First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Giving access to free and low cost birth control saves the government 17 billion dollars annually.
14848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/15/17
Birth control isn't just a question of cost, but often about access and education too. While I do think the government should ensure that those who want birth control can afford it (a few hundred dollars a year may seem like nothing to you, but for someone who is living paycheck to paycheck that may not be the case), it is just as important - if not moreso - to ensure that our schools are educating people about birth control and how to get it and it is easy to acquire.
Ejanss 
16621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/15/17

KennethKenstar wrote:

Sex is only for procreation says man who never has sex


Or at least the man who subscribes to Woody Allen's observation of "Sex doesn't relieve tension, sex causes tension."
17148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17
Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.
14848 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17

descloud wrote:

Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.


I dont think you understand anything this thread is saying.
17148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17

sundin13 wrote:


descloud wrote:

Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.


I dont think you understand anything this thread is saying.


I don't think you even read what the title says.
mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/15/17

descloud wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


descloud wrote:

Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.


I dont think you understand anything this thread is saying.


I don't think you even read what the title says.


The title says that the 'government saves money', which it does, through messy costs of trying to pay for children with parent who can't afford food, fostering subsidies, court fees, etc. It doesn't make the claim that a part of the government loses money. The government pays a provider of birth control to make the pills. But still comes out ahead... Overall it's a net gain.
17148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/16/17

mxdan wrote:

The title says that the 'government saves money', which it does, through messy costs of trying to pay for children with parent who can't afford food, fostering subsidies, court fees, etc. It doesn't make the claim that a part of the government loses money. The government pays a provider of birth control to make the pills. But still comes out ahead... Overall it's a net gain.


Uh both your title and the article you linked both claim to make birth control free and reduce cost. Which is NOT what the source the article refers to is even claiming.

The article claims according to the study it links, that the government saves 7$ for every dollar spent on family planning. Which even goes on to claim 17 billion would be saved every year. Then even says the government saved said amount in 2016. Which is funny, the link it provides says the amount saved was actually 13.6 billion was saved and is only referring to the year 2010. And continues to do so throughout the study case.

You might want to read what you link before trying to defend it like you are now.




mxdan 
10944 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/16/17

descloud wrote:

Uh both your title and the article you linked both claim to make birth control free and reduce cost. Which is NOT what the source the article refers to is even claiming.

The article claims according to the study it links, that the government saves 7$ for every dollar spent on family planning. Which even goes on to claim 17 billion would be saved every year. Then even says the government saved said amount in 2016. Which is funny, the link it provides says the amount saved was actually 13.6 billion was saved and is only referring to the year 2010. And continues to do so throughout the study case.

You might want to read what you link before trying to defend it like you are now.



I did and that is part of the equation. I mean the information I just brought up is from my understanding of government costs for children overall which is implied. It's not from the article itself but it is relevant to the discussion.

Regardless, you said 'that they didn't read the title'. Not, 'they didn't read the article'. When your first comment about a person paying for birth control still and it not being free is irrelevant because there is a net gain in the end from implied costs. The title makes no claim there there are subsets of the process that lose money. It does make the claim though that overall there is a net gain. Which there is.

You're the one who came in here and started the argument amigo.
14964 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/15/17

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:





You know a proven way to not get pregnant is to not have sex, or at least wear a condom that you can get for free.
Pumping your body full of chemicals that cause all kinds of side effects later in life just so you can be irresponsible is silly anyway.


Abstinence is unhealthy. And having sex isn't irresponsible; it's a normal human activity.


"Normal human activity" and "irresponsible" aren't mutually inclusive.
17148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/16/17

mxdan wrote:

I did and that is part of the equation. I mean the information I just brought up is from my understanding of government costs for children overall which is implied. It's not from the article itself but it is relevant to the discussion.

Regardless, you said 'that they didn't read the title'. Not, 'they didn't read the article'. When your first comment about a person paying for birth control still and it not being free is irrelevant because there is a net gain in the end from implied costs. The title makes no claim there there are subsets of the process that lose money. It does make the claim though that overall there is a net gain. Which there is.

You're the one who came in here and started the argument amigo.


I'm just gonna make this short.

You say there is net gain but the article itself is lying about the actual net gain every year. Then proceed to say the claim "free birth control" is irrelevant now because of the net gain. Well how can it be irrelevant when it's one of the big claims and the net gain it claims is false? That's really a circular problem right there.





123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/15/17
The article isnt lying about the net gain every year. Did you even read the study? The study itself says

"
This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion
in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent.
"

so the study itself is where the $7 net gain per $1 spent comes from.

The $17 billion a year saving comes from the 2010 figure plus inflation and an estimated rise in the cost of healthcare. it even SAYS that in the article

"
Extrapolating that out a few years to cover the drastically rising cost of healthcare and accounting for inflation, we find that in 2016, $17 billion was saved due to public family planning programs.
"

You seem to be pretty confused about something that seems pretty basic?

and heres a quote from you.


descloud wrote:

Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.


Nobody is saying (not even the title) that the birth control costs $0 and the manufacturer will provide it for free.

What they are saying is that for every dollar the government spends on giving free (they still pay for it but you dont) birth control that they actually end up saving money.

theres nothing misleading or any lies..

17148 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 1/15/17 , edited 1/15/17

Bailey86 wrote:

The article isnt lying about the net gain every year. Did you even read the study? The study itself says

"
This investment resulted in net government savings of $13.6 billion
in 2010, or $7.09 for every public dollar spent.
"

so the study itself is where the $7 net gain per $1 spent comes from.

The $17 billion a year saving comes from the 2010 figure plus inflation and an estimated rise in the cost of healthcare. it even SAYS that in the article

"
Extrapolating that out a few years to cover the drastically rising cost of healthcare and accounting for inflation, we find that in 2016, $17 billion was saved due to public family planning programs.
"

You seem to be pretty confused about something that seems pretty basic?

and heres a quote from you.


descloud wrote:

Someone has to make birth control and that will cost someone else to pay this person. So it's not going to ever be free like you think.


Nobody is saying (not even the title) that the birth control costs $0 and the manufacturer will provide it for free.

What they are saying is that for every dollar the government spends on giving free (they still pay for it but you dont) birth control that they actually end up saving money.

theres nothing misleading or any lies..




Then I simply misunderstood how they were drawing up there numbers. So I must retract my words.

123 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/15/17
fair enough.

chalk it up to monday.
1280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/16/17
I agree since child-raising in urban environment put a huge burden on parents. The child-raising in more rural environment is another story since it is less demanding and can even provide more benefit than cost.
There are more solutions than low cost birth control. Giving women more power allow them to stop the society from judging them based on their capacity for child-birth and allow them to enforce their greater natural tendency against child-birth compared to men. The British American elites encourage immigration from overpopulation by doing the opposite; they destroy the matriarchy societies in the native reserves and replace it with a patriarchy social system so the resulting overpopulation problem encourage immigration to the cities to increase job competition.
Another solution is to make marriage into a family affair instead of the individual. In this way, the parents can get support from their families instead of the government. This idea is controversial since it oppose the individualistic values of the Western world which reflect the view of some anime.
29069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 1/16/17 , edited 1/16/17

Ocale wrote:

If we could just genetically modify everyone to never want to have sex, that would save a lot more than money.


I would happily get my sex drive turned off if i could it's annoying as fuck and it gives me no joy XD



geauxtigers1989 wrote:


Amyas_Leigh wrote:





You know a proven way to not get pregnant is to not have sex, or at least wear a condom that you can get for free.
Pumping your body full of chemicals that cause all kinds of side effects later in life just so you can be irresponsible is silly anyway.


Abstinence is unhealthy. And having sex isn't irresponsible; it's a normal human activity.


how is abstinence unhealthy?

So people like me who hate our sex drives and want to abstain from sex are hurting ourselves? wot
29069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 1/16/17

lorreen wrote:


Ocale wrote:

If we could just genetically modify everyone to never want to have sex, that would save a lot more than money.


I'm currently reading a (not very good) science fiction book where procreation is tightly controlled, and it's apparently common for people to simply take a drug that suppresses sex urges, rather than drugs or devices to prevent pregnancy. (But I also get the impression that that drug is only available to the elite.)


Can i please have that drug!
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.