I think taxing only at the point of entry would be fairer.

Andrew Brennan: “…taxing only at point of entry…”

Am I the only one to notice the innuendo?

http://bbsimg.ngfiles.com/1/24281000/ngbbs507f51e8d325b.jpg

Andrew, Don’t be giving them ideas to tax sex. We’ll have a meter attached to organs, next!

@Eoin I couldn’t resist – I just had to put it in.

If you assume that people will have children rather than pay for contraception, yes.

How’s that working out in England?

Give it out for free………… But then cancel children’s allowance!

You wouldn’t happen to know where I could purchase a packet of XXL!

But we are the number 1 suppliers of young people to Europe. Why mess with our largest traditional export.

Any cost/benefit figures available ?

Any single blokes who are worried that their rubbers might go out of date?
..ever think of a posh uu@nk?

The Brookings Institute in the US examined the benefit of providing free contraception to those on Medicaid (free government medical care in the US) and found expansion of family planning saved 1.32 billion annually.

Breakdown of pregnancy costs here: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/3/pregnancy%20public%20cost%20monea%20thomas/03_pregnancy_public_cost_monea_thomas

I agree we in these times of no money we should teach kids the cheapest and most reliable form of contraception is to pull out early

….cold showers…

Slightly more reliable to not do it at all.

Unlike you Damocles, some of us live in the real world. Abstinence is not a realistic expectation.

“Abstinence is not a realistic expectation.”

You have very little faith in young people. And people call me cynical.

Damocles, five million years of evolution have taught us that abstinence does not work. The evidence is all around you.

Seamus, so people have no free will?

You could try the “rhythm method” too Damocles. But then you know what they call people who depend on the rhythm method don’t you?

“Parents”

Tomy, I have a kid already.

If religion has thought us anything, its that abstinence is only 99.9999% effective.

it’s that attitude that makes any ill in society proliferate. oh pandoras box is open, let’s not do anything about it. why should hardworking people have to foot the bill for people who want to have sex? don’t seem me asking for anyone to pay my insurance if I want to drive a car. why not legalize.

Yeah Jay Kay, you might still get rohypnoled by God…

So people not having intercourse are at more risk of pregnancy than those who “pull out early”.

How odd.

Damocles, there are plenty of examples in the US where abstinence is the only form of sex education thought in schools. In every case these will be the states with the very highest rates of teenage pregnancy. It is realism, not cynicism to point out that abstinence programs don’t work.

There is ample documentation of the fact that abstinence has a very high user failure rate.

My own pre-planned existence is due to the fact that, as my mother relates, diaphragms don’t work when they remain in your dressing gown pocket in the “heat of passion.”

Contraception, to work, has to robustly withstand the “heat of passion.” Immunity in humans is extremely rare. :-)

So abstinence doesn’t work when people don’t abstain?

Well done Damocles – your Blue Peter badge is in the post.

There’s no need to be rude.

Sometimes there is….

No.

We can agree to disagree – or are you just trying for the last word?

“thought in schools”

Maybe they should try teaching it.

Damocles, thanks for correcting my spelling errors rather than addressing the larger point. Always appreciated.

“Always appreciated.”

My pleasure.

Your point is that abstinence fails when people don’t abstain? Is there no middle way available to mankind where both participants can get closure on the situation without risking conception?

No Damocles, my point is that abstinence doesn’t work because people, in general, won’t abstain. Failure to recognize this is nothing more than deliberate naivety.

Also please feel free to explain why family sizes were significantly larger than the European norm until the 1990s, coincidentally right around when the sale of condoms without a perscription was allowed, when we have this fantastic “middle way” that doesn’t risk conception.

It would also be nice if you explained what the hell you meant by “middle way”.

So no one in Ireland has heard of non penetrative sex?

Never pegged you for a troll before.

Only a troll in the “person who doesn’t agree with you” sense. So not a troll, I had hinted at this other way before. It’s hardly my fault if people are unadventurous.

It was the same way when I was in school. The best thing of all was they waited until we were in 6th year

“Nothing is as expensive as what the government says is for free”

Contraception should not be free. Imagine the lobbying that’ll go on in govt from the providers/pharmaceuticals, to our already bought and paid for politicians.

When I was in school we had a single short sex-ed class, presented when we were in second year and to be totally honest I can’t remember most of it apart from the fact it was held in the dingiest room in the school. On the other hand we found time for a presentation on abstinence every second year, which was always presented by young hip college aged people, went on for most of the day in one of the nicest rooms in the school, and which always had the same examples of tearing a picture of a heart up to demonstrate how damaging sex was.

Same when rich people have kids

Difference is Tomy, rich people are more likely contributing a lot of money to society

Societal contribution is about a lot more than money – it’s unfortunate in recessionary times that vulnerable groups become targets during times of financial hardship.

The truth is that when anyone has a child there is a cost. That’s regardless of socio-economic status.

John, not proportionally, they’re not.

LOL!!! Brillant! Reminds me of what W C Fields said when asked why he didn’t drink water: “I never drink water – fish fu*k in it.”

The average age for a single parent is 37

Exactly. When in with the endocrinolgist yesterday, I was given a prescription for dianette. I don’t want to be on it, but I’m going to have to be so that I can have a fully functioning body.

€7 a month for the pill is not much agreed. But how much for the visit to the doctors every what is it 6 or 12 months for the test? And lets not forget the charge every few months to have a new prescription. I could honestly do 8 dinners for around €7 euro.

Now lets say someone doesn’t have protection because they want to eat and money is so tight that your counting the cents. What are the resulting payments made by the state?

Also what are the costs to the state if an STD/STI results from the lack of protection?

You’re right about the condoms Mags. When I was single most of the pack of 10 would go out of date before I might get a chance to use them!

The pill in its various forms has been used for 50 years by tens of millions of women. There’s absolutely no good reason to cut out the doctor’s visit and make it available over the counter.

That’s €100 to €240 off the cost right there, without the taxpayer picking up the bill. You’re welcome.

Proof reading fail. Should read “no good reason NOT to cut out the doctor’s visit”

@Kealan
Assuming the people in question can’t afford €7 a month I would take it that they qualify for a medical card, which would mean there’s no charge for doctor or prescription. However I do agree there is a major problem with the price of condoms

Well actually it’s important that women of all ages on the pill get their blood pressure monitored at least every 6 months. Now granted your pharmacist could do this but a trip to the GP really is the best option. Although I agree it’s a lot of money. Although sometimes you can just ask the nurse to check it quickly therefore saving you the money and still keeping you safe from the risks of oral contraception.

Mags, don’t forget the trip to the docs every 6months for the check up. That’s €100+ (depending on your doc) and then approx a tenner a pop for the packets of pill, that’s €120. That’s well over €200 a year and a lot of people struggle to find it.

I was going to say that. contraception should be cheap, but not free, at least for adults.
Now maybe it could be free for people under 18.

Some is very affordable, cilest or ovranette for 6 months is about 11-12 euros. €50 to see your doctor once a year, €20 for a repeat script for the other 6 months and that’s less than €96 per year. Or €8 per month, €2 per week, if you’re paying more talk to your GP and chemist.

Would you not consider that the taxpayer already foots the rather hefty bill for people not using contraception?

140 a month *12 * 18… = 30,240. That’s just for child benefit, include health, maybe more social welfare, education costs etc.

I think that’s my point Conor, having children is the parents responsibility, not the state’s.

But some parents can’t afford their children and while I agree with you in theory, of course all parents should provide for their children, I am very uncomfortable with the child poverty which would result.

Not to mention that Ireland has a stated policy enshrined in the Bunreacht na hEireann of preventing abortions. Free LARCs have been shown to be one of the best ways to achieve that aim.

Pierce2020, the only logical conclusion to what you are saying is that there should be no single parents allowance, or any kind of state-sponsored assistance with children such as free education. That would obviously be incredibly stupid.

Of course contraception should be free. The benefits would far outweigh the costs.

Bob I think it’s that stupid of an idea to ask people to be responsible for their actions.

Bob I don’t think it’s that stupid of an idea to ask people to be responsible for their actions

You can ask people to be responsible for their actions all you want but you’ll have to keep on asking again and again.

REALITY tells us that no matter what, people will try drugs, have unprotected sex, eat cockroaches….

So, given that we live in the real world maybe now we can take a look at the reality around the choices?
Pay for contraception yourself = unwanted pregnancies, STIs, cost to tax payer in child benefit
Free contraception = barrier of cost removed, small cost preventing much larger cost.

And if you really want to talk personal responsibility then you have to take that as far as someone contracting HiV due to unprotected sex. You’d hardly stick with the “tough luck” attitude then would you?

“You can ask people to be responsible for their actions all you want but you’ll have to keep on asking again and again.”

Could you educate them to be responsible? Are you responsible for your actions?

Yes you can, but then to assume that people will still think of the consequences in every detail of their life and take responsibility is simply naive and unrealistic.

I’m all for freedom of choice and personal responsibility but this issue is not about me – it’s about people, not individuals.

“it’s about people, not individuals.”

Classic.

What I meant (but didn’t word well) is that asking a person if they can be personally responsible will pretty much always result in them saying yes.

But asking a group of people if they think that people generally take responsibility for their actions and you’ll find a lot more doubt.

To call this an issue of personal responsibility is to miss the issue completely.

Pierce – your response makes no sense.

What you seem to be forgetting is that some people’s actions result in actual other people, actual other citizens of this Republic.

It’s hardly fair to blame kids for the lack of responsibility their parents may have shown. This idea that children are solely the responsibility of their parents is bloody stupid.

“To call this an issue of personal responsibility is to miss the issue completely.”

So a young person is not personally responsible for what they do?

Damocles, you continue to pursue this on one track only.

Everyone is personally responsible for what they do as individuals. It’s idealistic and naive to insist that this is an issue of personal responsibility – it’s not. It’s an issue of reality.

That reality is comparing the cost of free contraception versus prevented health issues and unwanted pregnancies.

So I’m not really sure what direction you’re looking at this, so hopefully your next reply might explain that instead of short questions which appear to have little point.

Bob I’m all for making more Irish citizens myself, in fact I have done just that. My point which you seem to avoid is that I made those children and I am responsible for them. I think you would like a situation where everybody can go around doing whatever they please with the knowledge that somebody else will foot the bill.

So Pierce you don’t collect child benefit do you?

By the same thread of your argument I expect you’re not spending my taxes over your decision to have kids?

So, Pierce, do you believe the state should refuse to pay for care for those who have damaged a liver through alcoholism, diabetes due to poor diet or lung cancer due to smoking? Logically, you would, as otherwise people can do whatever they please with the knowledge that someone will be paying the bill.

Pierce – if reducing that bill is actually what concerns you, then you should be totally in favour of free contraception. I presume you are?

As regards being responsible for the children you make, yes to a degree, but as citizens of this Republic the health and education of those children should not be dependent on your ability to pay for things – which is the only logical conclusion to your line of thinking.

Tomy, people have responsiblity for what they do and can be educated to realise that. They can also be educated to know that if they’re going to have full on sexual relations then, regardless of the precautions they take they might end up with a bambino, now bambinos (bambini?) are cute and fun but they’re also hard work and expensive and if you end up with one then you have to know that and take personal responsibility for the little lad or lass you can’t just go “Oh, sod it, the state will pay.” because the state is brassic.

If you treat young people with a little respect and educate them with what can and may well happen then they might surprise you.

If you just excuse them and say, oh they’re kids, we can’t expect them to be responsible, let’s not even bother, let’s just shower them in condoms, then you aren’t helping them or society.

Or maybe, like Seamus, you think that people have no free will, they are simply rutting animalistic beasts, in which case you are too. But I’m not.

First, it’s not an issue solely for young people (you seem to think only they have sex?!)

I remember what it was like to be young…. Usually people aren’t thinking about wide ranging social issues when they’re in the heat of the moment. That’s what I mean when I mention reality.

Here’s more reality:
http://news.yahoo.com/free-birth-control-means-drastic-drops-unplanned-pregnancies-224643988.html

You don’t see too many old people having kids, not without medical intervention. Then it’s not really an issue for contraception, is it?

no you don’t – but then I never said that.

What I’m saying is that people who are of reproductive/sexually active age are not all “young”.

Keep the head in the sand anyway – despite the evidence.

Tony, you are 100% correct, I don’t collect child benefit, never registered.

Nick, last time I looked sex wasn’t an illness, so your analogies are irrelevant.

Bob, I might be wrong but I don’t think sex and children are a right unlike health and education.

In general lads you might be right and I could be wrong. I still don’t think the price of contraception has ever been a barrier, not spending your own money on it would appear to be the worst false economy I can think of.

Pierce – you are avoiding the point.

You say you have an issue with bills being footed by the taxpayer.

If you are being honest, and aren’t just some Catholic right-winger who hates condoms, then logically you should be in favour of free condoms, as it will mean a much smaller bill for the tax payer.

So which is it Pierce?

Donal, I’ve been called many things in my life but none as hurtful as being called a Catholic. You are probably correct with the right-wing thing though. For the record I think condoms are great and every parent should hand them out to their kids, I just don’t see why they should be free.

Just It does look like I’m avoiding the point, I’m not in favour of a smaller bill, I’m in favour of no bill at all. I comes back to personal responsibility issue, that’s all.

Pierce, don’t be thrown off by the red thumbs. You are absolutely correct.

Nothing is for free.

“What I’m saying is that people who are of reproductive/sexually active age are not all “young”.”

They aren’t elderly either. So these People or individuals (which?) who may be producing children they don’t have to take responsibility for what they do, they are slaves to the errant will of nature.

Damocles, there’s really no point in continuing on the personal responsibility line – I don’t buy it as the issue so really, why continue to ask that question again and again after citing unrelated quotes?

The evidence is out there but you seem to think abstinence or some form of self control on a personal level is the answer to an issue where realistically money is the issue.

Whether contraception is free or not, personal responsibility is still necessary in using contraception. By making contraception free a barrier is removed in accessing it. I’m not saying anything about how affordable or not contraception is but the evidence is there.

An STD is indeed an illness. So how is contracting an STD somehow different to you than someone who went into liver failure due to heavy drinking? Both illness caused by “doing as you please”

“money is the issue.”

Throwing money at things always works. We’ve seen that here in Ireland.

Another blinkered comment Damocles

I’ll refer you to my earlier point which is backed up by evidence:
“Pay for contraception yourself = unwanted pregnancies, STIs, cost to tax payer in child benefit
Free contraception = barrier of cost removed, small cost preventing much larger cost.”

So it’s not a case of throwing money at the issue, it’s a case of the money now being spent can be reduced by diverting to a lower cost reasonable, evidence based solution.

They are not expensive. Less of the condescending “uneducated” remarks, totally unnecessary and uncalled for. You can disagree with me, no issue.

Again Tom, you have not researched your answered, and due to your lack of research, it would be fair to suggest it is uneducated. I do not mean for my answer to appear condescending, my apologies if you have taken this incorrectly. You have made a sweeping suggestion that contraception is inexpensive, and ‘everyone’ can afford them, yet the article clearly states otherwise. I fail to see how in excess of 300e would be ‘inexpensive’, but again, this is merely my opinion.

Understood, for me 300 euro is not expensive for something you want. The Tax payer shouldn’t have to pay for this. It would in fairness be expensive for essential medicine for ones health which of course contraceptives wouldn’t be classed as (not withstanding exceptional cases) but I trust you get my point.

You appear to be missing the point

Look up the term “Moral Hazard” Tony

Micheal, I understand perfectly what moral hazard is, and I’m not sure if your restricting your application of the concept but I’d like to point out that there is evidence on the effectiveness of free contraception. So we’re not operating on the basis of opinion but of fact.

Tayto bags.

And not just abstinence.

If you think in black and white terms of sex or abstinence that’s pretty boring.

Damocles is right, condoms are already given out for free – go to your GP, local university SU, hospital – condoms are already given there for free. And of course, some forms of contraception are also available on the medical card, and on the public system.
This should of course be done in conjunction with education and awareness. Making all contraceptives available to everyone for free is only great if you know the how’s, where’s, what’s, and when’s!

SU condoms are not free they are subsidised in your fees in some colleges

Tayto bag? I prefer the Tesco bag!

James, condoms are a fine technology, and I’m partial to their use myself. However the MOST EFFECTIVE forms of contraception in statistical terms (and therefore most cost effective to fund), are those that women can control.

I read that chlamydia and gonorrhea infections are on the increase. In my day people had to worry about HIV/AIDs. People don’t seem to see the risk any more. Casual sex is pretty unfulfilling compared to being with someone that you care about or love. Plus people leave themselves open to be used.

yea movember and black ops 2!

There will be a grant for mood music next!

Free cheese but not condoms? I know which one I’d prefer my kids having.

Tom, not meaning to be smart here but do you remember what it was actually like when you were 18 and “getting some”. Not always those moments where people are looking for their bank card….

This is hardly about handouts – it’s about shifting the direction of money and saving it.

There are a lot of benefits to free contraception, many of them are health benefits but it’s also pretty obvious that the cost of contraception is low and the cost of child benefit & treating health risks is relatively high

Tom – free contraceptives would actually mean less hand outs from the State – at least in terms of monetary cost.

What’s wrong with that?

Tom, it’s imperative that everyone reads your post.

People are not able to understand that nothing is for free; if there weren’t so many handouts we wouldn’t be broke.

Tom I Totally disagree with your statement of having to many handouts do you not understand how this economy works what you call handouts I call entitlements and reinbursements. when Irish people claim your so called handouts this is money that the majority of the people who are claiming them have paid into this society in the form of insurance PRSI and lots of other contributions in one form or another.
people claim benefits for a reason. and then you have the self employed for whom I am one of. I am unable to work due to ill health and I am entitled to absolutely nothing from this state so where are my handouts.
I would agree with you if you are saying we have to many handouts for people of non irish nationality, who have come to this country just for the benefits of which we have plenty. and those in particular who have made no contribution to this society, but have no problem collecting these handouts.
but to say we have to much handouts for our elderly, disabled, inferm, unemployed, sick through mental health or ill health, or other reasons why people need these so called handouts as you call them like i said i call them entitlements.

Bob, who pays for free contraceptives? The tax payer, right, so it’s an expense on the state, i.e a handout!

Tomy, fair point, I get it. I’m just against all these handouts from the state that costs you and I, i.e. the tax payer. Maybe if we have better use of public money I wouldn’t be so against it.

Fair point Paul but our PRSI can only stretch so far as can the rest of our taxes. I just get annoyed with this “free” stuff from the state that people think they are entitled to or should get, we have too much “free” stuff in this state hence were in a hole financially as a country.

Jim, in countries that provide free birth control, the cost for the free contraceptives is less than the cost in health care, child benefits and education that unwanted pregnancies would otherwise incur. It is a program that saves the state money, it doesn’t put an extra burden on the taxpayer. Obviously I’m assuming the trend will hold true here also.

Sorry meant unplanned instead of unwanted…

….@damocles …tis felt thou speaks wisely from the heart sir….salutary advice seen here…..