<p>Yeah, Higherlead. Somehow I am certain you are opposed to all those welfare queens taking your tax dollars to pay for their infants and children. So, why would you be a proponent of more unwanted kids? Who is going to pay for their health care, education, and perhaps even their housing and food? You surely won't want to!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The best way to avoid an unwanted pregnancy is avoid sex but I guess it is quaintly old fashioned to expect anyone to delay gratification
[/quote]
Not all consumers of campus birth control are hedonistic 18-year-olds -- some are married grad students who almost can't afford birth control and certainly can't afford a baby.</p>
<p>"Not all consumers of campus birth control are hedonistic 18-year-olds -- some are married grad students who almost can't afford birth control and certainly can't afford a baby."</p>
<p>And this is the school's problem how?</p>
<p>Abstinence is generally considered to be 100% effective.</p>
<p>what i want to know is what does "a year supply" mean. lol. seriously, if shes having that much sex--she should opt for a STD exam, which will add to the rising costs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what i want to know is what does "a year supply" mean. lol. seriously, if shes having that much sex--she should opt for a STD exam, which will add to the rising costs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A year's supply means twelve/thirteen packages: one-ish for each month. The choices are pills that are taken daily, patches that are applied weekly or a ring that's inserted monthly. It has nothing to do with how frequently you have sex.</p>
<p>Don't you get it, the drug companies want more babies. The population grows and more people to get sick. The means higher profits for them. </p>
<p>And for some of the comments made in here, not everyone has mommy and daddy paying their bills. Get out of your bubble.</p>
<p>The people commenting on this thread that young people should somehow control themselves and stick with abstinence are probably just frustrated because they aren't getting any. And I'd be willing to bet they're exclusively male. </p>
<p>Birth control is like any other prescription drug -- it should be available to everyone at an affordable price. $50/month is simply not affordable for a lot of people.</p>
<p>I believe it's to everyone's benefit to have all prescription medicatino including birth control be affordable to everyone -- whether or not they are students on a college campus.</p>
<p>"Birth control is like any other prescription drug -- it should be available to everyone at an affordable price. $50/month is simply not affordable for a lot of people."</p>
<p>Uhhh...since when are low prices for prescription drugs a universal right? And since when is it the drug companies' responsibility? They're reacting to a change in their initiatives, and then the people who use birth control are going to have to react to a change in their incentives and find alternatives. Birth control is not like any other prescription drug - it's a center of social and moral controversy - who's to say that it should be affordable? Who's to say what "affordable" is, anyway? And who's responsible for making it affordable?</p>
<p>...Or people could wait until they are married or even spend $0.25 for a condom.</p>
<p>Not all condoms are $0.25 have ever heard of XLs?</p>
<p>deluxe, </p>
<p>many married couples use birth control as well.</p>
<p>"Uhhh...since when are low prices for prescription drugs a universal right? And since when is it the drug companies' responsibility? They're reacting to a change in their initiatives, and then the people who use birth control are going to have to react to a change in their incentives and find alternatives. Birth control is not like any other prescription drug - it's a center of social and moral controversy - who's to say that it should be affordable? Who's to say what "affordable" is, anyway? And who's responsible for making it affordable?"</p>
<p>I think many of your questions go beyond the original scope of the thread, but I'll address them anyway.You may disagree, but I feel that affordable health care (including prescription drugs, including birth control) is a right, not a privilege. What ever happened to the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? We live in a country where prescription drugs and medications aren't affordable, not because they can't be, but because we value corporate profits over individual lives, and it's not something I'm proud of. The same medications are available for less money in other countries because their governments cap the costs, and I really see no reason as to why we should be the exception. The argument that we should have to pay more for research and development is bogus - the top 10 American pharmaceutical companies only reinvest ~12.5% of their profits in R&D (compared to about ~20% reinvested by the top 10 European pharmaceutical companies, all of whom have capped prices). I don't think we'd have programs like Medicaid and Medicare if we didn't, on some level, think that providing health care was important. These programs, in my opinion, provide the proper precedent for establishing health care as a universal right. Health care and prescription medications aren't, and shouldn't be categorized, with other "consumer goods". I don't really care if we let companies charge whatever they want for the xbox360, or nonessential items. But the fact of the matter is, we shouldn't be valuing only the lives of the wealthy.</p>
<p>With regards to affordability, there are models out there of programs/bodies designed to regulate prices of prescription drugs. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) of Canada is one such example.</p>
<p>An article posted by David Gross, Senior Policy Advisor, AARP’s Public Policy Institute explains:</p>
<p>"One reason that drug prices tend to be lower in Canada is that prices for drugs that are still under patent—and therefore have no generic substitutes—are regulated by the federal Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB). This Board establishes the maximum prices that can be charged in Canada for patented drugs. The PMPRB has been credited with keeping average annual price increases for patented drugs at or below zero since 1992."</p>
<p>I suppose if you're a proponent of unfettered capitalism (I'm not), it isn't the drug companies' responsibility - the consumers set the prices by what they're willing to pay, and competition for business drives down prices. If consumers can't pay, companies' profits suffer. But that isn't the reality of the situation. Drug companies' don't exist within the ideal capitalist framework - they are for profit institutions, and there aren't very many of them which prevents competition. Besides the fact that they can charge whatever they want and we either pay or perish.</p>
<p>In this situation, prices are going up not because the product costs more, but because the companies are now able to charge more. While birth control may be "nonessential" in your opinion, there are many benefits and reasons for its use that extend beyond preventing pregnancy. As has been already stated before in this thread:</p>
<p>(as quoted by nngmm)</p>
<p>"Women using the pill tend to have less bleeding and fewer cramps during their monthly periods. Some advantages of regular periods include a decrease in: midcycle pain, iron deficiency anemia, certain types of migraine headaches, and pre-menstrual tension syndrome (PMS).</p>
<p>Birth control pills can provide relief from acne and facial hair.</p>
<p>Studies show that by regulating hormones, the pill can help prevent osteoporosis.</p>
<p>Studies show that using the pill over a period of time may decrease the chance of cancer of the ovaries by 40% to 60% and cancer of the womb by 50%."</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that it is in our best interest as a country (if only in terms of the cost/benefit analysis) to not have teen pregnancy rates rise. Unwanted pregnancies only create more problems. As I've stated before, anyone who thinks they're saving themselves money by not providing for affordable contraceptives is not thinking in the long run. Who is going to be paying for the childcare, education, and health care of these children?</p>
<p>The claim that birth control pills are the center of social controversy presents no unique harms. We all pay taxes for things we don't agree with - my taxes go to support the death penalty and war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean I agree with either. We can not possibly account for every single moral stance. If you find the idea of using contraceptives to be morally repugnant - don't use them (I feel the same way about abortions and civil unions, if you're against them, don't get them).</p>
<p>"One reason that drug prices tend to be lower in Canada is that prices...are regulated by the federal Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB)...Drug companies' don't exist within the ideal capitalist framework - they are for profit institutions, and there aren't very many of them which prevents competition. Besides the fact that they can charge whatever they want and we either pay or perish."</p>
<p>I see a bit of a non-sequitur here. On one hand you want the government to regulate prices; you reference Canada as an example of this approach. On the other hand, you bemoan the fact that there are so few drug companies who form an oligopoly and force their prices down our throats, us, the poor victimized consumers, whom they actually need to survive. In fact, there are so few drug companies because of government interference and regulation. You want regulation everywhere - you want the FDA to make sure the drugs in the market are pure - that takes an inordinate amount of time and money, you want the government to keep prices down which means taking money from other individuals and corporations to subsidize prices. </p>
<p>But, the regulations on everything from what land they can buy and when they can buy it and what materials they can use and what companies they can hire and what kind of energy they can use and what scientists they can hire and what substances they can use and where they can sell and when they can sell and what drugs they can actually put on the market and what groups they can test drugs on and who they have to pay money when something goes wrong and the mountain of paperwork they have to fill out every time someone sneezes and the backlog the government processing that paperwork and then re-filling it out every time they find something wrong make it so incredibly expensive to even start a drug company, much less keep it running, that what results is the oligopoly we have today. </p>
<p>Regulation is more often than not counter-productive and stifling; often, everyone must follow rules made for the one exception. Do the costs outweight the benefits? There are a lot of hypocrites who want the best of both worlds.</p>
<p>I'm interested as to why you listed "for profit" as a characteristic of a non-capitalist framework. "For profit" is what makes the free market tick.</p>
<p>Unfettered capitalism...that term makes me want to stand on a tall building in a Superman pose and announce to the world, "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!!"</p>
<p>Who cares? People need to learn how to be responsible. Just in case you didn't notice, sex has consequences.</p>
<p>I think in many ways you misunderstand my position. </p>
<p>First of all, I don't buy that regulations themselves have created the oligopolies. None of your analysis shows that there is a lack of competition and variety amongst the pharmaceutical companies because of regulations - they only show that regulations may protect the status quo. And even then, you don't prove that they do, just provide some anecdotal anti-bureaucratic scenario without actually showing causation. Of course regulation makes the production of pharmaceuticals expensive. But they produce pharmaceuticals in other areas of the world (with regulations and standards) and provide their product for lower prices.</p>
<p>Don't the same types of regulations exist for the automobile industry (land, energy, safety regulations, etc.)? And aren't we still able to purchase safe, affordable vehicles? Not that this is really a fair comparison, because I wouldn't classify vehicles as essential consumer goods in the same way health care is an essential consumer good. Furthermore, the alternative of public transportation exists to those that can't "buy in". But it is analogous insofar as regulations don't always preclude the majority of consumers from affording the product. </p>
<p>I don't think that safe products and affordable products exist within mutually exclusive realms. Until you can prove to me that they can't coexist, you can't call me a "hypocrite wanting the best of both worlds". I see no reason why this can be the case in Canada and Europe and it can't be in America.</p>
<p>And if you don't feel the consumers are victimized by the drug companies, than I suggest you read some of the articles about the millions of uninsured and underinsured Americans that can't get the prescriptions and medications and medical treatment they need. The drug companies certainly aren't the victims, and they don't need to help the poor to survive. Besides the fact that the scarcity of drug companies doesn't have to go hand in hand with high prices - it's just able to because there isn't any competition and because there isn't enough regulation of the prices. There aren't enough checks in place, whether we're looking to the market, or the government.</p>
<p>I didn't list "for profit" as a characteristic of a non-capitalist framework. The non-capitalist framework argument is tied into the oligopolies/lack of consumer driven marker. For profit was merely meant as a descriptive term of the status quo as I perceive it - for profit, rather than for the protection of the consumer. This isn't a truly "free market" anyway.</p>
<p>Wait, isn't one method of exercising responsibility in sex using birth control? Did I miss something here?</p>
<p>Where has our morality gone?</p>
<p>yeah, you're right melanieeek...</p>
<p>using any type of birth control (condoms, diaphragms, pills, patches, etc.) are considered responsible sex practices. but i guess the ultimate act of responsibilty when discussing sex would probably be to just not have it until you are ready for a child...but or course, that is very, very unrealistic for most people. so, if you're gonna have sex but don't want a kid, then birth control is the responsible way to go.</p>