View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently September 30th, 2014, 2:04 pm



Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free" 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12077
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Pablo wrote:
steensn wrote:
If it negatively impacts the country then gov't has an obligation to step in for the good of the people.


That is a slippery slope you are getting into. Think of all the things that negatively impacts the country, for example how about the food we eat? The lack of exercise we get? Have you seen your fellow American's waistlines lately? Think of all the associated cost with that one.

I'm more in favor of people being held accountable for their own choices rather than the gov't having "obligations". What happens now when a 15-year old has a kid? The gov't is obligated to pay for the birth and on-going care, feeding, education, and housing of the child. By 19, this same girl has 3-4 kids.

Is birth control going to curtail this or encourage it by encouraging kids to be more sexually active? There are many "unintended" consequences that would arise from this program - hope everyone thinks them through before supporting a program like this just on a surface level, uneducated, agreement with it.

While I can understand what you're saying, IMO this stance would be better directed at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 as this is a provision of that law. The SCOUTS will determine the legality/constitutionality of the law, the provisions discussed in the article would be put in place (IF they're put in place) under the guise of said law; that is why I stated:
Quote:
IF one of the main goals of the ACA is to make preventative medicine available to all, then IMO this plan should be implemented

njroar wrote:
steensn wrote:
It is a slippery slope... I agree. But so is everything else, that is why we have a democracy to decide what is too far and what is not.


But we don't have a democracy. We have a republic. The government doesn't have a duty or obligation to step in at all. The constitution LIMITS what the government can do. Anything not in the constitution is up to the people, not the government. Its personal responsibility.

And guess who pays for this? Its another welfare program that has no right to be put on the backs of those paying for it.

If we had a democracy, the laws themselves would be put up for a direct vote by the taxpayers. But its not, and that's why programs like these are just a burden. Has abstinence education, condoms or abortions lowered the amount of underage teens from getting pregnant or having kids? No, its increased. Because they think "it won't happen to me!" How about educating them on responsibility. Then you'd have a much better society at large. Giving the message that the government will fix things only makes them worry about things after the fact.

Completely irresponsible.

njroar, see my response to Pablo above, I think it would fit your argument as well.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 20th, 2011, 3:33 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9466
Location: Dallas
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Quote:
IF one of the main goals of the ACA is to make preventative medicine available to all, then IMO this plan should be implemented


IMO "preventative medicine" is used to prevent illness or injury, you are expanding this meaning to also include having babies and I don't see babies = illness and/or injury.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


July 20th, 2011, 4:24 pm
Profile WWW
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: October 30th, 2004, 12:30 pm
Posts: 2205
Location: Austin, TX
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
What 'could' be done is have the birth control available for free through a planned parenthood. That way it's out there as an option to those that can't afford it. I'd much rather pay for that then another person having a kid they can't afford and then getting money from welfare to take care of said kid.

_________________
Image

NEVER GIVE UP!


July 20th, 2011, 4:25 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
NJROAR,

We have a democracy, you and I get to vote on the people we want to represent us on this.

It's irresponsible if it causes more harm than good. So we should look at each piece independently and probably not pass a full bill but piece by piece self contained sections that are self sufficient and do good overall.

One of those is the idea of giving the opportunity for more people to make a choice to not get pregnant in the first place to reduce the load we end up paying later to support that child. It is irresponsible for us to let one child go hungry. We can split hairs regarding adults, but children it is a no brainer. Given that, what is cheaper? a $.50 condom, $1k vasectomy, or a 10$ tubal ligation; or a $20k-$50k pregnancy and $1k dollars a month for 18 years?

The point is,s elf containing this and providing incentive to reduce pregnancies is a LONG TERM investment to help us have lower budgets in the future. If it isn't, tell me why... that is the meat of this. Not whether it is "just another gov't handout" or not. It is a strategic way to reduce the load on our budget long term. If we keep trying to figure out how to squeeze a million here or there out of the budget instead of investing a couple millions more up front for millions reduction later we are never going to get out feet under us. We have to be smart... saying "all gov't programs are bad" is nonsense and short sighted.

Why isn't it a long term cost saving if structure right?

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 20th, 2011, 4:32 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Pablo wrote:
Quote:
IF one of the main goals of the ACA is to make preventative medicine available to all, then IMO this plan should be implemented


IMO "preventative medicine" is used to prevent illness or injury, you are expanding this meaning to also include having babies and I don't see babies = illness and/or injury.


Call it preventative medicare, medicaid, child services, etc. then...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 20th, 2011, 4:33 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9466
Location: Dallas
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Quote:
IF one of the main goals of the ACA is to make preventative medicine available to all, then IMO this plan should be implemented


IMO "preventative medicine" is used to prevent illness or injury, you are expanding this meaning to also include having babies and I don't see babies = illness and/or injury.


Call it preventative medicare, medicaid, child services, etc. then...


Call it what you want, that was not the intention of the ACA to my understanding.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


July 20th, 2011, 5:08 pm
Profile WWW
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2779
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
You're missing the point. Poor people can already get birth control for free. Its already included in Obamacare and its already part of Welfare. It hasn't prevented T$'s 7 children yet has it?

Making it free for everyone is irresponsible. If you can afford a $5 Latte, you can afford your $5 co-pay. Labeling this "free" is a falsehood, because it still needs to be paid for, so it just makes everyone share the cost, even those that don't agree with it.


July 20th, 2011, 5:49 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Pablo wrote:

Call it what you want, that was not the intention of the ACA to my understanding.


Wags asked us to ignore our feelings on the ACA and talk about the free birth control part only...

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 21st, 2011, 9:48 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
njroar wrote:
You're missing the point. Poor people can already get birth control for free. Its already included in Obamacare and its already part of Welfare. It hasn't prevented T$'s 7 children yet has it?

Making it free for everyone is irresponsible. If you can afford a $5 Latte, you can afford your $5 co-pay. Labeling this "free" is a falsehood, because it still needs to be paid for, so it just makes everyone share the cost, even those that don't agree with it.


I want a vasectomy... where can I get one for free? Mr. T needs a vasectomy as well, where can he go get one for free?

This is easy NJROAR, if the cost of the program saves the gov't more money in the long run using NPV calculations it was worth it. Get over the "we shouldn't do this or that" crap. There is no major immoral issues with this and the number.

Look at these numbers:

Approximate cost: tubal ligation = $2,500; vasectomy = $750 - 850

Vasectomies per year: approx 500,000

Total potential cost to gov't for those already paying out of pocket: $400,000,000 (pocket change in scale)

Let's say that doubles if it is free taking it to $800,000,000

Cost to care for a child in foster care or through other gov't programs: Let's say a LOW $20,000 per year. If the $800,000,000 spent on vasectomy's would prevent just 20,000 unsupportable births per year the gov't would have to pay for anyways, we'd break even the very next year every year. No need for NPV...

So a success rate of just 0.02% would pay back within a year. Any longer term child care (which is a given) would be gravy and lots of it.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 21st, 2011, 10:04 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9466
Location: Dallas
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Well if we are going to address issues from a long-term economical standpoint, well then the gov't needs to shut down all the fast food chains, make soda illegal, eliminate cell phones (just think of all the accidents caused by texting), etc... Maybe they should be on every street corner giving away fresh fruits and vegetables.

IMO this is really a question of when the gov't should be involved and not involved in our lives. I inevitably fall on the side the less gov't the better and this case is no exception.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


July 21st, 2011, 10:13 am
Profile WWW
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: June 26th, 2006, 1:03 pm
Posts: 13429
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Pablo wrote:
Well if we are going to address issues from a long-term economical standpoint, well then the gov't needs to shut down all the fast food chains, make soda illegal, eliminate cell phones (just think of all the accidents caused by texting), etc... Maybe they should be on every street corner giving away fresh fruits and vegetables.

IMO this is really a question of when the gov't should be involved and not involved in our lives. I inevitably fall on the side the less gov't the better and this case is no exception.


You are taking allowing a FREE service translate into shutting stuff down and forcing things? Are you really going to be that dishonest here Pablo?

If giving away fresh fruit on the corner lowers the amount of money the gov't shells out for medical problems later then the answer is clearly yes. If we aren't creative and get over these idiotic notions that the gov't "shouldn't do certain things" we'll never solve the problem by attaching the source of the issue.

Less gov't for the sake of less gov't is idiotic... you take things at a case by case level to see if ti adds benefit long term. Gov't MUST get involve when it directly effects what they have to do, like somehow take care of the children that cannot take care of themselves. You want less gov't then throw the 6 month old on the street and hope he figures out how o dig for food in a garbage bin. Until you don;t have a heart anymore... let's get creative on how we can take care of less without killing them or leaving them to starve. This is a very short cited stance to take.

_________________
regularjoe12 - "You are crackin me up! really! HILARIOUS um let me quote some intellgent people in this coneversation: Steensn:"


July 21st, 2011, 10:24 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2779
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Well if we are going to address issues from a long-term economical standpoint, well then the gov't needs to shut down all the fast food chains, make soda illegal, eliminate cell phones (just think of all the accidents caused by texting), etc... Maybe they should be on every street corner giving away fresh fruits and vegetables.

IMO this is really a question of when the gov't should be involved and not involved in our lives. I inevitably fall on the side the less gov't the better and this case is no exception.


You are taking allowing a FREE service translate into shutting stuff down and forcing things? Are you really going to be that dishonest here Pablo?

If giving away fresh fruit on the corner lowers the amount of money the gov't shells out for medical problems later then the answer is clearly yes. If we aren't creative and get over these idiotic notions that the gov't "shouldn't do certain things" we'll never solve the problem by attaching the source of the issue.

Less gov't for the sake of less gov't is idiotic... you take things at a case by case level to see if ti adds benefit long term. Gov't MUST get involve when it directly effects what they have to do, like somehow take care of the children that cannot take care of themselves. You want less gov't then throw the 6 month old on the street and hope he figures out how o dig for food in a garbage bin. Until you don;t have a heart anymore... let's get creative on how we can take care of less without killing them or leaving them to starve. This is a very short cited stance to take.


The poor already get free birth control. They aren't using it. Obamacare makes it free for all. The whole argument of protecting children who can't take care of themselves doesn't even apply here. This is nothing but a ploy to get votes from Women's groups because it throws them a bone. Vasectomy's are never on the table, because apparently women are the only ones who can every choose. The people who this would effect, have no worries about costs, except co-pays. So your cost benefit is out the window also. This system of making it free for all raises costs for everyone across the board. Making them pay for it, only effects those that want to go on birth control. How's that effect the "greater benefit?"

Your view is skewed because you live in a nanny state. CA passes every law they possibly can, because they want to control everything. At least in CA, you as a citizen can start an initiative to bring it to vote by the people. Most states you can't.

As to no moral issues... Its against the Catholic religion to use ANY birth control period. This would force the Catholic church to pay for policies for their employees that directly interferes with their belief system. That one issue will end up making the whole thing fall apart.


July 21st, 2011, 10:45 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9466
Location: Dallas
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
steensn wrote:
Pablo wrote:
Well if we are going to address issues from a long-term economical standpoint, well then the gov't needs to shut down all the fast food chains, make soda illegal, eliminate cell phones (just think of all the accidents caused by texting), etc... Maybe they should be on every street corner giving away fresh fruits and vegetables.

IMO this is really a question of when the gov't should be involved and not involved in our lives. I inevitably fall on the side the less gov't the better and this case is no exception.


You are taking allowing a FREE service translate into shutting stuff down and forcing things? Are you really going to be that dishonest here Pablo?

If giving away fresh fruit on the corner lowers the amount of money the gov't shells out for medical problems later then the answer is clearly yes. If we aren't creative and get over these idiotic notions that the gov't "shouldn't do certain things" we'll never solve the problem by attaching the source of the issue.

Less gov't for the sake of less gov't is idiotic... you take things at a case by case level to see if ti adds benefit long term. Gov't MUST get involve when it directly effects what they have to do, like somehow take care of the children that cannot take care of themselves. You want less gov't then throw the 6 month old on the street and hope he figures out how o dig for food in a garbage bin. Until you don;t have a heart anymore... let's get creative on how we can take care of less without killing them or leaving them to starve. This is a very short cited stance to take.


Actually I'm taking the long term view, you are taking a short term view and obviously are ingnoring the long term and unintended consequences of these sorts of programs. They create dependency instead of promoting individual accountability.

These programs often seem to make sense, both from a moral/values standpoint and from an economic standpoint as well. Look, I don't want kids to starve like anyone else, so we have foodstamps and other programs to ensure this doesn't happen. The unintended consequence is parents and kids so dependent on the program they never even attempt to find another way and to provide for themselves. It then becomes passed down from generation to generation and continues to expand.

Your cost argument ignores many basic potential outcomes. For example, lets assume access to free birth control causes young folks to become more sexual active. Now you assume that these young kids are very resonsible and are never going to miss a pill or what not, but lets not forget they are just kids and will forget and that combined with being more sexually active has consequences. You immediately assume their will be less unwanted pregnancies but that again is short sighted as you heighten the sexual activity of an entire generation. You are also likely to lower the age that kids first start having sex, typically not a great idea.

From an economic standpoint, you assume the gov't has the same cost as the public sector and you couldn't be any more wrong. When areas have introduced free birth control, the cost of said birth control has increased dramatically.

Your thinking is very shallow and full of flaws you are not considering. On the surface level it makes sense, but as we dig deeper the dangers of such a programs arise. This is the typical issue with any welfare type program, sounds good on premise but look at the long-term impact of any of these programs and you see they are the least humane approaches in the long run.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


July 21st, 2011, 10:47 am
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12077
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Pablo wrote:
IMO this is really a question of when the gov't should be involved and not involved in our lives. I inevitably fall on the side the less gov't the better and this case is no exception.

Goodness how I dislike sounding like a broken record here, but once again:
Quote:
Trying to keep your feelings about the ACA aside, what are your thoughts on this proposal?
IMO, IF one of the main goals of the ACA is to make preventative medicine available to all, then IMO this plan should be implemented; after all, isn't it more responsible, cost effective to prevent unwanted pregnancies then to care for the mother and child after birth for the next 18 years of the child's life? I would say, YES. What say you?

and
Quote:
While I can understand what you're saying, IMO this stance would be better directed at the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 as this is a provision of that law. The SCOUTS will determine the legality/constitutionality of the law, the provisions discussed in the article would be put in place (IF they're put in place) under the guise of said law

If you would like to discuss whether or not the govt should be allowed to provide ANY of these services, that should be another thread IMO.
njroar wrote:
As to no moral issues... Its against the Catholic religion to use ANY birth control period. This would force the Catholic church to pay for policies for their employees that directly interferes with their belief system. That one issue will end up making the whole thing fall apart.
I was waiting for someone to bring this up. My response is simple: separation of Church and State. If these Churches have such an issue with something like this, then let them give up their tax-exempt status.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


July 21st, 2011, 11:22 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9466
Location: Dallas
Post Re: IOM Report: "Birth Control Should Be Free"
Sorry Wags, I'll impose a self ban in this thread (sometimes we don't begin reading right from the start).

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


July 21st, 2011, 11:25 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 69 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], rao and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.