Mass. Senate unanimously passes free birth control bill

[dead0man]

What's the point of this post? There was no mention of a tax increase in the article.

well free birth control isn't free (nothing the govt gives out for "free" is), there will be an increase in taxes or decrease in funds from something else....unless Mass. has a huge surplus, but we all know that can't be true.

That said, even with the hard inefficiencies built into any govt program, this has a good chance of actually paying for itself in the long run.  I still wouldn't support it though.  Not the govt's job IMHO.

[dead0man]

What's the point of this post? There was no mention of a tax increase in the article.

well free birth control isn't free (nothing the govt gives out for "free" is), there will be an increase in taxes or decrease in funds from something else....unless Mass. has a huge surplus, but we all know that can't be true.

That said, even with the hard inefficiencies built into any govt program, this has a good chance of actually paying for itself in the long run.  I still wouldn't support it though.  Not the govt's job IMHO.

Ignoring the strong need for government to provide medical care, and yes that includes birth control, surely you'd agree government has a fundamental duty to be good stewards of tax monies. This policy clearly serves that fundamental purpose.

Well that would really depend on how they implemented it right?  If it costs the naive suckers of Mass. $2B/year and only hands out 241 condoms and all of those are at Harvard, then no.  If it takes monies away from 53 years old retired public employees making 6 digits a year from the state and gives out millions of various forms of birth control to poor people that need it and actually use it, then sure.  The devil is in the details.

[dead0man]

What's the point of this post? There was no mention of a tax increase in the article.

well free birth control isn't free (nothing the govt gives out for "free" is), there will be an increase in taxes or decrease in funds from something else....unless Mass. has a huge surplus, but we all know that can't be true.

That said, even with the hard inefficiencies built into any govt program, this has a good chance of actually paying for itself in the long run.  I still wouldn't support it though.  Not the govt's job IMHO.

Ignoring the strong need for government to provide medical care, and yes that includes birth control, surely you'd agree government has a fundamental duty to be good stewards of tax monies. This policy clearly serves that fundamental purpose.

Well that would really depend on how they implemented it right?  If it costs the naive suckers of Mass. $2B/year and only hands out 241 condoms and all of those are at Harvard, then no.  If it takes monies away from 53 years old retired public employees making 6 digits a year from the state and gives out millions of various forms of birth control to poor people that need it and actually use it, then sure.  The devil is in the details.

Wow. That post has more straw man p e r sentence then any Forum Post in the last month. Congratulations indeed

whoa, this has been thrown at me many times before, sometimes even correctly, but this may be the most off accusation of that ever.  Congrats back at ya kid!  Perhaps you need to look up words before you use them....especially if you think you're using them as an insult.  <whispers>Makes you look silly.