Should Contraception be free?
Yes, no questions asked
42.6% (40)
42.6% (40)
No, absolutely not
27.7% (26)
27.7% (26)
Yes, with stipulations
17% (16)
17% (16)
No, with concessions
11.7% (11)
11.7% (11)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should contraception be free?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Contraception is free where I live.
I've been on the pill since I was 16 (to control terribly heavy periods if you must know).

But I don't get why it's such a big deal. We see ourselves as a liberated community, as developed countries-- but holy fuck some women might be having sex because they enjoy it??? Gotta put a stop to that shit.

Interesting thoughts so far.

Phasmal:
But I don't get why it's such a big deal. We see ourselves as a liberated community, as developed countries-- but holy fuck some women might be having sex because they enjoy it??? Gotta put a stop to that shit.

From a Limgaugh perspective, that might be the case, but that's not where I'm coming from. As I indicated, I would be in favor of supporting coverage in insurance plans for health reasons, and allow various companies to cover things of their own will, but I don't think I can justify enforcing it from a legal perspective.

With liberation comes responsibility; in the sense that we have sex with each other in a responsible way. If that means getting on birth control or using condoms or whatever else. The question then becomes who is responsible for supplying us with the means to do is responsibly, and where the financial burden lies.

While I understand that it will always be our human nature to have sex whether for pleasure or procreation, I don't see that as a legitimate reason to justify the government or insurance plans covering contraception (from a forced perspective). While the insurance companies may have some stock in preventing extended coverage as I suggested earlier (at least until said dependent begins contributing themselves), the government actually has a greater interested in getting you to procreate (for a great many reasons we could get into if we wanted).

Perhaps one could look at this from a safety perspective, where we require seat belts be worn in vehicles because of the potential cost to insurance and medicine in case of an accident. While adversely, shouldn't someone have the choice to do something as recklessly as possible? Why demand that anyone give me the tools for free when they are readily available and cheap?

I remain open, but unconvinced. I look forward to seeing additional thoughts.

DevilWithaHalo:
Snip.

Just gonna preface this with: I'm British, I have no idea how the American healthcare system works.

I'm very glad it's free here, because I have spent the last two years being very sick to the point of not being able to work (or even stand at some points). The last thing I would have needed was to be sick, unemployed and pregnant. (And before the `Dont have sex` crowd jumps down my throat, living completely dependant on your partner for two years puts enough strain on a relationship).

No idea how cheap or accessable birth control is in america (though I have heard stories of pharmacists over there refusing to give women the morning after pill unless they are married, thats fucked up) so I can't really comment on that.

I don't know about forcing companies to provide it, but `just dont have sex if you can't afford it` is, lets face it, a strategy that will probably fail.

Phasmal:
snip

This isn't just about sex. The pill has actual medical benefits. Not covering it would be no different than not covering insuline.

PercyBoleyn:

Phasmal:
snip

This isn't just about sex. The pill has actual medical benefits. Not covering it would be no different than not covering insuline.

I know that it's not just about sex (hence why I ended up taking it in the first place), but my point was more even if it was about sex why should people care. But, you are right. And it would be kind of... hard to satisfy that you were doing it for health reasons. I'm pretty sure your doctors dont monitor menstruation.

Just as a matter of public policy, I think anything that helps people who don't want to have children to avoid having children is a good idea, and will certainly save more money then it costs.

Is it truly so difficult to keep your genitals to yourself if you can't spare the $0.75 for a bar bathroom condom?

I have no moral objection to free birth control, but it's not like it's not readily available in multiple forms here in the States (this is contraception / prophylactics strictly speaking). What the hell are you people doing that your monthly budget can't keep up with your condom requirements? And why the hell should I -a member of The People, represented by the State- pay for it?

It's your habit; YOU pay for it.

We live in a capitalist society.

So, no.

Phasmal:

I've been on the pill since I was 16 (to control terribly heavy periods if you must know).

No . . . as it happens I could have done without the image, since I'm in the middle of my tea :P

OT: For medical reasons, it should be, but I'm not entirely sold on general use, though I'm not entirely sure how much the pill costs.

senordesol:
I have no moral objection to free birth control, but it's not like it's not readily available in multiple forms here in the States (this is contraception / prophylactics strictly speaking). What the hell are you people doing that your monthly budget can't keep up with your condom requirements?

Uhm, the US has people who work more than 40 hours a week and still can't afford decent food or a house, so if you wonder how they can't afford contraceptives: That's how.

senordesol:
Is it truly so difficult to keep your genitals to yourself if you can't spare the $0.75 for a bar bathroom condom?

I have no moral objection to free birth control, but it's not like it's not readily available in multiple forms here in the States (this is contraception / prophylactics strictly speaking). What the hell are you people doing that your monthly budget can't keep up with your condom requirements? And why the hell should I -a member of The People, represented by the State- pay for it?

It's your habit; YOU pay for it.

We're not talking about condoms, really. Condoms are only about 93% effective at preventing pregnancy. We're talking about the birth control pill and similar types of birth control, which are more then 99.9% effective, but is more expensive for someone without medical insurance since it's perscription and all that. If people are using "75 cent bar condoms" instead of the pill because they can't afford to go to a doctor to get the pill, then 7% of them will get pregnant with a child they don't want. So either more abortions, or else more unwanted children; either way it costs the system much more then the cost of the pill.

Maybe you have a moral objection to people getting the pill for free, but unwanted pregnancies raise my taxes and my health costs. Why I pay more in taxes/health costs/ect for unwanted pregnancies just because of your moral beliefs?

Well, I myself know that sleeping with a lot of different people is a bad idea, and unprotected sex is an even worse one. However, the fact is that to believe everyone is that smart is really naive. At the very least, providing free contraception encourages safe sex.

tstorm823:
I counter this question with "should food be absolutely free?"

Absolutely? No. Subsidised? Probably.
Same goes for contraception, though for different reasons.

Zen Toombs:

tstorm823:
I counter this question with "should food be absolutely free?"

Absolutely? No. Subsidised? Probably.
Same goes for contraception, though for different reasons.

Hahahahahahahahaha... farm subsidies are garbage.

tstorm823:

Zen Toombs:

tstorm823:
I counter this question with "should food be absolutely free?"

Absolutely? No. Subsidised? Probably.
Same goes for contraception, though for different reasons.

Hahahahahahahahaha... farm subsidies are garbage.

Not quite what I said. As we live in a country wealthy enough to do so a thousand times over, the government should provide assistance for the least fortunate to receive the basic necessities, which includes food.

Social justice and all that.

I'll answer this the same way I answer people who want "free" healthcare. I agree, its an absolutely wonderful idea. Of course, you do mean free as in "doesn't cost anything" don't you? Not free as in, paid for with taxpayer money, which means its NOT free because you don't pay for something that's free.

Just like free healthcare, we should pass a law for free contraception, and allocate $0 to paying for it. Because after all, that's what free is.

Zen Toombs:

Not quite what I said. As we live in a country wealthy enough to do so a thousand times over, the government should provide assistance for the least fortunate to receive the basic necessities, which includes food.

Social justice and all that.

If that's not what you wanted to say, you should be more careful with your terminology.

tstorm823:

Zen Toombs:

Not quite what I said. As we live in a country wealthy enough to do so a thousand times over, the government should provide assistance for the least fortunate to receive the basic necessities, which includes food.

Social justice and all that.

If that's not what you wanted to say, you should be more careful with your terminology.

...I was. Careful with my terminology, that is. You asked

should food be absolutely free?

and I responded

Absolutely [free]? No. Subsidized? Probably.

The OP wasn't asking if making contraceptives should be free, it was asking if contraceptives should be free for individuals.
When you responded to that question by saying "should food be free?". It wouldn't make sense to assume that question referred to "should food be free to make", as that wasn't the OP's question.

Zen Toombs:

The OP wasn't asking if making contraceptives should be free, it was asking if contraceptives should be free for individuals.
When you responded to that question by saying "should food be free?". It wouldn't make sense to assume that question referred to "should food be free to make", as that wasn't the OP's question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

wikipedia:
A subsidy is an assistance paid to a business or economic sector.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subsidy

dictionary.com:

1.
a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like.

"Subsidy," at least in modern usage, is used to describe money (likely from the government) paid to help a business or industry. It is always in the form of "we'll give you this money to allow you to provide this good or service to the public."

Federal aid programs are not subsidies, because that's not what the word "subsidy" means.

Suicidejim:

Phasmal:

I've been on the pill since I was 16 (to control terribly heavy periods if you must know).

No . . . as it happens I could have done without the image, since I'm in the middle of my tea :P

OT: For medical reasons, it should be, but I'm not entirely sold on general use, though I'm not entirely sure how much the pill costs.

Haha, my apologies.
I wouldn't have to justify it if there weren't so many people who think taking the pill for personal use turns women into grandma-stabbing man-corrupting whores. =)

Well, do you want to save money in the long run? Do you want to avoid abortions? Do you want to curb the spread of STDs? Then, hell yeah, contraception should be covered by healthcare (that's not "free" but you get my drift). That said, yes, both sexes should have that access.

cthulhuspawn82:
I'll answer this the same way I answer people who want "free" healthcare. I agree, its an absolutely wonderful idea. Of course, you do mean free as in "doesn't cost anything" don't you? Not free as in, paid for with taxpayer money, which means its NOT free because you don't pay for something that's free.

Just like free healthcare, we should pass a law for free contraception, and allocate $0 to paying for it. Because after all, that's what free is.

Actually, it's a lot cheaper then free.

For example, a recent study from the brookings institute showed that investing $235 million dollars in medicaid spending on contraception saves medicaid 1.32 billion by preventing unintended pregnancies.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148042609/how-birth-control-saves-taxpayers-money

So it's not just a "zero cost", it's actually costs us 1.1 billion dollars less to supply contraceptives then to not do so.

Why do you want to waste a billion dollars in our taxpayer money just in order to *deny* women access to contraception? Do you like paying higher taxes or something?

Yosarian2:

Why do you want to waste a billion dollars in our taxpayer money just in order to *deny* women access to contraception? Do you like paying higher taxes or something?

Because yankees prefer to pay more if losing a cent to the government would mean paying less, that's why. That one cent is more freakin' important to them than the amount they'd save if they were willing to lose that one cent.

Because that cent is MINE!!!! I tell you! MINE!!! Here, government, have 10 bucks for inefficient policies and general nonsense, as long as I keep that cent, because that cent is MINE!!!!

Vegosiux:

Once the money leaves your hands, you no longer have any claim to it. Yo do not have any grounds to say you are paying anything with it, because it is, at that point, no longer your money.

It's the same with everything. Once you've given it away, it's no longer yours. Same with the tax money, the moment you're taxed, that money isn't your money anymore, but the state's.

So even when the government is taking 40%+ of your money via taxing, you should not have any say in how it is spent because its not your money anymore and thus none of your concern?

Tax money is not the property of the state, it is the collective property of society. The state is merely responsible for spending the money for said society for the society, and thus if a large portion of said society complains about the way its tax money is being used then telling it that they can't complain because its "not their money" is basically telling society to go fuck off.

Hardcore_gamer:
Tax money is not the property of the state, it is the collective property of society.

No, actually by definition any tax money must be property of the state. Perhaps unless you live in a communist collective, where no one individual owns anything and therefore property cannot be owned by the state.

Funny, I never pictured Hardcore gamer as a red.

Yosarian2:

cthulhuspawn82:
I'll answer this the same way I answer people who want "free" healthcare. I agree, its an absolutely wonderful idea. Of course, you do mean free as in "doesn't cost anything" don't you? Not free as in, paid for with taxpayer money, which means its NOT free because you don't pay for something that's free.

Just like free healthcare, we should pass a law for free contraception, and allocate $0 to paying for it. Because after all, that's what free is.

Actually, it's a lot cheaper then free.

For example, a recent study from the brookings institute showed that investing $235 million dollars in medicaid spending on contraception saves medicaid 1.32 billion by preventing unintended pregnancies.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148042609/how-birth-control-saves-taxpayers-money

So it's not just a "zero cost", it's actually costs us 1.1 billion dollars less to supply contraceptives then to not do so.

Why do you want to waste a billion dollars in our taxpayer money just in order to *deny* women access to contraception? Do you like paying higher taxes or something?

I have heard people who make the claim that healthcare spending saves money by dealing with minor problems before they become major problems. I'm not calling them wrong, their argument seems totally logical and probable. All I am asking is why, if a policy would have a negative cost, do we have to spend so much money on it. If you create a policy that would result in you spending less than you already are, then why do you need more money. In fact, you should be giving some back.

If preventative care means spending less than we already are, then healthcare reforms should not cost us any more money. So like I said before, pass the law and allot $0 in extra spending to it. That should be more than they need.

did some searching on the subject and found something interesting

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2007/10/11/the-pills-price-on-campus

"University pharmacies nationwide have recently doubled or tripled the prices they charge for prescription contraceptives. A quirk in a new federal law, designed to save taxpayers money on Medicaid reimbursements for drugs, has effectively persuaded pharmaceutical companies to stop selling their products to these pharmacies at deeply discounted rates. (If companies continue to offer such discounts, the law stipulates, they will also receive lower payments from Medicaid.) As a result, 3 million college women who use birth control pills are now paying $30 to $50 a month for their favorite brand, up from an average of $5 to $10, according to the American College Health Association."

The government can either pay for the condoms/pills/sponge or pay for the unwanted babies that come from casual sex encounters. The government finally uses foresight to try to help out the taxpayer and the taxpayers get brown pants all over it. I just love how some people give up their critical thinking abilities in political thought.

cthulhuspawn82:

Yosarian2:

cthulhuspawn82:
I'll answer this the same way I answer people who want "free" healthcare. I agree, its an absolutely wonderful idea. Of course, you do mean free as in "doesn't cost anything" don't you? Not free as in, paid for with taxpayer money, which means its NOT free because you don't pay for something that's free.

Just like free healthcare, we should pass a law for free contraception, and allocate $0 to paying for it. Because after all, that's what free is.

Actually, it's a lot cheaper then free.

For example, a recent study from the brookings institute showed that investing $235 million dollars in medicaid spending on contraception saves medicaid 1.32 billion by preventing unintended pregnancies.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148042609/how-birth-control-saves-taxpayers-money

So it's not just a "zero cost", it's actually costs us 1.1 billion dollars less to supply contraceptives then to not do so.

Why do you want to waste a billion dollars in our taxpayer money just in order to *deny* women access to contraception? Do you like paying higher taxes or something?

I have heard people who make the claim that healthcare spending saves money by dealing with minor problems before they become major problems. I'm not calling them wrong, their argument seems totally logical and probable. All I am asking is why, if a policy would have a negative cost, do we have to spend so much money on it. If you create a policy that would result in you spending less than you already are, then why do you need more money. In fact, you should be giving some back.

If preventative care means spending less than we already are, then healthcare reforms should not cost us any more money. So like I said before, pass the law and allot $0 in extra spending to it. That should be more than they need.

Well, yes. Medicaid provides coverage for birth control pills, it has for years, and because of that it costs a lot less then it otherwise would. You don't have to "allot extra money" for it, you would actually have to allot extra money in order to get rid of it.

Yosarian2:

senordesol:
Is it truly so difficult to keep your genitals to yourself if you can't spare the $0.75 for a bar bathroom condom?

I have no moral objection to free birth control, but it's not like it's not readily available in multiple forms here in the States (this is contraception / prophylactics strictly speaking). What the hell are you people doing that your monthly budget can't keep up with your condom requirements? And why the hell should I -a member of The People, represented by the State- pay for it?

It's your habit; YOU pay for it.

We're not talking about condoms, really. Condoms are only about 93% effective at preventing pregnancy. We're talking about the birth control pill and similar types of birth control, which are more then 99.9% effective, but is more expensive for someone without medical insurance since it's perscription and all that. If people are using "75 cent bar condoms" instead of the pill because they can't afford to go to a doctor to get the pill, then 7% of them will get pregnant with a child they don't want. So either more abortions, or else more unwanted children; either way it costs the system much more then the cost of the pill.

Maybe you have a moral objection to people getting the pill for free, but unwanted pregnancies raise my taxes and my health costs. Why I pay more in taxes/health costs/ect for unwanted pregnancies just because of your moral beliefs?

I said I had NO moral objection. All I was challenging was the 'necessity' of keeping contraception free. I have no objection to it being available, I have no objection to it being affordable or even free. So let's get the argument straight here.

Why does it *need* to be free? I can think of a thousand and one other things that wind up 'costing the system' more if one doesn't have them, but are not free. Furthermore, it occurs to me that there are plenty of way to be intimate that involve no risk of pregnancy (which are already free).

Seems to me that coming up with effective, affordable contraception methods aren't that hard, and if they truly are; perhaps you shouldn't risk it until you're in a better position (no pun intended).

Imthatguy19:
The government can either pay for the condoms/pills/sponge or pay for the unwanted babies that come from casual sex encounters.

Or it could just pay for neither and make people pay for their own screw-ups?

Hardcore_gamer:

Imthatguy19:
The government can either pay for the condoms/pills/sponge or pay for the unwanted babies that come from casual sex encounters.

Or it could just pay for neither and make people pay for their own screw-ups?

TINSTAFL.

Someone has to pay for it. If the people who "screw up" can't pay for it, someone else has to. It's cheaper in the long run to have a safety net that stops people from creating the expense in the first place than to just wag your finger judgmentally at everyone who lives a better life than you do.

Katatori-kun:
It's cheaper in the long run to have a safety net that stops people from creating the expense in the first place than to just wag your finger judgmentally at everyone who lives a better life than you do.

Free condoms are not a safety net. Safety net is for catching people when the fall, nobody is falling simply by having to pay for their own condoms.

And who are these people who are living a better life then me? I did not get that part.

senordesol:

I said I had NO moral objection. All I was challenging was the 'necessity' of keeping contraception free. I have no objection to it being available, I have no objection to it being affordable or even free. So let's get the argument straight here.

Why does it *need* to be free? I can think of a thousand and one other things that wind up 'costing the system' more if one doesn't have them, but are not free. Furthermore, it occurs to me that there are plenty of way to be intimate that involve no risk of pregnancy (which are already free).

Seems to me that coming up with effective, affordable contraception methods aren't that hard, and if they truly are; perhaps you shouldn't risk it until you're in a better position (no pun intended).

(shrug) If someone is getting health care from their insurance company, or from medicaid, why shouldn't it include perscription birth control pills? I don't really get the argument here.

Do you think health insurance should cover the cost of childbirth, or prenatal care? It seems very obvious that it does and it should, but those also come from someone choosing to have sex, right?

Yosarian2:

senordesol:

I said I had NO moral objection. All I was challenging was the 'necessity' of keeping contraception free. I have no objection to it being available, I have no objection to it being affordable or even free. So let's get the argument straight here.

Why does it *need* to be free? I can think of a thousand and one other things that wind up 'costing the system' more if one doesn't have them, but are not free. Furthermore, it occurs to me that there are plenty of way to be intimate that involve no risk of pregnancy (which are already free).

Seems to me that coming up with effective, affordable contraception methods aren't that hard, and if they truly are; perhaps you shouldn't risk it until you're in a better position (no pun intended).

(shrug) If someone is getting health care from their insurance company, or from medicaid, why shouldn't it include perscription birth control pills? I don't really get the argument here.

Do you think health insurance should cover the cost of childbirth, or prenatal care? It seems very obvious that it does and it should, but those also come from someone choosing to have sex, right?

Well then that shit isn't free. You pay for insurance in America, and so you'd be paying for contraceptives.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked