Study shows birth control saves taxpayer money

Cost to benefit is estimated, conseravtively, at $5 dollars saved for every $1 spent.

It did not encapsulate the decreased criminal justice costs, so is likely well underestimated IMO.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Fil...mas/table1.jpg

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/201...cy_thomas.aspx


If you want to reduce the size of government, and entitlement programs, this is kind of a no-brainer.

FWIW:

Quote:

---

Abstinence-only sex education programs are also designed to discourage teens from having risky sex. The bulk of the high-quality research literature on these programs suggests that they have little effect on the behavior of the individuals who participate in them.

---

I heard "community/free care" SA doc (would be slimed as a socialist by Repugs and conservatives) make exactly the same argument a couple years ago.

For every $ his group spent treating poor/uninsured, it saved, his estimate, $20 vs not treating the person who then showed up later in the ER with disease advanced and perhaps incurable.

Of course it does. I'm glad poor people can get contraceptives and abortions.

http://staycationnation.net/wp-conte...ds/fishing.gif

Here's the problem tho'.

If you sign a pledge saying you will NEVER raise taxes, and an opportunity comes up to raise taxes, spend $400M, in order to save $2bn down the road, then you will never get the savings.

Taxes will therefore be higher than they should have, because one paradoxically doesn't want to raise taxes.

Ooooh the delicious irony.

The blanket "no new taxes" pledge is dumb.

Soon after we approve free birth control for everyone, RG will provide us with a study that it will save taxpayers money if we give free STI testing and exams for all. I can just imagine all the money's our country will save! God bless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Soon after we approve free birth control for everyone, RG will provide us with a study that it will save taxpayers money if we give free STI testing and exams for all. I can just imagine all the money's our country will save! God bless.

---

Birth control / abortions are a lot cheaper than paying the welfare mother to raise the child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Soon after we approve free birth control for everyone, RG will provide us with a study that it will save taxpayers money if we give free STI testing and exams for all. I can just imagine all the money's our country will save! God bless.

---

Cost benefit analysis. What a crazy idea.

"yeah free disease screenings save money"

The question is whether (prostate, uterine, breast) cancer screening save lives (health care doesn't care about costs, since they know they will get paid in any case). Lots of controversy around that question. There's no doubt that such screening COSTS $10Bs/year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scott

Cost benefit analysis. What a crazy idea.

---

These "ideas" have snowed balled into a catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting. The entitlement mentality makes it almost impossible to take back what shouldn't have been given to begin with.

"In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

If we go broke, we go broke. God bless us all.

"catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting"

You Lie

the national debit is due to Repug unfunded policies (exorbitant spending!!):

2 bogus/botched wars,

Medicare Advantage/Part D

paying BigPharma full price (no negotiation)

tax cuts for the super wealthy

tax cuts for the corps.

etc, etc. ALL Repug policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting"

You Lie

the national debit is due to Repug unfunded policies (exorbitant spending!!):

2 bogus/botched wars,

Medicare Advantage/Part D

paying BigPharma full price (no negotiation)

tax cuts for the super wealthy

tax cuts for the corps.

etc, etc. ALL Repug policies.

---

:lmao

Both sides are at fault dumbass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

These "ideas" have snowed balled into a catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting. The entitlement mentality makes it almost impossible to take back what shouldn't have been given to begin with.

"In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

If we go broke, we go broke. God bless us all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yeah, I went there

All that believed were together, and had all things in common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
(Acts 4:34-37)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao

Both sides are at fault dumbass.

---

You Lie with reflexive false equivalence. dubya's 2001 tax cuts got through, over, the Senate Dems only with reconciliation.

dubya and the neocons/PNCA wanted Iraq war BEFORE he was even elected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

These "ideas" have snowed balled into a catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting. The entitlement mentality makes it almost impossible to take back what shouldn't have been given to begin with.

"In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

If we go broke, we go broke. God bless us all.

---

We could always sell the evil foreigners among us to make up the difference. Unless of course they are from Israel.

Quote:

---

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

---

I wonder what the going rate for Canadians is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

"catastrophic debt in the tune of 14 trillion and counting"

You Lie

the national debit is due to Repug unfunded policies (exorbitant spending!!):

2 bogus/botched wars,

Medicare Advantage/Part D

paying BigPharma full price (no negotiation)

tax cuts for the super wealthy

tax cuts for the corps.

etc, etc. ALL Repug policies.

---

Remember when Obama came along and got rid of Medicare D and raised everyones taxes to counteract those evil Bush tax cuts? Good times!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Remember when Obama came along and got rid of Medicare D and raised everyones taxes to counteract those evil Bush tax cuts? Good times!

---

:lol

Yeah, when he had the house and senate his first two years he really showed those republicans what fiscal responsibility was all about...:lol

too bad Republicans had nothing to teach the Dems either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

too bad Republicans had nothing to teach the Dems either

---

Speaking about attempting fiscal responsibility, what did you think about Rand Paul's latest budget proposal?

I think we have all agreed that medicare will have to be addressed for a long term solution.

The tax cuts? I'm not sure I agree with this long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Speaking about attempting fiscal responsibility, what did you think about Rand Paul's latest budget proposal?

---

Paul Ryan?

Haven't read it yet, but the early buzz is that it's still too unspecific (particularly on the revenue side) to evaluate fairly.

I agree that Medicare/Medicaid needs to be addressed, but preserving the Bush/Obama tax cuts would be a mistake, unless they're offset somewhere else in the budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

I agree that Medicare/Medicaid needs to be addressed, but preserving the Bush/Obama tax cuts would be a mistake, unless they're offset somewhere else in the budget.

---

You mean like reduce wasteful government spending?

Maybe curtailing the spending that appears to have no end in sight of it's increases?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...sperperson.jpg

tax cuts should be offset by spending cuts. entitlements and defense both need to be trimmed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

tax cuts should be offset by spending cuts. entitlements and defense both need to be trimmed.

---

Defense has been trimmed. The overall trend is down already. If I take the data and put a linear trend line through it, it is clearly dropping. It clear without adding the trend line. Don't you see it?

I know you're bad at reading graphs but that graph shows growth in military spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Defense has been trimmed. The overall trend is down already. If I take the data and put a linear trend line through it, it is clearly dropping. It clear without adding the trend line. Don't you see it?

---

Uhhh...IMHO Defense could still be cut a lot more. I like all the cool toys just in CASE we need them, but we don't need to be the worlds policeman and could seriously cut back on our army ground forces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I know you're bad at reading graphs but that graph shows growth in military spending.

---

Because of current actions, the last few years increase. Again, look at the long term trend instead of those short ones you claim are evidence of AGW. The trend is most definitely lowering. Once we leave the ME, and don't engage in other things, it will probably be the lowest spending since WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Defense has been trimmed. The overall trend is down already. If I take the data and put a linear trend line through it, it is clearly dropping. It clear without adding the trend line. Don't you see it?

---

The baseline is way too high IMO. Much of our defense spending is unrelated to national defense or disproportionate to the threats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of current actions, the last few years increase. Again, look at the long term trend instead of those short ones you claim are evidence of AGW. The trend is most definitely lowering. Once we leave the ME, and don't engage in other things, it will probably be the lowest spending since WWII.

---

pffft.

In Iraq, we just transferred that spending to the State Department and independent contractors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Uhhh...IMHO Defense could still be cut a lot more. I like all the cool toys just in CASE we need them, but we don't need to be the worlds policeman and could seriously cut back on our army ground forces.

---

I'm not disagreeing. I'm only saying that the levels of military costs will decrease. We don't have to work on that issue. These costs are of cyclic nature and at a high point now, and will decrease when we get out of Afghanistan... Unless Obama throws us into Iran...

Social spending, however, has only an upward trend, and will do serious damage to this nation if we don't get a handle on it.

The long term trend is UP. I know you're pretty damn bad with data, but when your first value is lower than the last value, the trend is UP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The long term trend is UP. I know you're pretty damn bad with data, but when your first value is lower than the last value, the trend is UP.

---

:rollin :lol :rollin :lol

wow a study was needed to show fewer impoverished mouths = less spending by the tax payer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

Speaking about attempting fiscal responsibility, what did you think about Rand Paul's latest budget proposal?

I think we have all agreed that medicare will have to be addressed for a long term solution.

The tax cuts? I'm not sure I agree with this long term.

---

On the spending side, he's at least attempting to take on the spending issues that need to be addressed. He hits defense as well as entitlements, so kudos to him for acknowledging that reality.

