[Chongo]

Free is not quite correct, no copay is. The employee still has to pay their portion of the monthly premium along with their employer.
How about this: "Planned Parenthood" can create a plan that those who want such services pay into it and use those services when needed at no copay. (like prepaid legal services). This way those who want to contracept, get sterilized, or use abortion inducing drugs can do so and not involve those who do not.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

This excellent analysis spells out all that's wrong with Obamacare and/or government covering birth control for "free".

It will drive up prices and create all kinds of distortions.
This is typical of what happens when government provides something for "free".

There is no such thing as free birth control - YouTube

-t

Seems to me that contraception has more to do with healthcare than Viagra does or acne medication. No one dies from having acne or not being able to have an erection.

Two or more lives are at health risk if a woman gets pregnant.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

How about this: "Planned Parenthood" can create a plan that those who want such services pay into it and use those services when needed at no copay. (like prepaid legal services). This way those who want to contracept, get sterilized, or use abortion inducing drugs can do so and not involve those who do not.

LOL, silly you.

You need some 101 lessons in Socialism. The idea is to spend other people's money.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

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.

Not good enough. They want EBT/welfare, they get sterilized (Norplant or surgical), no other option available. We have to cut down on the baby mamma farming, and this will do it.

[Big Mac]

That will never fly, Shaddim. Ever. Who would support it? Not liberals, and certainly not anti-abortion conservatives, right?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

LOL, silly you.

You need some 101 lessons in Socialism. The idea is to spend other people's money.

-t

Just when I thought we were past the emotional responses...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just when I thought we were past the emotional responses...

Excuse me, this was not silly emotional, it was sarcastic factual

It's a FACT that free birth control would mean it is PAID by people that neither want nor use birth control.
It's then a FACT that this amounts to some people RECEIVING (=SPENDING) what is PAID for by other people.
This is one of the principles of Socialism. Like it or not.

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Not good enough. They want EBT/welfare, they get sterilized (Norplant or surgical), no other option available. We have to cut down on the baby mamma farming, and this will do it.

That would be too expensive. It's one thing to hand out contraceptives, it's another to pay a surgeon's salary, anesthesiologist's salary, ER nurse salary, human waste disposal, anesthesia, medication, etc, etc, etc.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be too expensive. It's one thing to hand out contraceptives, it's another to pay a surgeon's salary, anesthesiologist's salary, ER nurse salary, human waste disposal, anesthesia, medication, etc, etc, etc.

It will end up being cheaper. It will significantly cut down the number fo welfare recipients.
There's also no abuse or secondary market for that service (like there would be with free contraceptives).

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

EIt's a FACT that free birth control would mean it is PAID by people that neither want nor use birth control.
It's then a FACT that this amounts to some people RECEIVING (=SPENDING) what is PAID for by other people.

Lots of people buy shares in companies whose services they'll never use. It's called investing.

If we invest in birth control, we save money by not having to support unwanted children to adulthood. As of 2011, it costs an average of $226,920 per child to raise them to the age of 18. For every unwanted pregnancy we prevent, we's save tax payers almost a quarter million dollars.

From a strictly financial standpoint, that seems like a very good idea to me.

[subego]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

There's also no abuse or secondary market for that service (like there would be with free contraceptives).

Not exactly sure how a secondary market develops when everybody can get it for free.

I doubt people will try and hock their pills in Mexico.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It will end up being cheaper. It will significantly cut down the number fo welfare recipients.
There's also no abuse or secondary market for that service (like there would be with free contraceptives).

How do you distinguish between people down on their luck, and people who intend to baby farm? It's unreasonable to expect people to sterilize themselves before going on welfare. You're now making being poor or disabled a thought crime.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Excuse me, this was not silly emotional, it was sarcastic factual

It's a FACT that free birth control would mean it is PAID by people that neither want nor use birth control.
It's then a FACT that this amounts to some people RECEIVING (=SPENDING) what is PAID for by other people.
This is one of the principles of Socialism. Like it or not.

-t

It's emotional that you would even bring up socialism, that level of drama is not warranted for something this insignificant.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777

It's a FACT that free birth control would mean it is PAID by people that neither want nor use birth control. It's then a FACT that this amounts to some people RECEIVING (=SPENDING) what is PAID for by other people. This is one of the principles of Socialism. Like it or not.

Chongo tried to explain this to you but you seem hellbent on not listening and trying to fit a PRIVATE INSURANCE peg into a SOCIALISM hole. Oh well ....

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Chongo tried to explain this to you but you seem hellbent on not listening and trying to fit a PRIVATE INSURANCE peg into a SOCIALISM hole. Oh well ....

*woosh*

Completely over your head.

Seriously, you suck at understanding sarcasm and irony.

-t

[OAW]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

*woosh*

Completely over your head.

Seriously, you suck at understanding sarcasm and irony.

-t

Is that what it is? Or is it that your posting history makes your supposed "sarcasm and irony" virtually indistinguishable from your oft-stated positions? I'm just saying ...

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Lots of people buy shares in companies whose services they'll never use. It's called investing.

If we invest in birth control, we save money by not having to support unwanted children to adulthood. As of 2011, it costs an average of $226,920 per child to raise them to the age of 18. For every unwanted pregnancy we prevent, we's save tax payers almost a quarter million dollars.

From a strictly financial standpoint, that seems like a very good idea to me.

Seriously ?

I'm sorry, but that kind of "investing" is better called a racket. You either pay now or you pay later.

"You either give me free ..... or I will f*ck up and make you pay even more to cover for the results of my unintended consequences."

I expect a real RETURN on my investments, not just the promise of AVOIDING more cost.

-t

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That would be too expensive. It's one thing to hand out contraceptives, it's another to pay a surgeon's salary, anesthesiologist's salary, ER nurse salary, human waste disposal, anesthesia, medication, etc, etc, etc.

Like I said before, $1000 now is better than $150k in EBT later.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

How do you distinguish between people down on their luck, and people who intend to baby farm? It's unreasonable to expect people to sterilize themselves before going on welfare. You're now making being poor or disabled a thought crime.

That's why they can choose temporary sterilization.

[Chongo]

Who's going to support all those boomers hitting retirement age? 52 million more workers would help.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Who's going to support all those boomers hitting retirement age? 52 million more workers would help.

Workers? More like 5th-6th generation EBT sponges.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Who's going to support all those boomers hitting retirement age? 52 million more workers would help.

Huh ? More jobs is such an antiquated concept.
Just print the money, Uncle Ben style.

-t

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Huh ? More jobs is such an antiquated concept.
Just print the money, Uncle Ben style.

-t

????

[turtle777]

Translation: in the last 10 years, the government was NOT concerned with fixing imbalances in future payment obligations (Social security, retiree pensions and medical support) by making sure the economy grows in a healthy way.
Rather, the weapon of choice has become to finance these by issuing debt (a.k.a. printing money).

E.g. last year, Social Security for the first time had more outflows than inflows.

But not to worry, Ben Bernanke and the Fed have everyhting under control, using sophisticated tools like QE to make sure it all gets paid.

-t

[besson3c]

The last 10 years? It has been going on for *much* longer than that...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The last 10 years? It has been going on for *much* longer than that...

Maybe. But it doesn't seem like there's any urgency with most people.

And if I read threads like this, where people want even MORE government "paid" freebies, I really wonder if people understand what kind of cluster*ck will come once that debt bubble bursts.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Maybe. But it doesn't seem like there's any urgency with most people.

And if I read threads like this, where people want even MORE government "paid" freebies, I really wonder if people understand what kind of cluster*ck will come once that debt bubble bursts.

-t

The suggestions here are *because* we recognize the debt crisis. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp that this isn't about morals and responsibilities and all of that kind of stuff, and it isn't about free gifts, it's about pure economics and saving money - simple as that.

