The Instigator
Geneiveve
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
samfrench
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The US government should make long term birth control affordable for low income women

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Geneiveve
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/27/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 572 times Debate No: 62365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Geneiveve

Pro

The benefits to having the gov't provide long term birth control to low income women are many fold. First, women who have access to reliable, long-term, affordable birth control earn more and need less gov't assistance then those without access. Second, if the gov't provided long-term birth control the abortion rates would decrease. Finally, When women have access to long-term birth control it increase their quality of life.

For the benefits of this debate, long-term affordable birth control is defined as IUD's, implants and the like.
samfrench

Con

It is not the role of government to coerce it's citizens to fund what boils down to an obstruction of free market exchange between two consenting individuals.

You have two major issues with you're position. First, if we Americans are truly free, the person who produced birth control should have the right to sell his or her product at whatever price he wishes. Then, a second party who wishes to purchase the birth control, can make an evaluation on if the utility of the product, in this case, birth control, is greater than the utility that could be otherwise provided by the money. This is part of being a free citizen.

Beside the fact that a free person is able to interact with other free individuals without a third party interfering (in this case, the government), there are market issues. The lowering of the price of long term birth control artificially with government enforced price ceilings causes as an effect a mismatch between the utility provided, so consumption of the product (birth control) increases. To make this simple, would you go to the doctor more often if a visit costs you a dollar, as opposed to if it cost you $300 a visit? What if it costs the doctor $150 dollars to take a patient for an appointment? If people are going there because they suspect they have a very minor ailment (they feel tired that day, etc), that creates a problem, where there is a gap in financing that must be paid by a third party. This is what is going on here. Now people are consuming at a great that is artificially increased.

Now, if you want the government to enact this by subsidizing with taxpayer money, I don't think I have any right to tell those people how their money should be spent, they earned it. If you expect them to just set a price ceiling, then who would want to produce at a price that would, more than likely, cause them to lose money. Why would I run a business that just loses me money? Then you have a shortage in the supply of long term birth control.

Now either very few people will be able to get birth control, or the government has to produce it (either by paying someone or in-sourcing it). Once you enter that arena, where the government (with no efficiency motivation by profit), takes over major industries (pharmaceutical production), you have full blown communism.

I could go on and on, but until I get more details, I'm going to think that you didn't fully consider the implications of what you are asking for.

Even if it does provide a net positive outcome for society, the United States is a government that was founded on the idea that a government gets it's authority by the consent of a free populace. Once the government starts coercing people with the threat of force (you go to jail if you don't pay taxes), along with a monopoly on force (the military), it's not a free country.

I don't think free birth control is worth being subjected to a communist government.
Debate Round No. 1
Geneiveve

Pro

The government has the right to negotiate health care costs just like an individual. Not only do they have the right, the frequently do. The United States government has been involved in the health care market for years. Medicare and Medicaid (created in 1965) are both long term examples that show government involvement in these matters actually helps both individuals and the market. Medicaid and Medicare are also examples of the government negotiating and participating in the market. It is not only our government that negotiates prices for health care services, the insurance companies also participate in manipulating the market in this fashion.

The newest health care laws, namely the ACA, have not caused the economic problems that you are suggesting. One reason would be the fact that health care demand is very inelastic (you get health care or you shorten your life). The supply for health care is also pretty inelastic. This is because the companies who make health care products/services cannot easily change their product. Economics 101 shows us that 2 inelastic supply and demand curves result in very little shortage when a price ceiling is introduced. Both the economic math, real world data, and history show that providing affordable health care (including birth control) does not hurt the economy, it actually helps individuals and the society.

One of the government's jobs is to take taxes and use them in ways that help society as a whole. Your argument about this government policy would be a whole different debate, so I would like to not open that can of worms in this debate. Can we both agree that this is a role that our current government holds?
samfrench

Con

samfrench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Geneiveve

Pro

I am sorry, I do not know the proper etiquette for a forfeited situation...
samfrench

Con

samfrench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
samfrench

Con

samfrench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Geneiveve

Pro

Final push...thank god.
samfrench

Con

samfrench forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Geneiveve 2 years ago
Geneiveve
What do you mean by "female right to other people's things?"
How are you defining equal?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You can comment on it right here. But try not giving us this female right to other peoples things. You fought to be equal, so start acting like it.
Posted by Geneiveve 2 years ago
Geneiveve
Would you care to debate your POV?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
They have access to long term birth control, it is called abstinence. And if they cannot contain make the fella come up with it. Why do you people want those not involved to pay for their lifestyle.It is about time this freeloader society took inventory of their responsibility for living in freedom. You do not have a right to another person's labor.Freeloader.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
GeneivevesamfrenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
GeneivevesamfrenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither Pro nor Con understood the economics of the policy Pro is recommending, despite both rooting their arguments in economic theory and policy. The obvious strategy to making birth control affordable is through subsidies to producers, but Con jumped straight into a price ceiling, devoting only one sentence to concede that a subsidy would be acceptable. He concluded with a fallacious slippery slope argument suggesting that price controls on birth control lead to a communist government. I would have awarded arguments to Pro, but she said that "health care demand is very inelastic". There is no such thing as demand being inelastic. It may be price inelastic, or income inelastic, or advertising inelastic, but not inelastic. No sources on either side, conduct to Pro because Con forfeited. Interesting topic, though. Good luck to both on future debates.