• 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!

Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado

ernst barkmann said:
taxation should never be forced....because when it is and used for things like redistribution...its wrong.

when taxation is by commerce only, then taxes are not forced, and money can be used for redistribution.

the military is power of the u.s. federal government.

noble things are subjective...
Click to expand...

Well sure, I agree with that, but then that's a whole other subject. At present we have a graduated income tax and I have to put up with much of my contribution being spent in ways that I do not like. But unwanted pregnancy prevention isn't one of them.
 
Crovax said:
:rofl: so basically you will be voting democrat in 2016, Rand Paul wont win the GOP primary for the same reason that you would vote for him he doesnt line up with enough of the average GOP voter beliefs
Click to expand...

well that's why I said it depends on the campaign. he may or may not get the nomination, but my point is that if I trust the person who does get the nomination on the most important issues more than the dem nominee, then I would vote for that republican. I just used rand paul as an example. if it gets to the point where I'm 50% torn in both directions, I won't vote.
 
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, mental health. Maybe we should stop enabling them?
Click to expand...

hey now, I answered your question and you haven't answered mine yet. that doesn't seem fair.

do you believe that taking away free birth control will lead to increased responsibility or better outcomes for society?

do you believe that taking away free birth control will save the taxpayers money in the long-run?
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
You do realize we're not talking about condoms here. In fact, what we're most likely talking about is a test and marketing run sponsored by one of those evil Big Pharma corps you detest.
Click to expand...

I don't detest Big Pharma. I detest deregulation. But that's another subject. I'll gladly see my tax dollars go toward any form of contraception as unwanted pregnancy prevention and continue to protest paying for the gratuitous wars that you boys cream yourselves over.
 
Anomalism said:
Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado | Denver Sun Times

Republicans in the Colorado Senate killed an effort this week to set aside funding for a birth control program that provides IUDs to low-income women. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative has been praised for contributing to a 40 percent drop in teen births over the last five years. The program, previously funded by a private donor, won an award in Washington, D.C. just days ago.
Click to expand...

Good. Neither the government nor anyone else should assist in the perpetration of such heinous evils.
 
Montecresto said:
I don't detest Big Pharma. I detest deregulation. But that's another subject. I'll gladly see my tax dollars go toward any form of contraception as unwanted pregnancy prevention and continue to protest paying for the gratuitous wars that you boys cream yourselves over.
Click to expand...

Oh now you don't. Good, I'll remember that.

So, sterilization is a form of contraception. It's very effective and drops those pregnancy rates right on down to the basement. Funny, it's also one of the downsides to issuing IUDs to teens who have a greater chance of contracting STDs. STD plus IUD equals sterility. You support this contraception option?
 
Anthony60 said:
I didn't know that you could "write off" donations at 100%. Or maybe the majority just plain comes out of their pockets.
Click to expand...

You write off percentages, and the government pays you based on those percentages. So there's a public subsidy that the government could save a lot of money on.
 
jet57 said:
You write off percentages, and the government pays you based on those percentages. So there's a public subsidy that the government could save a lot of money on.
Click to expand...

I think you have that back.wards.
 
clownboy said:
Oh now you don't. Good, I'll remember that.

So, sterilization is a form of contraception. It's very effective and drops those pregnancy rates right on down to the basement. Funny, it's also one of the downsides to issuing IUDs to teens who have a greater chance of contracting STDs. STD plus IUD equals sterility. You support this contraception option?
Click to expand...

When I was a youngster both my girlfriend and latter my wife successfully used IUD's. Immunisations are accompanied with risks, but I support them as well. And I do not have issues with big Pharma if my government installs consumer protection laws that defend me from predatory practices, see?
 
Montecresto said:
When I was a youngster both my girlfriend and latter my wife successfully used IUD's. Immunisations are accompanied with risks, but I support them as well. And I do not have issues with big Pharma if my government installs consumer protection laws that defend me from predatory practices, see?
Click to expand...

Yeah, when I was younger we had a game to see who could hold on to the lit firecracker longest. I never blew MY fingers off. I still didn't let my daughter play that game.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Looks like Colorado Republicans want to go with the Crane Public School in West Texas model of “Abstinence-Only” education... you know, the one where there was an eventual outbreak of Chlamydia.

In this case it appears they are looking for a sister idea that will balloon teen pregnancies.
Click to expand...

So explain to me how an IUD stops Chlamydia...
 
bg85 said:
hey now, I answered your question and you haven't answered mine yet. that doesn't seem fair.

do you believe that taking away free birth control will lead to increased responsibility or better outcomes for society?
Click to expand...

I doubt it, something else would have to be done instead.

do you believe that taking away free birth control will save the taxpayers money in the long-run?
Click to expand...
No way of knowing that one.
 
clownboy said:
Yeah, when I was younger we had a game to see who could hold on to the lit firecracker longest. I never blew MY fingers off. I still didn't let my daughter play that game.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either. Contraception and immunisations are just like firecrackers. :roll:
 
Anthony60 said:
I doubt it, something else would have to be done instead.
Click to expand...

like what?

Anthony60 said:
No way of knowing that one.
Click to expand...

well that's why I used the word "believe". I guess this means you think it's a 50/50 chance whether or not it would save money? either way, if we know how much the program cuts down on unwanted teen pregnancies, and if we quantify how much unwanted teen pregnancies cost the taxpayers, then we can absolutely know the answer to that one.
 
Crovax said:
And why cant they find more private donors to expand the program?
Click to expand...

Because grant money only gets you so far. By your logic we should just expand everything with private grant money, not actual public expenditures. The program was limited, and now they are wanting to make it state wide. You should not, and in this case probably cannot expand this program statewide based solely and relying solely on private grant money. Its unrealistic and just not doable if you want to rely on private grant money to fund a whole statewide program.
 
bg85 said:
like what?



well that's why I used the word "believe". I guess this means you think it's a 50/50 chance whether or not it would save money? either way, if we know how much the program cuts down on unwanted teen pregnancies, and if we quantify how much unwanted teen pregnancies cost the taxpayers, then we can absolutely know the answer to that one.
Click to expand...

The real question is how to cut down on teen pregnancies and not just give out free birth control (free to them, not to me). I mean, will these people only use BC if it's free? Is it really that expensive? Whatever is done, it should discourage teen pregnancy, not give them free stuff. They should be made to pay for it in some way.
 
Anthony60 said:
The real question is how to cut down on teen pregnancies and not just give out free birth control (free to them, not to me). I mean, will these people only use BC if it's free? Is it really that expensive? Whatever is done, it should discourage teen pregnancy, not give them free stuff. They should be made to pay for it in some way.
Click to expand...

what if the people who are obtaining the free BC are too dumb or irresponsible to respond to other incentives? it sounds like you're more just against giving away free stuff than you are in producing a beneficial outcome.
 
jet57 said:
You write off percentages, and the government pays you based on those percentages. So there's a public subsidy that the government could save a lot of money on.
Click to expand...

Basically, you tally up your income and then take deductions that the government isn't allowed to tax you on. So, there is no subsidy involved at all. The government doesn't give you money, you give the government money, they just take less of it depending on what your taxable income ends up being.

And, they don't ever save money, they spend it, more than they should, and none of it belongs to the government. It's ours.
 
Montecresto said:
I wouldn't either. Contraception and immunisations are just like firecrackers. :roll:
Click to expand...

In this case and context, yes. And you can drop the silly attempt to bundle in "immunisations" to the discussion. IUDs for teens are contraindicated, that means not recommended. The reasons have been explained to you and sourced.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Because grant money only gets you so far. By your logic we should just expand everything with private grant money, not actual public expenditures. The program was limited, and now they are wanting to make it state wide. You should not, and in this case probably cannot expand this program statewide based solely and relying solely on private grant money. Its unrealistic and just not doable if you want to rely on private grant money to fund a whole statewide program.
Click to expand...

How is this any different than any other company giving a freebie to one locality so that the state will then pay for the product statewide with taxpayer funds? Normally you would go ballistic about this sort of thing.
 
digsbe said:
The government shouldn't be paying for a woman's private birth control. If she's poor she can get of medicaid and have the state pay for it via insurance. This whole entitlement to free birth control is wrong. Manage your own reproductive health and foot your own bill. Why waste money here when it can go to managing chronic disease or life threatening health problems?
Click to expand...
You are so wrong on so many levels. Medicaid is taxpayer funded so what's the difference? You want fewer abortions? Provide contraception to those who can't afford it. It's pretty simple really, and MUCH cheaper,than supporting children born to parents who could not afford them.
 
liblady said:
You are so wrong on so many levels. Medicaid is taxpayer funded so what's the difference? You want fewer abortions? Provide contraception to those who can't afford it. It's pretty simple really, and MUCH cheaper,than supporting children born to parents who could not afford them.
Click to expand...

Give a man a fish and he eats for the day, teach a man to fish and he can always feed himself. Learn to manage your own reproductive health.
 
Anomalism said:
Republicans kill successful birth-control program in Colorado | Denver Sun Times

Republicans in the Colorado Senate killed an effort this week to set aside funding for a birth control program that provides IUDs to low-income women. The Colorado Family Planning Initiative has been praised for contributing to a 40 percent drop in teen births over the last five years. The program, previously funded by a private donor, won an award in Washington, D.C. just days ago.
Click to expand...

Dumb and dumber. I get that people think they shouldn't have to pay for birth control for people but it has been proven to reduce teen births and therefore, save money. As a fiscal conservative, I think this is totally ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom