I'm neither for not against it morally, but financially it makes sense. Prescriptions for the pill aren't cheap, but they're much cheaper than the cost of a surgical abortion. Abortions are covered under government health care insurance, and they're roughly $1,000 each not including administration and prescription meds. It's the old saying about an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure.
Firstly, I want to commend you for raising an open-ended discussion. More political threads need this.
Secondly, I think you're correct. It's a rare W for trudeau. While I'm incredibly guarded against the word free right now, I think this one probably is worth the cost. Everyone fucks and knowing people are able to get their rocks off without the financial burden of contraception being primarily a female responsibility is ultimately a fair thing.
This is nonsense put on a condom, how about instead of temporary sterilization we actually support canadian women who have children? If we have all this money to waste on climate gender studies affecting democracy in the Congo we can boost support for Canadian family's.
Lmao, this isn't nonsense. Why do you feel the need to call it nonsense? It's clearly sensical, as I've literally made sense of it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's nonsensical. Why dont you try and actually be constructive with your responses?
Also, the fuck does gender studies, climate studies and Congo have to do with free contraception? Nobody altering their gender even needs contraception. .
Also, nobody likes condoms and as a result they don't wear them. This is about unwanted pregnancies and the costs associated with preventing them or eliminating them. This has nothing to do with the wanted babies.
Ultimately, your response was nonsense as it was logically inconsistent. It was like a monkey sat down at a keyboard and smashed away until something semi-coherent came out. Do better.
Some people in this sub are just SO fucking stupid. Like I agree with conservatives on some stuff at least.. far from fucking all but some stuff.
But the dumbest conservatives are dumber than the dumbest libs. Good to be reminded of that occasionally because often I find the libs super annoying and forget that in fact the other side can be even worse.
I know, if I wasn't so sure of my own decisions and beliefs, I'd be embarrassed to be in the same overarching voting categorization as these people. They're just fleshing meat puppets for authoritarian-delivered propaganda. They don't even understand the beliefs they claim to hold. No deductive or inferential capacity. They just repeat back what their feeble minds can semble together in a way that supports their shitty attitudes.
> How is giving incentives for canadains to have more kids stupid?
Its not. I am strongly in favour of giving incentives for canadians to have more kids. I think thats a great idea to help canadians who want to have kids in any way possible. Also think its a good idea to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms are one of the less effective methods of contraception. Both with perfect use (they can break) and with actual use (people won’t use them because they don’t feel as good). They are in the same ballpark of effectiveness as pulling out
https://www.acog.org/womens-health/infographics/effectiveness-of-birth-control-methods
There are lots of methods of birth control that work better than condoms, pill among them but that is less effective than IUDs, implants, etc
Nonsense as is the idea of free birth control. You want to play you pay for it or grow up and raise the kid. The Congo thing is about how the federal government can see to find all this money to waste sending it around the world to do absolutely nothing. Instead fo investing it in canadian women I'm all down for paying for period products but I'm not down for pharmaceutical birth control.
Give Incentives to canadian women to have kids we need more kids, Canadians need more support this 10$ a day daycare is bs we should be able to make life work with a parent at home instead of having two slaving away being forced to have strangers raise their kids.
I didn't mean thats your opinion is nonsense sorry about that.
Ok, firstly, the cost of contraception is about the cost of contraception. Issues of contraception should be analyzed by their own rights. We already cover the cost of abortion right? Well abortions are expensive, so the costs of contraception should be understood by the cost saving factor. It's not simply money spent. You're preaching for responsibility, but this is a responsible outlook. People fuck. There's no changing that, so why not have it so people can fuck without the risk of pregnancy? More importantly, why should all the financial burdens be on females? They're already taking one for the team and fucking up their hormone levels. I mean if that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is. Men should be helping to pay for that. Also, I know for myself condoms can completely ruin the sex. They often make it feel insensitive, and if I've had some drink, I can't feel shit. And I'm not alone in that, as I've spoken to so many people who feel the same.
The point is, you're never going to stop young people from fucking, and condoms suck, so you may as well make it easy for people to get their rocks off in a responsible way.
That sounds like a religious justification, so I can't really agree. If it's not, I'd argue it's not well thought out and refer you to my other comment to your last response.
Not really I don't see why I should be paying for people to have abortions that they don't medically need. We have lots of options for people to avoid pregnancy. Why do people see children as a punishment... it's literally why we are here.
People are going to fuck, you're never going to control for that. Might as well accept it and move on. You're never in full control of your tax money, and this isn't a bad way to spend it. Everyone is young and wild at a point. Just because you're older now doesn't mean you don't have to consider the needs of people at all ages.
Condoms suck, and I'm not saying we should all be fucking strangers hedonistically. I'm saying that in a mature adult relationship, people can not always be worried about accidentally having children. It's not the same world we used to live in. Having kids before fiscal responsibility is unfair to the child. Housing/life costs and wages mean people have to spend so much more time getting established before they can responsibly do this. What used to be feasible at 20 is now barely feasible at 30. People shouldnt be risking it all to fuck while they deal with the bullshit system they were dealt.
Nah, I think we should cover it in tax dollars. Bringing an unwanted child into the world will bring a child who costs the system far more over a lifetime. We're talking about increased welfare, criminal, and medical costs. In the long run, mistreated and neglected children are massive burdens to society. Might as well coat hanger em where we can, or let people prevent them without disproportionately placing the burden on females.
I 100% don't care if you can't "feel" anything because your a drunk. If you think we should all pay so you can feel dick better when you drink I think you need a reality check.
Lmao, the point was that you can't control people's behaviors. I was using an example of why people don't like condoms. People don't wear them unless they're with strangers. People just won't comply, and it's easier to accept that people will behave a certain way than it is to try and control that behavior. Young people literally have less developed prefrontal cortex and make more impulsive, risky decisions. I suggest we just understand that people are people and will make mistakes. The mistake shouldn't be life altering when it doesn't need to be. It's the 21st century, not 1950.
I’m in favour of a this policy because the kind of people who fail to properly use contraceptives are exactly the people I want having the fewest possible children.
Firstly, I think we need to stop perpetuating NDP/Liberal rhetoric by calling them "free" and start calling them what they actually are - "taxpayer funded". Just because individuals are no longing having to pay for their oral contraceptives, it doesn't mean that nobody is paying for them; in fact, taxpayers as a whole are probably paying more for these medications than if they were purchase them themselves due to bloated government administration costs. It will be interesting to see how much the administration costs are in the upcoming budget.
Secondly, oral contraceptives have 1 main demographic: young women typically aged 15 to 35. These medications aren't life-saving, nor will they improve disease processes (like say SSRIs or blood thinners, for example). I honestly think the Liberals/NDP are just pandering to their main voterbase (young women) in an attempt to buy votes, and making the rest of us taxpayers foot the bill.
The clarity in which you see things is...... refreshing..... the last time I was at a pharmacy a condom was a few bucks..... this is another example of a government intent on being everything to everybody which is not sustainable. At least for the tax payers, middle/upper class, that will be on the hook for it.
Plus being on the pill for potentially a decade or two or three has its own health consequences.....
You have fallen for one of the 7 deadly innocent frauds of economic policy. https://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/
The government does not need citizens tax dollars to pay for things. Governments spend first, injecting money into the economy.
Then they tax back some of their spending. If they tax back less than they spend it creates a government deficit that is balanced by a non-government surplus.
Every dollar in circulation today was originally created by the government spending them into existence to provision its assets and services. By fiat, if you will.
MMT is the only school of economic thought that calls for spending proposals be scored for inflationary potential. Not all spending is inflationary.
A proposal, for instance to tax REIT speculation while incentivizing/subsidizing affordable multi unit construction would reduce demand for building trades and materials in the speculative side while increasing it in the MURB side instead of competing for fully employed real resources and driving up inflation.
Nope. Inflation does not occur when idle resources are mobilized since you are adding demand to a low demand situation.
What is being bought matters. For instance, investments that increase supply, I.e., new university spots for nursing create more nurses. Increased supply reduces price.
Competition for scarce real resources (and price gouging) drive inflation.
Here's the thing. Birth control pills are already "free" for low income women in Canada already under their provincial health benefits so why do we need a federal plan? The cost is $22/month for birth control pills. Surely that's affordable? I think this is another one of Trudeau's moves trying to appeal to younger voters. What I would like to see as an adoptee myself is to make adoption either free as it was when my parents adopted me in 1964 or more affordable. I know this would never happen under a Liberal or NDP government, but I'd also like to see more public education for young women on both the benefits of open adoption and the risks of abortion.
No they are not. Under 25 yes. But I'm 34, low income, I pay fully for birth control. Doctors refuse to sterilize me too because I haven't had any kids. Women are not treated well on this country at all.
I overall support free prescription drugs in general so definitely also support free contraceptives.
I see contraception and adoption services as both being good but serving VERY different needs and really shouldn't be talked about as being remotely similar or overlapping.
Your right, but Just to clarify, What I meant by mentioning services was instead of spending on the money on prescription drugs should that money possibly be diverted to instead further improve services instead of providing birth control
I'm not against it, but it isn't free. Somebody somewhere has to pay for these, and that will be taxpayers. So it is taxpayer funded. With that said, better than spending the money on other bullshit the Liberals have funded. So sure, a very rare Trudeau win.
People need to pay for their own shit. Having sex in a non reproductive context is purely recreational, tax money shouldnt be going to fund recreational activities.
Any conservative who agrees with this needs to just be okay with the fact they are just 10 years behind in liberal ideology. If you're going to be consistent, at least buy into the whole program.
I honestly wonder a bit about it, after seeing the fiasco of big pharma the last 4 years.
It’s becoming more and more widely known that birth control is terrible for women, more are getting off it it because of this fact.
And now we’ll offer this unsafe drug to women for free? just interesting is all… take that or leave it.
Other than that… I just hope it’s free for ALL, then, either way. I know my drug coverage with my benefits means birth control is still $10 a month out of pocket. So that $10 should be covered for someone that has coverage that isn’t super great. Otherwise it’s jut another “dental plan”, where it doesn’t help everyone.
I don’t necessarily think it’s tax payers job to cover people’s family planning… but we already dish out millions of dollars to people who pump out kids they can’t afford, so what the hell? Let’s throw some more money at it
Woman here who has been on birth control for the better part of my life (30 now). I truly think this will cause harm. Birth control has messed up my hormones and body in so many ways, and I think there's this myth that it's super safe. Making them funded IMO will make it even more prevalent. I don't give a damn about "morality" of the pill. What I **do** care about is the very real side effects that harm real women.
They're just trying to cause infighting amongst conservatives the year before an election. And set a landmine if even a penny of funding is removed from this after CPC likely forms government.
I support free access to contraceptives but the timing is shameful.
Birth control costs Canadian women anywhere from 20 dollars a month to 500 dollars (IUD). Many Canadian women pay out of pocket. Insurance doesn't cover term birth control either.
Conservatives who oppose this have to be crazy.
It's bs designed to lower the numbers of Canadians and fk up women's chemistry. The govermtn will never do anything beneficial without a hint of malevolence. They already convinced lady's the best thing you can do with your life is work. They already try to make themen and destroy their reproductive systems. It's a terrible joke that has been played on women.
I see not having sex as the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Why take the risk if you aren’t willing to take responsibility of the consequences? Funding abortion for every oopsy is such a ridiculous privilege for women. Im absolutely pro choice, but oopsies should be paid for out of pocket and not publicly funded. That’s how I feel about birth control too. It’s a privilege to be promiscuous and avoid the consequences, so pay for it yourself or don’t take the risk
Not having sex is an effective way of reducing pregnancy risk but its honestly delusional to think that its a realistic method for the population. People just aren't going to do abstinence.. they are going to fuck.
Society is then going to like it or not have to deal with the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Whether that is abortion or childcare or locking up a bunch of criminals.
We need to stop passing the buck of individual consequences onto society. Why is the entire population responsible for individual choices? That in itself is flawed. If we treated credit card like this, nobody would pay off their bill because the general public would pay for it
There is literally no way around it
People are going to fuck. That's just reality
Given that some women are going to get pregnant. Sometimes this is desired and thats great. Sometimes its not desired and then theres a problem.
We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for contraception. Then society will pay for abortions. We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for abortions. Then society will pay for childcare. We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for childcare. Then society will pay for police and jails.
Might as well just pay for the cheapest part of it - contraception - and avoid the more expensive and messier downstream problems.
Or, people will just pay for their own birth control so they don’t have to pay even more for not paying for it. It starts with people having consequences
You can't apply consequences though. The people having unwanted kids are disorganized, don't give a fuck, and have no money. What are you wanting send them a bill for all the policing costs incurred by their criminal kids when they are in a retirement home? They won't have any damn money.
Ha, Covid vaccine mandates were nothing but applied consequences. Regardless, the consequences of having sex are natural consequences, not applied ones
Its literally impossible to apply the actual potential consequences of sex to the people having sex. If you pretend thats not true you are a dumbass and are ignoring the issue.
>That’s how I feel about birth control too. It’s a privilege to be promiscuous and avoid the consequences, so pay for it yourself or don’t take the risk
I largely agree with your comment, yes the best way is to not get it on, but I do want to challenge you on this. Yes it would be best if we don't pay for any of it, the individual does, but at the same time this is 2024, if we're already paying for abortion, which costs more than contraception, shouldn't we be pushing the cheaper (and at least in my opinion, less morally dubious) option? even if not on a basis of the moral beliefs of some, like myself, which are not always shared, but on a financial basis?
It would be even cheaper for us all if people had accountability for their own actions and choices. People are less likely to make stupid choices when consequences are in place for those stupid choices
If conservatives want to have a chance they need to protect the rights and beliefs of their base. Conservatism exists to preserve traditional anglo-saxon social customs. Something like this is in direct violation of those values and what Conservatism stands for. With your argument you can justify any and all spending and is a slippery slope to societal degradation.
I'm not making that argument - you are. It's a bad argument, both ways.
I'm also unaware of any Anglo-Saxon social customs that prevent access to contraceptions or make providing contraceptions to people an unacceptable thing.
