[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Abstinence never works as a social or educational policy. Maybe heavy iron chastity belts could be used to enforce it more successfully.

I'd like to think that people are at least capable of some measure of self-control, but I guess when you consider the obesity of America, I suppose we aren't.

[Big Mac]

Actually, teen pregnancies are at a multi-decade low.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Actually, teen pregnancies are at a multi-decade low.

Its pretty early in the decade though.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its pretty early in the decade though.

Yeah, I'm not even trying yet.

[Chongo]

Saw this posted on Facebook

[The Final Dakar]

Shoulda kept it on Facebook.

[olePigeon]

Contraception reduces pregnancies, which means less unwanted children, more teenagers/young adults staying in school, fewer abortions, reduced dependencies on social services, etc. I would imagine it's cheaper for everyone in terms of tax dollars to fund and provide contraception than to support the alternative.

In terms of religious institutions that employ people and provide health insurance, they're obligated to provide contraception as apart of the health insurance unless they only employ people of the same faith.

Since I'm on the subject of faith based corporations, religious hospitals and care facilities should be taxed just like private hospitals if they intend to service people outside their faith.

[Chongo]

So, North Phoenix Baptist Hospital has to ask someone for their Baptist card before admitting them?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Saw this posted on Facebook

Usual not going the full distance with one's thinking sort of comment...

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

So, North Phoenix Baptist Hospital has to ask someone for their Baptist card before admitting them?

If they want to remain a non-profit religious institution, yes. Otherwise they should pay taxes like every other non-religious hospital.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'd say it's invalid, because I don't see another fathomable way for this country to be run.

No one expects you to if you're not even looking for one

What's your point? We aren't going to disband welfare, Medicare and public education anytime soon, so what productive purpose does thinking along these lines serve?

But we might make it conditional on at least trying to lead a healthy lifestyle, like quitting/reducing smoking and alcohol, eating vegetables once in a while, and maybe even... using birth control. Employers and insurers are already starting to tread this ground... there have been threads about it here even.

Again, what productive purpose does thinking along these lines serve?

I object that you refuse to even "think" along these lines. You can't weigh the consequences if you're unwilling to even "think" about the consequences. I'm not saying I won't ultimately come to the same conclusion as you or subego (in fact if you read the thread, I already did!!), but I insist that we at least "think along these lines" completely before jumping in with both feet.

I think that the perceived costs of some things might change when it is more readily available and it doesn't have to be paid out-of-pocket, but I don't think this holds true across the board. I think people understand that roads are expensive, that public education is expensive, etc.

Really? I don't. I always see people driving around the roads with snow tires, even in the summer. Heck around here the buses drive on dry roads with chains, if there's any snow anywhere in the city. They wouldn't do that if the costs of roads weren't obfuscated like they are. And education... the insane number of college kids who waste their time and come out with worthless degrees or linger for 7-10 years demonstrates that they don't value the expense of public education. There would be almost none of this happening if they had to pay the bill themselves.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Permanent castrations will only end up with lots of lawsuits being filed by people who feel wrongly castrated which will be most of them.

LOL, so they want the handouts (e.g. free health care, government assistance payments, etc...), but not the responsibility.

See, this is where it's IMPOSSIBLE for the government to fix things so it's fair, uncontested AND effective. You gotta pick 2 out of the three (fair, uncontested, effective).

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Abstinence is the best birth control.

Who are you to deny people their god-given right to f*ck around like animals, w/o personal responsibility of the consequences ?
[/sarc]
-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Who are you to deny people their god-given right to f*ck around like animals, w/o personal responsibility of the consequences ?
[/sarc]
-t

Man, let's ratchet up the melodrama.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But we might make it conditional on at least trying to lead a healthy lifestyle, like quitting/reducing smoking and alcohol, eating vegetables once in a while, and maybe even... using birth control. Employers and insurers are already starting to tread this ground... there have been threads about it here even.

I like the premise behind this, I apologize for sounding so dismissive, but I'm not sure what this accomplishes. We still have to deal with all of the people that don't lead healthy lifestyles, don't quit smoking/booze, etc. Are you saying that these people should be ineligible for safety nets so that our only costs involving them is disposing of their bodies? If so, you've widened the scope of all of this conversation a very great deal. Are we on the same page now?

[besson3c]

Turtle: if you're game, how about we keep this conversation to strictly economics and leave the whole moral thing of responsibility aside? I'm kind of interested in seeing how this will play out without the moral component.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I've seen these various arguments against it here...

Well put and exhaustive post. With the exception of a few minor policy tweaks I'd make, I agree with it 100%.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Saw this posted on Facebook

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Turtle: if you're game, how about we keep this conversation to strictly economics and leave the whole moral thing of responsibility aside? I'm kind of interested in seeing how this will play out without the moral component.

You can not leave personal responsibility out of it.

The less responsibility you demand from people, the more it will cost the government to administer their programs effectively.

It's pretty easy: we can NOT afford for people to be irresponsible, and expect the government to pick up the tab. The reason that government programs get ever more expensive is exactly because we try to offset personal ireresponsibility. It doesn't work, and causes a cost explosion.

If YOU are game, answer this:
Do you think that it's true that a personally responsible person would generally cost the government less than a very irresponsible person ?
Why do you think the general public should PAY for the extra cost of people not being personally responsible ?

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

If YOU are game, answer this:
Do you think that it's true that a personally responsible person would generally cost the government less than a very irresponsible person ?
Why do you think the general public should PAY for the extra cost of people not being personally responsible ?

Wasn't this answered?

With many things, there's a cost to society either way.


Edit: that's not to say the inefficiencies you point out shouldn't be factored into the calculation.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I like the premise behind this, I apologize for sounding so dismissive, but I'm not sure what this accomplishes. We still have to deal with all of the people that don't lead healthy lifestyles, don't quit smoking/booze, etc. Are you saying that these people should be ineligible for safety nets so that our only costs involving them is disposing of their bodies? If so, you've widened the scope of all of this conversation a very great deal. Are we on the same page now?

Yes, if you actively sabotage the safety net, that should make you ineligible for it. IMO this isn't widening the scope of the conversation at all, it's just that you had an erroneously narrow view of what the conversation actually is, any time the expansion of the various safety nets is proposed.

If there is a problem with the safety net, like in this case you perceive that not enough people are using birth control, the answer isn't to throw good money after bad. Giving out freebies created these problems, and giving out more freebies is just going to create more of the same problems. Sometimes the answer is to change the way the freebies are given out, so that logical players acting in their own best interest will be incentivized to behave correctly instead of incorrectly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You can not leave personal responsibility out of it.

The less responsibility you demand from people, the more it will cost the government to administer their programs effectively.

It's pretty easy: we can NOT afford for people to be irresponsible, and expect the government to pick up the tab. The reason that government programs get ever more expensive is exactly because we try to offset personal ireresponsibility. It doesn't work, and causes a cost explosion.

But expecting people to be responsible is pretty much the same as expecting unicorns. It is just not. going. to. happen.

We can ask that people be responsible, and provide incentives for responsibility and punishments for irresponsibility, but at the end of the day the irresponsibility will still have to be expected, just as we can still expect people to smoke cigarettes despite 203948029348 warnings on the labels.

If YOU are game, answer this:
Do you think that it's true that a personally responsible person would generally cost the government less than a very irresponsible person ?
Why do you think the general public should PAY for the extra cost of people not being personally responsible ?

-t

Irrelevant questions, see above.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Yes, if you actively sabotage the safety net, that should make you ineligible for it. IMO this isn't widening the scope of the conversation at all, it's just that you had an erroneously narrow view of what the conversation actually is, any time the expansion of the various safety nets is proposed.

If there is a problem with the safety net, like in this case you perceive that not enough people are using birth control, the answer isn't to throw good money after bad. Giving out freebies created these problems, and giving out more freebies is just going to create more of the same problems. Sometimes the answer is to change the way the freebies are given out, so that logical players acting in their own best interest will be incentivized to behave correctly instead of incorrectly.

My question of what happens to those ineligible to the safety nets has still been unanswered though.

[besson3c]

The problem is, if you create some sort of national list of people that are ineligible for safety nettage (which would require some cost), you'd also require that ERs turn patients away who are on this list. Maybe a national list of ineligible safety net consumers would be the way the go, let these people self-destruct and ultimately die due to their mistakes (not terribly Christian, but could be practical), but without this sort of thing the punishments that we'd devise could/would push these people to self destruction, pushing the costs on hospital ERs.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

With many things, there's a cost to society either way.

No. Let them go to f*cking hell. (Almost) no cost to society.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Irrelevant questions, see above.

Why irrelevant ? Because you don't have an answer ?
Just because there is no easy answer doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why irrelevant ? Because you don't have an answer ?
Just because there is no easy answer doesn't mean it's irrelevant.

-t

I've explained why it is irrelevant, you just didn't respond to this.

[Montezuma58]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Where would they put all of the castrated parts?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've explained why it is irrelevant, you just didn't respond to this.

I have stated my position: let them go to hell.

You and subego still haven't provided any valid argument why just leaving the irresponsible idiots to their own demise is not an option (aside from saving a lot of money).

I'm really amazed to see how you think enabling people would solve the problem.
People were well able to take rsponsibility for theior lives for thousands of years. But suddenly, you need a government to enable any- and all iditiotic decisions that people want to make.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I have stated my position: let them go to hell.

You and subego still haven't provided any valid argument why just leaving the irresponsible idiots to their own demise is not an option (aside from saving a lot of money).

How is saving money not a valid argument?

Like I said, you either need some sort of national ineligibility from all safety nets, particularly Medicare, or you need to face the idea that while it might feel good to say that people need to be responsible, it might end up costing us more. People self destructing within our current system is expensive.

I'm really amazed to see how you think enabling people would solve the problem.
People were well able to take rsponsibility for theior lives for thousands of years. But suddenly, you need a government to enable any- and all iditiotic decisions that people want to make.

-t

Settle down, nobody is suggesting that enabling people will solve the problem. Control yourself.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How is saving money not a valid argument?

Huh ? What the hell ?
I'm saying it would save money if you DON'T SUPPORT / ENABLE them.
There is no savings from giving in to their irresponsible ways and just keep paying them off to act like dumbf*cks.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

People self destructing within our current system is expensive.

NO. NO. NO. It's doesn't cost a dime. Let them go to hell, die or whatever.
It only costs money if you try to fix people that don't want to be fixed.

For Pete's sakes, are you smoking something ?

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Control yourself.

STFU.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh ? What the hell ?
I'm saying it would save money if you DON'T SUPPORT / ENABLE them.
There is no savings from giving in to their irresponsible ways and just keep paying them off to act like dumbf*cks.

We've been over this many, many, many times in this thread and elsewhere. This isn't necessarily the case. It might be, but this is not a given.

I don't know what else to say, I've explained why I think this is so several different times in a number of different ways. I can't make myself any clearer unless you address these points directly, I think. Little hint though: medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.

NO. NO. NO. It's doesn't cost a dime. Let them go to hell, die or whatever.
It only costs money if you try to fix people that don't want to be fixed.

For Pete's sakes, are you smoking something ?

Can't have this conversation with the emotion and drama, sorry. Settle the **** down.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I have stated my position: let them go to hell.

You and subego still haven't provided any valid argument why just leaving the irresponsible idiots to their own demise is not an option (aside from saving a lot of money).

You haven't heard it because I haven't lost focus.

The intent of a policy such as free birth control would be to cut down on the manufacture of brand new, infant size, irresponsible idiots to be. So I, in a world where we do have to pay for those irresponsible idiots by government decree, have less of them to pay for.

Arguments such as "why do you want to enable these people?" are frustrating because they seem to illustrate to me you aren't engaging in the actual discussion, you're just grinding the same axe over and over.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can't have this conversation with the emotion and drama, sorry. Settle the **** down.

Translation: "You got me, I don't really have any arguments or facts, so I'm going to distract from that."

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Translation: "You got me, I don't really have any arguments or facts, so I'm going to distract from that."

-t

I've been trying to get you to settle down because the fact that you have a hard time getting past the emotional component of people being responsible is exactly why you don't see this position any other way.

Keep grinding that axe.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by subego 

The intent of a policy such as free birth control would be to cut down on the manufacture of brand new, infant size, irresponsible idiots to be. So I, in a world where we do have to pay for those irresponsible idiots by government decree, have less of them to pay for.

Circular argument.

Why can't you just let those idiots have babys and the let them go to hell ?
I know, I'm definitely painting it black and white, but it seems like the only way to cut the crap in these discussions around here.

Originally Posted by subego 

Arguments such as "why do you want to enable these people?" are frustrating because they seem to illustrate to me you aren't engaging in the actual discussion, you're just grinding the same axe over and over.

Sorry, but that's a cop out. You don't want to deal with my argument, so you declare that I'm "not engaging" and "grinding the same axe." Lame.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Keep grinding that axe.

And you keep posting shit with no substance whatsoever.

-t

[besson3c]

For turtle so that he doesn't miss my "dealing with his argument":

medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.
medical costs of those self destructing and visiting the ER.

Now how about dealing with this?

[turtle777]

Why accept this ? Deny them the ER visit. Period.

In some areas of the US, the medical system is on the verge of a collapse due to excessive abuse of ER visits. We gotta stop handing out free lunches.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why accept this ? Deny them the ER visit. Period.

In some areas of the US, the medical system is on the verge of a collapse due to excessive abuse of ER visits. We gotta stop handing out free lunches.

-t

So how do we do this? I came up with the idea of a national ineligibility list, are you in favor of this, despite the cost of administering this?

I think I am. Some of the religious groups might have a field day with something like this, but I'm not into that sanctity of life crap. I would just hope that this sort of thing is not a substitute for expending the political effort to reduce health care costs across the board.

[Shaddim]

Hell no, not birth control. Now, I'm all for paying for sterilization, however. $1000 now is better than $150k in EBT later.

Originally Posted by subego 

You changed this from something like "major urban centers" which is true, to what's above, for which I'll need a citation.

Either way though, condoms have some serious disadvantages, mainly pertaining to the fact a lot of people don't use them, or don't use them consistently.

and you think chicks are going to remember to take the pill?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So how do we do this? I came up with the idea of a national ineligibility list, are you in favor of this, despite the cost of administering this?

I think the question of whether "free" birth control is a good idea or not is independent of the question of how to implement it (like direct distribution vs forcing employers or insurers to figure it out, vs forcing everyone to take a seminar at the nearest post office).

Besides, what of the extensive medical records that are already kept on nearly everyone in the country? Isn't most of the heavy lifting already done, wrt tracking patients?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think the question of whether "free" birth control is a good idea or not is independent of the question of how to implement it (like direct distribution vs forcing employers or insurers to figure it out, vs forcing everyone to take a seminar at the nearest post office).

To be clear, my eligibility list was for ER visits/health care, not birth control.

Besides, what of the extensive medical records that are already kept on nearly everyone in the country? Isn't most of the heavy lifting already done, wrt tracking patients?

The medical records that exist are complete garbage, you can't even get hospitals and prompt care centers and the like to share records with each other, it's a complete mess.

I think digital shareable medical records would help a great deal not only with ventures like this, but improving overall efficiency and lowering costs.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

To be clear, my eligibility list was for ER visits/health care, not birth control.

Does the same answer not apply? I was drawing an analogy.

The medical records that exist are complete garbage, you can't even get hospitals and prompt care centers and the like to share records with each other, it's a complete mess.

I think digital shareable medical records would help a great deal not only with ventures like this, but improving overall efficiency and lowering costs.

Synergy! You'll never get people to agree to fix the computer system until you tell them it will somehow keep someone else from getting away with something. It's the nature of the human psyche.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Synergy! You'll never get people to agree to fix the computer system until you tell them it will somehow keep someone else from getting away with something. It's the nature of the human psyche.

I'm curious how other countries handle this, because obviously there are security issues with a national database of digital medical records.

Digital records have been something that we've been talking about for a good while now, I think this was a campaign talking point for Obama, so I'd definitely be in favor of that, and if we can get that far I'd be in favor of a Medicare/ER ineligibility list based on some relatively conservative criteria.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Synergy! You'll never get people to agree to fix the computer system until you tell them it will somehow keep someone else from getting away with something. It's the nature of the human psyche.

Then there is the Grand Canyon-sized gulf between telling someone and convincing them its true/worth the money.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Circular argument.

Why can't you just let those idiots have babys and the let them go to hell ?

You mean past the utter moral reprehensiblity of the suggestion?

It comes down to sanitation. Policies consistent with that lead to significant portions of urban centers being covered in shit and corpses. While maybe you can keep your undesirables living on the other side of the tracks, all it takes is one visit and you have a epidemic going on outside your literal "**** off and die" zone.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Sorry, but that's a cop out. You don't want to deal with my argument, so you declare that I'm "not engaging" and "grinding the same axe." Lame.

Sorry, but this is big pile of shit like you find in the turtle city of tomorrow. The topic is birth control. You have interpreted an attempt to retain a glancing resemblance to the topic as "not dealing with your argument".

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and you think chicks are going to remember to take the pill?

Some will.

At the least there's no expectation you have to find your pill when you're drunk and horny.

Offering implants isn't the worst idea. That'd be ideal if there weren't bigger side effects associated with them.

[BadKosh]

Choose between a society where you work but do not get pay.. Instead all of your needs (as identified by political types) will be taken care of, or one where you have a say, pay taxes, and have many less regulations and YOU are responsible for all your actions, not 'society'. You might even have money at the end of the month!

[subego]

+0.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Choose between a society where you work but do not get pay.. Instead all of your needs (as identified by political types) will be taken care of, or one where you have a say, pay taxes, and have many less regulations and YOU are responsible for all your actions, not 'society'. You might even have money at the end of the month!

Which someone "less responsible" will come and take because there isn't enough protection/regulation/resources to stop them.