Socialized birth control

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
A) Again...you've responded several times in this thread about the federal government, and how a program like this should be state run or private. Ignoring the actual issue, just blindly lashing out at people who are proposing ANYTHING be done by ANY government

B) You're now talking about social programs as a whole. What everyone here is trying to explain - and you're ignoring - is that this is a step in the right direction from a fiscal standpoint. Providing free birth control = cheap. Providing the existing social programs that exist because people don't use birth control = expensive. Would it be ideal for the government not to provide either? Of course! But this would greatly lessen the need for the latter programs, on which you aren't even commenting, and that's what the thread is about. Not federal fiscal responsibility.

C) You are serious? A thread about free condoms, you turn into WOW LOLZ YOU SHOULD STOP CHARGING MASSIVE AMOUNTS TO YOUR CREDIT CARDS AND EXPECTING YOUR KIDZ TO PAY11!!!1. How are you being at all productive to your cause, or contributing to the topic at hand, with trash like that?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
55,189
7,961
126
Originally posted by: bamacre
If this sounds like a good idea to you, then petition your own state government. Or start up your own private non-profit organization which receives donations and provides birth control products and services to people who want them.

I.e., stop stealing peoples' money.

The mentality that we need the federal government to solve all of our little wants and needs has led us into a fiscal brick wall.

The Federal government is inefficient and corrupt. The Constitution was written specifically to restrain the power of the federal government, and it gives the states and the people authority to do all kinds of things.
Give up your idealism for a moment and accept that this is proposed in the context of the system we already have in place. You're already paying the back-end costs of the lack of such a program, no matter what your feelings are on said payment. Are you proposing that implementing this (view it as a stop-gap until your ideal changes take place if you must) would cost more than not doing it?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Ah yes, solving one bad law with another.

Birth control wouldn't be a problem if we stopped giving money to everyone who squirted out a crotch dumpling. That includes tax credits as well as welfare recipients. Eventually the people who couldn't afford to raise their children without the rest of the country paying for it would stop having kids. They wouldn't have a choice. In nature we call it survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is easily solved in nature, I don't understand why humans seem to have such trouble with it. Your genetic ability to procreate does not obligate me to pay for your screaming brat any more than my genetic ability to shit on your front step obligates you to build me a bathroom.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Ah yes, solving one bad law with another.

Birth control wouldn't be a problem if we stopped giving money to everyone who squirted out a crotch dumpling. That includes tax credits as well as welfare recipients. Eventually the people who couldn't afford to raise their children without the rest of the country paying for it would stop having kids. They wouldn't have a choice. In nature we call it survival of the fittest. Overpopulation is easily solved in nature, I don't understand why humans seem to have such trouble with it. Your genetic ability to procreate does not obligate me to pay for your screaming brat any more than my genetic ability to shit on your front step obligates you to build me a bathroom.
Finally a dissenter that used logic to discuss the topic at hand....

I think the benefit to a program such as this is that it's a step in the right direction. Of course in an ideal world we wouldn't need any "child support socialization"....but we can't just go immediately from our current system to that. We just can't, it would lead to chaos and a mass crime wave.

A program that offered free birth control would not only create a much LOWER financial burden than things like welfare/child health insurance programs, it would gradually pave the way to these programs becoming less necessary in general, with less children born into disadvantaged families that don't want to/can't support them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
77,958
36,183
136
Unsupported babies have consequences both fiscal and social whether the federal government is paying for them or not.

It doesn't really matter if we pass a law saying "we ain't payin' for no kids starting now" tomorrow. People will still have them, it's a biological urge. The idea that because they can't get welfare or something will stop them is ridiculous. And trust me, we'll end up paying one way or the other. It might not be money we'll pay... but we'll pay.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: bamacre
If this sounds like a good idea to you, then petition your own state government. Or start up your own private non-profit organization which receives donations and provides birth control products and services to people who want them.

I.e., stop stealing peoples' money.

The mentality that we need the federal government to solve all of our little wants and needs has led us into a fiscal brick wall.

The Federal government is inefficient and corrupt. The Constitution was written specifically to restrain the power of the federal government, and it gives the states and the people authority to do all kinds of things.
Give up your idealism for a moment and accept that this is proposed in the context of the system we already have in place. You're already paying the back-end costs of the lack of such a program, no matter what your feelings are on said payment. Are you proposing that implementing this (view it as a stop-gap until your ideal changes take place if you must) would cost more than not doing it?
Hypothetically speaking, if you could provide a study, or evidence, that this would reduce the fiscal burden we face, I may support it.

But this isn't the way you presented it in the OP.

I hate to take a page out of a Cosby book, but if I were to ask you if you would like a nice big juicy steak along side some mashed potatoes with gravy, you'd most likely think it a tasty meal (especially if I offered you a couple of brews to wash it all down, my fellow TFNN'er). But if I brought out the meal not on a dinner plate but a garbage can lid, you may begin to think otherwise (as you scarf down a brew). It's all about presentation, froggy.

But in the long run, froggy, I do not support the federal government being involved in these kinds of issues. There are very big reasons, IMO, why these powers should be left up to the individual states and the people themselves. Our system of health care is broken, and while some politicians think they have the answer, they cannot because they simply fail to understand, or refuse to acknowledge, why it is broken in the first place. In the end, they are simply putting band-aids on gunshot wounds.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
The people in this country who want to use birth control in this country are using it. Those who aren't using it aren't missing out for a lack of money. Planned Parenthood operates in all 50 states and provides free and discounted birth control depending on your income. This same demographic is experiencing a negative growth rate. The people that most of you want to control the birth of (Hispanics) aren't going to take birth control unless it's forced upon them. While I'm fine with forcing birth control on people it would have to be a well managed system that made those decisions. And as it stands, our national growth rate is pretty small, and we need the Hispanics to keep our current entitlement programs from collapsing.

So to answer the question, I would be ok with providing it for free if it were compulsory for those selected by the government.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.

ZV
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
55,189
7,961
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.

ZV
You can want in one hand and crap in the other ;)
We're stuck with this system as long as we have our two current viable parties. I also remain unconvinced that people would quit popping out babies without welfare. You're giving the average person entirely too much credit.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.
ZV
Assuming people would take responsibility for their actions- is a bad assumption.
We would be overrun with unwanted children and their crime. Welcome to the third world.
Any savings you got would be eaten up by the need for security.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
13
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.
ZV
Assuming people would take responsibility for their actions- is a bad assumption.
We would be overrun with unwanted children and their crime. Welcome to the third world.
Any savings you got would be eaten up by the need for security.
So, because other people cannot control themselves, those who can, and do, control themselves, should be forcibly penalized through higher taxes to support a socialized system? I'm supposed to be happy that idiots who can't keep their dicks in their pants are essentially shaking the rest of us down for money on the threat that their offspring will cause rampant crime if we don't give them money now?

Sorry, but no. I'll gladly take my chances as opposed to subsidizing idiocy.

ZV
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: bamacre
If this sounds like a good idea to you, then petition your own state government. Or start up your own private non-profit organization which receives donations and provides birth control products and services to people who want them.

I.e., stop stealing peoples' money.

The mentality that we need the federal government to solve all of our little wants and needs has led us into a fiscal brick wall.

The Federal government is inefficient and corrupt. The Constitution was written specifically to restrain the power of the federal government, and it gives the states and the people authority to do all kinds of things.
I suppose you prefer to pay for medical care, schools, food stamps, roads, and prisons for all of the unwanted children? It's a lot cheaper to pay for birth control.

Kind of like the present day Republican party, which forbids any funds going to family planning organizations that mention abortion, while we are being overrun by illegal Mexican immigrants. Yeah, let's stick to our principles, even if they are completely insane.
Schools, most roads, and prisons are paid for by states.

With your mentality, I wonder why we even have separate states. Why not just combine all the states, cities, towns? Make all laws federal. You people in Marin County shouldn't have a problem living just like us Tennesseans. Right?
Well I have to admit, I never quite understood the importance placed on, frankly quite arbitrary, divisions of government. Obviously we aren't a homogeneous country, and there are concerns that Iowa has that aren't as big a problem in Maryland, but libertarian types always seem to want to have the states do EVERYTHING, for no other reason than it's "local government".

But why that's always desirable to federal government remains a mystery to me. Clearly there are things the states can't (and shouldn't) do by themselves, and it seems to me that things that can happen at the federal level will benefit from not being implemented by 50 different groups of people.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
23,187
24,055
136
Absolutely 100% yes. Controlling population growth is essential if we want to maintain our quality of life, and birth control is the cheapest way to accomplish it.

The cost of birth control drugs, condoms and other measures are extremely cheap when bought in bulk. We could probably supply the entire nation for a year with what it costs us to occupy Iraq for one day.

Seconded. :thumbsup:
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Well I have to admit, I never quite understood the importance placed on, frankly quite arbitrary, divisions of government. Obviously we aren't a homogeneous country, and there are concerns that Iowa has that aren't as big a problem in Maryland, but libertarian types always seem to want to have the states do EVERYTHING, for no other reason than it's "local government".
Not everything. In the long run, only what is authorized by the constitution. Basically. That leaves them some very important work.

But why that's always desirable to federal government remains a mystery to me. Clearly there are things the states can't (and shouldn't) do by themselves, and it seems to me that things that can happen at the federal level will benefit from not being implemented by 50 different groups of people.
If for only one reason, it is due to representation. It would be much easier for you to change, create, or delete a local law, or a state law, compared to a federal law. Medical marijuana is a very good, if not perfect, example. Hell, even recreational marijuana. But if you are a corporation, looking for a handout at the taxpayers' expense, the opposite is true, it is much easier for them to petition the federal government rather than 50 individual governments, which are more representative of their people.

Spending is another concern. States have limited resources, companies have limited resources, people have limited resources, but the federal government can tax you death, print the money, borrow the money, and your kids' money, and legally spend money uncontrollably. And that's exactly what we have today and/or are heading towards very quickly.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
Free birth control, FTMFW.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Look at it this way:

Do you want to spend your tax dollars supporting a teen mother on welfare?

Or do you want to spend your tax dollars giving away free condoms and birth control?

I can tell you now, one option is dramatically, shockingly cheaper.
False dichotomy. I want to spend my tax dollars on neither. Which, strangely enough, is cheaper than either of the two options you present.

If we stopped giving free support to people who have children they cannot afford, we would have drastically fewer issues with birth control. If people knew that they actually had to support any potential offspring, they would take some responsibility for their own actions.

ZV
You worry about your tax dollars, but a system like this doesn't need to be "for free" (i.e. the tax payer pays for everything).

I would envision a semi-socialized system in which basic forms of birth control (BC Pills / Condoms / etc..) would be provided at cost (read: less than $5, probably more like $2) to everyone. This would cover the cost of the items as well as the admin. overhead, without breaking the bank. The items provided would not be the newest / best / etc. but would be adequate (i.e. only a couple types of condoms, in various sizes. only older/cheaper BC pills.)

There could be some kind of application process if an individual truly couldn't afford these socialized prices.

Also in this case, the "socialized" items available would also not be diametrically opposed to the free market, because people would be willing to pay more $$ for something that is "better" (but not more effective) than what is provided at "socialized" prices. (example: ultra thin / studded / ribbed condoms, or fancy multi-cyclic / multi-hormone BC Pills).
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Absolutely 100% yes. Controlling population growth is essential

Someone make my day and link some stuff where JP was talking bad about the chinese regime.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I'm talking about freely providing condoms, birth control pills/patch/etc, spermicide, pretty much the whole slew of options available, to anyone who wants it. Maybe even so far as free tubal ligation/vasectomies. What do you think of this idea?
Birth control is cheap, why would you want to subsidize it?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
55,189
7,961
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I'm talking about freely providing condoms, birth control pills/patch/etc, spermicide, pretty much the whole slew of options available, to anyone who wants it. Maybe even so far as free tubal ligation/vasectomies. What do you think of this idea?
Birth control is cheap, why would you want to subsidize it?
Because people will spend the $40 on cable instead of birth control. Or beer. Cigarettes. Drugs. Gas. Maybe even food. But they'll still have sex, no matter what. Then society bears the cost of unplanned pregnancy, in many ways.
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
One has to wonder if those in favor of such a proposal (free birth control) are the same people who are all for reforming immigration policy to the tune of legalizing the illegals. Probably the same folks who also support the belief that the US should allow known HIV infected people into the country from other nations.

Yeah, providing free birth control is all about public welfare and the long term cost to our society.....right.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Absolutely 100% yes. Controlling population growth is essential if we want to maintain our quality of life, and birth control is the cheapest way to accomplish it.

The cost of birth control drugs, condoms and other measures are extremely cheap when bought in bulk. We could probably supply the entire nation for a year with what it costs us to occupy Iraq for one day.
I may agree with what you say, but there is no reason to bring the Iraq war into this... at all.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I'm talking about freely providing condoms, birth control pills/patch/etc, spermicide, pretty much the whole slew of options available, to anyone who wants it. Maybe even so far as free tubal ligation/vasectomies. What do you think of this idea?
Birth control is cheap, why would you want to subsidize it?
Because people will spend the $40 on cable instead of birth control. Or beer. Cigarettes. Drugs. Gas. Maybe even food. But they'll still have sex, no matter what. Then society bears the cost of unplanned pregnancy, in many ways.
If people are that irresponsible, what makes you think they are responsible enough to actually take advantage of the "free" birth control being offered?

Some women have problems with BC pills. I probably don't have to tell you just how much condoms decrease the amount of sexual pleasure.

You can't force responsibility just like you can't force morality, especially in this situation.
 

idiotekniQues

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2007
2,572
0
71
this would be great, even better with a mandatory sterilization of ann coulter, dick cheney & rush limbaugh
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
One has to wonder if those in favor of such a proposal (free birth control) are the same people who are all for reforming immigration policy to the tune of legalizing the illegals. Probably the same folks who also support the belief that the US should allow known HIV infected people into the country from other nations.

Yeah, providing free birth control is all about public welfare and the long term cost to our society.....right.
I support this proposal, and I also support the immediate deportation of known illegals along with massive penalties to those who employ them.

See ya later, Cairoswordsman's theory!
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Cairoswordsman
One has to wonder if those in favor of such a proposal (free birth control) are the same people who are all for reforming immigration policy to the tune of legalizing the illegals. Probably the same folks who also support the belief that the US should allow known HIV infected people into the country from other nations.

Yeah, providing free birth control is all about public welfare and the long term cost to our society.....right.
There is so much wrong with your statement that instead of commenting on it I will just advise that you seek professional help.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY