Mugabe Forcing Foreign Companies to Be Locally Owned  |   Home  |   Banning Anonymity in Kentucky

$30 For Birth Control

Heh.

She said the cost of birth control at university and low-income clinics across the country has risen sharply in the last year. “A pack of birth control pills for one month is now $30. It was $8,” she said.

Most college kids will spend more than $30 a month on beer and aspirin.  Certainly, having kids and abortions are more expensive than this.  Is $30 all that unreasonable to prevent pregnancy?

Posted by Owen at 1932 hrs
Culture + Politics + Politics - General

1. It’s not about whether it’s reasonable or not.  it’s whether the lower price facilitates more use and fewer unwanted pregnancies.  If it does, I’m willing to subsidize the heck out of it.

   Posted by scott on March 09, 2008 at 1949 hrs
   
   
   

2. Well—hey!

   30 aspirins, properly placed, are guaranteed-effective means of birth control.

   So you have a money-saving idea AND—ta-da—no social diseases, to boot!!

   Posted by dad29 on March 09, 2008 at 2033 hrs
   
   
   

3. If it does, I’m willing to subsidize the heck out of it.

   Go ahead then.  Write out some checks.  By all means, no one here would stop you.  Oh, you meant that we all have to subsidize it?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2008 at 2114 hrs
   
   
   

4. scott shows once again the mind of a liberal.  Person engages in inappropriate behavior, is irresponsible and then expects everyone else to subsidize their behavior.
   If it is that important, then add a $30 surcharge to female college students to their tuition.
   For the low income, if you want to give it to them, then they have to something in return.  Community service, obtaining a H.S. diploma or GED, or sign a contract regarding their behavior.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2008 at 2214 hrs
   
   
   

5. It’s not about whether it’s reasonable or not.

   Ha!  You finally admit it!!

   

   Posted by Deibert on March 09, 2008 at 2223 hrs
   
   
   

6. Jason: So do you not want to subsidize birth control if it could be shown that doing so reduced unwanted pregnancies and probably abortions, too?  Why not? What would be the rationale for that, I wonder?

   Posted by scott on March 09, 2008 at 2242 hrs
   
   
   

7. As a college student I can tell you the average student spends about $10, maybe $15 a week on alcohol…. and sometimes a lot more.

   Posted by Brandon on March 09, 2008 at 2347 hrs
   
   
   

8. Holy isht… I agree with scott. More unwanted pregnancies = more girls dropping out of college, more abortions, and therefore more money paid out by the state. I’d rather subsidize the prevention than the aftermath. I’m around college-aged kids every week -> responsibility isn’t their strong suit.

   Posted by Fuzz on March 10, 2008 at 0552 hrs
   
   
   

9. Jason: So do you not want to subsidize birth control if it could be shown that doing so reduced unwanted pregnancies and probably abortions, too?  Why not? What would be the rationale for that, I wonder?

   Let’s not make this about me.  You stated what you wanted.  Go ahead and do what you want… start buying BC for people… no one is stopping you.  Have you ever done that before?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 0711 hrs
   
   
   

10. 30 bucks is an effort though. An effort a lot of college students are not so willing to shell out for when, as you pointed out, they want booze among other cheap temptations.

    Posted by Lester on March 10, 2008 at 0824 hrs
    
    
    

11. Jason, stop trying to dodge the issue.  If subsidizing birth control results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, why would you not want to do that?  Seems to me like there are a lot of reasons to do so.  It would reduce a large amount of human misery, for one.  It would reduce poverty.  Probably long-term it might have an impact on crime, as well.  And ultimately it may cost you and me a whole lot less to pay for some birth control than it would to provide the social programs and prisons that some of these folks would require years down the road.  (Financial.  That part at least you should understand.)

    So with all those things going for it, why would you not want to subsidize it? 

    I’m not making this “personal.”  I’m asking you a legitimate question.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 0829 hrs
    
    
    

12. Wow scott, you posted a lot of claims in #11.  Prove them. I want to see studies that show that reducing cost of BC from $30 to $8 results in your claims.  Can you prove how social programs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies have risen since the cost has gone from $8 to $30?

    You want it subsidized, what have you done on your own to help?  Anything?  I think I asked you that once already.  Why not answer?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 0854 hrs
    
    
    

13. Birth control pills aren’t the only way to prevent pregnancy. Condoms are still pretty cheap, they also have the added bonus of helping prevent the spread of various STDs…

    Posted by Matt on March 10, 2008 at 0934 hrs
    
    
    

14. I’m a guy that generally opposes government subsidies for anything, but I think subsidizing birth control is actually a pretty okay use of government money, all things considered.  In fact, I’d mandate it in a lot of cases.  Like, I would say that in order to collect a wellfare check, you have to be sterilized or given a monthly birth control shot (like when you pick up your check).  (Scott disagrees with this, which shows that he’s not really all that concerned about preventing unwanted pregnancies).

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1031 hrs
    
    
    

15. Jason:  So is it safe to say that if those things were true you’d agree that we should subsidize it?

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1045 hrs
    
    
    

16. scott, why are you doing this?  Don’t put words in my mouth. Back up your claims.  Back up your beliefs by spending your own money to lower “social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.  You’re smarter than this, don’t try to strawman me.  You’ve made the claims here.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1101 hrs
    
    
    

17. In fact, I’d mandate it in a lot of cases.  Like, I would say that in order to collect a wellfare check, you have to be sterilized or given a monthly birth control shot (like when you pick up your check).

    Jesus guy… How can you possibly say that birth control should be mandated?  I don’t know if you’re Catholic, or even religious for that matter, but that is a fundamental religious freedom in my view.  In fact, I just read today that the Vatican declared some more mortal sins, with contraception being one of them.  I’m not Catholic, but seriously, how is someone supposed to obey the religious leaders when the state is mandating them to have birth control?  Obviously, you could just say that they aren’t being “forced” to take the check, but if you mandate that the public does one thing, is it really that far of a step to mandate that they take the check?  I don’t think so.  I think its very within the realm of possibility.

    Posted by Brandon on March 10, 2008 at 1157 hrs
    
    
    

18. Red wine has been shown to reduce heart disease.  Perhaps the government should subsidiize the Burgundy I like.    Better yet, the government should mandate that all people people purchase wine.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1246 hrs
    
    
    

19. Far from Left,
    Perhaps mandate isn’t the right word.  It would be something you had to do in exchange for collecting a wellfare check.  Why do you think people should be able to make more mouths to feed when they can’t even take care of themselves and need government assisitance?  I don’t see what being Catholic would have to do with it.  Government is supposed to be noncognizant of religion.

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1309 hrs
    
    
    

20. haha, I like jesus’ idea. I doubt it’d ever fly though.

    Posted by Matt on March 10, 2008 at 1323 hrs
    
    
    

21. Jesus’ idea has an appeal I can understand, but there are far too many thorns on that bush.  I don’t see how it can be made workable.

    What I still fail to understand, though, is why someone would not want to subsidize birth control among populations who obviously should be using more of it.  Is it because you feel it’s ineffectual?  That I might understand.  We could have that argument.  Or is it that you’d rather see the unwanted pregnancies and say “I’m not responsible, you are”?  That just seems like a very short-sighted if not downright juvenile response.

    I think there’s a lot more value in solving a problem than worrying about who is and isn’t being responsible enough for themselves.  Especially when the consequences affect us all, such as is the case with unwanted pregnancies.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1337 hrs
    
    
    

22. Why do you think people should be able to make more mouths to feed when they can’t even take care of themselves and need government assisitance?

    Um.  Last time I checked, we’re a free country.  I reserve EVERY right to make more mouths to feed at ANY time.  What’s next?  Mandating the number of kids someone may have? 

    Government is supposed to be noncognizant of religion.

    Um.  No.  First amendment:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

    Mandating that I be sterile in order to receive ANYTHING from the government prevents me from freely exercising my religion.

    Posted by Brandon on March 10, 2008 at 1356 hrs
    
    
    

23. First, reserve that right all you want.  Don’t choose to trade it for wellfare then.  It’s that easy.  Governments set up situations where people have to trade rights if they want services all the time.

    Second, no it doesn’t prevent you from freely exercising your religion.  It prevents you from recieving government aid.  And yes, I’ve read the first amendment and basically every commentary on it that’s been written.  A fair shorthand of it would be, “Government will be noncognizant of religion.”

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1424 hrs
    
    
    

24. I mean, if your assessment of the first amendment is right, why don’t I just make up a religion that forbids me to pay taxes?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1438 hrs
    
    
    

25. Jason, stop trying to dodge the issue.  If subsidizing birth control results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, why would you not want to do that?  Seems to me like there are a lot of reasons to do so.  It would reduce a large amount of human misery, for one.  It would reduce poverty.  Probably long-term it might have an impact on crime, as well.  And ultimately it may cost you and me a whole lot less to pay for some birth control than it would to provide the social programs and prisons that some of these folks would require years down the road.  (Financial.  That part at least you should understand.)

    Getting pretty close to eugenics, eh…?

    This is where the subsidization argument starts to break down when we start discussing societal cost savings as does the argument for socialized medicine.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1452 hrs
    
    
    

26. Getting pretty close to eugenics, eh…?

    Uh, no.  Not really.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1514 hrs
    
    
    

27. scott, you’ve made some great claims in this thread.  I’m interested in your source.  I’ve asked for them, can you please share them with us?  I’m all for lower of all of the following, “social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.

    Please share it with me and the rest of the world, so we can solve problems.  I’ve got my checkbook ready.  If you don’t, then it seems like a short-sighted if not downright juvenile response.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1519 hrs
    
    
    

28. Damn it pains me to admit that I agree with JIJARWM. 

    Just like W2 there is a trade off for the welfare money.  I would be all in favor of govt aid recipients to be either sterilized or on BC.  At 10-15,000 per child born in med costs alone that tax payers have to pay, I am all for ‘mandated’ contraceptives.  If a person doesn’t want the contraceptives for ANY reason, then they don’t have to go on the government cheese.

    Posted by Clint on March 10, 2008 at 1528 hrs
    
    
    

29. So you would support subsidizing birth control if it were proven to do those things, right Jason?  How about if I claim that the more birth control is subsidized, the more its used and the more its used the fewer unwanted pregnancies occur.  Would that be enough?  If not, why not?

    Man!  Half of you want forced sterilization for people to receive government assistance, the other half gets bellicose when asked to subsidize the pill for college students.  Is there no middle ground here??

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1543 hrs
    
    
    

30. Actually Scott - no there isn’t.

    Taxpayers are already subsidizing their education.  They are already subsidizing the loans on the subsidized education.  They are subsidizing the alcohol that they drink (using the left over loan money on booze - that is what I did)

    I have an idea - if all campuses become “dry”, then there will be less sex - therefore fewer pregnacies.  Hell the students would probably learn more and get a better value out of their heavily subsidized education.

    
    If any BC should be subsidized, I would tend to lean toward Matt’s sugestion

    Birth control pills aren’t the only way to prevent pregnancy. Condoms are still pretty cheap, they also have the added bonus of helping prevent the spread of various STDs…

    It would be a lot more effective use of taxpayer moneys

    Posted by Clint on March 10, 2008 at 1550 hrs
    
    
    

31. Scott,
    I want both.  I’m the middle ground!  This is actually weird since it’s one of very few issues where I’m basically on the pro-big-government side.  It would be better if we just had market-driven healthcare and the cost of brith control went way down.

    Also, we should sterilize many criminals too.  It could be part of their extended supervision or parole or whatever.  So, like if you commited a crime you’d get 5 years in prison and 2 years parol/sterilization. (Yes they can reverse it).  Scott, if I could prove that such a program would reduce social program costs, prison costs, crime etc., you’d be for it, right?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1553 hrs
    
    
    

32. JIJAWM has no qualms about opening up a nice fat can of ethical worms.  I have often thought about the same thing.  I have no doubt that forced birth control would reduce a number of problems.  That does not mean it is just.

    It is a political non-starter.  The hard left and the hard right would be steadfast against it.  The left from a human rights perspective and the religious right from a reproductive rights perspective.

    You can’t give the government that much power.  I would not support it.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1601 hrs
    
    
    

33. 3rd Way - In what country do you live in which the government doesn’t already have too much power.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch.  If x wants government cheese then the people who fund gov’t should get some assurances that x doesn’t create any more mouths to feed that cheese to.

    Posted by Clint on March 10, 2008 at 1604 hrs
    
    
    

34. I guess I do not see this as a big issue, I would rather subsidize birth control than abortions, or the long term social problems with unwanted pregnancies (increased poverty, etc. 

    However, is birth control really that expensive now?  I mean don’t most health clinics offer free condoms?  I hope this does not sound sexist, but if I was a girl, and the guy would not wear a condom, then he would have to be disappointed. 

    I just think that it is a pennywise pound foolish, not to provide some sort of government subsidy for this if need be.  There are way more subsidies that the government is giving to people than this.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1610 hrs
    
    
    

35. 3rd Way,
    That much power?  I assume that you are against prisons in general than, right?  Obviously, taking away a person’s right to liberty (which is what you’re doing when you send someone to prison) is harsher than taking away a person’s ability to reproduce for a few years, no?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1622 hrs
    
    
    

36. And did you just say that religious right was in favor of reproductive rights?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1623 hrs
    
    
    

37. So you would support subsidizing birth control if it were proven to do those things, right Jason?

    Again, this isn’t about me, stop projecting.  Answer my questions.  You have said you hold the key to lowering ““social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.  Why won’t you share that with the rest of your fellow citizens?  Are you that short sighted, or that juvenile, or are you on middle ground - short sighted AND juvenile?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1624 hrs
    
    
    

38. Listen, Jason.  Before I become someone’s Google bitch, trying to find documentation all over the internet (for you to promptly dismiss, no doubt), I want some assurance that it’ll actually be relevant to the discussion.  Specifically, would you support subsidizing BC if it led to fewer unwanted pregnancies?  If the answer is no, then I don’t feel like going on a wild goose chase.  If the answer is yes, then maybe there’s a point to it after all. So which is it?

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1628 hrs
    
    
    

39. I think that the Left would actually be all for that, despite the human rights issue.  Case in point: abortion.  The far left is all for killing babies.

    Posted by Brandon on March 10, 2008 at 1647 hrs
    
    
    

40. I don’t know how the religious right characterizes their stance on contraception (reproductive rights?).  I do know they are against contraception.  I would wager they would be against it even in the case of the fictitious cadillac driving welfare queen.

    A woman only has small window of time in which to responsibly reproduce.  Taking her ability to do that away because she is on welfare or probation is stepping over the line ethically in my book.  I would be in favor of free birth control at her request, accompanied with counseling that suggests her reproducing is not a good idea.  But forcing her to do it is more power than I think the government should have.

    I would not argue against reversible sterilization of the least responsible and most criminal men.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1650 hrs
    
    
    

41. “...over the line ethically in my book.”

    Your book is inconsistent and silly.  That window is not that small.  Lots of people that have kids while on wellfare are pretty young.  Most of the pregnancies that would be prevented would be ooopses (Scott has a magic button that would do the same).  I guess I don’t get how some of you guys on the left/right can just say, “it’s wrong because ‘ethically’ blah blah blah.”  “Ethically” is a stupid word with a malleable definition.  You’re opposing a (fictitious) program that would help a LOT of people but for some reason it’s unethical.  Okay, whatever.

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1657 hrs
    
    
    

42. scott,  stop trying to be some type of victim.  No one is picking on you, no one is yelling at you, no one is claiming you’re making this up.

    You made some claims about saving a money on social programs, reducing crime, et alii.  If you don’t want to convince anyone here of your claims, then by all means, don’t become someone’s “Google bitch”.  It’s no bother to me.  However, I would have thought that you of all people would have had references ready when making such grand assertions.  If you think it’s a wild goose chase to prove your point of view, then why even share it in the first place. 

    I also find it rather revealing that after initial questioning, you you amended your statements to something much more mundane and much less Utopian that what you started with.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1658 hrs
    
    
    

43. Make claims, then whine about being asked to properly substantiate them with data.  HA!

    Posted by Calvin Freiburger on March 10, 2008 at 1700 hrs
    
    
    

44. I think that Scott’s claim is pretty obviously true, at least to some degree.  Statistically, all of those problems increase with children born to younger, unmarried parents without degrees, and college kids are overwhelmingly young and unmarried and not yet finnished with a degree.  (However, they are all on their way to a degree, so already they aren’t the group that we should be most concerned about in this regard).

    It’s pretty close to that bit in Freakonomics about abortion too.  The people most likely to get abortions after Roe v. Wade are also the people most likely to give birth to criminals.  Statistically speaking anyway.  I’m not sure if all of the same reasons are there when we’re talking about birth control and college kids.  But the fact of the matter is that you’re much more worse off if you’re having kids by mistake, while young, while unmarried and while unemployed.  Subsudizing birth control would probably have an affect on this.

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 10, 2008 at 1711 hrs
    
    
    

45. This has been a great discussion, guys.  Thanks. 

    As I see it, there are really four issues swirling around here.

    1) Should government subsidize birth control for college kids?  Personally, I don’t think so.  Kids who are in college should be able to manage this. 

    2) Should government subsidize birth control for people who can’t afford it?  I don’t have a problem with this.  I do think that Scott is correct that the long term effects of accidental procreation by people who can’t afford it are undesirable.  And the poor college kids would qualify too.  (note: this should not be a federal government thing)

    3) How much should the government subsidize?  This is a bit stickier.  While I agree with Scott about the benefits of subsidizing birth control, I question where the appropriate amount is.  Does the difference between making people pay $30 instead of $8 result in a measurable difference in the outcome?  I don’t think so, but I haven’t seen any data on this either way.

    4) Should the government force people to take birth control or otherwise control their behavior is they receive a government benefit.  This has all kind of implications when considering things like Healthy Wisconsin.  Should the government regulate our procreation?  Our diet?  Our hobbies?  Our vices?  For those of you advocating government-run health care, consider that there are a lot of people who will make the argument that they should be able to control your behavior in exchange for your benefit.

    Posted by Owen on March 10, 2008 at 1736 hrs
    
    
    

46. I think that Scott’s claim is pretty obviously true, at least to some degree.

    I think there might be some tiny threads of truth of his revised statement, statistically speaking, but I completely reject his first response to me.  Something he has yet to answer.  I still am wondering just how much he has spent in the past year on this.  If it’s such a great and noble solution, then why is he only willing to subsidize it.  I’d think that if a person supports it so much as to want to “subsidize the heck out of it”, they’d be doing so privately and voluntarily in the interim. 

    Heck, some type of study showing causal linkage between the increase of BC price (from $8 / month to $30 / month) and an increase in college student pregnancies would be a great start.  Certainly it would be much more meaningful than the personal opinion of a junior in college.

    What I find most ironic here, is that scott’s statement leads me to think that he doesn’t trust the judgment abilities of college aged women.  I also think this is true of a lot of liberals out there.  The irony comes in when those same liberals say “Of course a woman has the right to choose on abortion.”  So, in general, women are not responsible enough to say no to sex, but they are responsible enough to say yes to abortion.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1737 hrs
    
    
    

47. JIJAWM,
    Ethically does not have a malleable definition.  People may be inconsistent or hypocritical but the word is not.
    As far as birth control being helpful to alot of people; this is a false claim.  Not having an unwanted baby is being considered a positive consequence.  The best way to not have a baby is to not have sex.  This does not require any assistance unless you are also claiming that those in question are mere animals.  What is being requested is that others provide money so that some can have sex and still not have unwanted babies.  To take from others to allow some to engage in behaviors that have unwanted results is unethical.  I may have behaviors that I want to use my money for.  I think I should get first crack at my money.

    Tad

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1739 hrs
    
    
    

48. Why are you so consistently combative JIJAWM?  I don’t think I have ever seen you converse in a comment thread where you didn’t end up indignant. 

    Ethically is not a stupid word.  Its definition is certainly malleable, but most of us like to think ethics are important.

    Based on laws that may or may not be just a government should not be given the right to control who can or cannot reproduce.  I apply the same principle to capital punishment.  Everyone has a right to life, a right to give it and the right to maintain their own.  I am not going to argue with anyone about what constitutes a “life”.  I don’t want to get into another malleable definition.

    Taking away someone right to reproduce based on economic hardship is unjust based on my ethical standards, and (here is another word you may not like) morals.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1744 hrs
    
    
    

49. For those of you advocating government-run health care, consider that there are a lot of people who will make the argument that they should be able to control your behavior in exchange for your benefit.

    Those people already exist, Owen.  They’re called your friendly neighborhood insurance underwriters.  And your employer.  The future you fear so much is already here.

    Jason, for someone who railed against me for making it “personal,” I notice you keep inquiring about my charitable giving.  Let me give you the complete scoop on that: it’s absolutely none of your goddamned business.  And having said that in no way makes my argument false or hypocritical.  In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

    I stand with those who think the gist of what I’m saying is “obviously true.”  If you, Jason, believe it’s not, fine.  If your rationale for not subsidizing birth control is that you believe it doesn’t do any of those good things, okay.  I think you’re wrong, but okay.  If your reasons are more along the lines of “those benefits might or might not be true, but I just don’t want to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility, then I reject your position as cold-hearted and short-sighted; pennywise and pound foolish.

    And I reiterate: I’m not going to do a bunch of research on those points if your position is that you don’t care about them one way or the other.  That’s why I’m asking.  I’ve been in too many circular discussions here to fall for it.  If you are prepared to change your position in the face of such evidence, that’s one thing.  If you’re not, well I don’t see why I should waste my time or yours.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 1836 hrs
    
    
    

50. JIJARWM,  I really enjoyed Freakonomics, but the abortion part of it (which I thought was fascinating, and horrifyingly believable) was discredited.  In the most recent edition of the book, I read somewhere that the author had to change it. 

    [Just FYI, not saying anything about your argument.  I’m not swimming in this pool today.  ]

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 1920 hrs
    
    
    

51. $30.00 for birth control, here’s a free way to prevent an unwanted pregnancy it’s called; A-B-S-T-I-N-E-N-C-E.  Just saying no to being promiscuous, but alas, that’s too practical.  Those college kids are going to have sex anyway and we must provide whatever means (short of actually telling them to behave) to prevent the consequences of such actions.  Sorry, I’m too weary of the excuses people make to excuse rampant, irresponsible behavoir!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2039 hrs
    
    
    

52. Finger-wagging isn’t going to solve any problems, Mary.  It’s not going to prevent any unwanted pregnancies, nor any unwed mothers, nor any single-parent households, nor any undereducated parents—nor any abortions.  It may make you feel great to be so ideologically pure, but while abstinence itself is a highly effective means of preventing pregnancy, preaching it is not.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 2045 hrs
    
    
    

53. Scott,
    I agree that preaching will not prevent any unwanted pregnancy.  But providing birth control, even if free, will not prevent any pregnancies.  The person still must decide to take the birth control regularly.  We are still relying on their behavior. I want to drink and smoke.  Can I get society to sponsor that?  It is bad for me and bad for society and I really want to do it.  that seems to be the only qualification for societal sponsorship.  If you agree that the behavior is bad for society, it seems counter-intuitive to sponsor the behavior.  Why not encourage society to go the other way.  society can place a tax on each child born and eliminate the tax break/tax credit for each child.  Most studies that I have seen show that taking money (or something of value) has the most success in changing behavior.
    Tad

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2158 hrs
    
    
    

54. I disagree with you on a few key points.  First, sex between adults is not a “bad behavior”—unless it’s done without contraception and prophylactic measures.  Second, I do believe that providing contraceptives does prevent pregnancies.  Not all, but some.  And there’s no evidence that providing it—or sex education—encourages promiscuity.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 2202 hrs
    
    
    

55. Scott,
    You agree that unprotected sex (when the people do not want children) is bad for society.  Then why do you want to sponsor that behavior?  As for providing contraceptive preventing unwanted pregnancies-there is no causal relationship between having contraceptives and taking contraceptives.  You are relying on the behavior of the person.  They are not forced to take the contraceptive.  You are trusting them to take the contraceptive.  If you can not understand causality that would help me understand many of your views.
    Tad

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2219 hrs
    
    
    

56. I’m not going to do a bunch of research on those points if your position is that you don’t care about them one way or the other.

    So you don’t have any research done to support your statements.  They’re just touchy-feely with you.  That’s fine, I just wanted to know if you had or not. 

    BTW, I’m always willing to review my positions in light of new evidence.  I don’t know everything, and will gladly admit when I’m wrong.  I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that lowering the cost of BC to college aged women will result in your dreams of lower “social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.  Of course, you did flip flop on that, so I guess something was accomplished with this side discussion.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2222 hrs
    
    
    

57. You agree that unprotected sex (when the people do not want children) is bad for society.  Then why do you want to sponsor that behavior?

    I’m not sponsoring unsafe sex.  I’m sponsoring safety.  You’re confused about something.

    Jason, I think I’m bowing out of our little dispute.  Go ahead and claim yourself the victor.  My compliments.  Me, I don’t like to spend half a day researching a topic only to have my debate partner say “oh, the new york times?  Pshaw!” or “Academics!  They’re only angling for grant money.”  Yes, I have had these responses many, many times here and on other conservative blogs.  So I have a new policy.  You admit up front that evidence would change your opinion, or I don’t waste my life casting pearls of wonkishness before ideological swine.

    Nevertheless… one single Google search on “subsidized contraception impact on pregnancy rates” yields this kind of thing from the NIH.  I guess it probably means nothing to you.

    Just out of curiosity, though… do you believe that unwanted pregnancies are related to poverty?  Do you believe that poverty is related to crime?  I mean, what part of this argument strikes you as unlikely?  Or maybe you’re just trying to be a show-me jerk, making me prove and document everything I say because you’re pretty sure I won’t bother and you can subsequently claim victory.

    Well, as I said: you can win.  Congrats.

    Posted by scott on March 10, 2008 at 2237 hrs
    
    
    

58. soott, et al, why do you humor these imbeciles?

    Let them scream about social service costs or incarceration rate costs 15-20 years from now.

    They do not have a clue!

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2301 hrs
    
    
    

59. Excuse me for being an anachronism, but I call sexual activity outside of marriage fornication.  Unfortunately I belong to a generation that advocated/s sexual licensciousness.  Sex was originally intended to be between a man and his wife, but we have made it into a recreational past time without regard to the horrible consequences that ensue.  Artificial birth control has made having sexual relations physically easier, with the chance lessened of a woman getting pregnant, still there’s the matter of STD’s and these diseases are becoming more resistant to the drugs to treat them.  It’s utterly tragic when we let our lust for instant gratification override common sense.  It’s far more noble to teach our children to master their passions, learn to wait, and delay gratification.  Sometimes waiting isn’t so bad.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2008 at 2329 hrs
    
    
    

60. so, the bottom line, engage in sex and be rewarded by the taxpayers.  No personal responsibility, no consequences.  Just let the tax payers pay for it.  We’ll pay for everything, because the tax payers are suckers. 
    Then you wonder why there are problems in the inner city, The fact is liberal social programs have been a complete and utter failure.  The liberals are the one’s responsible for today’s problems for the poverty problems in the country.  It is the stupid reasoning by scott and the other liberal’s that have caused the problems in this country.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 0107 hrs
    
    
    

61. Scott -

    From #49

    For those of you advocating government-run health care, consider that there are a lot of people who will make the argument that they should be able to control your behavior in exchange for your benefit.

    Those people already exist, Owen.  They’re called your friendly neighborhood insurance underwriters.  And your employer.  The future you fear so much is already here.

    Here is the difference between private sector health insurance and government run insurance -

    With private health/life coverage if I CHOOSE to smoke, drink or be fat, I can still do it but pay a higher premium.

    With government run health coverage, the government will just outlaw anything that will make me fat, smoke or drink.  I wont have that choice.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0733 hrs
    
    
    

62. I mean, what part of this argument strikes you as unlikely?

    I guess it’s the part where we’re talking about college aged girls.  I think it’s highly unlikely that a majority of them are near “below 200% of the poverty line.”  Of course, you could say that they actually are at that income level, because they’re adults, and not living at home, and likely to have at most a part time job, but I think that’s disingenuous. 

    I also have to ask, how did our country, and the young adults in the world survive pre-subsidized birth control, or even before any type of birth control?  Did the rate of unwanted pregnancies, or abortions drop sharply (think of an upside down hockey stick all you global warming nuts) in the 60’s when oral contraceptives were introduced?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 0749 hrs
    
    
    

63. Well, Clint, I think that’s a pretty alarmist view.  I mean, is that how it is in other countries?  Junk food is “outlawed”?  Tobacco is illegal?  It doesn’t seem to me that our freedom to be unhealthy is being significantly infringed.  But you know what problems we do have?  People can’t afford medical care or insurance and millions of us are going without.  I suggest we deal with the issues at hand and not worry over much about problems that nobody is actually experiencing.

    I call sexual activity outside of marriage fornication.

    Go ahead and call it whatever you want, but until you find a way to actually convince other people not to do it let’s get busy solving some of our problems, shall we?  Ineffectual moralizing is not a substitute for sound policy.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0750 hrs
    
    
    

64. Junk food is “outlawed”?  Tobacco is illegal?

    Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to other countries too well.  Hell you obviously havn’t been paying much attention here in the US.

    The UK has been (or already had) instituited a ‘Twinkie’ tax on junk food.  I have even seen the articles from US based Liberal think tanks that are pushing the idea.

    And look at the US for all of the recent anti-tobacco legislation.  You can’t smoke anywhere in the state of California execpt your own house/car.  And from what I remember, they are even proposing legislation that you can’t smoke in your house/car if other people are in either.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0756 hrs
    
    
    

65. Uh huh.  So in other words you can still eat your twinkies and smoke your cigarettes.  Simultaneously, if you want.  Even in the UK, that bastion of communist ideology.  Heh.

    I’m all for taxing junk food.  Or at least compelling makers to have a big scary label on the front of the package.  That’s a lot different than banning something, Clint.  And that’s what you were talking about above.

    Another thing to note.  You’re citing these disturbing trends here in the US, but it doesn’t really bolster your claim that tax-funded health insurance triggers these things.  After all, we don’t yet have such a system here.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0804 hrs
    
    
    

66. Ok Scott -

    What was the tax on a pack of cigerettes 20 years ago??  $.25 - .50 a pack??  What is it today?  $3.50 - $5.00 a pack.  Every time the tax was increased it was to help pay ‘societies share of the increased medical cost’  and that was without gov’t health insurance.  When/if we have socialized medicine, how much more do you think that tax will go up??  Do you honestely think that wil will stop with just tobacco?  There have already been calls to tax other ‘less than healthy’ food consumables.

    Don’t kid yourself Scott.  You know as well as I do, that what starts as a quarter soon becomes a dollar and then 5.  And the excuse will be the same - “We (Gov’t) want to discourage this behavior so we are going to impose this tax.”

    Do you see a big difference between a ban and a 4-5x cost tax on something??  There isn’t that big of a difference.  It is what you would call semantics.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0812 hrs
    
    
    

67. how did our country, and the young adults in the world survive pre-subsidized birth control, or even before any type of birth control?  Did the rate of unwanted pregnancies, or abortions drop sharply

    Actually, the rate of teenage pregnancies has been dropping since the 1950s, although not as much as it has in other countries.  The chief difference?  They have greater rates of contraceptive use than we do.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0812 hrs
    
    
    

68. Tad,

    “The best way to not have a baby is to not have sex…”

    I think you might be doing it wrong.

    3rd Way,

    I’m not really combative or indignant.  I state my case.  Sometimes I can be a little snarky, but mostly, I think that some of my charm is lost in the printed word.

    Wendy,

    As far as I know, the abortion part of Freakonomics has NOT been discredited.  The revised addition contained a change to the KKK chapter, not the abortion part.  There have been a few b-grade internet economists that have tried to poke holes in the theory, but most of them (at least the ones I read) missed the point of the theory and obviously worked their science backwards.

    Mary,

    “Sex was originally intended to be between a man and his wife…”

    Sex has been going on for a LOT longer than marriage has existed.  Marriage is a relatively new invention. 

    Scott/Clint/Owen

    I suppose, in a way, the “twinkie tax” acchieves a lot of the same goals as underwriting private insurance.  I.e. those at higher risk pay more into the pot.  It’s probably a far less precise prediction tool than what private underwriters use though.

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 11, 2008 at 0855 hrs
    
    
    

69. Debate over JIJARWM has finished it…

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0900 hrs
    
    
    

70. scott, you’re all over the place.  This topic was started about college girls and the price of birth control.  You just jumped to “Actually, the rate of teenage pregnancies has been dropping since the 1950s”

    Come on, try to stay on topic.  Most college girls are not considered teenagers anymore, even if some are Nineteen.

    Even though it’s not on topic, thankfully, I now know better ask you to qualify it.  And just to clarify, when you say “the rate of teenage pregnancies has been dropping since the 1950s” you mean that year over year between 1950 and 2008, the rate of teenage pregnancies has declined?  Every year for 58 years, there has been a decline from each previous year?  I know you’re going to come back and say I’m playing the semantics card, or taking it to literally, but I’m just trying to understand exactly what you are telling us.  Why?  Because Owen posted a link to a blurb from a college girl saying that oral BC prices have changed drastically, and now you’re talking about global teenage pregnancy rates.  I can’t follow you.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 0907 hrs
    
    
    

71. And Scott about the Health Coverage -

    From Blue Cross a family of 4 can get a catastrophe plan for $2-300/month depending on deductible.

    $305.54/month covers two adults two kids (non-smokers - sorry the site is too slow to get a price on smokers) with a $3,000 deductible.

    Yes that is a health insurance plan and not a health coverage plan.  But still rather affordable all things considered.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0912 hrs
    
    
    

72. Whoa!  Protection against catastrophic illness and injury for a mere $300 a month!  Call the media.  The health care crisis is officially over baby!

    Seriously, that’s so pathetic I can’t even decide where to start.  The idea that a family should have to settle for catastrophic insurance only is incredibly sad.  They won’t go to the doctor.  They won’t get regular care.  Small conditions will become big ones.  Chronic conditions will get neglected.  Their health will suffer.  Meanwhile, for the privilege of knowing that they won’t go bankrupt if dad needs a bypass, they can pay 10% of their income.  Plus, dad will probably be dead anyway, because he won’t know he needs the bypass until he lands in the emergency room—the emergency room they’ll agonize over going to because they’ll have to pay hundreds of dollars, and isn’t just indigestion?  Christ. 

    I bet that same $300 buys health insurance in the UK that’s more comprehensive than your average American HMO.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0924 hrs
    
    
    

73. Ahh yes - $300 a month - or what MPS pays for a mere $21,000/year.

    I would love to get that check for $21,000 a year - buy my own coverage and pay my doctor $50/visit

    Tell me - since you are all about the government making decisions for me - can I go to the bathroom now - I gotta pee??

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0930 hrs
    
    
    

74. It is not MPS’s fault that health care in this country is ridiculously expensive.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 0940 hrs
    
    
    

75. Clint wants to talk about how much he hates MPS, Jason wants to descend into a pedantic debate about whether a nineteen year old is really a teenager and whether any of the NIH data I cited is even remotely applicable to our debate… 

    I try.  I really try.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0943 hrs
    
    
    

76. You are right 3rd Way - Just like it isn’t the government job to ‘solve’ the ‘crisis’ by buying everyones health coverage.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0944 hrs
    
    
    

77. I don’t hate MPS - I just disagree with a few of the things that they waste taxpayer money on that’s all.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0945 hrs
    
    
    

78. Actually, Clint, I think that’s a brilliant way to solve the crisis.  Unfortunately, we’re in for a decade of half-measures before we get there.  such is the state of American politics.  We need Medicare for all and we need it today.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 0949 hrs
    
    
    

79. Scott - as smart as you are it scares me to think that you believe medicare ‘for all’ is the solution.  According to my grandfather - it certainly isn’t all it is cracked up to be.  According to Dr’s, it definately isn’t all that it is cracked up to be. 

    Medicare ‘for all’ is the last thing that the country needs.  Well besides Ralph Nader

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0953 hrs
    
    
    

80. When you consider the roots of today’s HC crisis started in the 60’s and 70’s when government started playing around with it, shouldn’t that tell you that government should be in the HC business.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 0955 hrs
    
    
    

81. No, it tells me you have no idea what our actual problems are, nor how many other countries manage not to have them.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1003 hrs
    
    
    

82. Those countries have other problems, albeit less of them.  Why not strive for a system with no problems?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 11, 2008 at 1015 hrs
    
    
    

83. Jason wants to descend into a pedantic debate about whether a nineteen year old is really a teenager and whether any of the NIH data I cited is even remotely applicable to our debate…

    hahaha, I called that.  I knew you would come back with a cry out to semantics.  You focused on one tiny sentence in my post… who’s playing the semantic game, honestly?

    The debate started with college girls and the increasing cost of oral BC.  You want to discuss worldwide teenage pregnancy rates now, and the only reason to do that is to try to generalize enough to allow you to back out of your incredulous claims of lowering “social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.  You’ve backed away from that initial statement with little acceptance that you were talking out of your ass.  You refuse to cite and specific sources relevant to the initial discussion - stating that you don’t want to be a “google bitch”. 

    Even though you’re way off topic trying to get some credibility back, I still don’t know what you meant - exactly - when you said “the rate of teenage pregnancies has been dropping since the 1950s”.  When I read that, I take it to mean that the highest point was in or near 1950, and it’s gone down every year since then.  You also have not shown how this is solely or primarily the result of subsidized oral BC, and not from other factors.

    And yet you have the gall to say “I try.  I really try.”  I completely disagree.  You’ve spent the past day posting 11 times specifically to my questions, yet you don’t want to post any relevant sources to support your claim.  I’m the one ‘trying’ here, really.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 1018 hrs
    
    
    

84. American health care is currently a D.  Other nations are probably ranking in the B range.  I would obviously like a system that’s an A+, but we also have to be realistic about what we are likely to achieve.  Should we try something new that’s never been tried and hope for that A+?  Or should be try to emulate the best of the other currently existing systems and take our B and go home?  My money is on this latter approach.  There’s a lot at stake here.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1021 hrs
    
    
    

85. Actually Scott - I believe that the solution is some type of high deductible coverage.

    It would employ free market principles to drive down cost (see Lasik).  People would also become more informed about their health care, ask better questions of the doctors and still have incentive to be responsible for their own health/lifestyle.

    40 years ago Teddy Kennedy said that HMO’s were the solution to the problem - how did that work out for you??

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 1024 hrs
    
    
    

86. Great, high deductible coverage.  Incentive for people not to go to the doctor.

    Look, our problem isn’t that people are consuming too much care because the cost is hidden from them.  On the contrary, one of our biggest problems is that the incentives are keeping people away from the doctor, causing poor health, leading to expensive care.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1032 hrs
    
    
    

87. Yes - you pay for what you use.  People will go to the doctor when they need to and not when they want to. 

    So what you are proposing is ‘free’ and people can go when ever they want to.

    I get the flu every year.  I know that I will be better in 24-48 hours.  Should I waste my gas to go to the doctor so that he can tell me I have the flu.

    When I hurt my shoulder a few years ago, the doctor told me exactly what was wrong after his exam.  But to make sure, he wanted me to have a $45oo MRI.  The MRI told him what he already knew.  If I had to pay for the MRI - I would have told him (the expert) to go ahead with the treatment and save the time and money on the MRI until the treatment was proven unsuccesfull. 

    Or if you prefer I can use your words against you…  Instead of “Great, high deductible coverage.  Incentive for people not to go to the doctor. “

    We can say “Great, high deductible coverage.  Incentive for people not to choose a healthy lifestyle”

    And instead of “one of our biggest problems is that the incentives are keeping people away from the doctor, causing poor health, leading to expensive care. “....

    We can say “With ‘free’ HC going to the doctor costs nothing, causing poor health, leading to expensive care. “

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 1041 hrs
    
    
    

88. People will go to the doctor when they need to

    No, they won’t.  They’ll avoid going because they will tell themselves it’s nothing.  Their incentive is to not go.  And the fact is, most people aren’t savvy enough to make a sound medical determination.  They’ll choose not to go and they’ll get sicker.  That’s pretty much how that works.

    Routine care and doctor visits are not the reason we pay double what everyone else pays.  Check into it.  It’s true.  If everyone got regular routine care, our total bill would go down not up.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1046 hrs
    
    
    

89. I’m with Clint.  Let’s go for the A+.

    Weren’t we talking about sex or something like that before?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 11, 2008 at 1048 hrs
    
    
    

90. I’m all for A+.  But what’s your plan?  Do something that makes brilliant sense to you ideologically but which has no track record of success in the real world?  And besides, is anything ever perfect?

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1050 hrs
    
    
    

91. Scott -

    We are going to have to disagree to agree or agree to disagree.

    Other than delivering the mail and funding the building of roads, the no government has done anything that I would call a success enough so that I would entrust them with my health care.

    I prefer to believe that people should be held responsible for their personal decisions.  And if that ‘thins’ the herd and removes less than desirable characteristis from the gene pool so be it.  (yes - it is a harsh position - but I have always been a fan of Ebenezer Scrooge)

    You believe that people (as a whole) are too stupid to be responsible for themselves and that government is the solution to what ails the world.  I just don’t have that much faith in any politician or group of politicians or politicians in general.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 1055 hrs
    
    
    

92. people should be held responsible for their personal decisions.  And if that ‘thins’ the herd and removes less than desirable characteristis from the gene pool so be it.

    Yeah, we disagree alright.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1102 hrs
    
    
    

93. Yes Scott - stupidity and laziness are not characterists that I want to fund to continue to be in the gene pool.

    Posted by Clint on March 11, 2008 at 1105 hrs
    
    
    

94. I’d rather rid the collective “us” of some different traits.  Like selfishness, cold-heartedness and indifference to the suffering of one’s fellow human beings.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1109 hrs
    
    
    

95. Scott,
    You’ve heard me pitch my plan many times.  And of course it’s not any likelier than my plan to sterilize wellfare recipients.  I whole-heartedly believe that this would be a better country if we implemented both.  (You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one…)  Even if they are unlikly, I still think ideas like this should be talked about.  And isn’t the comment section of some blog the perfect space for such discussions?

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 11, 2008 at 1131 hrs
    
    
    

96. Also, I hope you aren’t including me as someone who has shown selfishness, cold-heartedness, and indifference to the suffering of others.  I think from our discussions it’s been made clear that you are more indifferent to the suffering of other than I am.  (See e.g. our global warming discussions).

    Posted by jesusisjustalrightwithme on March 11, 2008 at 1134 hrs
    
    
    

97. I’m not accusing you of anything.  If anything, my remark was a not-so-subtle rebuke to Ebineezer Clint and his eugenics tendencies.

    Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1146 hrs
    
    
    

98. I once heard of a great idea. It had something to do with conducting experiments with our laws.

    For the example of fixing health care. You set out the criteria that when met means that the HC system is fixed. Then you try various solutions (socialized HC, burning down insurance companies, eating chocolate cake for breakfast, whatever) one at a time for a number of years, say ten. After the ten years of trying the mandated solution, you look at the results of the solution and compare that to your pre-determined definition of problem fixed. If the attempted solution did not meet the standards then all of the laws passed to conduct the experiment are null and void and you move on to something new.

    This could be done at the state level so we could conduct a number of experiments at once. I think setting the criteria for success at the outset is extremely important and will prevent bad laws from sticking around when they prove less than successful.

    Posted by Matt on March 11, 2008 at 1318 hrs
    
    
    

99. What I took from this post…

    Jason is a dweeb…c’mon, suggesting (over and over) that Scott should go out and give large portions of his money away because he believes free or subsidized birth control is a good idea is at worst asinine and at best a non-topic.

    Of all the things we should help college students with, liberal minded people believe free birth control is high on the list.  Not books, not tuition, not meal plans…freer sex.  See Scott, Tad had it right on the head.  You must still rely on the individual to take/use the BC.  Look at it this way.  Give every female student a $30.00 discount for each month to buy BC.  How many will do it?  How many groups will cry discrimination(my girlfriend doesn’t go to college…waaah).  Some women will use the discount as intended and I would bet my share of the tax that it is the same women who complain at the expense even as they go buy it anyway.  If you must so carefully educate them on BC and pay for their BC, they likely have not learned enough responsibility to take their BC.  The ones who learned the lesson know to get it regardless of cost. 

    You need to hit the Middle and High School girls to stop unwanted pregnancies.  Oh and I would bet if you researched you would find that unwanted teen pregnancies is much higher in the 80s and 90s than the 50s and 60s.  Raw data is deceiving.  In the age of manufacturing jobs right out of HS that could support a family, there was a lot more teen marriage (and teen sex that led to marriage) than now.

    JIJAWM, have you ever read the “Bio of a Space Tyrant” series by Piers Anthony?  If only we had the courage…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 1508 hrs
    
    
    

100. Jason is a dweeb…c’mon, suggesting (over and over) that Scott should go out and give large portions of his money away because he believes free or subsidized birth control is a good idea is at worst asinine and at best a non-topic.

     That’s not what I said at any time.  I asked if he ever did any subsidizing on a personal level.  Scott seems to be very much for subsidizing “the hell out of it”, as long as everyone is paying.  I wanted to know what his response would be since he’s willing to take money out of my wallet.  When he told me it was none of my business (which is a bullshit, juvenile cop out), I stopped asking.  I got my answer to the off topic question. 

     There’s a lot more in this conversation that he has not answered. 

     Finally, thanks, your criticism is greatly appreciated.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 1538 hrs
     
     
     

101. Jason, when I say subsidize it I do mean that I pay.  You and I and everyone else.  We all pay. 

     I pay taxes!  Really!  Plenty of them.

     Posted by scott on March 11, 2008 at 1541 hrs
     
     
     

102. What part are you denying ‘large portions’?

     I asked if he ever did any subsidizing on a personal level.

     Let’s not make this about me.  You stated what you wanted.  Go ahead and do what you want… start buying BC for people… no one is stopping you.  Have you ever done that before?

     You want it subsidized, what have you done on your own to help?  Anything?  I think I asked you that once already.  Why not answer?

     Back up your beliefs by spending your own money to lower “social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.

     Maybe I am wrong, but what do you think subsidizing means?  Oh and did you mean ‘other’questions like this?

     Answer my questions.  You have said you hold the key to lowering ““social programs costs, prison costs, crime, poverty, human misery, and unwanted pregnancies”.  Why won’t you share that with the rest of your fellow citizens?  Are you that short sighted, or that juvenile, or are you on middle ground - short sighted AND juvenile?

     
     See, he never said he held any key, he said he supported subsidized BC.  To ask him to ‘share’ the key that you made up was juvenile.  And your welcome about the criticism.  Much of Scott’s commentary is fertile ground for debate, it is much more fun when he is being the juvenile.  This whole thread, he wasn’t.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 1611 hrs
     
     
     

103. Sorry TUERQAS, I don’t see how me asking if he’s spent any of his own money on helping poor college women afford BC is “large portions”. 

     That’s why I added “on a personal level” to the question. 

     The fictional key that I made up was in response to the bullshit claims he made in #11.  I asked him a number of times to source it, he can’t.  So then I got a little sarcastic in asking for the key to his statements, after what, three or four repeated requests for it.  Too bad. 

     Finally, when he states he doesn’t want to be someone’s “google bitch”, and then after that, basically retracts everything he said in #11,  don’t you thin that’s rather juvenile and disingenuous?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2008 at 1714 hrs
     
     
     

104. For the ‘it needs to be spelled out’ crowd, when I isolated “large portions” I inferred that part could be amended if you like by pointing out exactly what you did say.  Substitute ‘small portions’ or ‘on a personal level’, reread my comments, and now you have no argument with me.  Fine… substituted.  Now change all references of ‘would’ to ‘could’ in comment 11 and you have no argument against Scott.  If Scott allows(as he does not feel like being your google bitch), fine… substituted.  Before you go congratulate yourself on your pretty pathetic semantics victory, however,  It behooves me to state what hopefully for many was obvious.

     1)  Scott stated his ‘key’ right in comment 11, that counts as ‘sharing it’.  He rightly prefaced his whole comment with ‘if’ which makes the whole comment speculative thus not requiring the proof you repeatedly asked for(although yes, semantically if-could would have been better than if-would).
     2) When another begins a semantics side war in a thread(‘PROVE THIS!!!’ sputter, sputter) or a silly comment (‘how much have money have you given as a private citizen?  Not going to answer?  Then you are wrong, juvenile, disingenuous, etc.’) I have never yet seen proof offered where it shut the beginner of the argument up.  If he had said he volunteers at Planned parenthood, you would have persisted ‘Yeah, but how much money?’  Data can usually be used to prove both sides.  Had he offered you proof that links exist between unwanted pregnancies, Government aid, poverty, and crime you could easily have found something wrong with them.
     3) You never answered his reasonable question: ‘Does it make a difference?’  Would you agree to subsidized BC if it was a proven method to reduce poverty, unwanted pregnancies, crime, etc.  That is the most glaring example of dweebiness, with denying

     That’s not what I said at any time.

     asking Scott about his giving on a personal level because I used ‘large portions’ in my description as a close second.

     I’m just sayin’ pick real fights, because often it pisses me off when someone is on the same side of a philosophical fence as me, but their comments read like like they are imbeciles.  It makes us all look a bit stupid and the other side can always come back and claim ‘someone on your side says this…’

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 0759 hrs
     
     
     

105. Had he offered you proof that
     links exist between unwanted pregnancies, Government aid, poverty, and crime
     you could easily have found something wrong with them.

     Actually, I did offer proof of a link between unwanted pregnancies and government subsidized birth control.  The rest of it—poverty and crime—remains unproven, at least within the context of this discussion.  I suspect, however, that it would be extremely easy to find studies linking unwanted pregnancies to lack of educational achievement and poverty.  And likewise no problem to find studies which link poverty to crime.  But I haven’t provided links to such studies here.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 0816 hrs
     
     
     

106. I remembered that, and I should have written either “found something wrong with them” or ignored them… it was just already so long.  And. of course, it did not prove all the points of the mythical key (which he made up in the first place) so it could be poo-pooed.  As you have said before… ‘sigh’.

     As long as you are here, so to speak, don’t you think Tad had a good point?  As conservatives have pointed out in many arguments, it all comes down to choices.  Choosing to afford college has expenses, but if you can afford it you can afford birth control. If sex is a big enough part of your life to warrant it BC is a necessity not a want.  If you can budget college you can budget BC as part of its expenses, just like books and food.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1034 hrs
     
     
     

107. I have no problem with that argument.  You might hear me saying the same thing to a room full of freshmen, were I ever invited to counsel them on such matters.  Where I have a problem with it is where this kind of tongue-clucking and finger-wagging is used as a substitute for actually taking some effective action about the problem.  It is better to be helpful than to be right.  Moralizing is an ineffective strategy as far as I know.  Subsidizing BC is an effective one. 

     I guess it all comes down to which you place more value on: moral and ideological purity, or kids’ lives and health.  Me, I side with people.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1039 hrs
     
     
     

108. Fine, the point is the ‘kids’ aren’t in college.  Subsidizing BC at this point is not needed at the college level.  If with

     Subsidizing BC is an effective one.

     and

     Me, I side with people.

     you mean we should subsidize college age people, I disagree.  By then they have to be making these decisions for themselves.  If they can’t afford something, subsidize their books or food.  BC should already be as much a part of life as the individual chooses.  Otherwise, you might as well join JIJAWM and mandate it all.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1132 hrs
     
     
     

109. I agree with Tuerqas.  If you are responsible enough to get into college and assume the financial responsibilities, and personal discipline that go along with being a college student you are responsible enough to pay for your own BC.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1142 hrs
     
     
     

110. The difference between your way and my way is pretty simple: my way gets results, yours is unproductive moralizing.  Am I wrong?

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1203 hrs
     
     
     

111. I don’t see any difference between college students and the general population.  If you subsidize it for them, why not just include the general population.  Maybe we should just put birth control into the water supply and sell the antidote.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1209 hrs
     
     
     

112. What Scott is saying is that the ‘ends justify the means’ -

     Scott does that rule apply everywhere - or just where you want it too??

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1245 hrs
     
     
     

113. If you subsidize it for them, why not just include the general population.

     Why not indeed?  If it could be shown that it reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies, I’d be all for it.  Did you know that half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned?  I’m all for helping turn that around.  I’m all for putting people in control of their own reproduction.  For the first time in human history, that goal is within our grasp.  If it took a few million to do so, i’d be all for it.  That NIH study concluded that for every dollar we spend on subsidizing BC we save $3 later on. 

     What Scott is saying is that the ‘ends justify the means’ -

     Scott does that rule apply everywhere - or just where you want it too??

     it applies where it does—and not where it doesn’t.

     Meanwhile what you are saying is saying is that preserving your moral purity by preaching abstinence and/or letting everyone be responsible for their own selves is more important than preventing a small proportion of young people from ruining their lives through unplanned pregnancy.  If someone was suffering from an overdose of drugs would you give them medical treatment, or would you give them the Just Say No speech and let them be responsible for themselves?

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1342 hrs
     
     
     

114. First off - I am the last person to be preaching ‘morality’ to anyone.  And I am not.

     If a college student (whose life is already heavily subsidized) can not be given the very simple responsibility of using a $0.75 condom - what responsibility can they be given?  And when can they be given other ‘adult’ responsibilities?

     At a college age - a person can vote, die for their country, buy a gun, buy a pack of cigarettes, get a driver’s license without their parents permission, and sign legally binding contracts. 

     So do we hold them responsible for buying birth control, or do we revoke their privileges stated above until you decide that they are responsible??

     For someone, who on this very blog, has stated that you believe in personal responsibility, Scott you are not preaching it now.  Thanks for showing your hypocrisy again.  You did twice in one comment.

     And finally Scott - how can an unplanned pregnancy ruin someones life??  It is a choice - right??

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1352 hrs
     
     
     

115. You’d rather make sure everyone is shouldering their personal responsibility—even if it does nothing to solve the problem—than do something you know will help.

     Ideology over people.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1402 hrs
     
     
     

116. Scott, so you agree with China’s solution for population control by allowing one child per household?  Actually I thought it was a responsible measure and wish India would do the same, I just never thought you would agree.  I don’t really think measures such as you advocate or the China solution are necessary in the US simply because of our relatively low birthrate, but, wow Scott, I am kinda speechless.  BTW, you are virtually the only one here preaching anything about moral purity and the problem with Machiavellian politics is that power corrupts absolutely.

     it applies where it does—and not where it doesn’t

     When a person or group of people have enough power to enforce ends justifying means you no longer have a working bill of rights and you are at the mercy of their future interpretations of which ends justify which means.

     If everything of import came to public referendums and the power to decide important issues was not given to a very small group of individuals, I would be fully against few of your ideas.  The biggest problem we have ever had in our arguments is Government making our decisions versus us making our decisions and Machiavellianism and track record are big reasons I am against big Gov’t. 

     Most people learn responsibility by wielding it, almost all the ideas liberals fight for delay or take away the need of learning responsibility.  Do you honestly believe that if we took away all responsibilities and competition and pain from people’s lives that you push for, we would have happy productive, creative, inventive people?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1433 hrs
     
     
     

117. Scott is,IMHO, correct in that it is better to help a person by making resources available to them.  You could take the tough love stance that Clint advocates, but it has proven to be ineffective so far.

     Also clint, where are all of these highly subsidized colleges?  I pay an arm and a leg for my kids to go to college.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1438 hrs
     
     
     

118. What Tuerqas said -

     Consequences - Positive and negative are what teach people lessons of life.  That is how people learn.  Are you claiming that people would not learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others??

     It really is sad that you are so willing to punish the majority to coddle the minority. This falls directly into the 80/20 rule.

     You’d rather make sure everyone is shouldering their personal responsibility—even if it does nothing to solve the problem—than do something you know will help.

     How do you know that it will do nothing to solve the problems of society??  How do you know what I know??  The pill came to market 60 years ago.  Has it solved more problems then it created??  Of course, I don’t expect you to answer this question honestly because it won’t give you the answer you desire.

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1440 hrs
     
     
     

119. Scott, so you agree with China’s solution for…

     You are having a great time being a wiseacre here, but I’m not even understanding the connection you’re making between my position and China’s.  Could you spell that out a bit?  I seriously don’t even get it enough to respond.

     And I have no idea why you think subsidizing the cost of birth control is akin to taking away “all responsibilities and competition and pain form people’s lives”.  You’re making a huge leap there that isn’t even remotely warranted.  If you want to make the case that it is, you’re going to have to spell that out a lot more, too.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1440 hrs
     
     
     

120. anon - I would like to introduce you to the University of Wisconsin System.  What the state tax payer doesn’t outright pay for, the federal and state taxpayer will subsidize and guarantee the loan for.  And you are subsidizing your kids education.  Said so your self.

     Birth control is VERY available.  You can buy a condom at any corner store, wal-mart, walgreens, bathroom in a bar….  and they cost about 10% of what the first drink costs that you buy the girl.

     If a person doesn’t have $1.99 for a 3-pack of Trojans, what the heck are they doing sticking their wee-wee where it shouldn’t go without a Trojan.

     Scott the leap isn’t as big as you think it is.

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1447 hrs
     
     
     

121. How do you know that it will do nothing to solve the problems of society??  How do you know what I know??

     How do you know making college students pay the full market value for the pill will work?  I have an NIH study that shows subsidizing works.  What do you have? 

     My guess is that you really don’t care if it works or not—just so long as everyone’s responsibility is clearly delineated and everyone is shouldering their own burdens and nobody else’s.  It won’t bother you a bit that there are more unwanted pregnancies.  You’ll just remind yourself that it’s their own fault.  Perhaps you’ll blame liberals like myself for failing to champion individual responsibility the way you do. 

     The pill came to market 60 years ago.  Has it solved more problems then it created??

     Well I know that teen pregnancy rates have fallen quite a bit.  Are you going to suggest that it has done more harm than good?  Surely you want people to have maximal control over their reproduction, as I do.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1449 hrs
     
     
     

122. Birth control is VERY available.

     The issue isn’t whether it’s this cheap or that available.  The issue is whether subsidizing it results in more usage and if more usage results in fewer unwanted pregnancies. 

     Subsidizing = less pregnancies

     Not subsidizing = more pregnancies

     Rationalize it all you want.  Moralize until you’re blue.  But those are the cold hard facts of the matter.  You have to decide if you want to help or point fingers.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1452 hrs
     
     
     

123. If a person doesn’t have $1.99 for a 3-pack of Trojans, what the heck are they doing sticking their wee-wee where it shouldn’t go without a Trojan.

     Yeah, but you’re not moralizing. 

     Look, I agree with you.  But it doesn’t necessarily follow that stamping our feet and insisting that students become more responsible is an effective strategy for preventing unwanted pregnancies among them.  If you can demonstrate that such moralizing is effective, fine.  Meanwhile, we do have some data to show that subsidizing BC works.  I say we go with that for now.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1504 hrs
     
     
     

124. .  Are you going to suggest that it [the pill] has done more harm than good?

     Maybe you haven’t heard of Herpes or HIV.  You might want to google them and tell me what you find.

     Remember - you believe that pregnancy is a choice - how can you have ‘unwanted’ pregnancies when they are choices??  Can’t have it both ways.

     Pills (under the old plan) cost $8/month.  Don’t prevent the HIV, Herpes, etc

     Condoms - free on most campuses - Prevent pregnancy better than the pill as well as the HIV, herpes, etc.  If one can’t find it free or is too embarrassed to go the clinic for the free ones, $9 buys 60 rubbers.  I want to meet the man that can have sex twice a day for a month and still walk normally.

     Why do you insist on ‘The Pill’ being the only way to prevent pregnancy?  Ohhh you don’t have to answer that - your answer would be that is the one that requires govt subsidy.  That’s why you like it so much

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1542 hrs
     
     
     

125. I want to meet the man that can have sex twice a day for a month and still walk normally.

     
     WOW!

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1551 hrs
     
     
     

126. You might want to google them and tell me what you find.

     You might want to tell us what’s on your mind instead of just hinting at stuff.

     Remember - you believe that pregnancy is a choice - how can you have ‘unwanted’ pregnancies when they are choices??  Can’t have it both ways.

     I hate to be difficult, but again I have no idea what you’re talking about.  Can you clarify this at all?

     Why do you insist on ‘The Pill’ being the only way to prevent pregnancy?

     Sorry, but where am I insisting this?

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1551 hrs
     
     
     

127. You might want to google them and tell me what you find.

     You might want to tell us what’s on your mind instead of just hinting at stuff.

     In other words - I believe that the pill and its use directly caused the rampant spread of STDs.  Pre-pill - biggest concern of sex was pregnancy - the pill solved that.  The unintended consequence was that a whole lot of people started having unprotected sex - because the pill was going to prevent that.  So the spread of STDs went rampant.

     I hate to be difficult, but again I have no idea what you’re talking about.  Can you clarify this at all?

     First off - you love being difficult.  You speak vaguely.

     Secondly - you believe that it is a choice - not a child.  You are pro-abortion/pro-choice.  Since with your position, and that of the Supreme Court, how can you have an ‘unwanted’ pregnancy when it is nothing more than a choice and a mass of tissue.  Is that clear enough for you??

     Why do you insist on ‘The Pill’ being the only way to prevent pregnancy?

     Sorry, but where am I insisting this?

     Umm you are the one who wants to continue to subsidize an inferior form of birth control.  You might want to start reading at comment #1 and work your way down so that you are familiar with your own words.

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1602 hrs
     
     
     

128. Look, I’m not going to engage in a wild goose chase argument about whether the pill exacerbated the spread of HIV.  Not when I basically won this argument somewhere back around comment 110. 

     The difference between our approaches is very simple.  My way gets results, your way does not.  My way results in fewer unwanted pregnancies, your way is satisfied with ineffectual moralizing.  And this isn’t just me saying it.  Way earlier in this discussion I provided reliable evidence that subsidizing BC reduces pregnancies.  You have provided no such evidence for your argument.

     Until such time as you can address this very basic difference between my approach and yours, let’s not waste our time delving into a history of HIV vis a vis the pill.  I’m sure it’s fascinating and all, but it really doesn’t better get at the heart of the discussion at hand.  It’s just talking out of your ass to avoid the issue.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1621 hrs
     
     
     

129. Answers to 119
     Why are leaps of logic so foreign to you?  Is the China solution known to you?  You jump from college women (who we are debating about) to the general population, why is it such a stretch to jump to global solutions?  Considering recent studies showing the chemical residues in water supplies even after treatment is having more and more chance of complications for the general public, I would rather not see every woman in the US, much less the world, go on BC.  You have stated that it would be great if it was subsidized for all.  I took your position global and matched it with programs world wide.  The China solution ends, justifies the means…agee or disagree?

     Things I think I know about Scott.

     He is pro- universal healthcare, pro subsidized BC, pro forced BC, pro Government enforced gun control, pro activist judges, pro teacher unions (you are always for giving them money anyway), pro smoking ban (at least you argue with people who are against it). Again with the leaps of logic here, but all these positions and any others that involve an agency choosing for you, take away the need for individual choice in favor of the common good.  I was generalizing based on what I know of your positions.  I admit I over generalized when I threw in the no competition, that is a position that is generally a liberal position, but it is not necessarily yours, apologies.
     Not being a wiseacre, we were talking college women and your answers jumped to generelizations so I continued the same generalization you started.  Notice I didn’t even disagree with any of it except that I do not think ‘college women’ as a group deserve special consideration for BC.  Women in that age bracket not in college need it a lot more.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1625 hrs
     
     
     

130. 128 What is your way?  BC for all, or for kids or for college women?  BC for all, you have an argument, BC for kids you are right if you can get them to take it, BC for college women you are wrong except under the premise that all should get it.  Your claim of victory is as empty as Jason’s because you keep changing parameters.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1629 hrs
     
     
     

131. No - you didn’t ‘win’  Let me re-post from #124

     Condoms - free on most campuses - Prevent pregnancy better than the pill as well as the HIV, herpes, etc.  If one can’t find it free or is too embarrassed to go the clinic for the free ones, $9 buys 60 rubbers.  I want to meet the man that can have sex twice a day for a month and still walk normally.

     Why do you insist on ‘The Pill’ being the only way to prevent pregnancy?  Ohhh you don’t have to answer that - your answer would be that is the one that requires govt subsidy.  That’s why you like it so much

     Why do you insist that ‘the pill’ is the only form of birth control.  You wont answer that.  And just like you won’t be Jason’s Google Bitch - I won’t be yours.

     Until such time as you can address this very basic difference between my approach and yours, let’s not waste our time delving into a history of HIV vis a vis the pill.  I’m sure it’s fascinating and all, but it really doesn’t better get at the heart of the discussion at hand.  It’s just talking out of your ass to avoid the issue.

     The difference is real simple.  There is a better way to prevent pregnancies and STD’s - the condom.  Unsubsidized, it costs less than the subsidized cost of the pill.  But you, being the big government persons that you are, insist on subsidizing an inferior product.

     My way gets results, your way does not.

     What results are you looking for??

     The pill = not pregnant - but have the HIV.

     Condom = not pregnant - DON’T HAVE THE HIV.

     Condom = $9.00 (if you don’t want the free ones) for a 60-90 day supply (depending on how good looking you are)

     The Pill = $8.00 to the end consumer and $22.00 to the tax payer for a 28 day supply

     Posted by Clint on March 12, 2008 at 1630 hrs
     
     
     

132. Your claim of victory is as empty as Jason’s because you keep changing parameters.

     Ahhh, what ever.  I’m not trying to claim a victory, I was trying to get some information from scott.  At least you finally noticed that he is changing parameters to fit his views when someone tries to narrow them down. 

     I don’t know what you think, but I’m guessing you’re thinking that I’ve been active in this thread because it was scott, but that’s not it.  I don’t have an opinion on this topic, other than, “If someone wants to take more of my money for subsidies, there better be bullet proof evidence that it’s for the greater good, and not just a quick fix that relieves other people from shouldering more responsibility.”   I would say that to scott as quickly as I would to Owen.  You on the other hand are worried about semantics (me reusing the word subsidy when it was a poor choice), and the possibility of offering ammunition to the “other” side.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1641 hrs
     
     
     

133. Condoms have drawbacks, too, Clint.  People don’t like them, therefore don’t use them.  You have to have one on you when opportunity knocks, whereas you don’t have to have a pill with you.  Women can be fully responsible for preventing pregnancy, and as they bear the majority of the risk of an unwanted pregnancy they may be more likely to take measures into their own hands.

     I’m not against condoms.  The idea is preposterous.  I’m all for subsidizing them, too.  If they are, as you say, free on every campus, great.  Birth control pills should be free, too, as long as they are prescribed by a doctor.  Why not make every form of birth control free or low-cost to everyone who wants it?  At the very least we should target the populations who are having the most unwanted pregnancies. 

     Why?  Because there is evidence that bringing down the barriers to use will have a very desirable effect: preventing unwanted pregnancy—and probably disease and abortion.  Simply insisting that everyone should be more responsible doesn’t get any of those results.  Does it?  When i read that half of all pregnancies are unintended, I’m interested in bringing that figure down.  Aren’t you?  Apparently not, because when presented with something that works, you rail against it—presumably because it flies in the face of your every-man-for-himself ideology, or perhaps because you don’t want to pay your $0.03 of the bill. 

     He is pro- universal healthcare,

     Definitely.

     pro subsidized BC,

     Seems to work, so yeah.

     pro forced BC,

     What the fuck are you talking about?  Christ.  Let’s have a real discussion not a bullshit one.

     pro Government enforced gun control,

     If you mean I am okay with some gun use/ownership regulations, then okay.  I’m guilty of that.

     pro activist judges,

     I don’t even know what that means, so I don’t know.

     pro teacher unions ,

     Well, I’m not in one.  And I’m not even that up on their issues.  But it’s my belief that they take a hell of a lot of heat unnecessarily.  What ails a failing school isn’t the teachers or the curriculum, or the administration—it’s the social problems of the community that sends its kids to it.  Most of the ranting and raving about schools isn’t about this.  Thus it seems like a big waste of time to me.  Meanwhile, I see a lot of people whose aim seems to be to undercut public education at every turn.  I believe they want to help it fail so that it will be abolished and replaced with private education.  I don’t want that.

     pro smoking ban

     I don’t really know.  I definitely see a place for regulating the safety of workplaces.  And I think it’s good public policy to discourage smoking.  I’d never make tobacco products illegal.  Hell, i’d like to see most illegal drugs become legal.  On the other hand, I’m quite sympathetic to tavern owners whose business may suffer.  So I don’t really know.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1649 hrs
     
     
     

134. And while we’re at it, I think we should allow condom commercials on television.  At least after 10pm.  Doesn’t it strike you as odd that there aren’t any here in the US?  Much more could be done to encourage their use.

     Posted by scott on March 12, 2008 at 1651 hrs
     
     
     

135. I’ve seen Trojan commercials on TV before.  What are you talking about?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2008 at 1907 hrs
     
     
     

136. Condoms have drawbacks, too, Clint.  People don’t like them, therefore don’t use them.

     Not all women are fans of the pill therefore don’t use them.

     Women can be fully responsible for preventing pregnancy, and as they bear the majority of the risk of an unwanted pregnancy they may be more likely to take measures into their own hands.

     Your right.  They can take measures like - “no condom - no nookie”

     You are still in this dream world of unlimited taxpayer funds.  You really should wake up.  Not everything can be subsidized.  Not everything should be subsidized.

     To make scott happy, everything should be subsidized.  I am sure that there is a study that says x is better than y, so lets subsidize both. 

     Personally Scott - here is what I believe is going on with you in this debate.  You can’t handle the fact that something lost its taxpayer subsidy.  You will not give up a subsidy and you will continue to argue for that subsidy, whether it makes sense or not.  Because you like big government, and giving up that subsidy, means that big government is shrinking o so very slightly.

     Could be wrong, buy my gut is saying probably not.  And since I have a big gut, I have to listen to it.

     Posted by Clint on March 13, 2008 at 0731 hrs
     
     
     

137. To make scott happy, everything should be subsidized.

     This isn’t an argument.  It’s verbal projectile vomiting. 

     here is what I believe is going on with you in this debate.  You can’t handle the fact that something lost its taxpayer subsidy.

     No, here’s what’s going on with me.  I really care very passionately about the fact that so many Americans become pregnant when they do not wish to.  As I said before, I am convinced that there is tremendous cost in both human and monetary terms.  Costs which stretch out for decades. I’m for anything which cost-effectively alleviates this problem.  Subsidizing birth control seems to.  That’s what the empirical data indicates.  But the subsidy ended. 

     But then—as usual—I hear the blowhard don’t-tax-me-for-anything ideologues weighing in to say that subsidies like this should end, that people should just be more responsible for themselves…and if they’re not, well who’s fault is that?  Not mine.

     And what irritates me most about that isn’t just that you’re wrong, it’s that you’re not being terribly rational.  You’re working at cross-purposes.  And you’re being petty and selfish and showing, in some cases, a remarkable disregard for other people.  You folks say you don’t like abortion, but you seem unwilling to ever lift a finger to promote the use of contraception.  You’d rather retreat into the moral high-ground of personal responsibility—which is a phrase you always use when you want to avoid your own moral responsibility to help other people and contribute to the well-being of your community. 

     Preaching personal responsibility doesn’t do anything to solve the problem.  It works great for you ideologically, but doesn’t actually move anyone toward the goal.  Remember the goal?  To avoid unwanted pregnancies and the various problems associated with them such as curtailed educations, stifled careers, poverty, single parenthood and so on.

     What bugs me is that you don’t want to spend $1 to save $3—that’s irrational. 

     What bugs me is that you’d rather abandon a plan which helps alleviate a problem in favor of ineffectual moralizing.

     What bugs me is that you place your anti-tax, anti-government ideology over people.

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 0840 hrs
     
     
     

138. Pro-forced BC…

     Without a lot more quotes, in comment 113 you agreed with 111 to the point where if it works to reduce unplanned pregnancies you would be all for it.  The only way to do that would be to force everyone to take it and sell the antidote.  Or are you again trying to take the cake and eat it.  Either kids/men/women are responsible enough to use a condom or be on the pill or they aren’t.  You are against anything that proves they can be trusted with responsibility and you are pro making all/many forms free and advertising them. (Who is going to pay for the ads if it is all free?  Oh yeah, the Government…wait that’s us).  The problem goes beyond cost and your refusal to recognize that is staggering to me.  Kids not taught responsibility will forget to take the pill, will not use a condom because it feels less gratifying, will try to get pregnant to ‘trap’ someone they love, will go BCless on a dare or because they are drunk and a plethora of other stupid reasons.  To be ‘all for anything that reduces unwanted pregnancies’ is to advocate making even irresponsible people take it.

     You are also getting an awful lot of mileage from a study that has little to do with the target of the post, Women in College.  That is not the hotbed of unwanted pregnancies.  And while we’re at it, for all the denigration you spit at morals, you are the one moralizing on this post. ‘I side with the people…let’s rid ourselves of selfish cold-heartedness…’
     Oh and studies have also shown that many religions teaching morals have lowered unwanted pregnancy rates within those religious communities.  If that is the only stipulation you have, that it works, you really could advocate true faith as easily as subsidized BC. 

     That was my point Jason, Scott will change or ignore many things.  His worst habit is to only answer the lamest objections, treat them as the conservative norm, and ignore good questions and answers.  That is why I don’t like it when people give him the lame duck target.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 0840 hrs
     
     
     

139. Look, man, there’s absolutely no circumstance in which I’d be in favor of forced birth control.  Whatever you think I said—whether I misspoke or you misread or whatever—I’m definitely not in favor of it.  Just not.  So let’s put that to rest, okay?

     you are pro making all/many forms free and advertising them. (Who is going to pay for the ads if it is all free?  Oh yeah, the Government…wait that’s us).

     Yeah, that’s us!  I’m pro- spending a dollar today to save $3 tomorrow.  Who’s going to save all that money?  Oh yeah, the government.  Wait, that’s us!

     Kids not taught responsibility will forget to take the pill, will not use a condom because

     This is a fascinating theory!  Got any data on that?  What we do know is that subsidies work.  That data is in. 

     studies have also shown that many religions teaching morals have lowered unwanted pregnancy rates within those religious communities.

     Really?  What studies?  Even if true, though, it’s still not information that can be used to make public policy—unless you want to use government dollars and influence to encourage people to be religious.

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 0849 hrs
     
     
     

140. So why cant they use a rubber Scott???  They are cheaper and better??

     Oh that is right - they are inconvient.  Obviously, remebering to take a pill every day is more convienent than putting a rubber on.

     You still won’t get over the FACT that there is a limited supply of government funds.  If you want to keep this subsidy - kill another subsidy.

     The fact is that this subsidy is a waste of taxpayer money, when there is a better cheaper form of BC out there.

     Do you honestly believe that women who will no longer take the pill are going to start going around in droves having unprotected sex??

     Posted by Clint on March 13, 2008 at 0919 hrs
     
     
     

141. You go ahead and lecture college students about their need for “convenience.”  I’ll advocate doing something that works: subsidizing birth control. 

     Do you honestly believe that women who will no longer take the pill are going to start going around in droves having unprotected sex??

     I honestly believe the results of research when it shows that subsidizing birth control leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Don’t you?

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 0932 hrs
     
     
     

142. Since it is all about the subsidation for you Scott - I will bend and agree with you.  I will subsidize condoms.  They are cheaper and they are better.

     Posted by Clint on March 13, 2008 at 0941 hrs
     
     
     

143. Well we do agree on something then!  But why not subsidize everything that’s effective?

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 1009 hrs
     
     
     

144. >I will subsidize condoms.

     That will possibly kill two issues with one subsidy.  Not only would it reduce unwanted pregnancies, it would help with the STD epidemic that’s coming into focus.  Subsidizing oral BC does nothing to help with the estimated 3 million teenage girls [14-19] with an STD, in fact, I would suggest that it encourages the spread of STD’s.  Of course, this is WAY off the original topic, which is what scott has been working towards since post 11.

     http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031101342.html?hpid=moreheadlines

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1016 hrs
     
     
     

145. So Scott, let us be clear.  You think that as long as it is free, sexually active people ages 12 and up will use BC responsibly?  The biggest reason BC is not used is because of cost? 

     If you need proof that there are other reasons besides cost of BC for unwanted pregnancies you are going to have to ‘google bitch’ yourself.  I hold the irresponsibility of kids to be self evident.  I believe it is worse today, but I know what I and my siblings did as kids and we were all considered very responsible… for teens.  I also know there is data that Mormons and Amish to name a few, have lower unwanted pregnancy rates.  Fringe society? Yeah, but it works for them.  Mainstream religions have gotten away from mores in their faith, not a good deterrent I agree. 

     Also to be clear, I do not espouse joining a strict religion as a method of birth control, you just happened to both say anything that reduces unwanted pregnancies is good and moral purity is bad in multiple comments and the irony was starting to pile up.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1024 hrs
     
     
     

146. So Scott, let us be clear. You think that as long as it is free, sexually
     active people ages 12 and up will use BC responsibly?

     No.  But I think subsidizing the cost will result in fewer unwanted pregnancies.  Do you disagree?

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 1042 hrs
     
     
     

147. You want me to answer again?  It lowers unwanted pregnancies, but not significantly among college women.  Are you a child?  Is that your Daddy’s picture on your blog?  Using free condoms lowers unwanted pregnancies, beating your children, the rhythm method, religion, common sense, simple knowledge, abstinence, all reduce unwanted pregnancies.  Do subsidized BC pills for women reduce unwanted pregnancies more than any of these other methods?  Your study doesn’t say.  Are all the methods above worthy of subsidization, not likely.  Your one little point subsidizing BC reduces unwanted pregnancies is true.  If that is the only condition of your pathetically hollow, narrow (and off topic, it was college women, something your study says nothing about) victory, everyone here should acknowledge your pyrrhic victory, but I doubt pjr will stick his 2 cents back in to congratulate you or defend you because you are now the one sounding like Jason early.  I believe you gave him victory earlier for a similarly useless point.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1152 hrs
     
     
     

148. It lowers unwanted pregnancies, but not significantly among college women.

     How do you know that?

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 1155 hrs
     
     
     

149. Lord help me, I did not want to get in the middle of this, but this discussion seems to have wound around to a point where the non-subsidization folks seem to be saying that since BC doesn’t work out perfectly every single time for every single person in every single circumstance, there’s no point in ever spending any money at all on it.

     Am I reading that right?

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1215 hrs
     
     
     

150. No apc, most people in disagreement with Scott were responding to the post that women in college, by the very fact they are in college, have or can budget the means for BC.  For the most part, people have not been disputing that there are groups of girls/women that need this and the benefits to all are both fiscal and feel good.  Scott has expanded the discussion to all women in America and I and others have been pointing out that very thing, that BC is not a cure all and that in fact, for example, condoms are cheaper for all and in addition, helpstop the spread of STDs.

     Scott, I know your study that you have beaten us over the head with doesn’t mention them as a group.  I know the crisis points are among young teens in Middle, High schools and drop outs.  Do you need me to google that for you?  Heck, you won’t even admit that teens are irresponsible.  To me that blows all your credibility right there.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1234 hrs
     
     
     

151. ...I and others have been pointing out that BC is not a cure all…

     Nobody is claiming that it is, only that if it were more readily available/cheaper/subsidized, then some of the problems associated with unwanted pregnancy, whether or not among college women, might be alleviated.

     ...condoms are cheaper for all and in addition, help stop the spread of STDs

     Again, no argument from anyone. Look, I’m really not trying to be argumentative, but saying that the discussion has strayed away from BC for college women does a disservice to what the thread has become for last 100 or so comments—the efficacy of subsidizing BC. It’s a good thing that the discussion has broadened. If you’re so concerned about the direction the thread’s taken, go back and look at Owen’s comment at #45.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1556 hrs
     
     
     

152. Oh I am not concerned in a negative way, I like interesting segues.  You asked, I answered.  If you weren’t looking for any specifics or explanations, my mistake.  I thought you asked. 

     If you were stepping up to help Scott, it is his comments that poo-poo all other solutions but subsidized BC.  Early on his comments were tuned to what I expect of him(in a good way), that he would be for most anything that would lower unwanted pregnancies.  When other solutions were discussed, however, many of them weren’t civic enough I believe so he has fallen to ‘subsidized BC helps, disagree?’  Somewhat disappointing.

     From the way I understood it they were stopping subsidies to college women, and I am not against that.  I would be against stopping subsidies to inner city youth or people who seem to be more genuinely in need.  I am against subsidizing BC to anyone attending college.  Free condoms should be enough.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1614 hrs
     
     
     

153. it is his comments that poo-poo all other solutions but subsidized BC.

     What solutions were those?

     Free condoms should be enough.

     What if they’re not?  What if subsidized condoms aren’t as effective at reducing unwanted pregnancies?  What then?  We sit around “shouding” them some more?  These are the kind of “solutions” we don’t need.

     Posted by scott on March 13, 2008 at 1622 hrs
     
     
     

154. OK, fair enough. I think we’re nibbling around the edges, you and I. As for Scott, he hardly needs my help.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2008 at 1647 hrs
     
     
     

155. Scott, I am sure they are not.  One form as the only form is not enough.  What then?  College women can go out and buy BC at about oh, $30. a month if they are not still on Mommy and Daddy’s healthcare.

     You know apc, you can say some pretty inflammatory stuff sometimes, but you are I think the most consistent voice of liberal views on this blog.  There is a lot of respect there from me, anyway.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 14, 2008 at 0712 hrs
     
     
     

156. Thanks for the compliment, and back at ya with regards to respect. I do have a bit of a temper, I’ll give you that. If I’m inflammatory sometimes, I’d like to think it’s usually more substantive than not, but I’ll freely admit to poking my finger in the occasional eye.

     Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 14, 2008 at 0837 hrs
     
     
     

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.