I'm not as big a fan of what he's got on his revenue side. I'm all for simplifying the tax code with lower marginal rates and minimal to zero deductions, but it looks like he just wants a single bracket with the whole thing ending up revenue neutral. I used to be a fan of the single bracket concept, but have softened that stance and would be okay with a 2 or 3 bracket system. Whatever we do also needs to be revenue positive. The cuts need to be a hell of a lot bigger than the revenue, but the revenue needs to be greater than zero.

My thoughts after all of 15 minutes of browsing his plan.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Unless Obama throws us into Iran...

---

You do know that all of the GOP candidates for president have pretty much come out and said they would go the military route, so they can differentiate themselves with the "softie" liberal in office, right?

Its a bunch of bullshit, of course, suitable Koolaid for the faithful. Still, one has to wonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

wow a study was needed to show fewer impoverished mouths = less spending by the tax payer?

---

Ask me about what happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v. Wade.

Some people don't like that sniglet either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'm not disagreeing. I'm only saying that the levels of military costs will decrease. We don't have to work on that issue. These costs are of cyclic nature and at a high point now, and will decrease when we get out of Afghanistan... Unless Obama throws us into Iran...

Social spending, however, has only an upward trend, and will do serious damage to this nation if we don't get a handle on it.

---

The sudden jump in social spending during 2008 shows what happens when people get unemployed.

Astonishingly enough, they need unemployment insurance and other financial assistance.

That is what they are there for. They will automatically drop as people get back to work, while at the same time, revenue will magically go up for the same reason.

Hopefully we will get out of Afghaniswamp soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Because of current actions, the last few years increase. Again, look at the long term trend instead of those short ones you claim are evidence of AGW. The trend is most definitely lowering. Once we leave the ME, and don't engage in other things, it will probably be the lowest spending since WWII.

---

http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazona...mw20110531.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Ask me about what happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v. Wade.

Some people don't like that sniglet either.

---

What happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade? God bless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

What happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v Wade? God bless

---

The trend line slopes in the same direction of the defense spending trendline.



..... if you turn that graph upside down.

RG, nevermind. I read a bunch of articles and concluded it's impossible to determine that crime has been reduced because of legalized abortions. In fact some stats say violent crimes have gone up since that decision and some stats say people don't report certain crimes anymore. Best results i found confirming your opinion is crime has gone down 2 percent overall. With all that said, impossible to conclude roe vs wade had anything to do with crime. If anything that decision probably saved hundreds of women lives per year and killed over 50 millions babies. God bless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

RG, nevermind. I read a bunch of articles and concluded it's impossible to determine that crime has been reduced because of legalized abortions. In fact some stats say violent crimes have gone up since that decision and some stats say people don't report certain crimes anymore. Best results i found confirming your opinion is crime has gone done 2 percent overall. With all that said, impossible to conclude roe vs wade had anything to do with crime. If anything that decision probably saved hundreds of women lives per year and killed over 50 millions babies. God bless.

---

You are freaking me out a little bit. Are you suddenly channeling Santorum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

You are freaking me out a little bit. Are you suddenly channeling Santorum?

---

No, just read some articles. RG got me curious. God bless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

tax cuts should be offset by spending cuts. entitlements and defense both need to be trimmed.

---

There's good example. I'm a pretty conservative guy, but I can't disagree with that at all. There is so damned much waste and crony spending in the military, we could make HUGE cuts without reducing our actual defensive capabilities. Unfortunately, those things are the sacred cows of defense spending. When they do make cuts, they make sure not to touch those entitlements.

As for the article, I'm willing to say "it's possible". It's logical, but I'm not so sure that reality will line up with theory. One potential problem is that most, if not all women, can get contraceptives free or for 9 bucks per month, through Title X. I know it's unpleasant, but there are lot of people who just won't use them consistently, no matter what they cost. Hell, credible studies show that something like 40-50% of ALL medications aren't taken correctly.

In the past, we have spent a lot of money on programs that promised to save lots more money down the road, but didn't. I'm skeptical of the 5-to-1 savings promised in this study, but I think it might at least be net positive in the long run. In my book, anyone who thinks they should prevent a pregnancy, definitely should.

But there are a handful of reasons why I object to this particular program. They don't have anything to do with hating women, or poor people, or people of color, or any of the other scapegoat slogans being tossed around. Once again, I think it would be worthwhile for people to listen, instead of instantly demonizing the people who don't agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Ask me about what happened to the crime rates roughly 18 years after Roe v. Wade.