I'm just speaking to the premise of this, I haven't studied this or anything. Do you understand this premise, and just disagree with it, or is the premise still unclear to you? Maybe an entitlement ineligibility system would be better, but this will not happen overnight. In the meantime, if this does indeed help prevent expensive unwanted pregnancies, what's to dislike about it? You seem interested in saving money that could go towards debt paying, so... It's not as if people are going to stop having sex while we are in a debt crisis, right?

[turtle777]

The premise is really simple: government should only provide what the private market CAN NOT.

Everything else is people's own responsibility. You can't have people blackmail society with irresponsible behavior. Period.

I disagree that this is an unrealistic expectation. People are better than that, if you force them to.
Of course, if you just enable them and throw all kinds of money after them, they'll take it and throw a fit if you even think about putting some responsibilities back on their shoulders. Tough titties.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The premise is really simple: government should only provide what the private market CAN NOT.

Everything else is people's own responsibility. You can't have people blackmail society with irresponsible behavior. Period.

I disagree that this is an unrealistic expectation. People are better than that, if you force them to.
Of course, if you just enable them and throw all kinds of money after them, they'll take it and throw a fit if you even think about putting some responsibilities back on their shoulders. Tough titties.

-t

Are you interested in saving money, or do you just enjoy preaching about it but when it comes down to it, your ideology is more important?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Maybe. But it doesn't seem like there's any urgency with most people.

And if I read threads like this, where people want even MORE government "paid" freebies, I really wonder if people understand what kind of cluster*ck will come once that debt bubble bursts.

-t

That sounds like the Cloward–Piven strategy.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The suggestions here are *because* we recognize the debt crisis. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp that this isn't about morals and responsibilities and all of that kind of stuff, and it isn't about free gifts, it's about pure economics and saving money - simple as that.

It's hard for me to comprehend that this is simply about saving money, when the government is incentivizing both avoiding pregnancy AND having more children. They can't both be the way to save money. It seems like if reducing the number of children is in the government's best interest, it would make more sense to simply stop paying people to do the opposite, rather than begin paying them to do both things.

Objectively, without trying to estimate the $ and ¢ details of the various implementations of both policies and merely considering the concept in the abstract, it seems like the goal is more about control than about savings. Just like in campaign finance, heavy contributions to one side mean you believe in the merits of that side, while heavy contributions to both sides mean you don't care what happens because no one will make a move that might alienate you.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's hard for me to comprehend that this is simply about saving money, when the government is incentivizing both avoiding pregnancy AND having more children. They can't both be the way to save money. It seems like if reducing the number of children is in the government's best interest, it would make more sense to simply stop paying people to do the opposite, rather than begin paying them to do both things.

Objectively, without trying to estimate the $ and ¢ details of the various implementations of both policies and merely considering the concept in the abstract, it seems like the goal is more about control than about savings. Just like in campaign finance, heavy contributions to one side mean you believe in the merits of that side, while heavy contributions to both sides mean you don't care what happens because no one will make a move that might alienate you.

What incentives to having kids did you have in mind when you wrote this?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Are you interested in saving money, or do you just enjoy preaching about it but when it comes down to it, your ideology is more important?

WTF ?

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

WTF ?

-t

How was my question unclear? Which is more important to you: your ideology, or saving money that can go towards debt repayment?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Anyone ever notice the Democrats and the media manufacture supposed problems out of thin air to get a certain gullible segment of the population all riled up about something that just days before no one gave a good crap about- and it WORKS really well with some people. (And oh look, it's an election year to boot!)

All of a sudden I notice the dumb-beat about contraception has got all the usual suspects banging their chests like there was really some shortage of contraception products, and zero availability of it for anyone just about everywhere. Suddenly, out of thin air, the usual suspects are in some sort of crisis mode because the panic button was pushed in their brains.

I find it fascinating. It's clearly a script, and like I said, it totally works with a certain segment. Hook. Line. Sinker.

I bet if the script called for the suddenly pretense that food was scarce, that we need a government program to provide food free of charge, and all the emo-buttons pushed and the dumb-beat hammering out: "Those dastardly villains on the other team want to deny you your food! Boo!" that all the usual suspects would suddenly be banging their chests absolutely 100% convinced that food was no where to be found, that someone must be enslaved to provide it "free" for them, and that they're all one step away from starvation in the very next instant unless some big govt. boondoggle doesn't go into effect. Hook. Line. Sinker. It would totally work the same way.

“Whether you’re a teacher or a small businesswoman or a nurse or a janitor, no woman’s ‘s health should depend on who she is, or where she works, or how much money she makes,” Obama said, calling free contraceptive care a “core principle” of his health care law, which requires that all preventive services be provided at no cost to patients."
Emperor Obama

So, in this 100% manufactured 'crisis', suddenly teachers, small businesswomen, nurses(!!!), janitors all suddenly can't figure out where, or how to get contraceptive care, and must have it provided by Emperor Obama.(IE: the peon taxpayer.)

And total idiots will lap this stuff up.

Simply amazing. The Obama admin has been one bit of scripted political theatre after the next, and unfortunately, since apparently a growing portion of the population can't tell a reality show from reality from political theatre, this crap plays. Now we're suddenly got a 'contraceptive crisis!!!!!!! OH NOES!" and all women apparently are dumb as dirt when it comes to understanding the whole subject. Clearly they need a guy to explain the birds and the bees to them, and make someone else pay for it.

I guess the one thing I'd sort-of agree on out of this 100% invented overnight 'crisis': the people that Obama clearly believe are this stupid -and possibly are if they buy all this- probably SHOULDN'T reproduce.

So I guess maybe there is some logic to all of us chipping in to make sure incredibly dumb teachers, nurses, businesswomen etc. don't 'tard up the rest of society with their idiotic (future liberal Democrat) offspring. Clearly the country is already full up with stupid people that fall for every manufactured "crisis" that comes out of the beltway script factory, we sure don't need more.

[Waragainstsleep]

Only the left are susceptible to manufactured panic? Are you serious?

Cough! 2nd Iraq War! Cough!

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Only the left are susceptible to manufactured panic? Are you serious?

Cough! Iran War! Cough!

Fixinated.

Prison Planet.com � Pretext For War: String of Global Bombings Blamed on Iran

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How was my question unclear? Which is more important to you: your ideology, or saving money that can go towards debt repayment?

Oh, that was a question ?
Sorry, I thought it was one of your typical disparaging remarks masked in a question. So often, when you ask a "question", you are not interested in an answer, but you merely want to state your disagreement with the poster's position. I guess I have been conditioned by your "debate style".

And just in case you really wanted an answer: BOTH.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

And just in case you really wanted an answer: BOTH.

And in this case you have to choose one, apparently, so which is it? Insurance provided birth control = possible money savings, but against your ideology, but you can't have both.

[andi*pandi]

If only there were some kind of group health insurance that any US citizen could access, outside their employer program, that would offer competitive group rates. It could cover birth control, and all sorts of things. Religious employers could direct their employees to purchase it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What incentives to having kids did you have in mind when you wrote this?

Child tax credit, dependents for tax reasons, numerous other well-intentioned support structures for parents including food stamps.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And in this case you have to choose one, apparently, so which is it? Insurance provided birth control = possible money savings, but against your ideology, but you can't have both.

Some people don't get as excited about "possible" money savings as you seem to be getting. Some people read it as "insurance provided birth control = possible money pit, and against your ideology," in which case you certainly can have both. Even if it was "probable" money savings, it would still be easy to reject it for simply not being "probable" enough to compromise on ideals, it depends on the ideals. For example, I certainly wouldn't give up my ideals opposed to racial profiling just for a "probable" money savings or a "probable" prevention of terrorism or other crime. When you knock the incentive down to "possible" savings, the suggestion of using profiling doesn't stand a chance.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Anyone ever notice the Democrats and the media manufacture supposed problems out of thin air to get a certain gullible segment of the population all riled up about something that just days before no one gave a good crap about- and it WORKS really well with some people. (And oh look, it's an election year to boot!)

Kind of like FOX News and conservatives.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Suddenly, out of thin air, the usual suspects are in some sort of crisis mode because the panic button was pushed in their brains.

Liberal social workers and conservative religious folk. Happens on both sides.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So I guess maybe there is some logic to all of us chipping in to make sure incredibly dumb teachers, nurses, businesswomen etc. don't 'tard up the rest of society with their idiotic (future liberal Democrat) offspring.

Right, because it's only the woman's responsibility.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Clearly the country is already full up with stupid people that fall for every manufactured "crisis" that comes out of the beltway script factory, we sure don't need more.

Kind of like FOX News and conservatives.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why they can choose temporary sterilization.

So now it costs twice as much.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Child tax credit, dependents for tax reasons, numerous other well-intentioned support structures for parents including food stamps.

Can people make money this way? Do the costs of feeding the kid and doing the bare minimal offset the tax credits and this other stuff?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Some people don't get as excited about "possible" money savings as you seem to be getting. Some people read it as "insurance provided birth control = possible money pit, and against your ideology," in which case you certainly can have both. Even if it was "probable" money savings, it would still be easy to reject it for simply not being "probable" enough to compromise on ideals, it depends on the ideals. For example, I certainly wouldn't give up my ideals opposed to racial profiling just for a "probable" money savings or a "probable" prevention of terrorism or other crime. When you knock the incentive down to "possible" savings, the suggestion of using profiling doesn't stand a chance.

I say "possible" because I haven't looked into whether this will save money or not, all of this is based on this as a hypothetical. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it did though, given the low costs of a stupid piece of rubber. If I were a betting man I'd say that it does.

I get your point though. Turtle would probably not be interested in conceding that it does, in fact, save money if this were to be the case, but I'm not willing to concede that if it did that he'd be in favor of it either.

It is a shame that some people's ideology trumps all else, generally speaking.

[besson3c]

I'd love it if Crash Harddrive and Turtle disagreed vehemently on some issue, it would be fun to witness the emotional implosion that would ensue.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So now it costs twice as much.

You mean twice as much as 1 year's worth of contraceptives? (asking because I can't follow, not making a point)

[imitchellg5]

I think we could follow Jonathan Swift's example.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Can people make money this way? Do the costs of feeding the kid and doing the bare minimal offset the tax credits and this other stuff?

Doesn't matter. It alleviates the burden in the same way that free birth control alleviates the burden of buying and using birth control. Namely "partly." The same people that decide not to pay $1 for a condom (or $200/year in condoms) in order to save $100,000 in child support over the next 19 years, are the same people that disregard the burden of that same $100,000 when faced with the prospect of $1000 every year for the next 19 years. It's not smart, but no one accused that person of being smart did they? Bottom line, there was already a strong incentive to use birth control, because being a parent is hard and costs lots of money. We have gone to great lengths in order to sabotage that natural incentive, and along the way we have argued that increasing/maintaining the birth rate and average youthfulness of the population is good for our national interest. To now argue the reverse, that preventing pregnancy is a new critical challenge and we have to reinvent the wheel to do so, rings untrue.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I say "possible" because I haven't looked into whether this will save money or not, all of this is based on this as a hypothetical. It certainly wouldn't surprise me if it did though, given the low costs of a stupid piece of rubber. If I were a betting man I'd say that it does.

I get your point though. Turtle would probably not be interested in conceding that it does, in fact, save money if this were to be the case, but I'm not willing to concede that if it did that he'd be in favor of it either.

It is a shame that some people's ideology trumps all else, generally speaking.

This post contradicts itself. You sandwiched "I get your point" between two statements that rely entirely on you ignoring my point. I want to thank you for acknowledging my point, but I can't do that when in the next breath you turn your back on it again