Birth control saves money. MORE RW idiocy...D'OH!

[koshergrl]

I've already read those threads. And there is nothing in any of them that supports your lie that the right has any interest in legislating birth control. Your continued refusal to cite anything just proves you're intentionally lying, instead of just lying out of stupidity.

 

[francoHFW]

Paying for what????? It's CHEAPER for insurers to have birth control coverage than NOT. Jeebus the brainwashed have the thickest skulls ever. Unbelievable shytteheads...

 

[Katzndogz]

It's cheaper to kill off anyone who needs medical care. The old person who needs a pacemaker, the child who needs a vaccination. All of them cost money and it's cheaper to deny them existence.

 

[francoHFW]

Sure. LOL! Idiocy. That's the "system" we have had...

 

[koshergrl]

Paying for what????? It's CHEAPER for insurers to have birth control coverage than NOT. Jeebus the brainwashed have the thickest skulls ever. Unbelievable shytteheads...

If that's such a well-known fact, I'm sure you can come up with some numbers that confirm it.

Real numbers. Not projections and guesses.

 

[Vel]

You hater dittoheads are the best arguments Dems have...Thanks again, morons!

BTW, any fool would know we're not talking about condoms. What kind of fools are we dealing with anyway? LOL!

Just like any fool knows that you're promoting government control, not birth control.

 

[nitroz]

Why would a co-ed in her right mind testify before congress that she could not afford to pay for her own birth control? Was she tricked by democrats or was she foolish enough to think that the democrat party wouldn't throw her to the wolves to make a political point? Georgetown and other colleges are free to cover what ever the hell they want to cover. It might be cheaper in the long run if colleges bought beer for frat parties but don't whine to congress that you need the taxpayers to buy a six pack unless you want to look like a fool.

Thats not how it went.
She stood in defense of it because she knew first hand of other's problems with birth control.
Her friend had one of her ovaries removed and needed contraception to prevent cysts from forming, but she did not have any money for it, so the pharmacy said tough.

Birth control is not just to prevent pregnancy, it also concerns alot of other health issues in regards to women. It's a need in many many ways. Even women who don't have sex may need birth control for various reasons.

 

[nitroz]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJXkOgMW3tY&feature=g-like&context=G21bab9fALT1KsXgACAA]Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Attack On Georgetown Student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]

This explains the whole issue.

 

[nitroz]

Paying for what????? It's CHEAPER for insurers to have birth control coverage than NOT. Jeebus the brainwashed have the thickest skulls ever. Unbelievable shytteheads...

If that's such a well-known fact, I'm sure you can come up with some numbers that confirm it.

Real numbers. Not projections and guesses.

Kathleen Sebelius Says Number of People Not Born Thanks to Contraception Will Keep Cost of Mandate Down | Video | TheBlaze.com


You don't need numbers.
It's simple common sense.

Contraception makes it where you have fewer people to insure.
What would you rather do? Pay a small bit for the contraception, or get ready for an annual loss that gets bigger and bigger because you have to add more people to health care. Look at social security, it's the same principal. SS is running out because more and more are using it.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJXkOgMW3tY&feature=g-like&context=G21bab9fALT1KsXgACAA]Rush Limbaugh 'Slut' Attack On Georgetown Student Sandra Fluke - YouTube[/ame]

 

[koshergrl]

Hmmm.."you don't need numbers...just take my word for it!"

As you undoubtedly know, the numbers don't support any such mantra. In fact, the numbers point to the direct opposite...welfare has increased lockstep wtih the increase in contraceptive/abortion availability.

Contraceptives cost us MORE, not less!

Well, at least that's what the numbers say. So I can see why you don't want to use them.

 

[koshergrl]

"Are you going to believe your own eyes, or ME?' lol...the numbers are what they are.

 

[g5000]

Let's character assassinate women and ignore ALL FACTS. Georgetown has private insurance so even if BC cost money, it wouldn't cost the public.

Then what was she doing at Congress?

 

[nitroz]

Hmmm.."you don't need numbers...just take my word for it!"

As you undoubtedly know, the numbers don't support any such mantra. In fact, the numbers point to the direct opposite...welfare has increased lockstep wtih the increase in contraceptive/abortion availability.

Contraceptives cost us MORE, not less!

Well, at least that's what the numbers say. So I can see why you don't want to use them.

Okay then, lets see YOUR proof.

 

[koshergrl]

let's see....RvW and the era of contraception for all dawned in 1972...ADC was created in 1938...about the same time that birth control started to become more readily available...

"

The proliferation of new urban programs, job training, health care, and other welfare activities during the 1960s coincided with further expansions in AFDC. By 1965 the number of people receiving AFDC had risen to 4.3 million.6 By 1972 the number had more than doubled to nearly 10 million. The welfare rolls were rapidly expanding even though this was a period of general economic prosperity and low unemployment.7
After Johnson left office, there was a bipartisan consensus in Washington to preserve and even expand his legacy. Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Carter all added new anti-poverty programs. Between 1965 and 1975, measured in constant dollars, spending for AFDC tripled.8 A series of court deci­sions that established "rights" for welfare recipients helped fuel the spending growth.9 After 1975, the growth rate of welfare slowed but still continued upward."

"​

The number of single-parent families has risen dramatically since the 1960s. The most important reason for the rise in single-parent families is births to unmarried women. In 1965, less than 8 percent of all births were out of wedlock. Today the figure is 39 percent.22"

TANF and Federal Welfare | Downsizing the Federal Government

Oddly, the pill started being marketed to the masses in the 1960s.

Coinicidence? Hmmmm...

American Experience | The Pill | Timeline

 

[koshergrl]

Crickets.

 

[nitroz]

Crickets.

Wait a minute, I just saw numbers in the 60's


Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages. More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.

Evidence that expanding access to contraception through Medicaid is unequivocal: Increased access saves taxpayer money.

During the 1990s, HHS states:

...many states implemented Medicaid Section 1115 Family Planning Demonstrations. An independent evaluation of the experience of six of these states found that all six Demonstrations yielded savings, with annual state savings ranging between $1.3 million in New Mexico and nearly $30 million in Arkansas.

As of August 1, 2010, 27 states, including States like Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Virginia had expanded Medicaid eligibility for family planning services under waivers that stipulated that these expansions be budget neutral. Based on this experience, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding family planning to all States would save $400 million over 10 years.

Why would insurance companies provide contraception without a co-pay to their female employees? The answers are clear.



The Cost of Contraception in Insurance Plans: What the Data Say | RH Reality Check

http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contraceptive_coverage_saves_money_fact_sheet.pdf

Disease Management Care Blog: White House: "Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money" - The Birth Control Controversy and Using Today's Costs for Tomorrow's Savings

The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance: ASPE Issue Brief



More sources, Facts, and up to date numbers.

 

[nitroz]

*crickets*

 

[uscitizen]

We need abortions for crickets?

 

[koshergrl]

Crickets.

Wait a minute, I just saw numbers in the 60's


Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages. More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.

Evidence that expanding access to contraception through Medicaid is unequivocal: Increased access saves taxpayer money.

During the 1990s, HHS states:

...many states implemented Medicaid Section 1115 Family Planning Demonstrations. An independent evaluation of the experience of six of these states found that all six Demonstrations yielded savings, with annual state savings ranging between $1.3 million in New Mexico and nearly $30 million in Arkansas.

As of August 1, 2010, 27 states, including States like Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Virginia had expanded Medicaid eligibility for family planning services under waivers that stipulated that these expansions be budget neutral. Based on this experience, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding family planning to all States would save $400 million over 10 years.

Why would insurance companies provide contraception without a co-pay to their female employees? The answers are clear.



The Cost of Contraception in Insurance Plans: What the Data Say | RH Reality Check

http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contraceptive_coverage_saves_money_fact_sheet.pdf

Disease Management Care Blog: White House: "Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money" - The Birth Control Controversy and Using Today's Costs for Tomorrow's Savings

The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance: ASPE Issue Brief



More sources, Facts, and up to date numbers.

That do absolutely nothing to prove the theory that the advent of low cost, widely available contraceptives have saved us any money at all. It's just more blathering about a theory that has never been proven. The NUMBERS show an astronomical leap, followed by steady increase (except for a brief hiccup in the 90s when welfare reform cut a wide swath in the rolls) in welfare recipients, teen pregnancy and illegitimate birth since the advent of public birth control and legal abortion.

There's no argument, it is what it is. You can make up pie in the sky numbers "by golly ahem and haw if it wasn't for abortion and birth control it would be SO MUCH WORSE". Which is lovely...except before abortion and birth control...it WASN'T worse.

 

[nitroz]

Crickets.

Wait a minute, I just saw numbers in the 60's


Each year, public funding for family planning prevents about 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Preventing these pregnancies results in 860,000 fewer unintended births, 810,000 fewer abortions and 270,000 fewer miscarriages. More than nine in 10 women receiving publicly-funded family planning services would be eligible for Medicaid-funded prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care services upon pregnancy. Avoiding the significant costs associated with these unintended births saves taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent on family planning.

Evidence that expanding access to contraception through Medicaid is unequivocal: Increased access saves taxpayer money.

During the 1990s, HHS states:

...many states implemented Medicaid Section 1115 Family Planning Demonstrations. An independent evaluation of the experience of six of these states found that all six Demonstrations yielded savings, with annual state savings ranging between $1.3 million in New Mexico and nearly $30 million in Arkansas.

As of August 1, 2010, 27 states, including States like Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, and Virginia had expanded Medicaid eligibility for family planning services under waivers that stipulated that these expansions be budget neutral. Based on this experience, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding family planning to all States would save $400 million over 10 years.

Why would insurance companies provide contraception without a co-pay to their female employees? The answers are clear.



The Cost of Contraception in Insurance Plans: What the Data Say | RH Reality Check

http://www.cluw.org/PDF/ContraceptiveCoverageSavesMoney.pdf

http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/contraceptive_coverage_saves_money_fact_sheet.pdf

Disease Management Care Blog: White House: "Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money" - The Birth Control Controversy and Using Today's Costs for Tomorrow's Savings

The Cost of Covering Contraceptives through Health Insurance: ASPE Issue Brief



More sources, Facts, and up to date numbers.

That do absolutely nothing to prove the theory that the advent of low cost, widely available contraceptives have saved us any money at all. It's just more blathering about a theory that has never been proven. The NUMBERS show an astronomical leap, followed by steady increase (except for a brief hiccup in the 90s when welfare reform cut a wide swath in the rolls) in welfare recipients, teen pregnancy and illegitimate birth since the advent of public birth control and legal abortion.

There's no argument, it is what it is. You can make up pie in the sky numbers "by golly ahem and haw if it wasn't for abortion and birth control it would be SO MUCH WORSE". Which is lovely...except before abortion and birth control...it WASN'T worse.

can you not ******* read?