Essentially how it goes.

[–]EclipseClemens 508 points509 points510 points 12 years ago (307 children) | Copy Link

[–]NUMBERS2357 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 26 points27 points28 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't really see how this correlates to saving more money? Because someone MIGHT get pregnant, they MIGHT carry it to term, they MIGHT decide to not put it up for adoption, and they MIGHT be in a circumstance where they are not financially able to provide; that should definitely pay out of pocket and out these things into place? There needs to be more funding into the things that are already horribly underfunded in the Sexual health world. The fact that you have one wednesday every 6 weeks to even schedule an abortion right now because of doctor availability is pathetic. The fact I had to drive more then 35 miles because of the lack of available doctors in order to get something as simple as free condoms, the defunding and reduction of planed parenthoods as a whole in developed urban areas alone is more than alarming. I like in one of the biggest cities in the country. There is no reason I should have to rent a car and have to drive more than an hour for whats already "being provided". Im someone who has been on and off welfare for the last few years because of the industry I'm in. In that few years I had my daughter. We were on birth control at the time but because my wife only had her period once every 4 months due to the birth control, we didn't find out about our daughter until my wife was almost 22 weeks along. We had a choice to drive 640 miles and pay more then $1,200, carry her to term and adopt, or carry her to term and keep her. The choice was basically made for us. We would never agree to a second term abortion, nor did we have the money (Mind you this was a lowered fee based on our lack of income) and we didn't think my wife could handle adoption mentally. So guess what. We decided to have our daughter. 2 years later, most of the time with no working parents we almost never qualified for anything. Food stamps, discounted prescriptions, housing, TANIF, ANYTHING. We had to count on shelters to stay at, and flying a cardboard sign on a corner to get food.

My point is this, Sometimes good, hardworking people end up getting the shit end of a deal. Sometimes they try there hardest to make the circumstance they are in work. Sometimes it doesn't and they have to rely on the system thats in place to get by. When the system itself is a complete failure you can add as many social programs to it that you want, but unless things change internally those things won't benefit nearly the amount of people that you will end up being taxed for in the long run.

People tend to paint this caricature of what they imagine a welfare recipients to be. Most of the time its an ethnic mom with to many kids and to many luxuries "milking the system". Or maybe some teenage mom who had to drop out of school because she got pregnant. Who's mother takes care of the kid while she works some trivial burger flipping job.

I'm 28 years old. My wife is 27. We both come from middle class homes from Anywhere, USA. We both are college educated and skilled in artisan crafts. We both consider ourselves fairly level headed, responsible people. We both have payed into the tax system for the last 10+ years of our working lives and we felt it was only fair that in our time of need, we were cared for by at least the minimum from the government programs we have payed into. But that didn't happen.

And then you get to hop online and get belittled by someone about how you are spending "Their tax dollars." and you don't deserve this or that. Why doesn't anyone ever consider that the person in question might have worked there whole life, or might not be on welfare "forever". Why do people some how think that by offering anything for free, that somehow thats going to prevent _________. Education and access are the major factors to prevention. We are defunding the preventative measures and providing a "free" ticket to potentially save resources. While at the same time completely eliminating personal responsibility. How would this in any way save money? All I can imagine is the abortion rate climbing, the cost of abortions climbing, more tax money being sucked dry, and more people losing accountability for there actions, leading to an even higher increases in these procedures. It just sounds out of touch.

P.S. We got pregnant for our 2nd time this month. My wife had an abortion and it cost me $450. If you gave us a free abortion, I would have just gotten a PS4 with the money, and what would I have learned from all this?

[–]anachronic 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You could always do a "means test" for free abortions... like if you make less than $X in salary, so that people with funds have to pay for their own. This doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" kinda deal.

But either way, I still support government subsidized abortions because the cost to taxpayers for a single mom raising an unwanted kid is vastly higher than $450

The fact that you have one wednesday every 6 weeks to even schedule an abortion right now because of doctor availability is pathetic.

Exactly, it is... and it's the same exact people who are shutting down abortion clinics that are also trying to strip out government funding for BC and abortions and the "day after" pill to serve their insane religious agenda.

I'd rather pay a few extra bucks in taxes to ensure abortion remains safe and available for all than to nickel and dime it into non-existence.

If you are worried about government spending, so am I, but let's talk about the bloated and insanely wasteful defense budget if you wanna trim some fat... not reproductive rights.

[–]Hereforthefreecake -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There is a financial questionnaire that you have to fill out, being unemployed didn't qualify me for anything. Even with zero assets. Thats kind of the point I was making. You can pass anything you want with social programs, with doing so they will just narrow the field of qualified applicants down to nothing. Instead of splashing gas on a fire with the religious crowd by funding abortion directly, more funding should go into educating people and providing more clinics. Hopefully loosening the strict rigid guidelines that exist currently. You either have to have a medical condition or be underage to get a "free" anything. Simply being poor isn't a qualification anymore. Now raise spending by potentially millions with abortion, and that number will be cut down even more. Most likely to only life threatening situations. The more and more social spending goes into programs like this, the less and less people end up qualified to use them. As someone who has needed an abortion this month and is also fairly bad off right now, I still agree that I should be paying for my own abortions. With the way welfare programs are right now, I don't qualify for anything offered, even being homeless and broke. And adding more to these social programs will do nothing but lead to more cuts in more critical places. Its a really fickle topic without an easy answer. And Id love to live in a world where we didn't even have a defense budget, yet one that is as bloated as the one we have. But the facts are we spend a lot of money on progressing the profits of a few, and the more social programs we put in place, the less it spreads out. At some point you have to tell people no, and you have to let them deal with there consequences. At least in the current system we have in place. The current system is setting itself up to only serve the more fortunate, and a culling of the lower class extras has been in place for years now. But you know "Hey man you can't hate someone for being successful" and "You know if they didn't like there situation they could just get a better job" keeps us in the trenches slinging mud at each other.

[–]anachronic 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The people I'd like to tell "No" are the rich welfare queens paying 15% in capital gains tax when the rest of us ordinary folk are paying double that.

I'd like to revoke the mortgage deduction.

I'd like to stop lavish subsidies to companies like ConAgra and Monsanto.

The millionaire farmers who are paid to not grow crops... the bridges to nowhere... the fighter jets that get immediately junked after they're delivered because they were obsolete before they even came off the production line but we can't stop making them because the factory is in Senator so-and-so's state.

All that pork barrel crap that John McCain used to bitch about. I'd love to slash and burn it to the ground.

But social programs that try and help people's lives out are not where the knife should fall first. They're a drop in the bucket compared to all the other shady crap that we should be focusing on instead.

[–]MergeTheBands 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 132 points133 points134 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]bobbonew 28 points29 points30 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThetaOmega1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuckname -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]beingTOOnosey 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Juan_Golt 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil88 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Juan_Golt 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Troybarns 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MsHurricane09 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MsHurricane09 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]EclipseClemens 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrantNexus 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuddle_rapist -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Except for when women want to have a kid to gain significance in thier life when they haven't achieved anything else, (tends to happen in lower and or working class families at least in the UK). When they have a kid they are proud of being mothers and all that they achieved. Most men will pay for condoms but just offering it to women makes some men (some silly men) think that if a woman tells them they are on the pill they do not need to wrap it up. The government should pay for both sexes or none so it lessens the assumption that someone is on the contraceptives when they might not be. But that seems like a big cost to the tax payer to prevent silly people from having kids but it might pay off in less welfare benefits.

Sorry if this is really unclear, im exhausted after work, will edit for readability soon

[–]Kensin 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Is_It_A_Throwaway 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmperorFishFinger -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]magical_hitachi 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]velcona -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

If the government mandates health insurance must pay for birth control, and you must have insurance or pay a fine, and then subsidizes the health insurance for those who cannot afford it, while maintaining that the insurance they are subsidizing must cover birth control...that seems like the government is in essence doing just that. Am I missing something? While not directly paying for it, it basically makes it impossible for the government to not use tax money to subsidize the cost of birth control. I mean, if I said "I didn't punch that man! This guy here did!" and then it was later on found out that I was twisting the arm of the guy I accused until he punched the man, it doesn't seem like it would be a stretch to say I was responsible for the guy getting punched.. Just asking an honest question, cause I'm wondering if I'm just missing something...

[–]scurvebeard 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]_pH_ -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am talking about it. I never said it should be supported or opposed. Additionally, saying:

"...can you provide a reasonable argument as to why the government should pay $50, 000 for uninsured ER visits from pregnant women rather than $20 a month or less depending on the type of contraception?"

would seem to be begging the question. Do you have evidence to cite such a statistic to support your argument? Or are you just throwing out hypotheticals? More specifically, would publicly funding birth control guarantee that a $50K trip to the ER would not happen regularly regardless? Regardless of the answers to my hypothetical questions, I originally made my comment not to debate the merits of funding/not funding birth control. I was specifically wanting to get back to addressing the top comment's statement that the American government was not funding birth control, which to me does not appear to be entirely correct. My statement about an individual's right to argue the specifics of tax funding was just an observation - nothing more.

[–]Hereforthefreecake 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]whatainttaken 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]neilmcc 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]joshgeek -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]germaneuser 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

"Yes you can say that taxes support the government which is charged with mandating coverage, but now we're getting into a chicken/egg argument"

I don't know how this is a chicken/egg argument. It is precisely clear the order of events here unlike the statement, 'Which came first, the chicken or the egg". The order is basically: "Government mandates that health insurance covers birth control" -> "Government states that individuals must buy health insurance" -> "For those who can't afford it, government subsidizes health insurance costs (so long as the insurance covers birth control)." Perhaps you mean a funds mixing argument? I.e. Taxes Fund -> Government -> Government does x,y,z. Since 'Taxes' are not going directly to x,y,z, taxes are therefore not funding x, y, z? That is the only thing I can get from the above statement. If that is the case then that seems like a rather disingenuous statement to make. I don't know - is that what you mean, or is it something else?

Edit: "Taxes aren't subsidizing the coverage of those entitled to free health care." So then, if someone cannot afford health insurance the health insurance companies are required to subsidize the cost for that individual? If this is the case then that is entirely different from what I've understood concerning the legislation. However, this wouldn't change the nature of my argument. If the government can use the force of law to force insurance companies to subsidize these costs, that's no different then "The person twisting the arm of someone to make them punch another man" argument stated above.

[–]joshgeek -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

No big surprise that I may be wrong, but how I explained it is how I understand it. Anyone who knows otherwise would be appreciated to explain it. Regardless of a direct tax fund as a source or private premium fees, the effect is the same. Some people are paying for other people's birth control, whether they approve of it or not. Personally this doesn't seem to be the worst thing in the world, but I can understand if some people are uncomfortable with the notion. Per the OP, I don't think people (male, female, or otherwise) should be ostracized for voicing their opinion on the matter.

*Edit- To attempt to clarify, I am unsure of how much the government will directly subsidize insurance companies who cover BC. But one can assume, knowing subsidies cover a mere percentage of normal rates of health care in our current system, that the insurance companies will not be compensated to the extent that they would be from a standard policy holder. Therefore they would have to make up the shortfall in some manner. The easiest and most likely way would be to increase rates for paying policy holders. I think this is why you see private insurance rates increasing rapidly at the moment. My own employer recently had to reduce the amount of coverage while increasing our deductible in order to keep the bump in insurance costs to a measly 20%. So that's my logic anyway.

[–]germaneuser 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]methcamp 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]neilmcc -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Czar-Salesman 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theonewhoknocks231 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kznlol 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kznlol 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stuffZACKlikes 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (158 children) | Copy Link

[–]pembinariver 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 39 points40 points41 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]anachronic 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MergeTheBands 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kilo4fun 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomsought-14 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]apollofist16 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]basedrifter0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]doomsought1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]user1492 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NUMBERS2357 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theonewhoknocks231 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]pembinariver 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eulerup2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1% of the population gets an accidental pregnancy every 5 years

Birth control failure rates are more in line with 1% whoopsie babies per year, so 1% of the population ever 2 years.

Without access to birth control, it is safe to assume that the pregnancy rate is higher than that, and really, it's the difference that matters.

Furthermore, your assumption that birth control is $100/ month is ridiculous. It's more on the order of $50, or as little as $10.

Compared to your analysis, the rate of pregnancy doubled and the cost of birth control was cut in half, meaning your "equivalent cost" would need to be divided by 4, yielding $150,000.

However, the costs of raising a kid extend well beyond delivering a child. Even with the most conservative assumption<sup>1</sup> s, this calculator puts it at 161,000, outweighing the cost of birth control.

Of course, that calculator does not include things like career opportunity cost.

Single parent, living in the south, no college

[–]ddxxdd0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But the cost of raising a child isn't paid by the insurance companies.

Furthermore, your assumptions only work if 100% of the population is having sex regularly, would not use any sort of protection (condoms, abstinence, etc.) without birth control, would not get an abortion if they did not have that child, and would use birth control 100% accurately if it were paid for (if they miss a single day of taking the pills, then the pills are about as good as tic tacs).

If 100 million people would take the pill if it were completely free, and pills were $50, then this policy would cost insurance companies $5 billion per month, or $60 billion per year. I'm extremely skeptical of the claim that preventing unwanted children is worth $60 billion a year, especially since it won't prevent all unwanted children (some people will get an abortion) and people will use the free birth control to displace condom/abstinence use.

There's also the fact that mandatory seatbelt use caused more deaths among the general population due to altered driving behavor. If free birth control causes people to eschew condoms and other forms of safe sex, causes people to have more sex, and is rendered useless by imperfect use, then this policy could result in more unwanted pregnancies.

[–]pembinariver1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pembinariver 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]stuffZACKlikes -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theonewhoknocks231 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_girl 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gr8WhiteGrammarNazi -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ClemsonPoker-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Captain-Tripps -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mister_James -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red_Canuck3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GrantNexus 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]stuffZACKlikes 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]crogers94 12 years ago [recovered] (36 children) | Copy Link

But what if I don't want or need to be a part of that group?

[–]eastindyguy 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I like how Germany does it. I think Singapore's system is kooky and novel, and if executed at more local levels could work. Its healthcare is among the least expensive in developed countries and they have high quality.

It is essentially a hybrid of government/private activity. The government ensures there's a minimum number of hospitals, but has the hospitals administer themselves individually, thereby forcing them to compete for patients. People are required to put a certain portion of their pay into medical savings accounts, which can be used to supplement the cost of care in addition to out of pocket costs. There is a public option for insurance, but isn't required, and there varying levels of prices/quality and caps on how much of their savings account can pay for it so as to prevent overutilization.

It's this weird, government imposed, capitalistic engine, and they spend far less per capita, by % of GDP, and most healthcare spending is private, even moreso than the US.

This doesn't mean that a purely capitalistic system can work, but it certainly raises some questions, and at least suggests there's a right and wrong way to do it when looking at the US and Singapore.

[–]user1492 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]crogers94 12 years ago [recovered] (18 children) | Copy Link

But what I'm saying is that I don't need to be a part of the group at all, not that I want to customize a plan. I'm at a point in my life where, because of my general condition and family history, I don't feel there is any reason for me to need healthcare insurance

[–]the_girl 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]crogers94-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_girl 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_girl0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kilo4fun0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kilo4fun0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kilo4fun0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]crogers94 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

I never said at any point. Just for the next 5-10 years, I'm healthy, don't have terrible habits, and my family doesn't have a history of illness before age 50

[–]user1492 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seyla -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]femmecheng 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eastindyguy 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]eastindyguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Good point, but I think you'd have to look at more than that. For example, if condoms have a failure rate (typical use) of ~8% more than that of birth control, you'd have to look at how many of those failures result in the actual birth of a child (i.e. how many women don't get abortions) and how much that birth then affects taxpayers (or how much the abortion costs insurance payers). Additionally, look at how often STIs are transmitted through casual sex and the cost of treating that vs. providing condoms to everyone.

Let's take the worst possible scenario: man and woman have sex, are poor, don't use a condom, STI is transmitted, baby is conceived, everyone goes on welfare

The cost of paying for a) treatment of the STI x2 b) pregnancy costs and c) welfare costs is huge for the taxpayer. That's going to be much larger than providing birth control or condoms through an insurance plan.

We can compare that scenario to: man and woman have sex, are poor, use a condom, no STI, ~85% chance no pregnancy happens

The cost for the condom is pretty much meaningless for the average insurance payer. At my university, everyone pays like ~$7/year for unlimited access to the sexual resource center (i.e. free condoms, lube, dental dams, female condoms, etc.). That amount is essentially nothing for everyone, but everyone can (not everyone will) benefit from it.

Which we can then compare to: man and woman have sex, are poor, use birth control, possible STI, ~93% chance no pregnancy happens

The cost for treating ~most~ STIs is minimal. For bacterial ones we have a pill. For viruses we have a vaccine for most. STI treatment is generally not a huge cost to taxpayers. You're really only paying for the pill and a slight chance of pregnancy. I think that's the most economically viable situation for both casual and monogamous relationships.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]I_as_in_igloo1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]blarghable 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]theonewhoknocks235 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dlp211 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so a single guy can't get a woman pregnant? Why should women pay for prostate cancer treatments or other ailments that effect mostly men?

Or you just view it as blanket cancer treatments.

As a man, I can't understand why anyone would be against getting as many women on birth control as possible.

He literally just explained his position to you. It was 2 sentences long. Seriously. It's fine to disagree, but his position is obvious.

It makes sense for me to buy car insurance that would cover my medical bills in an accident. I'm not currently crashing my car, but it could happen. However I don't see the need to pay for Alzheimer coverage right now. Not just because I don't have it, but because I don't think I will get it for a long time. In 40 years, that's some coverage I'd want to pick up though.

[–]dlp211 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Car insurance is a stupid analogy b/c specifically with car insurance, you are not actually required to buy insurance that covers you or the car, just the potential damage you and said car may cause.

Never said it was required.

I drive in an area that frequently has icy roads. I drive everyday. I drive late at night. It makes a lot of sense to insure myself for medical help if I got in a car accident.

I don't smoke nor am I exposed to second hand smoke. It doesn't make nearly as much sense to insure against diseases that are primarily caused by smoking.

Again, men are 1/2 the equation to pregnancy, and being single does not preclude one from getting a woman pregnant, so why shouldn't they burden this cost. Ask a single man that had a kid and then went through the hell that is child support/family court how he feels about this. HINT: Men get screwed in family court.

Not relevant in any way.

[–]I_as_in_igloo3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]stuffZACKlikes -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]broff 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrewmc 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The same reason women should pay insurance that covers testicular cancer, and prostate exams. And men should pay insurance that cover gynecologists.

In fact the vast majority of thing health insurance covers you will not use, it's be impossible for you to get that sick and not die. I would rather have insurance that covers what I need and what everyone else needs when they need it, while being affordable to everyone. Bigger pools means bigger nominal profits for insurance companies.

I'd also rather not have your religious opinions affect how my healthcare is brought to me. As I'm sure you won't want mine to affect yours.

Edit: if you would rather have financial opinion. Birth control will mean less pregnancy and less births, which are very expensive for insurance companies and affect the price of insurance, if health care on whole on this issue is cheaper it will be cheaper to you. And if the insurance company spends less than 85% of the premiums on health care they will owe you a rebate.

[–]eastindyguy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The larger the pool of insured individuals, the better it is for everyone. You need to quit looking at it as each person's premiums only pay for their benefits - that's just not how insurance works. Never has, never will.

The portion of people who had insurance in 1985 was 85%. Today it's 85%. The risk pool hasn't changed and costs still skyrocketed. It's not nearly as simple as you make it.

But by placing everyone in a large pool, the costs for everyone go down.

Not the costs for people without insurance, nor is the cost of their premiums necessarily reflective of their actual risk and thus actual cost of insuring them.

Yes, you may have to pay $.10/month more to cover someone else's birth control, but when you are are injured / ill the money that they paid to potentially cover them for the same thing that they don't use is used to pay for you.

This argument could be used to make anything "cheaper", but it's clearly not how it works, because you're not actually reducing the costs of things.

Saying "oh you paid something you didn't need but I paid for something I didn't need" isn't sufficient either, because what is being covered and how much each of you is paying is not a 1:1 comparison.

Distorting the signaling mechanisms for value in supply and demand by force is enormously inefficient. The fact the US manages to double down on the inefficiency by distorting the supply and demand both via 3rd parties and directly at multiple levels of organization is just tragic.

If your logic held true, then food would be cheaper with single payer grocers/farms, but history says otherwise.

[–]xzxzzx 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theonewhoknocks231 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]shoegazer666 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]logrusmage 12 years ago* [recovered] (30 children) | Copy Link

They simply mandated that insurance cover it

...Which forces people who don't want it to buy it. Not ok.

mostly the companies liked that because it's cheaper to pay for birth control than it is to pay for a baby.

Which is why they offered plans that didn't cover it before? Wah?

[–]kingfalconpunch 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]KaiserTom 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jargoon 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]esantipapa 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]jrainr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]logrusmage2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GenMacAtk 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]123-45-6789 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Zlibservacratican1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]surfnsound 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sutartsore -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wheyproteinisolate-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]picard1021 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]picard1022 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]picard1022 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]eastindyguy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DerpaNerb 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Throbinhoodd 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptSnap 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]C0ltFury -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]EclipseClemens -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]slavik262 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]C0ltFury 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwordfshII -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndoScorpion -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ak111 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 93 points94 points95 points 12 years ago (137 children) | Copy Link

[–]notheanix 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 29 points30 points31 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Czar-Salesman 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Czar-Salesman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I get that argument, but that's hardly very controversial. It's more of a nuance of an individuals political views.

Condoms are not expensive the the pill isn't either. It's just weird having this conversation with Americans because I live in a nordic welfare state where birth control is not free, and nobody really thinks it should be free.

What happens here is that there is a lot of sexual education, so teenagers are aware of the risks and will prevent it. In the USA (and correct me if I'm wrong) sexual education is a very sensitive subject and not taught very widely. Might that be a more contributing factor to teenage pregnancies than a dollar for a condom?

At least where I live, it really doesn't come down to people not affording birth control. It's more about idiots being idiots and not using protection.

[–]Chevellephreak 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fuck_you_its_my_name 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrDorph1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ahora 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Syncopayshun 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]damnBcanilive 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]damnBcanilive 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ejp1082 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody really used it, but I hear it a lot and I was trying out an argument on you. While we were here.

Back to the point though, if teenage pregnancies were the only factor to consider, then improving sex education would be the magic bullet. Although it occurs to me, that if having other people pay for pills and condoms receives this level of outrage, what would the response be by the religious conservatives when you start telling them you have to teach their kids something other than abstinence?

At any rate, it's been mentioned in many places by many people that birth control isn't always strictly used for birth control (everything from acne to antidepressants) and that not every woman can just take off-the-shelf birth control, sometimes there are allergic reactions and other brands are much more expensive.

[–]damnBcanilive -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]muchachomalo 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]anarchists_R_enemies 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]Wile-E-Coyote 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]cypher197 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]cypher197 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]cypher197 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

We'd have an even lower one by not covering welfare/abortions too, so I'm not so sure it's that simple.

Society overall, not just the government.

Resources are limited. If people don't bear the consequences of bad decisions, and we force others to bear them, you remove many incentives for not making bad decisions.

When it comes to reducing the number and severity of bad decisions made, there's more than one way to go about that.

We can...

Change the consequences. (Handing out condoms is relatively cheap, and changes the consequences of poor people having sex.)
Make bad decisions inaccessible. (For example, making it illegal to sell rotten meat. This can sometimes result in a net increase in efficiency.)
Provide more information to make good decisions. (Education; requiring warning labels.)
Allow the consequences to hit. (This sometimes will result in negative consequences to those who didn't make the decision.)
Impose additional consequences. (As we do for crimes.)

Barring some pretty serious technological intervention, humans are always going to be at least somewhat stupid and irrational, and there's more information out there than any one person can reasonably process. (Even smart people are stupid some of the time.)

When we're making the decision on what balance of measures to use, it makes a difference what our motives are.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Make bad decisions inaccessible. (For example, making it illegal to sell rotten meat. This can sometimes result in a net increase in efficiency.)

That's virtually impossible though, and in the long term businesses won't go very far poisoning their customers.

Provide more information to make good decisions. (Education; requiring warning labels.)

Agreed here.

Allow the consequences to hit. (This sometimes will result in negative consequences to those who didn't make the decision.)

I agree we should try to internalize those externalities, but that would mean people would be bearing the decisions of their actions and not others(whereas forcing people to pay for others does make other pay for the consequences of the decision maker)

humans are always going to be at least somewhat stupid and irrational, and there's more information out there than any one person can reasonably process.

But that's okay. Prices of goods and services encapsulate that information. Prices can be distorted of course, but working to remove those distortions is an admirable goal.

[–]cypher1971 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's virtually impossible though, and in the long term businesses won't go very far poisoning their customers.

Humans don't always think so long-term (in fact, they often think pretty short-term, businesses too), and there's a lot more information out there than any one human can reasonably obtain and process. To profit from snake oil, you don't need to maintain a long-term, positive brand. You just need enough noise. And snake oil is cheaper than an actually effective product.

It honestly puzzles me how some people think branding will provide us with significant protection from corporate misdeeds.

That, of course, also ignores cartels and other factors that will automatically subsume many markets unless an outside force makes an explicit effort to stop them and break them up.

We've seen what companies did without oversight during the Industrial Revolution, which is getting somewhat of an encore outside the West. It's not very pretty.

Plus, while making all bad decisions inaccessible is virtually impossible, making a limited subset more difficult to access is far easier and cheaper. And sometimes, that's really all you need to do.

edit 2: For example. One of the pieces of dieting advice I've heard, that appears to work, is to not let unhealthy food into the house in the first place. Some people know that once they get a craving, they won't be able to resist it - but those are often short and limited. An extra twenty steps, or an extra car trip, are enough additional difficulty that the craving can be overcome.

edit:

Or, to put it another way, whenever I see a call to say, not have the government regulate food safety, it always ignores the costs of processing and obtaining privately-verified food safety information (and meta-information, which is key), and neglects that the private sector contains plenty of corruption, too.

Given that it's a documented fact that companies would do things like lock their workers in their factories which then burned down, causing massive casualties, or did, in fact, release tainted meat to market, repeatedly, I am very disinclined to believe the "just trust us with this" from the private sector and its advocates.

That's not even getting to half of the other factors involved.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That, of course, also ignores cartels and other factors that will automatically subsume many markets unless an outside force makes an explicit effort to stop them and break them up.

Not really. OPEC has continuously lost marketshare as the US, Norway, and Venezeula have increased oil production.

Competition increasingly makes cartels toothless. The problem is this effect is not as impactful or immediate in some industries as others, which informs political policy.

Plus, we've seen what companies did without oversight during the Industrial Revolution, which is getting somewhat of an encore outside the West. It's not very pretty.

I think is forgotten is the increased cost of better working conditions, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer. In a time of greater poverty, it's not as simple as making necessities more expensive.

Further, there are counterexamples as well. The precursor to paracetamol was decided to not be taken to market by its makers because it was too toxic, and this was decades before the FDA even existed.

Plus, while making all bad decisions inaccessible is virtually impossible, making a limited subset ridiculously difficult to access is far easier and cheaper

Far easier and cheaper than what?

[–]cypher1971 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not really. OPEC has continuously lost marketshare as the US, Norway, and Venezeula have increased oil production. Competition increasingly makes cartels toothless. The problem is this effect is not as impactful or immediate in some industries as others, which informs political policy.

It depends on the availability of the good sold, as well as the nature of the good itself. It's by no means guaranteed that a cartel will be broken in any reasonable timeframe. ("In the long run, we're all dead.") The cartel just needs to be large enough to keep competitors out of the market (for example, by selling below cost until the competitors go bankrupt.)

I think is forgotten is the increased cost of better working conditions, which are ultimately passed on to the consumer. In a time of greater poverty, it's not as simple as making necessities more expensive.

While that's a concern, doing crap like locking workers in factories, creating a tremendous safety hazard, doesn't make a big difference in cost. Do not assume that businesses are truly rational. They're run by semi-rational humans.

Further, there are counterexamples as well. The precursor to paracetamol was decided to not be taken to market by its makers because it was too toxic, and this was decades before the FDA even existed.

Meanwhile, people were being sold cocaine. I want to reliably prevent poison from entering the market, not be at the whims of companies which are directly incentivized (in the short-term, which is all it takes) to sell snake oil.

I'm not a Communist. I don't actually hate markets. I just don't trust them to reliably do what's right without proper supervision, instead of doing something else and claiming to do what's right, based on their history.

Plus, while making all bad decisions inaccessible is virtually impossible, making a limited subset ridiculously difficult to access is far easier and cheaper

Far easier and cheaper than what?

Far easier and cheaper than making all bad decisions inaccessible. A lot of the time you just need to nudge people, set good defaults, etc.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's by no means guaranteed that a cartel will be broken in any reasonable timeframe.

Nothing is guaranteed. That's hardly a fair standard.

"In the long run, we're all dead."

So I guess we shouldn't invest or save for retirement?

The cartel just needs to be large enough to keep competitors out of the market (for example, by selling below cost until the competitors go bankrupt.)

That would mean temporarily operating at a loss, which means that cartel is actually selling things at the lowest price feasible.

While that's a concern, doing crap like locking workers in factories, creating a tremendous safety hazard, doesn't make a big difference in cost. Do not assume that businesses are truly rational. They're run by semi-rational humans.

So are governments, as are the electorates that select them. The difference is that politicians don't bear the cost of being wrong, the taxpayers do.

Meanwhile, people were being sold cocaine

So? In small doses it's actually perfectly fine and was used medicinally to control people's heartrate.

I want to reliably prevent poison from entering the market, not be at the whims of companies which are directly incentivized (in the short-term, which is all it takes) to sell snake oil.

In today's day and age, information is disseminated much more quickly. The day of the snake oil salesman as a sustainable venture is long gone due to this alone.

Far easier and cheaper than making all bad decisions inaccessible. A lot of the time you just need to nudge people, set good defaults, etc.

How do any of those require a law to do so?

I think that's the difference in arguments. You are advocating for a law you think will attain the goal you want, and seem either unconvinced of or unwilling to consider other means to achieve it.

I personally find that if you can attain a goal without a law, then it's preferable you don't pass such a law.

[–]cypher1971 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"In the long run, we're all dead."

So I guess we shouldn't invest or save for retirement?

The point being that if a cartel can be busted by a government in 5 years, versus naturally dissolving in 30 years, the former is generally preferable, because those Utility-years do actually count.

That would mean temporarily operating at a loss, which means that cartel is actually selling things at the lowest price feasible.

Except that the cartel wouldn't make much sense if it's not generally making an overall profit compared to individual companies selling it on their own. You wipe out the competition, then jack up the price.

So are governments, as are the electorates that select them. The difference is that politicians don't bear the cost of being wrong, the taxpayers do.

Which is an important reason to design better governments, something which I consider to be a pressing issue for this century. For example, with legislation that requires some empirical measure to determine if it's succeeding at its stated goals.

Also, those in business don't always bear the cost of being wrong, either. Whether it's throwing a subordinate under the bus, getting a golden parachute for setting a company on a trajectory straight into the ground, or getting a bonus for quarterly performance by sacrificing the long-term viability of the company, getting someone else to foot the bill happens plenty in the private sector.

In today's day and age, information is disseminated much more quickly. The day of the snake oil salesman as a sustainable venture is long gone due to this alone.

Nope. The sea of disinformation is also quite formidable. (See: the anti-vaccine movement.) It's like spam. We've seen plenty of misbehavior with corporate "greenwashing". Getting around misinformation campaigns is one of those unaccounted-for information processing costs I mentioned earlier.

Consumers cannot act on information they do not know, but they also can't act on information they don't believe.

How do any of those require a law to do so?

Depends on the form of nudge. It could be a price incentive, or a formal guideline, or an excise tax. Could be slapping pictures of diseased lungs on cartons of cigarettes.

I think that's the difference in arguments. You are advocating for a law you think will attain the goal you want, and seem either unconvinced of or unwilling to consider other means to achieve it.

From what I've read, charity trends downward when it's needed most. I can either build this ridiculously huge NGO to take care of everything, wastefully duplicating the functions of a proper government, and constantly requiring very large amounts of attention from literally hundreds of thousands of people... or I can just incorporate certain functions into the state and mostly let that run itself.

So yes, I'm unconvinced, depending on which issue in specific we're talking about. I'm also a Consequentialist, so I have quite a few different ethical beliefs than many people.

On top of that, I expect that the bottom >10% of the workforce will be rendered permanently unemployed and unemployable by robots over the course of the next 30 years. The vast majority of people simply do not understand the true power and potential of the General Purpose Computer. (They tend to think of intelligence as a mysterious blob, leading to statements like "a computer will never play chess", or "a computer will never pick fruit", or "a computer will never drive a car.") We can either change to a new paradigm which rejects "work or starve", or we can let them all die, because based on its past performance, charity simply isn't going to cut it.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except that the cartel wouldn't make much sense if it's not generally making an overall profit compared to individual companies selling it on their own. You wipe out the competition, then jack up the price.

Except if the price is too high, then people seek alternatives. Many things have replacements, from kinds of food to sources of energy to transportation to building materials.

Consumers cannot act on information they do not know, but they also can't act on information they don't believe.

That's true regardless of regulation though, and the government isn't uniquely insulated from disinformation or trying to make itself more necessary either.

Depends on the form of nudge. It could be a price incentive, or a formal guideline, or an excise tax. Could be slapping pictures of diseased lungs on cartons of cigarettes.

I'm not a big fan of distorting incentives in either direction.

From what I've read, charity trends downward when it's needed most

The US leads in private welfare spending, though, unless I've misunderstood what you mean.

I can either build this ridiculously huge NGO to take care of everything, wastefully duplicating the functions of a proper government, and constantly requiring very large amounts of attention from literally hundreds of thousands of people... or I can just incorporate certain functions into the state and mostly let that run itself.

How exactly is the state bureaucracy not the same thing as what you've described in the former?

I'm also a Consequentialist, so I have quite a few different ethical beliefs than many people.

On top of that, I expect that the bottom >10% of the workforce will be rendered permanently unemployed and unemployable by robots over the course of the next 30 years. The vast majority of people simply do not understand the true power and potential of the General Purpose Computer. (They tend to think of intelligence as a mysterious blob, leading to statements like "a computer will never play chess", or "a computer will never pick fruit", or "a computer will never drive a car.") We can either change to a new paradigm which rejects "work or starve", or we can let them all die, because based on its past performance, charity simply isn't going to cut it.

When agriculture was mechanized numerous jobs were "destroyed", but that freed up labor for other productive sectors previously non-viable because needed to ensure we had enough food. As individual productivity goes up, new sectors are created. We saw it with the emergence of manufacturing with the mechanization of agriculture, and the service sector once automation came about.

If suddenly we have more people employed as researchers, philosophers, artists etc, when previously they were less in demand and more valued sectors required meat and flesh people, that's not a bad thing.

[–]cypher1971 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's true regardless of regulation though, and the government isn't uniquely insulated from disinformation or trying to make itself more necessary either.

My government bureaucrat can spend a full workweek studying the information. Most consumers can't afford to do that. My government bureaucrat can enter the meat processing plant and inspect it. Most consumers wouldn't be able to afford that, nor be allowed to do it. My government bureaucrat can take the meat to a lab and test it. Most consumers can't afford to do that.

It's not the same as being omniscient, but specialization of labor applies to the public sector just as much as it applies to the private sector. Having basic food safety enforced by the state should generally be cheaper and more effective in terms of total effort expended across all of society, versus having each person have to learn about, and track the reputation of, seventeen different private food security labels, some of which are the result of misinformation campaigns. (After all, the food producers are compelled to allow the bureaucrat to come and examine the actual conditions the food is produced under, not just examine their PR materials.)

We've seen proliferation of labels and and active misinformation campaigns in terms of environmental labels with corporate "greenwashing", so it's not as if that misbehavior is unprecedented.

How exactly is the state bureaucracy not the same thing as what you've described in the former?

It's an established organization funded through taxes, which means that it doesn't need to constantly run telemarketing campaigns to fund itself, can be funded disproportionately by those who can most easily afford to fund it (depending on how the government's tax provisioning is set up), and is staffed by people being paid ordinary salaries to do their day jobs. It goes from being a special, directed effort that depends on peoples' emotional responses to crisis and fundraising campaigns, to being just another mundane part of how that country functions. In addition, it may gain additional enforcement powers (such as the food inspector above) beyond just asking nicely.

When agriculture was mechanized numerous jobs were "destroyed", but that freed up labor for other productive sectors previously non-viable because needed to ensure we had enough food. As individual productivity goes up, new sectors are created. We saw it with the emergence of manufacturing with the mechanization of agriculture, and the service sector once automation came about.

If suddenly we have more people employed as researchers, philosophers, artists etc, when previously they were less in demand and more valued sectors required meat and flesh people, that's not a bad thing.

That assumes that these people are capable of those jobs. Human intelligence is limited, and for some people it's more limited than others.

It's different this time. You apparently don't understand the true power or potential of the general purpose computer, either.

The economy only creates jobs as a side effect of production. It is not obligated to create jobs for a certain class of worker any more than an ecosystem is obligated not to allow a species to go extinct - which is to say, it isn't at all. And like an ecosystem, economies only have a partial correlation with merit. They do not exist to punish the wicked and reward the virtuous, and that's not what they do.

I'm sure people once said horses wouldn't have a significant decrease in employment either, because they didn't understand the true implications of mechanical engines. Now horses are mostly a niche product for enthusiasts.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My government bureaucrat can spend a full workweek studying the information. Most consumers can't afford to do that. My government bureaucrat can enter the meat processing plant and inspect it. Most consumers wouldn't be able to afford that, nor be allowed to do it. My government bureaucrat can take the meat to a lab and test it. Most consumers can't afford to do that.

This assumes there are no third party vetting entities. Consider how many different private firms do investigations and reviews of electronics, automobiles, restaurants, etc.

The government doing removes any reason for third parties to do it, so it's necessity is justified by its own crowding out.

We've seen proliferation of labels and and active misinformation campaigns in terms of environmental labels with corporate "greenwashing", so it's not as if that misbehavior is unprecedented.

That would be regulatory capture of the FDA and USDA, whereby people are essentially buying the legitimacy associated with it.

It's an established organization funded through taxes, which means that it doesn't need to constantly run telemarketing campaigns to fund itself,

That's only by people who interpret the legitimacy and efficacy of such a program by its intention.

If we bought goods and services based solely on the intentions of people selling us, we'd never question the efficiency or efficacy of them either.

It goes from being a special, directed effort that depends on peoples' emotional responses to crisis and fundraising campaigns, to being just another mundane part of how that country functions. In addition,

Actually that's not true either. When say, the FDA makes a mistake-because they are human-in approving a drug too early, they get huge backlash, which just incentivizes them to essentially never approve new drugs based on the flimsiest of evidence(including "being too expensive").

In addition, it may gain additional enforcement powers (such as the food inspector above) beyond just asking nicely.

And what is the mechanism that determines the necessity or efficacy of the new enforcement powers?

It's perception in the political realm.

That assumes that these people are capable of those jobs. Human intelligence is limited, and for some people it's more limited than others.

Most people are capable of some form of entertainment.

It's different this time. You apparently don't understand the true power or potential of the general purpose computer, either.

There's a lot of potential in many things. We thought we'd be living on the moon upon landing on it since it showed the potential for it. That doesn't mean it can, should, or will happen.

[–]cypher1971 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]cypher197 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7770 points 12 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7771 points 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7771 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]baskandpurr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7771 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Jedi_Outcast -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cypher197 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7774 points 12 years ago [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Soviet7772 points 12 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't see how that's not an egocentric argument?

Everyone is entitled to having their own opinion even if its selfish. There is absolutely no Ego here, you're just using a demeaning term for an argument you don't cherish. These don't necessarily have to be the opinions of scarce 'egocentric' religious individuals, this can be the platform of a church or a religious 'group'.

As a country as a whole its OUR tax money. And living in a country that loves majorities if other people think that "Free birth control" is right and is more beneficial to the country. What YOU, an individual thinks doesn't matter.

That's not how politics in the real world work. In a democracy you constantly have to barter, bargain and exchange with your political opponent. You can't just shut them up as convenient as that would be. These people never accepted that the government subsidize birth control and they never will, you cannot make that disappear.

Especially if your argument doesn't bring any positives to the table. Well except for "jesus aint like contraception".

You aren't so much in need of hearing an argument as you seem to be in need of being able to comprehend ideas that are different from yours. You really think these people against free birth control were just like "hey lets just be mean, egocentric and piss everyone off for no reason bwahaha !"

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"hey lets just be mean, egocentric and piss everyone off for no reason bwahaha !"

Uhm...yes? The people against birth control and gay marriage are on the same ship when it comes to that.

"I don't want my country to support no gay marriage what is this? A gay paradise?

against

"I don't want my money to go to no birth control"

When asked why the only argument here is "Well its against my Christian beliefs and what i stand for."

Take it as far as you will. But that is not an argument with any logical or beneficial basis. There are thousands of positives subsidized birth control can have for the nation.

There are literally no good arguments for the cause against it. None. Or at least you guys have a terrible time formulating a good one.

Relating to what you said here

Everyone is entitled to having their own opinion even if its selfish. There is absolutely no Ego here, you're just using a demeaning term for an argument you don't cherish. These don't necessarily have to be the opinions of scarce 'egocentric' religious individuals, this can be the platform of a church or a religious 'group'.

I couldn't understand the first part at all. Being selfish and egocentric is basically the same thing. They're synonyms for crying out loud.

I also don't see how a group of people can't be egocentric either?

Our christian value's goes against that. Why should our money go to something we're against?

[–]Soviet7772 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A group isn't egocentric because a group doesn't have an "ego". Individuals have egos.

Groups have self-interest at best, which is what I think you are trying to say by "egocentric". All groups can and defend their self-interest. That's perfectly mundane. There's no reason to be perplexed by that.

"I don't want my country to support no gay marriage what is this? A gay paradise? against "I don't want my money to go to no birth control"

...I couldn't care less about gay marriage, that's not the point, you're amalgamating things into your misconceptions. And please stop with your misleading redneck quotes, how on earth do you think I can take your curiosity seriously when I see how little regard you give the opposite side? You've polluted your thinking with prejudice to the point that you can't even fathom an adequate opponent with a normal speech pattern.

When asked why the only argument here is "Well its against my Christian beliefs and what i stand for." There are literally no good arguments for the cause against it. None. Or at least you guys have a terrible time formulating a good one.

None is more blind than the one who doesn't wish to see.The answer you're looking for is right there. Look into christian values.

There are literally no good arguments for the cause against it. None. Or at least you guys have a terrible time formulating a good one.

Geez, wow, really, not a single one huh? Like, literally, not even one? Guess those people must all be retarded or something? You should start a seminar and display to them your omniscience.

I'm perfectly neutral in this. Never have I expressed to you what my opinion on the matter is, I hear what they say and I hear what 'you guys' say and I'm not playing any part. Not sure if you'd agree being called a liberal but you seem to be using their condescending tone and false posture of logic. For all you know, I may very well be for birth control. At best, I'm trying to show you their way, but I can't take you by your hand. You're going to have to think about birth control by putting yourself in their shoes. If you don't want to, that's fine, but you don't need to be condescending towards them. Ignorance is fine, but arrogance is spiteful.

Take it as far as you will. But that is not an argument with any logical or beneficial basis. There are thousands of positives subsidized birth control can have for the nation.

You don't get to make that judgement, you don't have the monopoly on Logic. Do you have a degree in logic studies? The Vatican has written plenty on contraception. Read the Humanae Vitae. For an institution as old, wise and powerful as the Vatican, they've got the logicians and 'beneficial basis' they need to support their cause.

There are thousands of positives subsidized birth control can have for the nation.

As for this, I appreciate the exaggeration but like I said, you need to learn how to think differently. You didn't calculate the positives and negatives and objectively determined "hey guys, its in the positive, by the thousands!" What's "positive" according to your values may be "negative" for others. Think about the libertarian, what it means for him that people are rushing to subsidized healthcare, or to the demographer who sees contraception as a factor for shrinking population, a population slowly dying, or the religious zealot who sees it as killing a human being, whatever.

Uhm...yes? The people against birth control and gay marriage are on the same ship when it comes to that.

That's where you've exhausted my patience.

You need to come down from your ivory tower. When you do, you'll realize there's a whole world out there beyond your own.

[–]K0TO 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]YetAnotherCommenter 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]K0TO 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]K21B21 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_girl 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]user1492 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Syncopayshun 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]theroguesstash1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kingfalconpunch0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cypher197-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cypher1972 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't equate government and nature. One is a given, the other is a man-created construct.

Who is equating the two? The point is that excluding people from resources (say, because they're all already claimed) kills them just as dead as killing them directly. The distinction, then, is far less important than is typically claimed. It matters more whether they died, than whether everyone followed the proper procedures.

I don't want to give government the power to do things that I don't have.

The government being able to do things that the citizenry aren't empowered to do (like arrest, prosecute, and jail criminals) is one of the primary points of government.

It's not okay for me to hold someone up on the street to pay for my friend's cancer treatment. For the government, it is.

Right, of course, let's equate taxation with mugging.

Disagree. Depending on the necessary conditions, it's perfectly fine for a government to tax someone to support someone else's medical treatment. This is not equivalent to a mugging, and that Libertarians think it is is strange.

Additionally, regarding the NAP, it's pretty simple -- using aggression/force/violence is bad regardless of who does it. The less force being used overall, the better.

I don't buy the NAP, either. If one set of rules allows for / causes worse consequences than an alternative set of rules, then that first set of rules is worse. Whether the consequences are bad is independent of who is responsible for causing them, or who, according to the rules, is responsible for solving them.

Preference fulfillment (or some other form of Utility) is good. The value of force is purely instrumental, one way or the other.

edit: Can you state why force is bad, without making any appeal whatsoever to consequence?

[–]mdoddr 97 points98 points99 points 12 years ago (67 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]sotally 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sotally 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JamesTeKiwi 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]JamesTeKiwi 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It depends on what you mean.

I think that having cheap/free sexual health prodcuts available for the young/poor is a great thing.

I do not think that using force to make everyone pay for it is a great thing. When you pay for something with tax dollars, you're essentially saying to everyone in your country "You must pay for this, or we will send men with guns to take you to jail. If you resist, they'll probably use those guns." On a certain level -- even if I think something is a GREAT idea -- I can't speak for everyone else in the country. So I'm not willing to use violence to make them pay for something just because I think is a great idea. I'm perfectly fine with nonprofits and groups getting together to provide such services -- I support them monetarily and with my time as a volunteer. But no, I don't think it's a good thing when you look at it from a "do the ends justify the means" perspective.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SenorSpicyBeans 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JamesTeKiwi 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]bluthru 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you not familiar with taxes?

Still beating around the bush and not answering the question: who pays for it? Taxes don't come out of thin air. Someone pays them.

This form of tax is called a "transfer payment." That's when one group of people pay it and another group of people receive it. So answer the question: who pays for it. Do women as a group come anywhere remotely close to paying for their own healthcare, as a group? If not, then who is giving up money for their own healthcare coverage in order to pay for someone else's? This isn't rocket science. You can answer this.

I'm only talking about funding, not "policing"

Why should it be funded? What is the desired result and how will you achieve it so that the people who pay these taxes aren't getting ripped off? Do you have any scientific evidence or any other guarantees?

it's potential births which affect everyone

Really? Seems like an awfully broad statement.

So let me get this straight. So what you want is for the guy who comes around and empties the dog poop receptacles on my street to pay his taxes so that a Georgetown University law student can get free birth control so that she can have sexually-liberated sex with her boyfriend in the back of his BMW? Because clearly, the low-income minority poop-collector man benefits from an upper class law student woman getting free medicine? That's basically what you're saying, isn't it? Because you refuse to answer the question of who pays for it.

It's funny, but I'll be honest with you - this whole thing is a tremendous waste of men's taxpayer money. It benefits the wrong women, namely, rich women who are already taking birth control pills. I'll be perfectly honest with you - I don't feel that I should have to pay for every rich woman's birth control pills in order to give a handful of women who actually can't afford it the option of taking it, should it please them to. You know what's far more appealing to me? Have rich women pay for their own healthcare while contributing an equal amount as myself to both poor women's and poor men's healthcare needs.

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If not, then who is giving up money for their own healthcare coverage in order to pay for someone else's?

This isn't what's happening at all. Pregnancy isn't exclusively a woman's issue. You're giving mens rights a horrible name. You sound like you're from the 50's. Paying for birth control is an extremely wise investment for society.

That's when one group of people pay it and another group of people receive it.

Seriously, stop being stupid. I pay taxes for a fire department but I've never had a house fire. Oh no, I'm losing money!

Why should it be funded?

Because it saves a shitload of money and reduces violence and poverty.

so that a Georgetown University law student can get free birth control so that she can have sexually-liberated sex with her boyfriend in the back of his BMW? Because clearly, the low-income minority poop-collector man benefits from an upper class law student woman getting free medicine?

lol umad bro? I guess you're one of Rush's remaining listeners.

You do realize in this example that the law student will be paying much, much, much more in taxes during her lifetime than the poop-collector, right? You're making a fool of yourself.

this whole thing is a tremendous waste of men's taxpayer money

No, it saves men money because less unwanted children are being born.

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Pregnancy isn't exclusively a woman's issue.

Yes it is. It is by definition exclusively a women's issue. Literally.

I pay taxes for a fire department but I've never had a house fire.

Obviously, because they're doing their job. If not for the fire department, I wouldn't trust people like you with matches.

You do realize in this example that the law student will be paying much, much, much more in taxes during her lifetime than the poop-collector, right?

Yep, just as I thought, my theory about feminism got vindicated yet again. It's always socialism for women, laissez faire for men. Suddenly you're a flat-tax Libertarian who fails to appreciate tax burden in relative terms, no better than any other Faux News junkie.

You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. You attacked my hypothetical by telling me how much richer she is than him. Fell right into the trap. Now you have to answer the question of why she needs free birth control in the first place, why she shouldn't pay full price while paying taxes for him to get free healthcare?

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're focusing on pregnancy as if it exists in a vacuum.

That's how reproductive rights work. You seem to either not recognize this or wish it wasn't the case (where have I just heard that?)

You seem to either not recognize this or wish it wasn't the case.

No, what I see is a fundamental violation of men's human rights in and of itself. And what you're suggesting now is nothing more than extortion, no different than paying "protection money" to the mob so they don't break your kneecaps.

You're describing a world where men are beholden to women but have no control. A world where women get all of the choices but none of the responsibility.

I asked you if you planned on arresting any woman who looked pregnant when she shouldn't be. I asked you that question to see if you viewed women as being responsible in any way for their own lifestyle.

What we have here is a proposal, by you, for a situation where a man will first pay for a woman's reproductive choices, which she can then choose to decline, lie about, or carelessly take for granted, and in the end that man is still financially responsible for that woman's spawn. In effect, you're asking that men pay twice for women's selfish interests, irrespective of what is actually in men's own best interests. Men pay when there is a baby, they pay when there is no baby, they pay if it's their baby, they pay if it's someone else's baby, they pay no matter what.

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bluthru1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]frasoftw 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]frasoftw 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

long term birth control methods (IUD, implanon, depo shot, vasalgel) would be a much more reliable investment

True, but this still doesn't mean that they should be subsidized over and above other medicines for people other than the lowest income patients. Moreover, the issue here is that this isn't just medicine, it's social engineering that arguably grants freedoms and options to one group of people at the expense (financially and otherwise) of another. The trick is to improve the world without treating men as disposable pack animals. Basically, current birth control subsidies for women are like asking a man to buy you the boots that you're going to walk all over him with. He pays for you to not have a baby with him until you want to, at which point he gets no say in it. It's bullshit. It's not any sort of a human right that I am willing to recognize for women.

applications not related to contraceptive

Agreed, but for those applications they should be weighed equally against other people's medical needs and not taken for granted as a god-given right. Also, they should be weighed realistically against the environmental pollution they cause.

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

people other than the lowest income patients

That actually doesn't bother me too much. If you can afford it, I think it's okay that you should pay for it. I personally like the idea of allowing subsidized access to anyone who wants it so that people don't have to weigh their reproductive health decisions against financial worries, even in the middle class. But I understand the logic.

it's social engineering that arguably grants freedoms and options to one group of people at the expense (financially and otherwise) of another

I just have trouble seeing it that way. I understand the argument - that it's a resource distribution from men to women - since all other things being held equal - women consume those services far more than men. But I see net benefits being provided to men as well - women with access to contraception means less unwanted pregnancies that can eventually hurt men that aren't ready for children. And, as men's birth control options increase, I believe they should be covered as well. I see this as more of a societal issue than a gendered issue.

Agreed, but for those applications they should be weighed equally against other people's medical needs and not taken for granted as a god-given right. Also, they should be weighed realistically against the environmental pollution they cause.

I have no problem with that argument. If a pill came out tomorrow that was cheaper and much more effective than birth control for treating things like PMDD or other hormonal issues, then birth control could be considered more for its contraceptive properties than its other medical uses. I hear you about the environmental pollution. I also worry about side effects to women themselves (I personally quit hormonal birth control because of negative side effects). But as it stands, even for its faults, the pill is still an important tool in reproductive health, and I still believe it should be included in any comprehensive health insurance plan.

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I see it as more of an exchange. Or rather, I see the ethical ramifications as outweighing the medical ones, because, in reality, they always do. If you look at a baseline society with no laws or social-engineering, any man could walk away from a pregnant woman consequence-free. The woman, in turn, could abandon the baby behind some bushes in the jungle and whatever snakes or lions would take care of the rest. Now that's free birth control and reproductive rights for all. The problem with out-of-wedlock births even in the Industrial Revolution wasn't that women were raising unwanted babies, but that they were throwing them out in the gutter along with piss and shit and other garbage. That's what caused the moral outrage, and of course, men got the blame for it as usual. For actual relationships, men with steady income used to get custody and did provide for children that they had agreed to father. That we completely flip this paradigm around by having men as a group subsidize women to walk away from pregnancy while denying men custody and yet preventing men from walking away is not only unnatural, but unprecedented in it's level of injustice.

Moreover, the reproductive issues are just a small part of the problem with subsidized healthcare for women. The broader social-engineering issue is that women consume more healthcare because they live longer at a higher standard of health than men. That's fine and dandy so long as women manage fully pay for their own healthcare, but the way I see it, women should actually be subsidizing men's.

[–]mdoddr 19 points20 points21 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]nexrow 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mynewromantica 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone-18 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ashken18 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Ashken1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]mdoddr16 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NerdCrush3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Cheap enough. But they certainly don't exist for men, at all. Safe haven laws and other inexpensive options exist but for women only. Do not confuse unplanned with unwanted. They're different things. It's one of those unquestioned rich white women's feminist concepts that makes more sense to college-educated women who want to wait for a proper career and marriage rather than for low-income women whose attitude is more along the lines of "shit happens."

If you want to get an idea of how many poor men would help pay for abortions if only women asked, take a look at how many poor men pay for DNA tests. These views are ultimately based on man=bad, woman=victim.

Ultimately, throwing money at women, rich or poor, is not going to solve the issue for men who are forced to support mothers of children the men did not want, or of men as a group having to pay for women's reproductive choices. It's patently unfair for men as a demographic, with no reproductive rights of their own, to support mothers in any way. The issues that are actually facing below-poverty women is an entirely different issue. No one had ever said that birth control shouldn't be offered to poor women as a form of welfare. What is being said is that this isn't an answer to men's rights. As I pointed out in another comment, poor women don't have children they don't want. They have children with men they don't want. There's a huge difference. The best way to solve that problem, apart from magically changing human nature for women, is to help men and provide greater disincentives against custodial single motherhood.

[–]dungone0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]ipoopgreatness 12 years ago* [recovered] (26 children) | Copy Link

Better to pay for birth control than a brood. This cartoon is nonsense.

[–]cxj 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]technocyte 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]zouhair 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]CAMYtheCOCONUT -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If you support equal access and equal funding, then you shouldn't support sexual discrimination and violation of 14th Amendment rights. Your suggestion is purely hypothetical, it's got very little to do with what's actually going on.

There are three issues of fairness here that are not being addressed. First issue is that there does not exist equal funding or equal access to healthcare for men and women. Women pay far less per unit of healthcare over their lifetime than men, even if there is no greater social good to justify it (e.g. breast cancer vs prostate cancer). And this is going to be even worse going forward. Second issue is who subsidizes it - men. Even supposing that all healthcare should be equally available to all people, the question of which pays how much for which other group still has to be dealt with. Thirdly, supposing there is actually a greater social good for extra above-and-beyond subsidies for female birth control, it still has to be settled just which women actually need to receive these subsidies to manifest that benefit and, considering that men ultimately have worse health, live shorter, and pay part of women's healthcare needs instead of their own - what should men get in return? Why should men be forced to pay child support if they're already paying for women to have all the birth control options that money can buy?

[–]CAMYtheCOCONUT 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So you're saying that we should pay tax dollars for condoms and pills that fail and that people won't use anyway because they lie about it? Weird. I'm not even sure you support what you want to be handed to you.

And I'd imagine that a baby on the way would either make the parents take some responsibility and get their act together or put him in the custody of someone else like a grandparent or a foster home. Or maybe they'll abort it which they should pay for too.

Or we could fix it altogether and have them either not have sex or pay for the proper means of protection and prevention so that they can partake in those activities. There's also this handy thing they can buy called the morning-after-pill just in case they're not sure. Bottom line: I'm not going to compensate for people's lack of judgement when they bang through taxes. Either be prepared or don't have sex.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here is the thing. You already compensate people for their lack of planning when having sex. All those single moms on welfare? Yep. You pay for that. Those kids that end up in foster care from parents that didnt plan on having kids? Yep. You pay for that. The men that end up in prison from committing crimes for money to suppprt kids they didn't plan for? Yep. You pay for that. Handicapped kids of druggie parents tha tneed expensive special teachers in school? Yep. You already pay for that.

Dont you think paying for birth control, morning after pills, etc for these people and preventing all these problems in the first place would be cheaper in the long run? You talk about planningnahead but your opinion is very short sighted. It has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with economics.

[–]CAMYtheCOCONUT -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ipoopgreatness8 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]mynewromantica 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TreyWalker 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]technocyte 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ddxxdd 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I have a better Idea How about we quit subsidizing stupid altogether? You know get rid of the incentive to have a brood when you cant afford one? Hell maybe then fathers would have an incentive to stick around and they would be appreciated because the nanny state is not going to raise their children. How about we get rid of minimum wage laws that create unemployment for the under qualified? Oh, how about we stop subsidizing crappy state schools that do not care about the children, indoctrinating them with a awful victimhood propaganda and rewarding the schools who most underachieve with more grants? I have another good idea how about we end the "war on drugs" and stop trafficking crap into these communities and then turning around and throwing these non-violent offenders in jail creating a police state and civil unrest in the communities?

s

Ahhh fuck it after all the bottom line is what is best for the Nobility who thinks they can socially engineer everything. So let's not question any of it. After all who wants to see those dirty niggers and peasants breeding anyway?

/s

[–]muchachomalo 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 41 points42 points43 points 12 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Popular-Uprising- 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dungone 12 years ago* [recovered] (39 children) | Copy Link

Who pays the government? Is it desirable to create a net transfer of wealth from single men to sexually active women? If so, why?

[–]Neurotikitty 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd bet one reason red states get more than they pay is that they're anti-birth control. That means more unwanted children and more poverty, less social mobility and all that fun stuff.

And this,

Married men do benefit from having their wives' birth control subsidized, but single men do not.

You know how often this sub talks about (single) men that are forced to pay for children they don't want? They'd definitely benefit from free birth control. More birth control means fewer cases where financial abortions are wanted.

... and it means they don't need to pay as much to the red welfare states to cover their expenses, either.

You know who would best be able to calculate these total costs for you? Actuaries. Like the ones who work at health insurance companies. Those companies were eager to accept the new mandate to provide birth control. They know it is cheaper. For all of us.

[–]dungone-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syncopayshun-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]picard102 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]dungone -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]dungone 12 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

It does not benefit society as a whole; it only benefits specific groups at the expense of other groups. You need to provide some actual evidence of your claims. Try to actually make a convincing argument for why encouraging extra-marital relationships, high divorce rates, and single-motherhood is good for society and why men should then have to subsidize those women's lifestyle choices through government spending. Secondly, and more importantly, you have to make a cogent argument for why the demographic that is most at risk for suicide and homelessness should be on the hook for other men's girlfriends.

[–]picard102 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]lord_geryon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]picard102-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So far you're not scoring any points on the "rationally and objectively" front. Address the issue from in an objective, rational, "money does not grow on magic trees" manner.

We have very little actual welfare in our society; most of it is actually gender based welfare (i.e. alimony, child support, WIC, etc) that generally only goes towards women and the inherent sexism of those safety nets are incredibly harmful to long-term structure of our society. The general rule of thumb for the lowest rungs of our society is that women get welfare, men get jail or homelessness.

Welfare as a general concept of the well-off subsidizing the less-well-off is based on a completely different set of principles and has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Women are not strictly less-well-off than men and you cannot justify setting up transfer payments that often go from poor working class single men to rich middle class married women.

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SouthrnComfort 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Catacronik0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Wile-E-Coyote 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is very desirable for the men's rights movement! It should cover birth control for both men and women in my opinion. The reasoning is very simple, so everyone has the tools to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

If you complain about government providing birth control then it leads me to believe you are against other forms of public welfare. Look at it this way though, if there is a cut in unwanted pregnancies there will more than likely also be a downward trend in welfare spending as a whole.

Most unwanted pregnancies that occur due to not having birth control happen to people on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Providing those people with birth control they may not be able to afford will mean less unwanted kids. Less unwanted kids will mean less benefits going out to help needy families. It also frees up resources that would have been spent by the parents on the unwanted child to go towards other activities. They may advance themselves as a person be able to contribute more to society.

The reason it is important to men's rights is because it cuts down on child support the man would be forced into paying. There will be less weddings of obligation that lead to legal disaster more often than not for men.

All around government supplied birth control would be a good thing at a lower cost than the alternative of not having it.

[–]dungone 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It should cover birth control for both men and women in my opinion.

It does not. We're not talking about what it should be, but about what it is.

If you complain about government providing birth control then it leads me to believe you are against other forms of public welfare.

That's a huge and wholly unsubstantiated appeal to consequences.

Most unwanted pregnancies that occur due to not having birth

You shouldn't call them "unwanted" just because you don't want other people to have them; those people have made a choice to have them; in fact they made a series of choices to have them. Most unwanted pregnancies happen because of a lack of "suitable" breadwinner men. Women are not having babies that they did not choose to have; they're choosing to have babies in spite of choosing not to ensure that those babies have a father. Most women who have these kids don't actually have health insurance, anyway. The subsidies are going to relatively rich women and at times are paid for by uninsured working class men who end up having these unwanted babies with uninsured lower class women. So you see, you've got the whole thing backwards. I never said that I was against providing birth control to low-income women as a form of welfare. But that's an entirely different issue from men paying for women's healthcare just in general, just because they're women, regardless of their income.

The reason it is important to men's rights is because it cuts down on child support

This argument is so flawed it borders on the extortionist. Men being saddled with child support for children they never agreed to have is the very reason why men subsidizing women's birth control is so incredibly unjust. The child support system and family law are morally corrupt, broken systems that are actually causing more harm than good. We can certainly start by fixing those if we want to help our society.

[–]guywithaccount4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]qemist -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PassifloraCaerulea-11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Syncopayshun4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rahmulous4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AtheistConservative1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+]xXCptCoolXx 12 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

This is pretty much the process of how MRA talking points get misconstrued, except the opening line would probably be "I am critical towards and disagree with aspects of feminism...".

[–]Neurotikitty 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

For the people that truly try and conceptualize feminism as "equality for everyone", what they hear you say is "I disagree with the idea of equality". Not "I disagree with your approach to discussing and solving gender-related problems."

It's unfortunate, but layman feminism (equality for women... and presumably men too?) and academic feminism (patriarchy theory, kyriarchy, rape culture, toxic masculinity, etc.) are going to get confused in the mind of most people you talk to. They think you're talking about their feel good brand of "Women should get paid the same as men and have reproductive rights and not be sexually harassed" feminism. Stuff everyone agrees with (whether you attribute any wage gap that exists to discrimination or economic choice, nobody in the gender equality sphere believes that anyone should be paid less for the same work).

[–]user1492 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xXCptCoolXx2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ks016 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shawnnix610 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mattman00000 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Chevellephreak 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nobody2000 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IronWolve 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OneOfDozens 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrMachismo -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]OneOfDozens 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MrMachismo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]OneOfDozens -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jdtreddit 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mah_L1L_PWNY 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]marsvolta 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dontrepeatdumbshit 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

government should pay for birth control. people who can't afford condoms and bc pills sure as hell can't afford children.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]godlesspinko 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]JaxHostage 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]humanityisavirus 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]barn_burner 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Syncopayshun 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EclipseClemens 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]barn_burner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire87-7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire87-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]femmecheng3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire870 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire87-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]luxury_banana1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire870 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd rather see free college education for the extreme poor, job training and other programs that encourage people to find work and get themselves out of poverty then those that make them comfortable in poverty.

I agree with you, actually. I honestly think we should have a government funded job available for anyone who is willing to work. I'm sure we could find things for people to do - help rake leaves in a national park if it came down to it. I think everyone who is willing to work should be able to find a job, and for a reasonable living wage. I'd rather that than just give away money, really.

Please, tell me how food stamps and welfare have help income inequality in America?

They don't help income inequality. They help people afford food. Sometimes people cannot find enough work hours at high enough wages to support their family, and we as a society have agreed that they shouldn't go hungry.

Income inequality has increased while FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS HAVE DOUBLED!

Yes, when income inequality increases, more poor people enroll in social programs. That's what happens when wealth shifts upwards and doesn't cycle back through the economy to the middle and lower classes at the rates we are used to.

So your an econ major and you're are arguing that GDP wasn't blowing up because of the baby boomers?

Ahh, you're assuming that our great 20th century growth period is due only to birth rates, which is a highly flawed assumption. Being a major manufacturer with very little international competition was responsible for most of that growth. Having a robust available workforce to manufacture products was of course a great boon to the economy. But in a service economy with dwindling manufacturing jobs, and increased productivity driving down demand for unskilled labor, a baby boom in the 21st century isn't going to have the same effect on us.

[–]C0ltFury 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]barn_burner 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire87 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]barn_burner 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jessemfguire87 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]theldron 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]romulusnr -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]macman156 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tarkusdillo 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theplqa -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]icetan498 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]its_all_one_word 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vtwinman 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MisterHousey 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]co_radio 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IrideTheDirt 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kash87 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TreyWalker1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Plumpkin921 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ak11 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chalbersma 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]ak11 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]chalbersma 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ak11 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]chalbersma 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ak11 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]allenstenhaus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kirkayak 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jman5 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The problem with the whole small government argument is that it's inconsistently applied. Going after things like birth control, abortion clinics, Public radio, etc. These are not fiscally significant cuts. They are fighting tooth and nail over what is essentially pennies, while ignoring huge elephants in the room. They are political attacks designed to defund the things their opponents support.

Whenever you hear some politician making a huge ruckus over something that fiscally trivial for a state or federal government just replace the argument with: "This is a political agenda to defund things I don't like."

The fewer children people from financially strained families have, the less money taxpayers will have to pay supporting them down the road (18 years of public school, food stamps, welfare, prison?). If anything, we should be doing more to encourage these people to use more birth control. It would be the fiscally wise decision, but you wont see them do it because the whole fiscal responsibility is too often just a convenient argument to push their beliefs on reproductive rights.

So why waste so much effort and time on something so cheap and arguably cost saving, when there are so many better ways to cut costs.

[–]co_radio 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sirinon 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Purp -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Robswag -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hereforthefreecake -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigmanbeats-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]urbantroll-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]zouhair-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	Essentially how it goes.
Author	C0ltFury
Upvotes	841
Comments	656
Date	November 11, 2013 12:48 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1qdfpw/essentially_how_it_goes/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/essentially-how-it-goes.1159096 https://theredarchive.com/post/1159096

Comments