The economics of "unwanted" children you are citing are such accounting scam. Is it your view that each additional citizen is a net loser economically for the government?
No. Each unwanted pregnancy that results in a net economic positive is generally fungible with a wanted pregnancy (ie unwanted pregnancies that turn out with a well adjusted child are from women who generally want children but wanted delayed timing).
Not sure where you're going with that. The fact is even unwanted pregnancies are economic winners, particularly on average, from the government's point of view. If you want to make a utilitarian argument on this point you're stuck with the actual facts.
Also unwanted pregnancies are far more likely to have the mother engage in behaviours like drinking; drugs; or risk STDs. Also those who forgo birth control for reasons of being unable to afford birth control are by far the most likely to have unwanted pregnancies that are a net drain on society.
So in summary, people who are net drains on society will have pregnancies that increase the net loss on that mother? I may agree, but you're making a huge assumption that even such a mother is a net drain on society - it's based on overweighting easy to digest numbers (like welfare costs) and not considering tough to calculate impacts. Certainly, those of you who accept the basic income arguments can not turn around and label
any consumer, even this one, as a net loss and be consistent with the logic behind the concept that consumption of resources provided by the government results in a gain.
In any event, you should look at the numbers, those kids may start at a disadvantage, but even they are net positives to society from an economic point of view on average.
It actually has a gross negative effect if it's used to time shift children to later in life, as you end up with extremely costly fertility treatments and much higher risk and more expensive pregnancies generally.
Actually you are mistaken. A big reason for poverty is having children before finishing education. By delaying pregnancy to a wanted time period, the women is much less likely to need government assistance and be in poverty and thus cost the government far less.
This is a much larger topic, but I want to pull this part out separately because you are actually being non-responsive. Nothing I said is incorrect, I included a specific qualifier on it. Your criticism is literally incorrect, as you are talking about a circumstance that is specifically not covered by me. Do you really think I would object to the idea that time shifting to a better time to raise kids would cause an economic harm (even if I would, it'd still be better for the children)?
My point was taking notice of the
fact that there has been a marked shift to pushing pregnancy well past the ideal time for pregnancy, with a big impact on costs of that pregnancy and overalll health. People have the that right of course, but it does undercut your "economic" argument.
Also IVF in Belgium costs 3K(USD about 2K euro) in the US 12k(USD). It is another area of ridiculously overpriced medicine in the US.
Yes, forcing everything through our ridiculous government manipulated market increases the costs.
Fair enough. It is logical for health insurance to cover birth control, since it is a net savings to the insurance companies as well. Vaccines are generally covered by insurance for widely needed ones.
Vaccines are heavily subsidized directly and indirectly (tort relief) by the government, which is why they are covered.
I agree it makes perfect sense for birth control to be covered if its a net benefit, but if that's the case there is no reason to force it.
I also find it fascinating that most people who make this argument do a very poor analysis. Why is it efficient to cover birth control? Just to stop pregnancy? What about the savings on the STD front is that not efficient? Why would we cover anti-pregnancy measures (pills, Iuds) and not anti-disease measures (condoms)?
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of physiology and psychology. Basically noone ever decided to be an alcoholic or addict. These are diseases not choices.
Bull crap. Plenty of people have decided to become alcoholics and addicts. And even more have decided not to seek treatment.
Many things can impair personal responsibility but you're delusional if you think that everyone who is an addict, alcoholic or obese is subject to a genetic condition that meant they couldn't control themselves.
And it may be a good idea, that doesn't make it a government responsibility (or even entitle the government to do it).
The SC ruled that the government has the right and authority to do so.
Really, where did they do that? I'd like to see you provide the language on that.
Or ignoring that the 'promote the general welfare' clause.
Or understanding what it means, and more importantly doesn't include.
Also it is idiocy to have things like Medicare and Medicaid and then not promote stuff that can reduce those costs in a non intrusive way.
It is idiocy to insulate anyone from the harmful costs of decisions they personally control. if you agreed to pay any speeding tickets your friend earned and made a law that he couldn't lose his license so long as the tickets were paid, what would happen?
Would you be on here claiming that his rampant speeding was a result of a genetic inability to go slow (ala Ricky Bobby)?
Once you decide the government is responsible for people's results, they accrete to themselves the ability to control those costs - ie your life.
And? That's what market forces are, people competing to get your business with a combination of price and quality. The same process would work for most non-life threatening surgical situations. Certainly would work for testing regimes that rely on the "expensive" machine more than any professional qualifications.
Stuff that is needed 'immediately' for existing medical conditions are things that you must have, there is no reasonable way to go 'oh I probably can wait on that MRI 12 months and go to a cheap provider' like you can with LASIK surgery or simple cosmetic surgery.
Why would you have to? DO you understand the least thing about market forces? Open up MRI's to the market and your wait time will go down, your costs will go down and the technology itself will improve.
Also there isn't objective criteria for most things LASIK - you can ask your friends if they see better and there are lots of people so you can get referals; cosmetic you can see if your friends nip and tuck worked or not - lay persons can't judge a skilled versus unskilled MRI or XRay provider - it takes medical expertise to judge the quality of the service for an MRI or XRay.
Lay persons can't judge, responsiveness and wait time? Costs and professionalism? They can't communicate that an MRI provider's results were rejected by their doctor?
I'll ask you specifically, are you incompetent to evaluate whether you should use a specific doctor? Most people are not in fact incompetent at identifying qualify medical providers, even if they have no basis for direct evaluation of their skill.
I'm all for 'government pays for the cheapest and most effective option, more expensive fancy is out of pocket'. Basically things that effect survival, longevity, and employability should be covered.
Yep, just like I said the whole time. Government control leads to rationing and lower services level.
Sigh... really sigh. It is NOT a fundamental misunderstanding. That is what insurance means.
Insurance had that narrow meaning 200 years ago. It has had the broader meaning for longer than you and I have been alive.
It really doesn't unless you qualify it with one additional word "medical." Insurance works the same way, and far more efficiently in virtually every other context.
I get we made a choice to force medical insurance to be "health plans" instead of insurance. But you have to live with the actual results of that government manipulation when you make your arguments. You can't pretend the harmful consequences you are looking at are not the direct results of that governmental interference.
