More broadly though, what about birth control for the uninsured?
Donít fret. This group will not only provide your birth control but pay you to use it.
Some people need to insist their partners use condoms. But college is a good time for women to perfect anal sex, too.
If that's not cheery enough, how about this?
As if $500 is nearly enough. Doesn't this guy know it costs $15k?
Poor Americans. :(
Wait, you still had to pay when you were in college? Gah.
Erica needs birth control?
That's bullshit. If you have a job you can afford birth control. $600/year is not that much. You don't have to have sex anyway.
The article says -
"There, he said, women are paying about $22 per month for prescriptions that cost $10 a few months ago. "
then a few paragraphs down -
"Many students could shift to generics but experts said they might still pay twice the previous rate. "
Um, so we're talking about the cost going from $10/month to $20/month? Sorry, but that's hardly an outrage.
I went to a commuter school where no one was rich and most of the kids still spent more than that at Starbucks in an average week.
Commuter school? Like the UW?
$10 vs. $20 was a huge deal when I was in school. I didn't make any money and my folks were kind enough to pay for tuition, but I was strapped for cash most of the time.
Mom insisted I get on the pill during college and I'm glad I listened to her. Never had an unplanned pregnancy.
Chris @ 7, I hope to god you've been looking to Garrison Keillor for hints on appropriate sarcasm. Otherwise, your ignorance is ridiculous.
The rest of us should subsidize college students' sex lives because why? Because, Erica says, if we don't the college students will fuck up their lives and make us pay even more for their mistakes. Is that a threat?
There are two sides to the coin of sexual freedom. The government doesn't keep you from getting your jollies. And you don't ask the government to pay for them.
Sorry for the tripple-post. I got weird server errors.
Ah, yes, the straw man argument that was raised at Pandagon last week is raised here by David Wright. Of course, no one is subsidizing "sex lives". It might not have occurred to you, but "sex lives" happen without any government intervention at all. This might come as a surprise to you, but humans fuck. We always have and we always will. Despite all of the grand ideas of spiritual advisers and philosophers, basically that's what we're here on earth to do - perpetuate the species. If something cool happens beyond that, then grand. Sex is the primal drive.
Government isn't subsidizing sex lives. The sex lives happen regardless. Rather, government is providing, at low co-pay costs, a method of preventing pregnancies. Pregnancy can have even graver effects on both the woman and on the health care system. You know the philosophy of HMOs? That an ounce of prevention now wards off extreme costs in the future and, in turn, creates a healthier population? That's what we're addressing here.
Rather than attempt to frame it as funding for sex, try thinking of it as funding for a healthier student population and a way to keep health care costs down.
Some male partners should insist on using condoms, it should not be just the woman's responsibility. College students may be smart enough to use BOTH condoms and the pill.
And thanks B.D @15 for the comments.
The long term solution here is for women to realize how repulsive men and stop fucking them.
Believe me, sisters, it's far more liberating than the pill.
I like how they claim "cutting costs" to "lower the deficit" when it comes to women's health. That's like trying to empty the ocean with a teacup. They don't seem to have a problem with the budget when it comes to billion $ no-bid contracts for "reconstruction" in Iraq.
How's that going btw?
I'm a straight man, and I have to say, I agree with Ambivalent @17. I honestly don't understand why all women aren't lesbians. Men are hairy and smelly and ugly, and that's just mentally. I look at guys -- I don't care if it's George Clooney or Johnny Depp or Ron Jeremy -- and I can't see why any woman, or gay man, would be interested. I mean, I'm glad they are, and I guess it's a testament to the power of primal urges over rational thought, but it is a mystery.
The more people of relative privilege lose their benefits, the faster the real issue of national health care will be addressed. On average I'd bet those women of the same age not in college pay more and have less access to health care across the board. Full priced BC seems only to be around $20 - $50 but if this gets the female college students and their fans excited about health care, that's good.
What form of birth control costs $50 a month? Forgive the question if it's ignorant but I can't think of a birth control method that would cost that much. I've been on Nuvaring and various pills and neither of those methods hit anything like $50 a month.
Eloquent writing aside, Chris and David can go fuck themselves. See? No birth control needed.
What? If taxpayers don't subsidize college students' birth control then college students won't use birth control?
By the same reasoning, if taxpayers don't subsidize college students' groceries then college student won't eat?
If you don't eat you die. If you don't use birth control you get pregnant. What don't you understand Stefan?
I would not have been able to AFFORD birth control at $45 a month in college (or any other kind of health care that cost that much), Stefan. Therefore, yes, if taxpayers don't subsidize student health care, students will not use health care.
The "we shouldn't subsidize students' sex lives" straw argument has been addressed well above. Let me add, though, that women pay on average 68% more for their health care than men because woman-specific health care costs (gynecologist appointments, birth control) are frequently considered unimportant compared to man-specific vanity drugs (hair growth medication, boner pills) and health care issues that affect women AND men.
The horse has been farily well flogged by now, but I'll add that as a taxpayer I would love it if birth control was utterly free to all -- and actively promotyed. The cost is a pittance compared to what we end up spending otherwise.
THANK YOU gnossos!
Seriously, why is birth control more special than books, rent, food, etc? Why single that out for a subsidy? And why for college students? Why not need-based instead? Plenty of poor women working at Wal-Mart. And if a gal can't afford 'em, why not make her boyfriend/husband pay? After all, if it weren't for him, she wouldn't need the pills.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).