>>And that's the key issue.How do you determine what is essential and what isn't?
>>
>>Defense spending is essential, but being in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is not. Police and fire protection are essential. Public TV, Public Radio and Planned Parenthood are not. They should be supported by the people who use them. Cowboy poetry festivals are non-essential and should be paid for by the people who attend them and not all of us who do not want to spend money on them. Bailing out banks and auto companies is not essential.
>
>I would only rebut your comment that Planned Parenthood is designed to be used by low-income folks who cannot afford the same tests and treatments from a physician on their own. If medical care continues on the road it is right now, then Planned Parenthood would no longer be necessary for any of our population (when all have affordable medical care). If it does not, then it needs to continue to serve that population and it cannot be paid for by those who use it. It was designed to serve those cannot afford it on their own. It has always been mostly a social service for the low-income because the cost of supporting it are less than (it would be nice to see actual numbers supporting this premise) the cost of supporting the medical costs for the pregnancies and diseases (not to mention future medical costs for children) down the road. It is back to the question of 1) pay the cost up front to prevent disease and unwanted children by providing medical care, tests, and birth control or 2) pay the cost for the treatment later 3) do nothing
>
>3) is not an option because the cost will be born somewhere down the road

Born as well as borne ;-)