$335,000,000 For Std Prevention In Economic Stimulus Bill

Save that money... you know how? Parents step up and teach their children about abstinence, about disease and the importance of sex within the confines of marriage. But no, the government wants our kids to know that multiple partners is ok, sex before marriage is ok, as long as they use a condom and are "careful" about disease.

Wake up people!! The government and the school system cannot and should not be responsible for teaching our children about these things! Parents should not relegate these things to other people, but should take charge and not only tell their children and teach them, but MODEL THIS BEHAVIOR in front of their kids.

Then you can take that money and funnel it back into the economy... by giving it back to the legal citizen and taxpayer.

 

OK Obama fans why is this necessary to stimulate the economy?

 

Oh yea! LB will make an attempt and I await with laugh in hand.

 

Ohhhhh, wait a minute. I thought the Clinton's had this problem licked with their Planned Parenthood and free birth control. You mean it didn't work? Is that what they are admitting? Hmm. So all that money they dumped into "family planning" didn't pay off and now they need more for the STD'S? Why toss good money after bad, as the saying goes.

So now they are going to admit they should be teaching abstinance in schools, right? I think Planned Parenthood owes us a refund!

 

I believe the GOP could have gotten this removed and looked like hero's if they had of focused on the waste. Instead the look like business as usual since 100% voted against the bill. Those guys just don't get it.

 

Nobody panic. I'm here to help. :smilewinkgrin:

It's a 647 page document, so I understand it would be difficult to sit down and read, but at least skim it.

First, realize that on a 647 page document, putting it on page 147, under it's appropriate sub-topic, is not not a malicious attempt to bury and conceal anything.

You will notice that the bill is broken down into topics, sub-topics, and so on. The section you are referring to is part of Title IX, with the general heading of labor, health and human services, and education, then this particular part you're discussing is under Section B, which is dedicated to Health and Human Services. In that section, it is titled "PREVENTION AND WELLNESS FUND."

The total amount provided under the "Prevention and Wellness Fund" is $3,000,000,000.

$954,000,000 of that is for the immunization program.

$50,000,000 is for injury prevention and control.

I'm telling you both those numbers so people can get a handle on the amounts of money being dealt with here.

So let's get back to the $335,000,000., which is being spattered across the internet as "Oh, like, this is so wrong, they've buried, like, the billions into this secretly and it's all for STD prevention!"

That simply isn't true. Here is the text from that section:

So there you have it. That's what it's for.

Now, since people are focusing on the STD part of this and stating it's not the government's job to help with STD prevention, it's the parents job, let me put this to you in a very basic way:

The parents aren't doing it. The diseases are out there and people are getting them.

The education for, prevention of, and treatment and research concerning HIV/AIDS, Hep, STD's, and tuberculosis are part of the basic building blocks of having a healthy country in today's world, and healthy people are a must for a healthy economy. If you don't understand why, go ahead and ask and I'll explain that too.

My job here is done. I must be off now to explain a few things about hairstyles and lipstick shades to Mich. :BangHead:

 

What does that have to do with a stimulus package?

 

Well Said, Gina L!

Of course, your insightful words will likely have little effect.

 

Rev Mitchel, have you read the last paragraph of my post and need further explanation of why health and economics go hand in hand, or did you simply miss that part? Let me know please.

 

You failed to explain anything. You just parroted Pelosi. What this bill is supposed to be is an immediate stimulus. Nothing about STD's equals stimulus as in immediate financial boost.

So again I ask what does this have to do with stimulus?

 

RevMitchell, if you focus only on immediate and drastic effects, you'll only get immediate and drastic effects instead of fundamental changes that will last for years.

First, try to understand that STD prevention and education is a teensy weensy part of all of this, and is included as part of other medical issues to be addressed.

Better yet, let's work on why it's important.

Think about the effects of illness and diseases. Many families are going bankrupt over health care issues. Generations can be affected health-wise by these diseases and their effects.

How does that harm us economically?
An ill person is going to be throwing their money into paying for their health care until they go broke. People don't like to be sick, and they like dying even less. Simply put, sick people don't work as much as healthy people. They have more sick days, more likely to become unemployed, and more likely to become dependent on their families or on government agencies to help them be able to meet basic needs in their lives.

Another thing to consider is health care workers and scientists who work in TB clinics, specialize in HIV/AIDS, disease control (which again is vital to the well-being of a nation) and in other health related education, care, or research settings who will be able to continue working because the money is there for their jobs.

It's a positive economic move for everyone involved. Any time you can create a job, keep a job, or help someone be healthy enough to remain an economically productive member of society it is good for economic health, but now in a crisis situation? One where more people have less access to health care because they don't have money, less people will be able to treat those with health issues because they don't have their jobs? I believe it's a great move and a very important one. Health issues MUST be addressed when talking about the economy.

What do you think you could improve about the economics bill? Would you simply take that part out? How will ignoring these health care issues be beneficial to the economy? Certainly you don't believe ignoring them will have no effect, do you RevMitchell?

PS Daschle had better ideas on this topic than Pelosi, you may want to check that out if you're interested in hearing it said from a wiser and clearer perspective than mine. (then again Barney the Dinosaur might do better than me, but anyhow, go look up Daschle)

 

It is not the job nor is it constitutional for the federal government to get involved in the sexual health of Americans. Second, this bill is being rammed through congress as being needed immediatey to save the economy from going under. But most of it has nothing to do with being a stimulus. The bill is being misrepresented. And in fact is an excuse to pass every little pet project of liberals. And that is all it is. And in the end it is unconstitutional.

 

...Fallacy.

 

Oh well...I suppose that settles it.