

There are plenty of "non-profits" that pay ridiculous salaries, you know....

If a physican clears a comfortable six figures after expenses, to a lot of people that is "making money" even though from a technical standpoint there are no "profits" involved.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

not to a lot of people who work for wages, to them "make money" means "collect a paycheck." Only the people who run the business care about profits....though more people should merely to make sure their wages keep getting paid!

There are plenty of "non-profits" that pay ridiculous salaries, you know....

If a physican clears a comfortable six figures after expenses, to a lot of people that is "making money" even though from a technical standpoint there are no "profits" involved.
go to Guidestar and check out the various PPH chapter IRS form 990's. From the ones I looked at the CEO's and major staff are not paupers.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I showed you that they certainly could make significant $$ from ABs based on PP's own stats. Now you say that all since all GYNs don't jump at the opportunity to make their $$ in this fashion that money can't be made by providing ABs. I can't argue that kind of logic. Come on, you're better than this.

Because that's seriously weak logic.

How come you're not crying foul about the whole healthcare system...and every single hospital? They perform a variety of procedures that are far more profitable. What about every elective surgury? Lipo, plastic, lasik.

They're all criminal? That argument is a political sandbag if I've ever seen one.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

I think everyone who is arguing about this should be aborted...

anyways back to the SCOTUS...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

He said they make money (ie: profit).
I said BS.
As part of my argument that it is BS I said if it was a money-making venture, more people (not specifically OB/GYN) would get into the business to get their share of the profits.
You said local OB/GYNs were the "family owned business" who met that standard.
That story from Reuters shows that, no, OB/GYN offices do NOT meet that standard.
My contention remains that if Bob is right and PP makes a ton of profit off abortion, other businesses would crop up to handle the demand and get a cut of the profits.
I have seen no evidence that
A) PP makes money off abortion
B) Abortion is a profitable business

The CDC reports that in 2007 ~830K AB were "reported" and the PP estimate that they did was ~330K. Someone must be doing that remaining half million procedures.

Short of having PP's actual accounting for each and every revenue/expense, there is no way to prove that PP "makes a profit" from doing AB. However, if the assumptions of 330K procedures @ $500 (again based on PP's own report) are correct, this would account for about 60% of their revenue despite being only 3% of what they do. Expenses were in the $105M range so even though NPOs don't make profits, AB revenue alone would seem to cover those expenses.

Again, these are all assumptions based on PP's own generalized numbers but looks like "Simple Math" to me.

Because that's seriously weak logic.

How come you're not crying foul about the whole healthcare system...and every single hospital? They perform a variety of procedures that are far more profitable. What about every elective surgury? Lipo, plastic, lasik.

They're all criminal? That argument is a political sandbag if I've ever seen one.
I'm sure you have a point here but for the life of me, I have no clue what it could be.

I think everyone who is arguing about this should be aborted...

anyways back to the SCOTUS...
Agreed. I was just hanging out here awaiting today's fun
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

/debates blocking off twitter and facebook today, regardless of outcome
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

/debates blocking off twitter and facebook today, regardless of outcome
It'll be like the OJ verdict. One side will say "this is bull****!!!!!", and the other will celebrate like it just won the lottery.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS III: Roberts' Rules of Order

In other news, you have a First Amendment right to claim you have a Medal of Honor that you don't, unlike the six I earned in Korea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top