igor2003
Posts: 1718
Joined: 1/1/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote:
ORIGINAL: MedicineMan "No cost"? "Free"? Does it mean that developing, manufacturing and distribution of these things costs nothing, or rather that someone else is forced to pay the bill? Would you rather pass out a few condoms or support and educate the spawn that results from their nonavalibility? Guess what? Poor people are gonna fuck.. The choice of the taxpayers is to support birth control or the 9 months later result. As a taxpayer, I'd a hell of a lot rather buy condoms and BC pills. Maybe I missed something, but from what I understand this recommendation isn't just about "poor people". The middle class, wealthy, and even the extremely wealthy would also get the "no co-pay" benefit. And somebody DOES have to make up for what they aren't paying for. I'm willing to bet it isn't going to be the pharmaceutical companies, the pharmacies, or the doctors writing the prescriptions that make up the difference. I'm on disability with a fixed income. I am taking 10 different meds due either directly or indirectly to that disability, and I'm on oxygen at night. Guess what. NOBODY is lining up to make it so that I don't have to pay a co-pay on any of those things. So why should my costs, whether through higher taxes, higher insurance rates, or higher med costs, be higher just so that some rich bitch doesn't have to co-pay for her birth control? I could go along with Kalikshama's sliding scale idea though. I don't mind helping those that really need the help. As far as how it should be handled in relation to religious beliefs...well, I'm staying out of that one.
_____________________________
If the women don't find you handsome they should at least find you handy. - Red Green At my age erections are like cops...there's never one around when you need it! Never miss a good chance to shut up. - Will Rogers
|