<p>I don't understand in what way you feel they're flawed, except in their existence. I'm not saying they're perfect, just that I don't see your analysis of said flaws.</p>
<p>Hahaha, titcr. Although I would argue funding "prevention and informational" programs would solidify such a stance. As in, your defense would be defensible: "Hey, we tried to prevent such and such, but ultimately, you chose your actions , have fun!" As opposed to COMPLETELY leaving such people in the dark. :(</p>
<p>They're flawed in that the very fact that they exist prevents more effective policies from being implemented. Gotta attack the source directly if you want real change.</p>
<p>The point of some government programs is to help those less fortunate. However, this opens up yet another can of worms about government, and if you're libertarian (it seems so based on your posts) you'd always disagree with government programs.</p>
<p>Some say the poor's reliance on government help is a good thing, it keeps them subdued and satisfied so they don't look for other sources to solve their problems. The rich need the government to protect their property, the poor need it to give them food and keep them subdued, no revolts.</p>
<p>And if (major if there) I choose to have sex before I'm wealthy enough to support a family and I have a stable job, I will probably use birth control as well, but if I get my girl pregnant I will spend however much time it takes to raise the child (it's called responsibility). If you can't bear the risks, don't play. People do drugs with the risk that bad stuff can happen to them, and I don't feel sorry when these things actually do happen.</p>
<p>Urghh.. If people aren't responsible enough for a child, they should just stay abstinent. If you do start to bang, and you impregnate or get impregnanted, it's your own fault.
I'm a sadist.</p>
<p>"The point of some government programs is to help those less fortunate. However, this opens up yet another can of worms about government, and if you're libertarian (it seems so based on your posts) you'd always disagree with government programs."</p>
<p>I have no sympathy for self inflicted wounds. There's a difference between two adults paying the consequences after engaging in a consensual act and a 10 year old child who's grown up in the ghetto. Or political refugees. Or people with disabilities.</p>
<p>"If you do start to bang, and you impregnate or get impregnanted, it's your own fault."</p>
<p>That would be an awesome warning to put on all packages of condoms and birth control medication. Kudos.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for these babies that we're talking about. They'll never have a chance at life because their mommy was a broke dorm whore. Some of you people really **** me off. Don't support irresponsible behavior.</p>
<p>I don't think anyone is condoning irresponsible behavior (at least I'm not). But the fact is, having cheap birth control is better for the taxpayer than having a bunch of unwanted kids around...</p>
<p>You all may say that if they have sex and get pregnant, it's their fault (I sorta agree with this), but the truth of the matter is, the taxpayers are the people who end up supporting a lot of these children. Whether it be because their mother is on welfare or they are put into the foster care system, we all pay in the end.</p>
<p>Only if you're complacent. These laws are in dire need of change.</p>
<p>"First of all, I don't buy that regulations themselves have created the oligopolies."</p>
<p>So then what are the barriers to market entry that the oligopolies throw up? If it is not government regulation keeping competitors out what is? How do they keep competitors out? Is it by selling their products at such unconscionably high prices that decent folk won't enter and partake of the avarice?</p>
<p>Everybody has a right to affordable presciption drugs. God knows I need the taxpayer to subsidize my Rogain and Viagra and I am going to need some of those percosets after the testicle tuck.</p>
<p>rotffffffff</p>
<p>"You people are all so self-righteous. </p>
<p>"I am a college student and I stand for abstinence." </p>
<p>Well good for you! Do you feel the need to force you own personal preferences down other people's throats?</p>
<p>==================</p>
<p>Aren't you forcing your own preferences down people's throats by insisting they subsidize your birth control? Silly question right?</p>
<p>"So then what are the barriers to market entry that the oligopolies throw up? If it is not government regulation keeping competitors out what is? How do they keep competitors out? Is it by selling their products at such unconscionably high prices that decent folk won't enter and partake of the avarice?"</p>
<p>Smaller pharmaceutical companies do enter the market, only to be bought out and merge with larger companies. This happens in all industries, but we've been seeing an especially devastating trend in the pharmaceutical industry - by 2004 there had been 10,000 such mergers (you can find data on this on a database here: <a href="http://www.levinassociates.com/m&adatabase/introduction.htm)%5B/url%5D">http://www.levinassociates.com/m&adatabase/introduction.htm)</a>.</p>
<p>While regulations might exacerbate the problem, I don't think they caused it. And to what extent they exacerbate it is debatable.</p>
<p>By the way, I think OTC Rogaine has been available since 1996, so, you're probably all set to prevent hair loss regardless of where you stand on this particular issue. Happy trails!</p>
<p>"Smaller pharmaceutical companies do enter the market, only to be bought out and merge with larger companies. This happens in all industries, but we've been seeing an especially devastating trend in the pharmaceutical industry - by 2004 there had been 10,000 such mergers"</p>
<p>Yes how many new startups were there? You obviously are clueless how business works. You get a scientist with an idea and an investor willing to fork over millions for maybe ten years wil the idea is developed and tested. For ten years there isn't a dimes profit generated or possibly even a dimes revenue. They parout only come when a succesfull drug is produced and passes FDA approval. At that point the investors and the scientist want a return for all the risk they have taken for the last ten years and the newly minted product needs millions more in marketing costs to become truly viable. That is the time to either go public or sell to a big pahrmaceutical company.</p>
<p>If there are 10,000 mergers there were probably 50,000 startups most of which never struck gold. It is a high risk business but the main barriers to entry are government regulations not anything the oligops do and the money spent on buyouts and mergers should rightfully be seen as investment in R&D.</p>
<p>Expecting governments which are notoriously risk averse to invest billions of tax-payer dollars in high risk R&D is an idea so idiotic only a communist party apparatchik or Harvard don could take it seriously. I am not accusing you of being a commie, only of having a sketchy understanding of the pharmaceutical industry likely based on a one sided presentation of the facts - i.e. you probably went to an "elite" college or university.</p>
<p>To those saying that unwanted pregnancies don't affect them: Read the chapter in Freakonomics that links legalized abortion to a drop in crime rate. I am absolutely not taking a stand on the quality or validity of this claim, but it's something interesting and relevant that hasn't yet been brought into the conversation, so I wanted to make the reference.</p>
<p>I'm amazed--as someone who empathizes very well with BOTH sides of the debate--by the lack of compassion in this thread. I can see someone in dire circumstances, understand that she put herself in the position, and I can refuse to help her or even to offer her any sympathy, but it's a really big jump from there to "haha, look at how screwed THAT person is."</p>
<p>"Aren't you forcing your own preferences down people's throats by insisting they subsidize your birth control? Silly question right?"</p>
<p>No. Subsidizing hormonal birth control (which I don't think is even an issue here, since birth control has never been directly subsidized by the gov't) benefits the whole of society because it is a practical way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Period. The gov't (hypothetically) wouldn't be denying you any rights by subsidizing other people's birth control. I mean, seriously, do you use even 1% of the social services offered by the gov't? No, but other people do, and they serve to keep our society (hypothetically) healthy and productive. </p>
<p>Most of the people commenting on this thread are clearly opposed to any form of social welfare, so I highly doubt that arguing this point will have any effect. And, like I said before, they are probably sexually frustrated as well. It's kind of sad :(</p>
<p>"To those saying that unwanted pregnancies don't affect them: Read the chapter in Freakonomics that links legalized abortion to a drop in crime rate. I am absolutely not taking a stand on the quality or validity of this claim, but it's something interesting and relevant that hasn't yet been brought into the conversation, so I wanted to make the reference."</p>
<p>Assuming this is true...so what?</p>
<p>"I'm amazed--as someone who empathizes very well with BOTH sides of the debate--by the lack of compassion in this thread. I can see someone in dire circumstances, understand that she put herself in the position, and I can refuse to help her or even to offer her any sympathy, but it's a really big jump from there to "haha, look at how screwed THAT person is."</p>
<p>I prefer "lack of compassion" over sheer naivete. Care to point out any of my statements that were said in that condescending tone?</p>
<p>"Most of the people commenting on this thread are clearly opposed to any form of social welfare, so I highly doubt that arguing this point will have any effect. And, like I said before, they are probably sexually frustrated as well. It's kind of sad."</p>
<p>Certain forms of "social welfare" are more acceptable than others. Helping pay for a couple's sexual pleasure/resulting issues shouldn't be one of them. And I'm not certain where the latter statement fits into this discussion. I mean, I could resort to ad-hominems too, but such statements are unnecessary.</p>
<p>I don't know why "social welfare" has entered this discussion. The prior discounts on birth control were not funded by government subsidies. They were the result of longstanding agreements between colleges and pharmaceutical companies. A new law about Medicaid has inadvertently made it financially impossible for pharmaceutical companies to continue offering the discounts.</p>
<p>The student health plan at my school does not cover birth control. I think it should be covered by insurance just like any other prescription medication. Besides, many girls take oral contraceptives not to prevent pregnancy, but to alleviate severe menstrual symptoms.</p>
<p>On another note, I hate it when people judge each other for lifestyle differences. Some people are abstinent by choice, not because they're socially inept and "sexually frustrated." On the flip side, those who engage in premarital sex are not immoral if they're responsible enough to use contraception. Those who are sexually active and those who choose to abstain should respect each other's decisions.</p>