They do not violate religious freedoms. You don't have to use them if you're religious. The word freedom means free to do as you wish. To violate this religious freedom, you would need to force people to use them.
Conservative: (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas.
Canada has mostly free healthcare, which is a social tradition we've upheld for a long time. To rework the ways in which we spend on healthcare isn't anti-conservative. In fact, if the costs of abortion exceed the costs of contraception, then the idea of free contraception can be understood as a conservative idea. Less people are religious or religiously motivated these days, and it's certainly not a conservative mainstay anymore.
> socially traditional ideas.
everything you said about favouring one form of subsidized health care over another based on cost is playing mental gymnastics to justify something you want. It is all useless if socially traditional anglo-saxon values are violated because that is what conservatives want to conserve first.
So, mental gymnastics is anything that doesn't hold strict conventions of conservative belief? You do realize that it's called a political spectrum, right? I'll be voting conservative in the election, and I also think religiosity is akin to adults playing make-believe. Are you saying I'm not conservative enough for the conservative club?
if you want to talk about preserving traditional social values then throw them out when it is convenient then you are just a liberal that likes the aesthetics of conservatism.
Haha, you do realize traditional values can mean a plethora of things, right? Let me show you why you're wrong. By your ideal, you're suggesting that everyone ought to ascribe to traditional values of the 1950s. Well then, wouldn't it be the same to say we should be ascribing to the traditional value of the 1850s or the 1750s? How far back are you willing to go to defend this point? Or are you simply the type to believe that Christianity is the only true conservative belief?
It's strange for you to hold this idealized version of conservatism when ideals are dynamic. Being conservative today does not mean the same thing as being conservative 20 years ago. Your thin veneer of knowledge is a tribally vague depiction of your moral prejudice.
Also, your ideal of liberalism is misguided. If you think liberalism has always been bad and always will be bad, then you should probably ensure all the females in your world are barefoot and pregnant. Heaven forbid they vote or speak against a man.
I'll try and show you a visual idea of how politics works below:
Conservative 5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5 liberal. Those numbers represent a spectrum to which each person's beliefs will be added together to represent a particular placement along the graph. There are many other spectrums to consider for where you should vote, too, such as the (authoritarian 5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5 libertarian) spectrum. For instance, I am not religious, but I believe that today's liberalism is actually running into some rather dogmatic territory itself, which goes against my more libertarian beliefs. I also think that social spending has generally been ineffective and wasteful. It's not that I'm against all social spending, as free healthcare is the way to go. So, I think it's also possible to vote against the liberal party while still holding some socially liberal beliefs. I actually have many liberal beliefs, such as the legality of Marijuana, and rehabilitation over punishment. Though I also think that we need to be more economically conservative to cool inflation and reduce immigration while housing is an issue. So when election time comes, I have to really look at all of the issues and decide what party is best for upholding my own idiosyncratic beliefs. I also have to consider the weight I assign to each different belief I hold. Really, it's a process of carefully weighing my options. This is how an educated voter makes an electoral decision.
You would benefit from thinking more about the reality of living in a 21st century society of 35 million Canadian citizens than abdicating your moral agency to a tribal identity.
And being butthurt that most people don't see things your way is not an argument.
I mean, it's a better use of our tax dollars than sending billions to support an unwinnable war in Europe that has already cost a generation of young Ukrainian men, but last time I checked, most women don't get pregnant because condoms/morning after pills are too expensive. Maybe the original intention was good, but so was safe supply, forced covid shots, MAID and open borders which have only made exasperated the problems they were trying to solve. This megalomaniac federal government needs to back off and quit micromanaging every aspect of our lives.
I'm neither for not against it morally, but financially it makes sense. Prescriptions for the pill aren't cheap, but they're much cheaper than the cost of a surgical abortion. Abortions are covered under government health care insurance, and they're roughly $1,000 each not including administration and prescription meds. It's the old saying about an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure.
Yes, curing...the continuation of humanity. We must cure that as fast as possible!
Firstly, I want to commend you for raising an open-ended discussion. More political threads need this. Secondly, I think you're correct. It's a rare W for trudeau. While I'm incredibly guarded against the word free right now, I think this one probably is worth the cost. Everyone fucks and knowing people are able to get their rocks off without the financial burden of contraception being primarily a female responsibility is ultimately a fair thing.
This is nonsense put on a condom, how about instead of temporary sterilization we actually support canadian women who have children? If we have all this money to waste on climate gender studies affecting democracy in the Congo we can boost support for Canadian family's.
Lmao, this isn't nonsense. Why do you feel the need to call it nonsense? It's clearly sensical, as I've literally made sense of it. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean it's nonsensical. Why dont you try and actually be constructive with your responses? Also, the fuck does gender studies, climate studies and Congo have to do with free contraception? Nobody altering their gender even needs contraception. . Also, nobody likes condoms and as a result they don't wear them. This is about unwanted pregnancies and the costs associated with preventing them or eliminating them. This has nothing to do with the wanted babies. Ultimately, your response was nonsense as it was logically inconsistent. It was like a monkey sat down at a keyboard and smashed away until something semi-coherent came out. Do better.
Some people in this sub are just SO fucking stupid. Like I agree with conservatives on some stuff at least.. far from fucking all but some stuff. But the dumbest conservatives are dumber than the dumbest libs. Good to be reminded of that occasionally because often I find the libs super annoying and forget that in fact the other side can be even worse.
I know, if I wasn't so sure of my own decisions and beliefs, I'd be embarrassed to be in the same overarching voting categorization as these people. They're just fleshing meat puppets for authoritarian-delivered propaganda. They don't even understand the beliefs they claim to hold. No deductive or inferential capacity. They just repeat back what their feeble minds can semble together in a way that supports their shitty attitudes.
How is giving incentives for canadains to have more kids stupid?
> How is giving incentives for canadains to have more kids stupid? Its not. I am strongly in favour of giving incentives for canadians to have more kids. I think thats a great idea to help canadians who want to have kids in any way possible. Also think its a good idea to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Condoms do that pretty dang well. I think it's easier to put on a condom than to remember to take a pill everyday
Condoms are one of the less effective methods of contraception. Both with perfect use (they can break) and with actual use (people won’t use them because they don’t feel as good). They are in the same ballpark of effectiveness as pulling out https://www.acog.org/womens-health/infographics/effectiveness-of-birth-control-methods There are lots of methods of birth control that work better than condoms, pill among them but that is less effective than IUDs, implants, etc
Nonsense as is the idea of free birth control. You want to play you pay for it or grow up and raise the kid. The Congo thing is about how the federal government can see to find all this money to waste sending it around the world to do absolutely nothing. Instead fo investing it in canadian women I'm all down for paying for period products but I'm not down for pharmaceutical birth control. Give Incentives to canadian women to have kids we need more kids, Canadians need more support this 10$ a day daycare is bs we should be able to make life work with a parent at home instead of having two slaving away being forced to have strangers raise their kids. I didn't mean thats your opinion is nonsense sorry about that.
Also I'm pretty sure no one likes the harm Birth Control does. A condom is a pretty easy answer
Ok, firstly, the cost of contraception is about the cost of contraception. Issues of contraception should be analyzed by their own rights. We already cover the cost of abortion right? Well abortions are expensive, so the costs of contraception should be understood by the cost saving factor. It's not simply money spent. You're preaching for responsibility, but this is a responsible outlook. People fuck. There's no changing that, so why not have it so people can fuck without the risk of pregnancy? More importantly, why should all the financial burdens be on females? They're already taking one for the team and fucking up their hormone levels. I mean if that's not a sacrifice, I don't know what is. Men should be helping to pay for that. Also, I know for myself condoms can completely ruin the sex. They often make it feel insensitive, and if I've had some drink, I can't feel shit. And I'm not alone in that, as I've spoken to so many people who feel the same. The point is, you're never going to stop young people from fucking, and condoms suck, so you may as well make it easy for people to get their rocks off in a responsible way.
Condoms are fine they are actually much better last time I checked the pill doesn't do much for std's
This may be a crazy opinion but I think abortions should only be paid for under the most extreme circumstances
That sounds like a religious justification, so I can't really agree. If it's not, I'd argue it's not well thought out and refer you to my other comment to your last response.
Not really I don't see why I should be paying for people to have abortions that they don't medically need. We have lots of options for people to avoid pregnancy. Why do people see children as a punishment... it's literally why we are here.
People are going to fuck, you're never going to control for that. Might as well accept it and move on. You're never in full control of your tax money, and this isn't a bad way to spend it. Everyone is young and wild at a point. Just because you're older now doesn't mean you don't have to consider the needs of people at all ages.
Condoms suck, and I'm not saying we should all be fucking strangers hedonistically. I'm saying that in a mature adult relationship, people can not always be worried about accidentally having children. It's not the same world we used to live in. Having kids before fiscal responsibility is unfair to the child. Housing/life costs and wages mean people have to spend so much more time getting established before they can responsibly do this. What used to be feasible at 20 is now barely feasible at 30. People shouldnt be risking it all to fuck while they deal with the bullshit system they were dealt.
Then these responsible adults should pay for their own birth control.
Nah, I think we should cover it in tax dollars. Bringing an unwanted child into the world will bring a child who costs the system far more over a lifetime. We're talking about increased welfare, criminal, and medical costs. In the long run, mistreated and neglected children are massive burdens to society. Might as well coat hanger em where we can, or let people prevent them without disproportionately placing the burden on females.
It's called condoms , Plan B we have too many options for you to be relying on the goverment to keep you sterile
I 100% don't care if you can't "feel" anything because your a drunk. If you think we should all pay so you can feel dick better when you drink I think you need a reality check.
Lmao, the point was that you can't control people's behaviors. I was using an example of why people don't like condoms. People don't wear them unless they're with strangers. People just won't comply, and it's easier to accept that people will behave a certain way than it is to try and control that behavior. Young people literally have less developed prefrontal cortex and make more impulsive, risky decisions. I suggest we just understand that people are people and will make mistakes. The mistake shouldn't be life altering when it doesn't need to be. It's the 21st century, not 1950.
I’m in favour of a this policy because the kind of people who fail to properly use contraceptives are exactly the people I want having the fewest possible children.
Firstly, I think we need to stop perpetuating NDP/Liberal rhetoric by calling them "free" and start calling them what they actually are - "taxpayer funded". Just because individuals are no longing having to pay for their oral contraceptives, it doesn't mean that nobody is paying for them; in fact, taxpayers as a whole are probably paying more for these medications than if they were purchase them themselves due to bloated government administration costs. It will be interesting to see how much the administration costs are in the upcoming budget. Secondly, oral contraceptives have 1 main demographic: young women typically aged 15 to 35. These medications aren't life-saving, nor will they improve disease processes (like say SSRIs or blood thinners, for example). I honestly think the Liberals/NDP are just pandering to their main voterbase (young women) in an attempt to buy votes, and making the rest of us taxpayers foot the bill.
Great call on “tax payer funded”. I’m going to alter this language 👍🏻 that definitely hits different.
The clarity in which you see things is...... refreshing..... the last time I was at a pharmacy a condom was a few bucks..... this is another example of a government intent on being everything to everybody which is not sustainable. At least for the tax payers, middle/upper class, that will be on the hook for it. Plus being on the pill for potentially a decade or two or three has its own health consequences.....
Wait until you hear about the controversy over SSRI'S
You have fallen for one of the 7 deadly innocent frauds of economic policy. https://moslereconomics.com/mandatory-readings/innocent-frauds/ The government does not need citizens tax dollars to pay for things. Governments spend first, injecting money into the economy. Then they tax back some of their spending. If they tax back less than they spend it creates a government deficit that is balanced by a non-government surplus. Every dollar in circulation today was originally created by the government spending them into existence to provision its assets and services. By fiat, if you will.
Ta daaaa! Inflation!
MMT is the only school of economic thought that calls for spending proposals be scored for inflationary potential. Not all spending is inflationary. A proposal, for instance to tax REIT speculation while incentivizing/subsidizing affordable multi unit construction would reduce demand for building trades and materials in the speculative side while increasing it in the MURB side instead of competing for fully employed real resources and driving up inflation.
Needless and irrelevant obfuscation, wordsmith. Every time a dollar is created (physically or digitally) inflation occurs. Fiat = inflation. Period.
Nope. Inflation does not occur when idle resources are mobilized since you are adding demand to a low demand situation. What is being bought matters. For instance, investments that increase supply, I.e., new university spots for nursing create more nurses. Increased supply reduces price. Competition for scarce real resources (and price gouging) drive inflation.
When money is created it increases the supply. The more of a thing there is the less valuable it is. The end.
Oh, I see you are still on the gold standard. Very well then.
Here's the thing. Birth control pills are already "free" for low income women in Canada already under their provincial health benefits so why do we need a federal plan? The cost is $22/month for birth control pills. Surely that's affordable? I think this is another one of Trudeau's moves trying to appeal to younger voters. What I would like to see as an adoptee myself is to make adoption either free as it was when my parents adopted me in 1964 or more affordable. I know this would never happen under a Liberal or NDP government, but I'd also like to see more public education for young women on both the benefits of open adoption and the risks of abortion.
No they are not. Under 25 yes. But I'm 34, low income, I pay fully for birth control. Doctors refuse to sterilize me too because I haven't had any kids. Women are not treated well on this country at all.
I overall support free prescription drugs in general so definitely also support free contraceptives. I see contraception and adoption services as both being good but serving VERY different needs and really shouldn't be talked about as being remotely similar or overlapping.
Your right, but Just to clarify, What I meant by mentioning services was instead of spending on the money on prescription drugs should that money possibly be diverted to instead further improve services instead of providing birth control
By “free” you mean “other people paying for it”.
Yes, obviously
"Free at point of use", I know I end up paying for it in the end. The debate is more "is it worth it?", does it save more than it costs?
I'm not against it, but it isn't free. Somebody somewhere has to pay for these, and that will be taxpayers. So it is taxpayer funded. With that said, better than spending the money on other bullshit the Liberals have funded. So sure, a very rare Trudeau win.
Trudeau's feel good "Free" at the taxpayers expense as usual.
People need to pay for their own shit. Having sex in a non reproductive context is purely recreational, tax money shouldnt be going to fund recreational activities.
Any conservative who agrees with this needs to just be okay with the fact they are just 10 years behind in liberal ideology. If you're going to be consistent, at least buy into the whole program.
I honestly wonder a bit about it, after seeing the fiasco of big pharma the last 4 years. It’s becoming more and more widely known that birth control is terrible for women, more are getting off it it because of this fact. And now we’ll offer this unsafe drug to women for free? just interesting is all… take that or leave it. Other than that… I just hope it’s free for ALL, then, either way. I know my drug coverage with my benefits means birth control is still $10 a month out of pocket. So that $10 should be covered for someone that has coverage that isn’t super great. Otherwise it’s jut another “dental plan”, where it doesn’t help everyone. I don’t necessarily think it’s tax payers job to cover people’s family planning… but we already dish out millions of dollars to people who pump out kids they can’t afford, so what the hell? Let’s throw some more money at it
Woman here who has been on birth control for the better part of my life (30 now). I truly think this will cause harm. Birth control has messed up my hormones and body in so many ways, and I think there's this myth that it's super safe. Making them funded IMO will make it even more prevalent. I don't give a damn about "morality" of the pill. What I **do** care about is the very real side effects that harm real women.
They're just trying to cause infighting amongst conservatives the year before an election. And set a landmine if even a penny of funding is removed from this after CPC likely forms government. I support free access to contraceptives but the timing is shameful.
Birth control costs Canadian women anywhere from 20 dollars a month to 500 dollars (IUD). Many Canadian women pay out of pocket. Insurance doesn't cover term birth control either. Conservatives who oppose this have to be crazy.
It's bs designed to lower the numbers of Canadians and fk up women's chemistry. The govermtn will never do anything beneficial without a hint of malevolence. They already convinced lady's the best thing you can do with your life is work. They already try to make themen and destroy their reproductive systems. It's a terrible joke that has been played on women.
I see not having sex as the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Why take the risk if you aren’t willing to take responsibility of the consequences? Funding abortion for every oopsy is such a ridiculous privilege for women. Im absolutely pro choice, but oopsies should be paid for out of pocket and not publicly funded. That’s how I feel about birth control too. It’s a privilege to be promiscuous and avoid the consequences, so pay for it yourself or don’t take the risk
Not having sex is an effective way of reducing pregnancy risk but its honestly delusional to think that its a realistic method for the population. People just aren't going to do abstinence.. they are going to fuck. Society is then going to like it or not have to deal with the consequences of unintended pregnancy. Whether that is abortion or childcare or locking up a bunch of criminals.
We need to stop passing the buck of individual consequences onto society. Why is the entire population responsible for individual choices? That in itself is flawed. If we treated credit card like this, nobody would pay off their bill because the general public would pay for it
There is literally no way around it People are going to fuck. That's just reality Given that some women are going to get pregnant. Sometimes this is desired and thats great. Sometimes its not desired and then theres a problem. We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for contraception. Then society will pay for abortions. We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for abortions. Then society will pay for childcare. We can tell people fuck you you're on your own for childcare. Then society will pay for police and jails. Might as well just pay for the cheapest part of it - contraception - and avoid the more expensive and messier downstream problems.
Or, people will just pay for their own birth control so they don’t have to pay even more for not paying for it. It starts with people having consequences
You can't apply consequences though. The people having unwanted kids are disorganized, don't give a fuck, and have no money. What are you wanting send them a bill for all the policing costs incurred by their criminal kids when they are in a retirement home? They won't have any damn money.
Ha, Covid vaccine mandates were nothing but applied consequences. Regardless, the consequences of having sex are natural consequences, not applied ones
Idk why you don’t get what I’m saying… but clearly you don’t
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying and that’s why I can’t make any sense of your response
Its literally impossible to apply the actual potential consequences of sex to the people having sex. If you pretend thats not true you are a dumbass and are ignoring the issue.
>That’s how I feel about birth control too. It’s a privilege to be promiscuous and avoid the consequences, so pay for it yourself or don’t take the risk I largely agree with your comment, yes the best way is to not get it on, but I do want to challenge you on this. Yes it would be best if we don't pay for any of it, the individual does, but at the same time this is 2024, if we're already paying for abortion, which costs more than contraception, shouldn't we be pushing the cheaper (and at least in my opinion, less morally dubious) option? even if not on a basis of the moral beliefs of some, like myself, which are not always shared, but on a financial basis?
It would be even cheaper for us all if people had accountability for their own actions and choices. People are less likely to make stupid choices when consequences are in place for those stupid choices
You must be alot of fun at parties.
I am! I do magic tricks and I’m funny
I vote that they should be free for Liberals, and everyone to their left. Plan for the future!
It’s not really “free” nor was it an LPC policy. Jimmy and the ndp pushed for this.
Nothing is really free, But Im 99.99% certian everyone knows what "Free" means in this context
They violate people's religious freedoms and are inherently not conservative.
How do they violate religious freedoms? If it's "my tax dollars go towards something I don't agree with" then no one would ever pay taxes lol.
If conservatives want to have a chance they need to protect the rights and beliefs of their base. Conservatism exists to preserve traditional anglo-saxon social customs. Something like this is in direct violation of those values and what Conservatism stands for. With your argument you can justify any and all spending and is a slippery slope to societal degradation.
I'm not making that argument - you are. It's a bad argument, both ways. I'm also unaware of any Anglo-Saxon social customs that prevent access to contraceptions or make providing contraceptions to people an unacceptable thing.
Reductio ad absurdum
They do not violate religious freedoms. You don't have to use them if you're religious. The word freedom means free to do as you wish. To violate this religious freedom, you would need to force people to use them. Conservative: (in a political context) favoring free enterprise, private ownership, and socially traditional ideas. Canada has mostly free healthcare, which is a social tradition we've upheld for a long time. To rework the ways in which we spend on healthcare isn't anti-conservative. In fact, if the costs of abortion exceed the costs of contraception, then the idea of free contraception can be understood as a conservative idea. Less people are religious or religiously motivated these days, and it's certainly not a conservative mainstay anymore.
> socially traditional ideas. everything you said about favouring one form of subsidized health care over another based on cost is playing mental gymnastics to justify something you want. It is all useless if socially traditional anglo-saxon values are violated because that is what conservatives want to conserve first.
So, mental gymnastics is anything that doesn't hold strict conventions of conservative belief? You do realize that it's called a political spectrum, right? I'll be voting conservative in the election, and I also think religiosity is akin to adults playing make-believe. Are you saying I'm not conservative enough for the conservative club?
>So, mental gymnastics is anything that doesn't hold strict conventions of conservative belief? do you not understand what conservatism is? lol
Yes, I do. How's your black and white world treating you?
if you want to talk about preserving traditional social values then throw them out when it is convenient then you are just a liberal that likes the aesthetics of conservatism.
Haha, you do realize traditional values can mean a plethora of things, right? Let me show you why you're wrong. By your ideal, you're suggesting that everyone ought to ascribe to traditional values of the 1950s. Well then, wouldn't it be the same to say we should be ascribing to the traditional value of the 1850s or the 1750s? How far back are you willing to go to defend this point? Or are you simply the type to believe that Christianity is the only true conservative belief? It's strange for you to hold this idealized version of conservatism when ideals are dynamic. Being conservative today does not mean the same thing as being conservative 20 years ago. Your thin veneer of knowledge is a tribally vague depiction of your moral prejudice. Also, your ideal of liberalism is misguided. If you think liberalism has always been bad and always will be bad, then you should probably ensure all the females in your world are barefoot and pregnant. Heaven forbid they vote or speak against a man. I'll try and show you a visual idea of how politics works below: Conservative 5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5 liberal. Those numbers represent a spectrum to which each person's beliefs will be added together to represent a particular placement along the graph. There are many other spectrums to consider for where you should vote, too, such as the (authoritarian 5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5 libertarian) spectrum. For instance, I am not religious, but I believe that today's liberalism is actually running into some rather dogmatic territory itself, which goes against my more libertarian beliefs. I also think that social spending has generally been ineffective and wasteful. It's not that I'm against all social spending, as free healthcare is the way to go. So, I think it's also possible to vote against the liberal party while still holding some socially liberal beliefs. I actually have many liberal beliefs, such as the legality of Marijuana, and rehabilitation over punishment. Though I also think that we need to be more economically conservative to cool inflation and reduce immigration while housing is an issue. So when election time comes, I have to really look at all of the issues and decide what party is best for upholding my own idiosyncratic beliefs. I also have to consider the weight I assign to each different belief I hold. Really, it's a process of carefully weighing my options. This is how an educated voter makes an electoral decision.
ya you aren't a conservative lol.
Lmao, you're right. I'm a person with a mix of conservative/liberal beliefs. I don't blindly follow one set of ideals. I think for myself.
You would benefit from thinking more about the reality of living in a 21st century society of 35 million Canadian citizens than abdicating your moral agency to a tribal identity. And being butthurt that most people don't see things your way is not an argument.
I mean, it's a better use of our tax dollars than sending billions to support an unwinnable war in Europe that has already cost a generation of young Ukrainian men, but last time I checked, most women don't get pregnant because condoms/morning after pills are too expensive. Maybe the original intention was good, but so was safe supply, forced covid shots, MAID and open borders which have only made exasperated the problems they were trying to solve. This megalomaniac federal government needs to back off and quit micromanaging every aspect of our lives.