• 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

I did expect an answer what you gave me was a deflection

care to try again, why should the govt fund charity that has been proven to be successful with private funding?

Because that charity is ending and it would save the govt money.
 
Why can't people just pay for their own choices?
 
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.

I'd agree with you on this, or at least be willing to debate the necessity of free birth control, but that is not the only issue at hand here. It's the type of BC and the motive for choosing this method of BC that is a severe issue for me.
 
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.

Ummmm how is this a "freebie"? And if you mean "freebie" by possibly having to purchase IUD's from a private company via government contract, I mean, you do realize that this is how our government all around, and many state governments all around function? Example construction contracts for roads, construction contracts for new buildings, etc...
 
Why can't people just pay for their own choices?

they can! they just don't. so then the question becomes what should we do about that, if anything.
 
Ummmm how is this a "freebie"? And if you mean "freebie" by possibly having to purchase IUD's from a private company via government contract, I mean, you do realize that this is how our government all around, and many state governments all around function? Example construction contracts for roads, construction contracts for new buildings, etc...

Given by a private donor. Which is precisely how corporations who want state contracts for their goods do a test market. It's the hook. Provide free, but limited funding for certain equipment, getting sold on it's use, relying on it and boom, you have a new large state contract.
 
Given by a private donor. Which is precisely how corporations who want state contracts for their goods do a test market. It's the hook. Provide free, but limited funding for certain equipment, getting sold on it's use, relying on it and boom, you have a new large state contract.

what's wrong with that if the outcome is beneficial?
 
Republicans don't want to help poor people have access to contraception or abortions, and when their children are born they complain about poor people breeding.

Yep, and because there will be more poor and uneducated people which means more crime the Republicans will spend 100's of billions on more cops, more courts, more prisons. Pay me now or pay me MUCH more later.

The GOP is full of idiots.
 
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.

I'm talking about charitable donations... But you knew that.
 
Given by a private donor.
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..

Which is precisely how corporations who want state contracts for their goods do a test market.
Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work...

It's the hook. Provide free, but limited funding for certain equipment, getting sold on it's use, relying on it and boom, you have a new large state contract.
:lamo So any evidence to actually back up any of these claims?
I really didnt know it was common practice for private organizations to give legal grants to state governments in hopes of future contracts... :roll:
 
what's wrong with that if the outcome is beneficial?

One, it rarely is beneficial for anyone but the company. Two, again, IUDs are not as safe under general conditions as the company spin doctors are reporting. If you're relatively sedentary, have a long term stable relationship and no chance of STDs, they're good, or at least some of them are.
 
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..

Nope, not cronyism. A tried and true sales technique.

Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work...

Oh, I do. And any other issue you'd be arguing against this **** flying.

:lamo So any evidence to actually back up any of these claims?
I really didnt know it was common practice for private organizations to give legal grants to state governments in hopes of future contracts... :roll:

Talk to any police force, and fire departments anywhere. They get grant offers from private companies all the time. Taser manufacturers did it. As do armor manufacturers.

Heck, even the federal government does it in their own way. Right now any county government can apply for a federal grant to hire more police officers. Of course the grant is a one time deal and it only covers the first nine months of hiring a new officer and the county is on the hook thereafter. But hey, it's FREE and has a short term good outcome.
 
Last edited:
the real question is if it was such a successful private program why did the govt take it over?

Wonder how many millions it saved in medical costs, welfare and such. bets are enough to have paid for the program.
5 Million in costs.
Now if it saves money, why would the Republicans be against that. Right they want to control lives.
 
Wonder how many millions it saved in medical costs, welfare and such. bets are enough to have paid for the program.
5 Million in costs.
Now if it saves money, why would the Republicans be against that. Right they want to control lives.

Wait ten or fifteen years and show us how much it COST in medical and welfare costs. Of course by then those costs will be borne by the affected individuals (the poor) who went the IUD route (hey, it was FREE!) and are now sterile or had their reproductive systems and general health compromised. But hey, sterilizing poor people is a good thing, right? That's what the left wants, right?
 
Nope, not cronyism. A tried and true sales technique.
Oh, I do. And any other issue you'd be arguing against this **** flying.


Talk to any police force, and fire departments anywhere. They get grant offers from private companies all the time. Taser manufacturers did it. As do armor manufacturers.

Heck, even the federal government does it in their own way. Right now any county government can apply for a federal grant to hire more police officers. Of course the grant is a one time deal and it only covers the first nine months of hiring a new officer and the county is on the hook thereafter. But hey, it's FREE and has a short term good outcome.

So essentially we are not arguing about really anything and essentially agreeing. Now do you think the state should move forward with the policy?
 
So essentially we are not arguing about really anything and essentially agreeing. Now do you think the state should move forward with the policy?

No, as I've been clear about since the beginning of the thread. I disagree that our government, local, state or federal should be funding anyone's birth control. But as to this particular program, I think it especially stupid to have the method being funded to be IUDs. That makes it doubly objectionable.
 
Anonymous private grant. You're really hinging on this "cronyism" card arent you? Even though there is literally no evidence that points that direction..

Apparently you dont understand how a RFPs work....

Are you talking about an RFP, or is a "RFPs" an abbreviation for something else?
 
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.

Yes, and I pointed out my own successful experience with them. But to the bigger picture, IUD's are not the only form of contraception, eh. Are you opposed only to providing IUD's in this program, or any form of contraception in this program?
 
No, as I've been clear about since the beginning of the thread. I disagree that our government, local, state or federal should be funding anyone's birth control. But as to this particular program, I think it especially stupid to have the method being funded to be IUDs. That makes it doubly objectionable.

Why? Saved money, reduced abortion, decrease teenage birth rates, was an overall success...
 
And what's your experience with how RFPs and etc. work?

Well I do them and coordinate them almost on a weekly basis for my job. My employment entails a great deal of contracted services.
 
$5 million? The rich Hollywood elite make that in a week. It should be very easy to get this funding elsewhere. The taxpayers of Colorado don't need to be responsible for other peoples' birth control.
 
One, it rarely is beneficial for anyone but the company. Two, again, IUDs are not as safe under general conditions as the company spin doctors are reporting. If you're relatively sedentary, have a long term stable relationship and no chance of STDs, they're good, or at least some of them are.

by all accounts I've read the program has been successful in producing a favorable outcome in the area it was implemented. this seems to be one of the rare cases where it's beneficial for both the company and the taxpayers, is it not? I'm not well versed in the advantages/disadvantages of IUDs as a BC method but it seems to me like if the program is successful and is serving its intended purpose, it should be continued.
 
Back
Top Bottom