• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Contraceptive Recommendation Creates New Controversy for Health Care Law

evanescence said:
There's really no leaps in logic. I have insurance, and yet the deductibles and co pays are rather steep. If free birth control (assuming it's convenient and effective) were offered "free" to any woman who needed them, it follows that unwanted births would decrease. The question: is the cost of free birth control less than the total costs of unwanted births. I think the answer is obvious to most people.
Click to expand...

That's assuming that all those people with insurance, wanted BC but couldn't afford it.
That is a leap of logic.

The answer is that, you don't value the use of birth control enough to actually pay for it or you would have already.
 
evanescence said:
There's really no leaps in logic. I have insurance, and yet the deductibles and co pays are rather steep.
Click to expand...

If you have mentioned it already sorry, but I have to ask, what provider do you have and what is your co-pay?

If free birth control (assuming it's convenient and effective) were offered "free" to any woman who needed them, it follows that unwanted births would decrease. The question: is the cost of free birth control less than the total costs of unwanted births. I think the answer is obvious to most people.
Click to expand...

One would think that we wouldn't have to go over this again.. There is no such thing as free anything.
 
evanescence said:
No arguments there. But I've seen plenty of people argue social darwinism to support their lack of concern for people in need.
Click to expand...

Well using a blanket accusation of Social Darwinism will leave me wanting.
Do you mean;
*The learning from mistakes, Social Darwinism.
*The let people rot, Social Darwinism.
*The lower classes were born stupid, will remain stupid and should be separated, Social Darwinism.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's assuming that all those people with insurance, wanted BC but couldn't afford it.
That is a leap of logic.
Click to expand...

well not everyone does. But I can be so general about it because the vast majority of women do value birth control, and certainly don't want to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. I speak from experience.

Harry Guerrilla said:
The answer is that, you don't value the use of birth control enough to actually pay for it or you would have already.
Click to expand...

Those that don't value it are in the minority. Seriously. There are so many variables for why unwanted pregnancies occur, and it's not usually because the woman simply didn't care. Mistakes happen.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Well using a blanket accusation of Social Darwinism will leave me wanting.
Do you mean;
*The learning from mistakes, Social Darwinism.
*The let people rot, Social Darwinism.
*The lower classes were born stupid, will remain stupid and should be separated, Social Darwinism.
Click to expand...

The last two.
 
evanescence said:
well not everyone does. But I can be so general about it because the vast majority of women do value birth control, and certainly don't want to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. I speak from experience.
Click to expand...

I'd say some women do and some don't.
One of those "actions speak louder than words" thing.


evanescence said:
Those that don't value it are in the minority. Seriously. There are so many variables for why unwanted pregnancies occur, and it's not usually because the woman simply didn't care. Mistakes happen.
Click to expand...

I understand that completely.
That's why I'm arguing that, making birth control free, won't necessary cause less pregnancies and abortions.
 
evanescence said:
The last two.
Click to expand...

I'm of the first and I believe that having some amount of "pain" is required in order for people to truly learn.
It's a necessary part of positive human evolution and personal growth.

That may sound uncaring or inhuman but the world requires negative things, in order for improvements to happen.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm not at all.
See unplanned pregnancies ≠ unwanted pregnancies.

You're assuming that all people who have unplanned pregnancies will use this and that all people who have unplanned pregnancies, do not want the child.

You're making a lot of leaps with your assertions.

The fact is that birth control is already widely affordable, why aren't these women using birth control now?
Why incentive would be created to visit a doctor, to get BC when they didn't really care for it, beforehand?

Cost is marginal as it is.
Click to expand...

How am I assuming that AT ALL? Did I say anything about costs of abortion? I am doing a purely mathematical comparison. People who use birth control to people who do not and the costs associated with it. I gave you as much leeway as possible by doing the highest cost of birth control without insurance and the lowest cost for giving birth. Note: My math only accounts for the cost of giving birth itself. Just delivery. Add in the costs of pre natal care and you could be saving tons of money. I think this should be available to anyone who needs it. I am not in favor of giving everyone free birth control and all types. I do think it would be a good idea to provide one or two birth control pills which are cheap to people who need it. I assure you, most women will not switch from a brand of contraceptives they are used to, to another one because it is marginally cheaper. Why don't we just try this in a city and see how it works. I think it is a good idea. There are chances it could be misused but it is more than likely to have positive effects. Btw, with the math I did. You would have to have 300 out of the 400 women still get pregnant after using the pill for the cost to equal the amount of women who do not take the pill. Would you like me to make you an excel sheet so that you can see that all statistics and probability would have to be thrown out the window for it to be possible that just as many women get pregnant with or without the pill!
 
lovetosing4678 said:
How am I assuming that AT ALL? Did I say anything about costs of abortion? I am doing a purely mathematical comparison. People who use birth control to people who do not and the costs associated with it. I gave you as much leeway as possible by doing the highest cost of birth control without insurance and the lowest cost for giving birth. Note: My math only accounts for the cost of giving birth itself. Just delivery. Add in the costs of pre natal care and you could be saving tons of money. I think this should be available to anyone who needs it. I am not in favor of giving everyone free birth control and all types. I do think it would be a good idea to provide one or two birth control pills which are cheap to people who need it. I assure you, most women will not switch from a brand of contraceptives they are used to, to another one because it is marginally cheaper. Why don't we just try this in a city and see how it works. I think it is a good idea. There are chances it could be misused but it is more than likely to have positive effects. Btw, with the math I did. You would have to have 300 out of the 400 women still get pregnant after using the pill for the cost to equal the amount of women who do not take the pill. Would you like me to make you an excel sheet so that you can see that all statistics and probability would have to be thrown out the window for it to be possible that just as many women get pregnant with or without the pill!
Click to expand...

I'm fine with localized experiments but that is not what the policy is proposing to do.

The policy is specifically saying that, all women should get free contraceptives.
It does not note income or need.

So if that policy were put into effect, as proposed, women who can afford to pay for their own BC will now not have to.
Other people will have to pick up the tab.

It's a ridiculous proposition.
 
Ockham said:
Wait.. you just proved yourself to be a conservative Deuce since you just proved your earlier sentence of "take anything said to absurd degrees and attack that instead of making a real argument". Way to own yourself there dude. :lamo
Click to expand...

I was attempting to demonstrate to you how terribly inaccurate your argument was.
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's assuming that all those people with insurance, wanted BC but couldn't afford it.
That is a leap of logic.

The answer is that, you don't value the use of birth control enough to actually pay for it or you would have already.
Click to expand...

No, it does not assume that at all.
 
Last edited:
Once again, Harry, would you be in favor of distributing birth control free of charge only to women who cannot afford it but it would be paid for with tax payers dollars?

Also, I figure I would post the actual report written by the institute of medicine.

http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Services-for-Women-Closing-the-Gaps/Preventive%20Services%20Women%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf

It is short, everyone should be able to read it easily.

Recommendation 5.5: The full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity
Click to expand...

It will be interesting what they decide this actually means. It doesn't actually say we should provide it free to everyone. It just says everyone should have it.
 
Deuce said:
I was attempting to demonstrate to you how terribly inaccurate your argument was.
Click to expand...
ANd then you used the exact same method. You're a quick one...:mrgreen:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'd say some women do and some don't.
One of those "actions speak louder than words" thing.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there's no way to make a value judgment on which women tried hard enough.



Harry Guerrilla said:
I understand that completely.
That's why I'm arguing that, making birth control free, won't necessary cause less pregnancies and abortions.
Click to expand...

I think it's nearly guaranteed to bring unwanted pregnancies down- if the program provided the birth control that worked best instead of the cheapest options. I've known people to get condoms from the health department, and not use them because they were cheap and ineffective.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm of the first and I believe that having some amount of "pain" is required in order for people to truly learn.
It's a necessary part of positive human evolution and personal growth.

That may sound uncaring or inhuman but the world requires negative things, in order for improvements to happen.
Click to expand...

I agree. Pain gets people's attention.
 
evanescence said:
I think it's nearly guaranteed to bring unwanted pregnancies down- if the program provided the birth control that worked best instead of the cheapest options. I've known people to get condoms from the health department, and not use them because they were cheap and ineffective.
Click to expand...

They are 98-99% effective.
 
evanescence said:
The problem is, there's no way to make a value judgment on which women tried hard enough.
Click to expand...

Very true.
I tend to go by the actions thing though.
Of course there are always exceptions.

evanescence said:
I think it's nearly guaranteed to bring unwanted pregnancies down- if the program provided the birth control that worked best instead of the cheapest options. I've known people to get condoms from the health department, and not use them because they were cheap and ineffective.
Click to expand...

I disagree that lowering the birth rate is a good thing.
We're barely at replacement level as it is, provided by immigration more so than natives.
That can only last so long.

It will cause further problems in reforming our systems of social payments.

evanescence said:
I agree. Pain gets people's attention.
Click to expand...

Definitely.
 
evanescence said:
condoms have a 15% fail rate. Besides, quality does matter.
Click to expand...

They fail at that rate when you misuse them. Don't take your pill and that's going to fail also.
 
evanescence said:
condoms have a 15% fail rate. Besides, quality does matter.
Click to expand...



Not sure what condoms you're referring to but condoms in the U.S. have a < 2% failure rate.

Wiki said:
The rate of breakage is between 0.4% and 2.3%, while the rate of slippage is between 0.6% and 1.3%.[53] Even if no breakage or slippage is observed, 1–2% of women will test positive for semen residue after intercourse with a condom.
Click to expand...

NSFW LINK
Condom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Very true.
I tend to go by the actions thing though.
Of course there are always exceptions.
Click to expand...

So do I, in general.


Harry Guerrilla said:
I disagree that lowering the birth rate is a good thing.
We're barely at replacement level as it is, provided by immigration more so than natives.
That can only last so long.
Click to expand...

When cheap labor is no longer needed, you're probably right. I hope that didn't sound bad.

Harry Guerrilla said:
It will cause further problems in reforming our systems of social payments.



Definitely.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

1Perry said:
They fail at that rate when you misuse them. Don't take your pill and that's going to fail also.
Click to expand...

Misuse will happen. Such is life.

Ockham said:
Not sure what condoms you're referring to but condoms in the U.S. have a < 2% failure rate.



NSFW LINK
Condom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what source you're using.
 
If condoms had a 15% failure rate, no one (or very few people) would use them.
 
Ockham said:
ANd then you used the exact same method. You're a quick one...:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

... using the same method was meant to demonstrate that to you. Apparently you still haven't gathered that.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Then how, in any way possible, will this reduce pregnancies and abortion?
Click to expand...

... because there's this range of potential outcomes in between 0% and 100%?
 
Deuce said:
... using the same method was meant to demonstrate that to you. Apparently you still haven't gathered that.
Click to expand...
No I got it. What you didn't get is that "immitation is the highest form of flattery", so I'm very flattered Deuce. Very flattered indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom