• 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!

Should the country pay for women's contraceptives?

Should the country (taxes) pay for women's contraception?

  • Yes

    Votes: 41 41.8%

  • No

    Votes: 57 58.2%
  • Total voters
    98
Gina said:
So it's better to be paying for the results of unplanned pregnancies than to spend less and prevent them. Check.
Click to expand...

None of us are suggesting we should pay for the results of unplanned pregnancies though.
 
samsmart said:
If we can pay for 4 unnecessary wars, and if we can pay to bailout Wall Street, we can pay for contraceptives to women who need or want it.
Click to expand...

Okay the war comment is another discussion that doesn't belong here, but if someone flew a plane into one of your very important buildings, killing thousands of people, would you give them a slap on the wrist and send them on their way? I rather doubt it. And I think the bailout was absolutely unnecessary and reckless. Business is business, if you go out of it, tough luck.
 
Krystov said:
Okay the war comment is another discussion that doesn't belong here, but if someone flew a plane into one of your very important buildings, killing thousands of people, would you give them a slap on the wrist and send them on their way? I rather doubt it.
Click to expand...

You're right.

I would ask them exactly why they felt that flying a plane into one of my very important buildings and killing thousands of people was the only way to get my attention.

And then I would talk to them to find out what their grievances were.

Which cannot be limited to "they hate our freedoms" and is more like "you put soldiers on our holy lands."

And flying planes into buildings has nothing to do with going to war in a useless attempt to keep people who want to get high from getting high.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Just because we can do things, doesn't mean we should do these things.
Click to expand...

Okay fine.

Then let's stop fighting the unnecessary wars and stop bailing out Wall Street, and that way we can focus on paying for relatively cheap pharmaceuticals so women can have a better standard of living in our country.
 
Krystov said:
Okay the war comment is another discussion that doesn't belong here, but if someone flew a plane into one of your very important buildings, killing thousands of people, would you give them a slap on the wrist and send them on their way? I rather doubt it. And I think the bailout was absolutely unnecessary and reckless. Business is business, if you go out of it, tough luck.
Click to expand...

No, the answer is clearly to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. :roll:
 
samsmart said:
Okay fine.

Then let's stop fighting the unnecessary wars and stop bailing out Wall Street, and that way we can focus on paying for relatively cheap pharmaceuticals so women can have a better standard of living in our country.
Click to expand...

For the majority of women, it will have a neutral effect on their standard of living, because they could already afford birth control.
Sorry.

It seems to me, that a lot of you are making casual fallacies, assuming 100% of potential birth control users, need this subsidy.
When in reality, only a minority of them could greatly benefit from it.

Oh and if they are cheap, then why do we need to provide it?
Seems like you're presenting a contradiction here.
 
samsmart said:
You're right.

I would ask them exactly why they felt that flying a plane into one of my very important buildings and killing thousands of people was the only way to get my attention.

And then I would talk to them to find out what their grievances were.

Which cannot be limited to "they hate our freedoms" and is more like "you put soldiers on our holy lands."

And flying planes into buildings has nothing to do with going to war in a useless attempt to keep people who want to get high from getting high.
Click to expand...

To the first, plain and simply, they hate us and they hate that we created Israel for those that live there. This holy war has been going on for centuries and we stepped right into the middle of it. That is why they hate us.

If you're talking about immigration in the second part, that is hardly because of weed. Sure, that was some motivation to cut the level of illegal substances in the US, but it was more about keeping people who can't legally be here out. They leech off of the system and don't contribute back their share, which plays into the economy quite significantly. That can hardly be called a war.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
For the majority of women, it will have a neutral effect on their standard of living, because they could already afford birth control.
Sorry.

It seems to me, that a lot of you are making casual fallacies, assuming 100% of potential birth control users, need this subsidy.
When in reality, only a minority of them could greatly benefit from it.

Oh and if they are cheap, then why do we need to provide it?
Seems like you're presenting a contradiction here.
Click to expand...

They are cheap when you mutualize the cost.

And birth control is a rather constant medication. People's economic situations aren't.

So no contradiction at all.
 
Krystov said:
To the first, plain and simply, they hate us and they hate that we created Israel for those that live there. This holy war has been going on for centuries and we stepped right into the middle of it. That is why they hate us.

If you're talking about immigration in the second part, that is hardly because of weed. Sure, that was some motivation to cut the level of illegal substances in the US, but it was more about keeping people who can't legally be here out. They leech off of the system and don't contribute back their share, which plays into the economy quite significantly. That can hardly be called a war.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the War on Drugs as one of the unnecessary wars we are currently fighting.
 
kerussll said:
No, the answer is clearly to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. :roll:
Click to expand...

The Taliban and Al Queda aren't a country themselves, but they reside within countries that harbor and support terrorism and Islamic extremism. The goal (which has sorely been failed at) was to root out those two groups and others like it within the harboring nations, and provide those nations with a governmental structure to keep it from happening again.

As for Iraq, those people were being oppressed by a dictator. Whether or not there were WMDs, Saddam Hussein needed to be removed from power. Left there, eventually he and Iran would become a far larger problem than they are currently.

This has been derailed. Again.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They're cheap before you subsidize the cost. :shrug:



No it's still there.
Click to expand...

And, as I said before, it's a constant medication when individual women's economic stability may not always be constant.

Which is especially the case with women who need it the most - the poor and college students, who are least likely to afford such things.

So no, still no contradiction.
 
samsmart said:
I'm referring to the War on Drugs as one of the unnecessary wars we are currently fighting.
Click to expand...

This isn't a war in actuality. This is a concept of an aggressive movement to reduce the quantity and usage of illegal substances in the country. They're not dispatching hundreds of thousands of combat armed soldiers with tanks and armored personnel carriers packed with trillions of bullets. Does it cost money? Sure, but not to the magnitude that you are projecting it to.
 
samsmart said:
And, as I said before, it's a constant medication when individual women's economic stability may not always be constant.

Which is especially the case with women who need it the most - the poor and college students, who are least likely to afford such things.

So no, still no contradiction.
Click to expand...

The argument has been made before that contraceptive tools are cheap. I AM a college student and I can afford it. I don't even have a job.

For medically justifiable reasons for things like Birth Control pills, I'm supportive of because insurance companies pay out for prescriptions. I am against it coming out of my pocket. If you can't be medically justified in getting a contraceptive at discount prices or free, you should have to buy it yourself.
 
samsmart said:
And, as I said before, it's a constant medication when individual women's economic stability may not always be constant.

Which is especially the case with women who need it the most - the poor and college students, who are least likely to afford such things.

So no, still no contradiction.
Click to expand...

I guess by that logic, we should socialize that cost of water, sewer, mortgages/rent, food, car payments....well everything.
After all, these bills are constant (and typically more expensive than a 30 day supply of ortho tricyclen), while economic situations are not.
 
Krystov said:
This isn't a war in actuality. This is a concept of an aggressive movement to reduce the quantity and usage of illegal substances in the country. They're not dispatching hundreds of thousands of combat armed soldiers with tanks and armored personnel carriers packed with trillions of bullets. Does it cost money? Sure, but not to the magnitude that you are projecting it to.
Click to expand...

Except you're not including the costs of the War on Drugs domestically. Factor in the costs we pay to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the money to prosecutors and the court costs, as well as the costs in imprisoning those convicted of drugs crimes. Also include the costs for having ex-convicts with drug felonies being unable to acquire employment to large corporations.

Then the money we spend on waging it boggles the mind.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I guess by that logic, we should socialize that cost of water, sewer, mortgages/rent, food, car payments....well everything.
After all, these bills are constant (and typically more expensive than a 30 day supply of ortho tricyclen), while economic situations are not.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with socializing basic services.
 
samsmart said:
Except you're not including the costs of the War on Drugs domestically. Factor in the costs we pay to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the money to prosecutors and the court costs, as well as the costs in imprisoning those convicted of drugs crimes. Also include the costs for having ex-convicts with drug felonies being unable to acquire employment to large corporations.

Then the money we spend on waging it boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

Many of those people caught and prosecuted have to pay court fees and such, so it's not all on the burden of the state. Those states also budget out the money they already receive to support hunting down drugs and their users.
 
Krystov said:
Many of those people caught and prosecuted have to pay court fees and such, so it's not all on the burden of the state. Those states also budget out the money they already receive to support hunting down drugs and their users.
Click to expand...

1) And so those caught people are bearing a greater economic burden to the state just because they want to get high. Don't see how that's justifiable.

2) Indeed. But what that means is they go after false drug suspects in order to impound their property just to fill the state treasury. Which is not justifiable either.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I guess by that logic, we should socialize that cost of water, sewer, mortgages/rent, food, car payments....well everything.
After all, these bills are constant (and typically more expensive than a 30 day supply of ortho tricyclen), while economic situations are not.
Click to expand...

Well - people on welfare do get support for all of that in some places.

I'd rather they go without cable - and in return get bc . . . seems reasonable.
 
Donahue said:
If the goal is to cut abortion rates, wouldn't making abortions illegal be a vastly cheaper and more effective strategy?
Click to expand...
Yes. And let the churches pay for bringing up the children, not my taxes. They already have the money right?
 
Anrch-Cptlst said:
Contraception is of personal matter. It should have nothing to do with public funding.
Click to expand...
And the result of not using contraception when it should be used because the child can't be supported is also a personal matter. And that child is a personal matter for how long?
 
OhIsee.Then said:
Yes. And let the churches pay for bringing up the children, not my taxes. They already have the money right?
Click to expand...

How about you raise your own children and let me raise mine?
 
Anrch-Cptlst said:
So why did it cost the U.S. that much?
Click to expand...

The Public Costs of Births Resulting from Unintended Pregnancies: National and State-Level Estimates - Sonfield - 2011 - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Wiley Online Library

I cannot access the the report Guttmacher is quoting.

So, some thoughtful guesses? Welfare, WIC, food stamps. Many women who have unintended pregnancies cannot pay for their prenatal care, if they get it. Cannot pay for the delivery, so they apply for Medicaid and what they won't pay, the hospital writes off and passes along to the rest of us. I just mentioned Medicaid, another tax payer provided program. Then going forward, if there is no insurance, when the child is sick, that's another hit on Medicaid or a hospital write off. These are just a few off the top of my head. I would really like to read that paper though.

The Public Costs of Births Resulting from Unintended Pregnancies: National and State-Level Estimates - Sonfield - 2011 - Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health - Wiley Online Library
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom