• 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
I wasn't around back then so I couldn't tell you, but I doubt you could walk in to the local Walgreens and buy a box of Trojans in 1922.

Also, since condoms were the only commercial birth control method we have agreed was even available, their usage rate would have had to be astronomical to have any noticeable impact, nationally.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yeah, starvation and disease tends to put a cramp in your reproductive organs.

And actually, you're wrong about condoms. Condoms have been widely available since the 1800's. As a matter of fact, the 1920's was when the latex condom first came out. They were more effective and longer-lasting than previous varieties.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Adam Smith remarked that "the most decisive mark of the prosperity of any country is the increase of the number of its inhabitants."

Livi-Bacci observed, "All things being equal, population increase leads to increased per capita production."

Mark Steyn notes in America Alone, "There is no precedent in human history for economic growth on declining human capital."

Simon Smith Kuznets won the Nobel Prize in economics for his theory of "tested knowledge." As Kuznets explained: "More population means more creators and producers, both of goods along established production patterns and of new knowledge and inventions."


So much for the theory that population control is good for society.
Click to expand...

First, did you even note, that the number of abortions was reduced? If you are pro-life, you should be cheering that.

And yes, population control is good for society. Uncontrolled growth is not healthy growth. A family with more children than they can afford, a girl having child when she has no job and then can't afford to have a job because of child care, puts a strain on society, as noted in the Guttmacher quote. We need social programs to help them, but I think we can all agree that $11 billion a year is a tremendous sum and reducing it would benefit society in other ways.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'll show you guys something to drive the population argument home intuitively.

USA-population-density-per-square-mile.jpg


This is a population map of the USA. Do you think the east coast is "overpopulated?" No, it is fine.

Now we have the WHOLE REST of the country where barely anyone lives. We could put a lot more people out west and believe me, there's room and plenty of food.
Click to expand...

Out west - in the desert - where it rains a few times a year - and they already have water shortages . . . there's plenty of water?

Even California struggles for water - it hardly has any of it's own. . . .but if the east-coast isn't overpopulated eventhough it's looking pretty red, there - then why move anyone anywhere?
 
ecofarm said:
I'm well versed in population dynamics and the demographic transition. I doubt someone of your expertise on this subject could surmise the major factors of such satisfactorily, and I don't feel like going down that road at the moment.
Click to expand...

Hey, tell us all how smart and well-educated you are, ecofarm.
 
That's what I'm saying. There's room for lots of babies.

Aunt Spiker said:
Out west - in the desert - where it rains a few times a year - and they already have water shortages . . . there's plenty of water?

Even California struggles for water - it hardly has any of it's own. . . .but if the east-coast isn't overpopulated eventhough it's looking pretty red, there - then why move anyone anywhere?
Click to expand...
 
I'm not making an argument about abortion, I'm just pointing out that most economists believe that a growing population is a good thing... economically speaking.

Gina said:
First, did you even note, that the number of abortions was reduced? If you are pro-life, you should be cheering that.

And yes, population control is good for society. Uncontrolled growth is not healthy growth. A family with more children than they can afford, a girl having child when she has no job and then can't afford to have a job because of child care, puts a strain on society, as noted in the Guttmacher quote. We need social programs to help them, but I think we can all agree that $11 billion a year is a tremendous sum and reducing it would benefit society in other ways.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm not making an argument about abortion, I'm just pointing out that most economists believe that a growing population is a good thing... economically speaking.
Click to expand...

And I'm placing a condition on that statement. Uncontrolled anything, is not healthy.
 
Regardless if we have room for more population, there is an issue at hand where people are having problems taking care of the children they already have. There is also an issue with kids needing to be adopted. Contraceptives are an excellent way to be responsible individuals. Most women are not whores. IMO men need to learn to keep it in their pants or use a condom.
 
This is a good point, as is Aunt Spiker's point about water availability. The fact is, though, that while the east coast is naturally able to support more people than, say, Arizona, the United States as a whole is nowhere near overpopulated. We are uniquely positioned for the future due to this fact.

We are still a young country.

One good source to read up more on this is the CIA fact book, which is available online.

Neomalthusian said:
??? That's quite an arbitrary assertion. The standard I use for whether I feel that a place is overpopulated goes like this: Would the carrying capacity of the local ecosystem sustain this number of people? If not, then the area is overpopulated.



Ignoring for a moment how this could actually happen (i.e. how we would maintain a peaceful transition onto other people's land), there are large areas of land that are sparsely populated because they're uninhabitable. Other large pieces of land in the "breadbasket" are mono-crop agriculture, i.e. crops planted year after year which have depleted soils and only grow there because of petrochemical fertilizers and water pumped from non-replenishing fossil aquifers (as ecofarm notes above).

800px-USA-satellite.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Hey, tell us all how smart and well-educated you are, ecofarm.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?

Aunt Spiker said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
helix2048 said:
Regardless if we have room for more population,
Click to expand...

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). :)
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sarcogito said:
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 aren’t out there having unwanted children. Take however many cents you need to out of my paycheck to make that happen please.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are too many people on this planet already. We don't have the resources to sustain a population growing to a certain point.
 
Voltaire X said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some of those single mothers on welfare do it on purpose.
 
ChunkySalsa said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
OhIsee.Then said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I think that's kind of a loaded statement. It's not women's health care in general being opted out, it's one specific thing, and no one who wants it would be denied it.

The difference is how controversial things like this and Obama care are. Americans are a very diverse people, where one set of conditions is not right for everyone.

Let me give an example. I live in Germany, where there's state health care, and private health care. One has a choice to opt out of the state health care and go private, however, don't expect to be able to come back. I, for one, am staying with the state health care, because it covers almost everything, and I know that I'll be medically taken care of for the rest of my life. My wife and daughters will have access to contraceptives through the insurance.

However, the important thing about this is that no one who is against state health care is paying for me.

We both realize there are a lot of things that aren't viable to be opt-in/opt-out, but there simply are a lot of things that are. We as Americans don't have to agree on every issue. There are some issues where both sides can walk away happy. I'm willing to bet if given the choice that most americans WOULD opt-in for contraceptives.
Click to expand...

This is the federal government we're talking about here. I'm not sure they could handle managing several different types of contraception rather than 1 all encompassing plan. They like those.
 
I have no problem with their being some assistance for the poor. Planned Parenthood which is independant cannot do it all nor can any of the like organizations.
As far as generally I would have to say no.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Why is reproductive health an individual responsibility - but nothing else is?

Surgeries, dental care, neuropsych, psych meds, physical and psych therapy, even some types of cessation care, pain relief, antibacterial efforts, hospital stays and emergency room visits (even the stupid ones from someone being a total idiot like when my husband was 17 and he fell off the cab of a moving truck), broken bones . . .etc.

But having a child or not having a child - the most extreme life altering path that could ever be taken because it's creating a new life that's entirely dependent on the parents for countless years . . . that is nothing but a personal 'problem'

And why just reproductive care being an individual responsibility - we cover all things related to pregnancy itself. Even DNC if the mother miscarries. Prenatal vitamins, pap smears, sonograms, urine testing, glucose screening, diabetes treatments, nutritional supplements, therapy for those who have odd cravings, Lamaze is even covered by some insurance companies.

You're dumbing it down to being like diapers and formula (which some are covered if it's of a special-nature)
Click to expand...

Because everything you mentioned requires some sort of healthcare professional that only the richest people in the country could afford without insurance. And people who go to those places generally have insurance (not counting emergency room scandals) paid for by themselves, not everyone else.
 
Krystov said:
Because everything you mentioned requires some sort of healthcare professional that only the richest people in the country could afford without insurance. And people who go to those places generally have insurance (not counting emergency room scandals) paid for by themselves, not everyone else.
Click to expand...

What are the numbers - that 12-15% of the population is without healthcare coverage of any type . . . leaving the remaining 85 - 88% covered. 85-88% of the country is rich? Hardly the case.

You're building a strawman out of false assumptions.
 
Smeagol said:
Should medical treatment for the following conditions be covered?

-Ovarian cysts
-Acne
-Endometriosis
-Irregular menstrual cycles
-Anemia

FYI: The best and in some cases the only treatment for these ailments are birth control pills. It doesn't even mean the patient is sexually active. Sexually abstainate Roman Catholic nuns might be prescribed birth control pills to treat these conditions. I'm aware of one teenage young lady who had insurance through her mom's job at a Catholic hospital that refused to cover birth control pills. She absolutely did not need birth control pills for pregnancy prevention but she did need them for cystic ovaries. The condition got so bad she eventually needed surgery.

Aspirin not only treats headaches, it also is used as a heart health therapy at Drs. direction. Benadryl not only treat hay fever, its also used as an emergency bee hive attack antidote and as sleeping pills. Many medications have numerous possible uses. IMHO its unfortunate to get hung up on the terminology of "birth control pills".
Click to expand...

In those cases you need a diagnosis, and that usually comes with a prescription. That's different because prescriptions are generally covered under private healthcare. We're talking about people just want it so they can have more sex.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom