View Poll Results: Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

Voters
117. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    45 38.46%
  • No

    72 61.54%
Page 12 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 491

Thread: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

  1. #111
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Hey, tell us all how smart and well-educated you are, ecofarm.
    I think I just did, via demonstration and slingin' some fancy terms out there. Look, examining the factors in US population dynamics, the demographic transition, migration, services, false hopes and the rest that result in where people are is too far from the topic, in my not so humble opinion. So, I'm not goin' there. Regarding the map proving we can increase population, well, that's so intellectually narrow minded that I barely knew where to begin. I think I explained how using that map to claim "plenty of room and food" is ridiculous. You can accept that, or you can go posting that pop density map to argue total population like a freshman who didn't read the chapter. But I'm done. You behave now, and Ima go talk about something else.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    I agree that healthcare has improved for women (and men) since 1900. I agree that this, along with other factors such as diet, contributed to the longer life expectancies we see today.

    I don't see how birth control pills and women's contraceptives figure in to this. The pill makes you live longer?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    Mmm - birth control was illegal in this country - most people considered it to be vulgar or offensive to even research and discuss. Opening the door for discussion and research happened in steps. The first major step was during WWI where contraception and venereal diseases couldn't be ignored anymore.

    Life Expectancy by Age, 1850–2004 — Infoplease.com

    So - over that time frame - we can look at life expectancy and see it increase as we go deeper into the 20th century:

    In the 1850's it was 40.5 years at birth for a white female (afterall - back then they didn't give a **** about minorities)
    1890's: 44.46
    1900-1902: 51.08 (white) - 35.04 (other = minorites) / 16.04 year difference between whites and minorites.
    1909-1911: 53.62 (white) - 37.67 (other = minorites) / 15.95
    1919-1921: 58.53 (white) - 46.92 (other = minorites) / 11.61
    1929-1931: 62.67 (white) - 49.51 (other = minorites) / 13.61
    1939-1941: 67.29 (white) - 55.51 (other = minorites) / 11.78
    1949-1951: 72.03 (white) - 62.70 (other = minorites) / 9.33 Since this is getting to be a smaller gap I'd say it's have dual-benefits for everyone.

    See the trend - up and up as quality of healthcare - which includes better prenatal care, inoculations and prevention increased?

    It went from 79.4 (white) to 80.8 (white) between 1990 and 2004 (1.1 increase)
    It went from 65 (minorities) to 69.8 (minorities) between 1990 and 2004. (4.8 increase)

    So - for the average white female the statistics provide an increase of 29.72 years between 1900 and 2004.
    For the average minority female that's a 41.46 years increase between 1900 and 2004

    Note - the biggest time span for life expectancy increase for women (whites and minorities) was between the 1900's (before WWI) and the 1950's (after WWII) - an increase of 23.11 years for whites and 31.46 years for minorities.

    This means that of the 29.72 years that whites have gained between 1900-2004; 23.11 years out of 29.72 were gained between 1900 and the 1950's - the remaining 6.61 years have been gained in the last 45 years.

    For minorities that means puts that 1900-1950's gain at 31.4 years . . . leaving the remaining 10 years to be gained in the 45 years since then.

    I'd say that having the first 50 years of the 20th century net the majority of life-expectancy gains is pretty damned significant and hard to write off as anything other than better healthcare for women overall since both races of all economic levels benefited. . . and that includes better pregnancy prevention and prenatal care = both provided by private insurance and the federal or state government if needed.

  3. #113
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,445

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by helix2048 View Post
    Regardless if we have room for more population,
    This ignores sustainability. More population means less years for that aquifer (all other things presumed business as usual). We have room for a billion, but do we have resources for that? And for how long. Some resources are finite.

    Ok, now I'll get out of the way. Enjoy the economics discussion (boooooring).

  4. #114
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Any woman who qualifies for medical assistance should be able to get birth control under that insurance. If we ever managed to join the developed world and have a single-payer system, birth control should be covered on that as well.

    Using contraception is not "bad behavior," and the mind-blowing degree of ignorance it requires for someone to think that is just so beyond me I can't even comprehend it. Using contraception is good, responsible behavior.
    You misunderstood. Contraception nor using is bad behavior, but good practice. People using BC pills as a way out reinforces their choice to have unprotected sex. THAT is the bad behavior.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

  5. #115
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    Yes, we should pay for contraception (for both men and women). Not only am I for paying for condoms and birth control medication, I am also for paying for tubal ligation and vasectomies. No paying for reversals though.

    And my reasons are purely selfish. It is in MY best interest that people arenít out there having unwanted children. Take however many cents you need to out of my paycheck to make that happen please.
    I see where you're coming from. But just because they're available doesn't mean people will use them, nor does it mean they will always work. I have a friend who wore a condom and still got his girlfriend pregnant.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 02:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    I didn't say the map was definitive proof of anything, I said it was to drive the point home intuitively that there is a lot of space out west that can support people. This simply can't be argued.

    There are more people, per square mile, in Western Europe than there are in the USA. People have been there longer.

    There are more people in New York City than the rest of the East Coast, per square mile. That was the first port of entry for most immigrants, so people have been there the longest.

    There are more people on the east coast than the west coast. People have been on the east coast longer, that is why.

    It takes a rare person to pick up and move west for better prospects. Most Europeans stayed in Europe, they didn't hop on the pilgrim ships to the New World. It was only a daring few.

    Most New Englanders stayed out east, they didn't blaze the Oregon Trail and head west for gold or free land. That was only a daring few.

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    I think I just did, via demonstration and slingin' some fancy terms out there. Look, examining the factors in US population dynamics, the demographic transition, migration, services, false hopes and the rest that result in where people are is too far from the topic, in my not so humble opinion. So, I'm not goin' there. Regarding the map proving we can increase population, well, that's so intellectually narrow minded that I barely knew where to begin. I think I explained how using that map to claim "plenty of room and food" is ridiculous. You can accept that, or you can go posting that pop density map to argue total population like a freshman who didn't read the chapter. But I'm done. You behave now, and Ima go talk about something else.

  7. #117
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Gehrig View Post
    I agree with everything but this. We should be doing everything we can to encourage people who are married and financially stable to have more children, and the reversals are far far more expensive than the initial procedures. Paying for reversals not only encourages people to get the procedure done in the first place, but it allows people to reverse it when the time is right.
    There are too many people on this planet already. We don't have the resources to sustain a population growing to a certain point.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

  8. #118
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voltaire X View Post
    I say yes.

    It will save us money in the long run. Less single mothers on welfare, less demand for other public services, etc.

    There just needs to be cost control so the government isn't overpaying for the birth control.
    Some of those single mothers on welfare do it on purpose.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

  9. #119
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChunkySalsa View Post
    Paying for a kid to go to school costs about $20k/year. Locking someone up in prison costs about $40k/year. No clue how much food stamps, housing assistance, or child/family services cost, but they ain't cheap.

    Paying for contraceptives costs...what, $500/year, at most?

    Those are just the direct costs of someone having a kid. We can't even quantify the indirect costs unwanted kids have on the parents, how they can stop them from having a brighter future and becoming more productive citizens. (Exceptions exist, but the majority will be bogged down by their unwanted kid and live, less productively, in poverty.)


    As I've said before:
    You'd have to be an idiot to ignore the costs to society of NOT paying for contraceptives, and a hypocrite for then complaining of people being an irresponsible and unproductive burden on society when you shirk responsibility for choosing to deny them a cost effective means of avoiding that situation.
    The idea is for people to be more responsible. Some poor people have the kids just so they can get the credits on their tax returns. I don't think they're too worried about the kid if they're doing that.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

  10. #120
    Advisor Krystov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mount Juliet, TN
    Last Seen
    07-25-14 @ 02:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    453

    Re: Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

    Quote Originally Posted by OhIsee.Then View Post
    Yes. My rghts and libertes are more protected when women can get the inexpensive, or free BC pills even if my taxes pay for them. Yup, a practical solution.

    note: I'm assuming that a woman having sex w/o bc is bad behavior, i.e. if you don't have the money for BC pills stay away form men. Sure.
    If you can't afford contraception (most people can, as it's been argued that it's not expensive) and you still have sex without it and you get pregnant, tough luck. Take responsibility. I believe allowing people to get that stuff at my expense is telling them "go ahead, I'll bail you out". This is not the mindset Americans need.
    "Only the dead have seen the end of war..." -Plato

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJR
    ...play stupid games, win stupid prizes...

Page 12 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •