Free contraception does not create sluts, according to one study

[Scout26]

So please tell us what is your better solution?  Be specific.  

Let her die in the street.  That is her goal, whether she admits it or not.  You can't save someone who doesn't want to be saved, all they do is drag you and everyone else around the down with them.

Remove the children, they can go to the grandparents or other family, just like what used to happen, baring that, then foster care.  Through a private charity.

[roo_ster]

I have been around long enough to see such people and realize that for some things within and without my span of control, there but for the grace of God go I.

Yeah not so much.  The o2 thief you describe sounds like she had many off ramps she refused to take on her trip to degeneracy town.  More likely low impulse control and a strong short term time preference than a lock of grace of god.

The external locus of control argument is hokum for the vast majority.  Yes the contemporary war on decency and values does make it harder for the slow or ignorant to figure out what is more likely to result in destitution and degeneracy but they can still learn from the pain they get from choosing poorly.  Assuming no agency of folks who make poor decisions is belittling of their humanity.

[Balog]

This, I think is a key point: there are some people, that for whatever reason, cannot be extricated from the safety net.  And it is perhaps a measure of our society of how we treat such people: with dignity or denigration.  I have been around long enough to see such people and realize that for some things within and without my span of control, there but for the grace of God go I.

I do not think allowing people to suffer the natural consequences of their actions is denigration. In fact, I dare say that by enabling bad behavior we see more of it.

[Jamisjockey]

Oh, I agree completely.  It's probably not possible to eliminate the welfare state now.

Giving the dependent class a way to not make more dependents might be a start to eliminating the welfare state. 

My thoughts on the consequences of going to Uncle Sugar with your hand out are radically un-libertarian, but I believe if you want it "free", there should be severe consequences to your freedom. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Giving the dependent class a way to not make more dependents might be a start to eliminating the welfare state.  

My thoughts on the consequences of going to Uncle Sugar with your hand out are radically un-libertarian, but I believe if you want it "free", there should be severe consequences to your freedom.  

You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.

The problem is not lack of access to birth control.  The dependent class already has easy access to birth control.  The problem is that they don't care to use it.

[Tallpine]

I do not think allowing people to suffer the natural consequences of their actions is denigration. In fact, I dare say that by enabling bad behavior we see more of it.

The highest calling of some people is to be a bad example for others.

Oh, I agree completely.  It's probably not possible to eliminate the welfare state now.

Complete economic collapse  

[Tallpine]

You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.

The problem is not lack of access to birth control.  The dependent class already has easy access to birth control.  The problem is that they don't care to use it.

Take one aspirin, and hold it between your knees. 

[Balog]

You say that as though birth control wasn't already cheap and plentiful and easy to get.

The problem is not lack of access to birth control.  The dependent class already has easy access to birth control.  The problem is that they don't care to use it.

In a relatively unusual turn, I agree completely with this statement. As I said I can think of a few places to get condoms for free, and they're not exactly usuriously expensive to start with. I really find it hard to believe that tax payer supplied condoms will have any difference in birth rates amongst the FSA.

[MillCreek]

In a relatively unusual turn, I agree completely with this statement. As I said I can think of a few places to get condoms for free, and they're not exactly usuriously expensive to start with. I really find it hard to believe that tax payer supplied condoms will have any difference in birth rates amongst the FSA.

I suspect the concept is 'harm reduction' in that if a small expenditure ends up preventing a much larger expense down the road, even if this happens rarely, the numbers pencil out.  Good examples of this are needle exchange programs, in reducing the spread of Hep C and HIV, which are extremely expensive to treat, and the Seattle program of providing free or very low cost housing to chronic street inebriates. 

I am familar with the Seattle program which started after Seattle Fire and Harborview Hospital started crunching data on the number of 911 calls and ER visits for 'man down' calls.  A significant percentage of these calls were for people found drunk and unresponsive in downtown Seattle.  Some of these people were frequent flyers who would rack up dozens of calls, lots of ER visits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncompensated ER bills each year that was either written off by the hospital or paid by the city or county.  So the city of Seattle built an apartment/assisted living building to provide housing for these people and essentially a safe place to drink in their rooms as opposed to on the street.  Counseling and treatment is available to the residents, but I am told that few avail themselves of it.  As a result, the chronic street inebriates who live there have a far fewer number of 'man down' calls and ER visits has dropped a great deal, resulting in a net savings to the city, county and hospital.  There was some protests with the concept, similiar to what you see in this thread, but at the end of the day, this tax expenditure has had a great return on investment.  I think this is a great use of tax dollars solely from the financial standpoint.  I have read that other cities are doing similar programs.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh no, not at all.  In regards to this particular patient, I have not the faintest idea what is the funding sources for her birth control (if any) or if we provide it.  This patient story does not really apply to the original post about the article on free birth control and behavior.  It is more a response to the premise that personal accountability, responsibility and private charities, as opposed to government social services, can solve these issues.  When people make those sort of statements, I suspect that they may not have a whole lot of experience in actually dealing with people similar to my patient.

As I think someone may have stated above, freedom is not a utopia. There will always be people who are, as this woman seems to be, determined to fail. No set of laws will ever stop such people. Under an ideal political system, such people will be less common, but many will still take advantage of the freedom to fail.

[KD5NRH]

Are you seriously suggesting that a better education would not help people to grow into useful adults? Do you not think that better schooling would result in more prosperous citizens, thereby reducing poverty, and its associated ills?

Exactly; IMO, a large part of the reason that so many jobs require a college degree these days is that so many people manage to graduate from high school marginally literate, and completely incompetent at even the skills they were supposed to have gained in 6th grade.

[lupinus]

Exactly; IMO, a large part of the reason that so many jobs require a college degree these days is that so many people manage to graduate from high school marginally literate, and completely incompetent at even the skills they were supposed to have gained in 6th grade.

The sad part is plenty of folks manage to get a degree with the same lack of basic skills.

[Balog]

I suspect the concept is 'harm reduction' in that if a small expenditure ends up preventing a much larger expense down the road, even if this happens rarely, the numbers pencil out.  Good examples of this are needle exchange programs, in reducing the spread of Hep C and HIV, which are extremely expensive to treat, and the Seattle program of providing free or very low cost housing to chronic street inebriates. 

I am familar with the Seattle program which started after Seattle Fire and Harborview Hospital started crunching data on the number of 911 calls and ER visits for 'man down' calls.  A significant percentage of these calls were for people found drunk and unresponsive in downtown Seattle.  Some of these people were frequent flyers who would rack up dozens of calls, lots of ER visits and hundreds of thousands of dollars in uncompensated ER bills each year that was either written off by the hospital or paid by the city or county.  So the city of Seattle built an apartment/assisted living building to provide housing for these people and essentially a safe place to drink in their rooms as opposed to on the street.  Counseling and treatment is available to the residents, but I am told that few avail themselves of it.  As a result, the chronic street inebriates who live there have a far fewer number of 'man down' calls and ER visits has dropped a great deal, resulting in a net savings to the city, county and hospital.  There was some protests with the concept, similiar to what you see in this thread, but at the end of the day, this tax expenditure has had a great return on investment.  I think this is a great use of tax dollars solely from the financial standpoint.  I have read that other cities are doing similar programs.

I'm familiar with that program, and afaik it has indeed been a net positive in terms of costs to the city. But that's nothing like providing free birth control.

[Tallpine]

What about buying drugs from other countries ("foreign aid") and giving them free to addicts so they don't have to steal 

    

[Hutch]

I'm familiar with that program, and afaik it has indeed been a net positive in terms of costs to the city. But that's nothing like providing free birth control.

The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc.  I disagree with that premise.

[MillCreek]

The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc.  I disagree with that premise.

Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away.  The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance.  They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it.  Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen. 

[Ned Hamford]

I really wish if we were 'forced' to have public assistance we would actually be pragmatic about it.  I am for giving public shelters, or any other public aid, some reasonably strict requirements. No drugs, no raping, no stealing ect.  And actually mean it.  Let's change the idea of the safety net from the current hammock to a leg up.  Ironically, I think that means assistance for longer periods of overlap (get a job, lose support when you get a paycheck or two, not when you first get hired).  Since we are squandering the resources, free gov cheese for anyone willing to publicly accept it; minimum sustenance at maximum ease just so we can maintain the appropriate level of moral and systemic condemnation of criminals... who may or may not be ground up into gov cheese.   
Cannibal Utopia

[Perd Hapley]

Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away.  The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance.  They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it.  Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen. 

Disagreeing with your perspective is not hand-waving. Dismissing other people's opinions with trite phrases is hand-waving.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The only reason it's a net positive is that one presumes the city must and will pay for the ER visits, the ambulance rides, etc.  I disagree with that premise.

Yes.  

Again we see the handwaving: I don't agree with providing such services, and if we only take a strong enough stand against them, these people and their problems will magically go away.  The medic units should refuse to go on the calls and the hospitals should refuse these people admittance.  They are not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for it.  Oh, if only there was such a society in which this could happen.  

You keep waving away anyone who doesn't accept your premises.  Whyizzat?  If you're going to insist that everyone think like you do or else be summarily dismissed, then why bother with the discussion at all?  

Please don't take this the wrong way.  It's an honest question, and I would genuinely like to know the answer.  

[Perd Hapley]

Ahem. To the gentleman who seems to think everyone who disagrees with him owes him a white paper on their proposed solution.

Oh, and since you're demanding an answer to your question, I will demand a response to my points below.

Have you asked any private charities [to help the lady you mentioned]?

How many private charities has she already been through, wore out, lied to, cheated, and turned against her?


"As a society, we are not willing to let her die in the streets."

In that case, we can shut down all the .gov organizations, and let her be cared for by whoever steps in.

So how many charities have turned her down? Surely no charities have refused to help, since our society is "not willing to let her die in the streets."

[MillCreek]

You are correct in that I insist on injecting a note of reality into the discussion.  Saying that 'I don't agree with the premise of (insert issue: welfare moms, providing disability paychecks to middle-aged white males with spurious claims, etc)' as if that should solve the problem ignores the real world.  These things do occur and have to be dealt with in the real world.  To try to dismiss that is handwaving at its best and is an informal fallacy.  

Anyone who states that (welfare moms, providing disability paychecks to middle-aged white males with spurious claims, etc.) is not the taxpayer's problem is choosing to ignore the reality of the situation.  We can certainly argue and disagree on the scope, nature or origin of such problems, but to pretend they don't exist, they don't have to be addressed or you can make them go away by 'disagreeing with the premise' is ludicrous.  

Don't just bitch about the problem, come up with solutions.

[MillCreek]

Ahem. To the gentleman who seems to think everyone who disagrees with him owes him a white paper on their proposed solution.

I am still waiting to hear you explain how 'local control of the schools' as opposed to state or Federal control will solve these problems.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Seriously?!

We're not saying these issues shouldn't be addressed.  We're saying maybe they shouldn't be addressed in the one and only way you're willing to consider.

[MillCreek]

And what is that one and only way?

[MillCreek]

Fistful and HTG, this is an honest question: do either of you have any actual job or volunteer experience working in social services,  or healthcare, or is this all just theoretical for you?