Some people don't like that sniglet either.

---

You do realize that correlation doesn't prove a cause/effect relationship? Strike that - I know you understand it.

Are you open minded enough to at least listen to some reasons why the studies are skewed? (I think intentionally so.) I'm not talking about pitting this study vs. that study, or quoting some conservative blog with its own agenda. And I'm not even saying that there is not truth to the idea that unwanted kids commit more crimes. I just don't like skewed studies - even when they try to confirm something on "my side" of the fence. Yep, I know it's hard to believe, but I get just as pissed about the manipulative, bullshit right-wing "studies" where the conclusion is decided before the study is done.

All I'm saying is that even if there was a real world cause/effect relationship between Roe v Wade and the drop in violent crime, it is VASTLY over-stated by the studies.

One reason the "Roe effect" carries so much weight is because it is logical. Unwanted kids commit more crime. Let me ask you this, as long as we're turning what seems logical into reality. When this new free-birth-control-for-all goes into effect, isn't it logical that there should be a HUGE drop in the number of abortions across the country? And shouldn't the reduction in abortions be especially large in those urban areas where, logically, more women can't afford contraception? I'll make a friendly wager that it doesn't work out that way.

So below what income level do you think will be the most effective at eliminating all those potential criminals?

Government should pay anyone who wants their tubes tied or a vasectomy $5,000 or something.

everybody wins :toast

Studies show that it would save tax payers if there weren't social programs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The long term trend is UP.

---

The trend is up in dollar amounts, but down in per capita amounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I know you're pretty damn bad with data, but when your first value is lower than the last value, the trend is UP.

---

I challenge you to take the same OMB dada I did, and run a linear trend line through it with Excel.

Put up or shut up... Money talks, bullshit walks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The long term trend is UP. I know you're pretty damn bad with data, but when your first value is lower than the last value, the trend is UP.

---

How about I just cherry pick my data like the AGW community does. Is this better?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x.../Mannygame.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

The trend is up in dollar amounts, but down in per capita amounts.

I challenge you to take the same OMB dada I did, and run a linear trend line through it with Excel.

Put up or shut up... Money talks, bullshit walks...

---

I'll save you the work, because I doubt you know how to use Excel:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...nwithtrend.jpg

It doesn't surprise me. You are always saying stupid things like accusing me of not understanding thermodynamics, but then not saying what part you think I don't understand. Maybe you know I would prove your stupid ass wrong if you made a specific allegation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

But there are a handful of reasons why I object to this particular program. They don't have anything to do with hating women, or poor people, or people of color, or any of the other scapegoat slogans being tossed around. Once again, I think it would be worthwhile for people to listen, instead of instantly demonizing the people who don't agree.

---

What are the reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Studies show that it would save tax payers if there weren't social programs

---

Links?

The whole crux of this thread is that this line of thinking is completely wrong and you think to come in and post it as some sort of retort?

Mind blowing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'll save you the work, because I doubt you know how to use Excel:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...nwithtrend.jpg

It doesn't surprise me. You are always saying stupid things like accusing me of not understanding thermodynamics, but then not saying what part you think I don't understand. Maybe you know I would prove your stupid ass wrong if you made a specific allegation.

---

Congrats on your mastering of using the menus in Excel.

The trend is still up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursncowboys

Studies show that it would save tax payers if there weren't social programs

---

http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/obvious.jpg

I would however, point out that cutting social programs would shrink the economy.

Eliminating them all tomorrow would plunge the US into an instant recession, if not an outright depression on a scale unseen since 1929.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I'll save you the work, because I doubt you know how to use Excel:

---

Excel smack?

Really? :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

...an outright depression on a scale unseen since 1929.

---

The condition we're in now, though no longer technically a recession, is still pretty bad.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

RG, nevermind. I read a bunch of articles and concluded it's impossible to determine that crime has been reduced because of legalized abortions. In fact some stats say violent crimes have gone up since that decision and some stats say people don't report certain crimes anymore. Best results i found confirming your opinion is crime has gone down 2 percent overall. With all that said, impossible to conclude roe vs wade had anything to do with crime. If anything that decision probably saved hundreds of women lives per year and killed over 50 millions babies. God bless.

---

Meh. You looked up articles on websites you agree with, and ignored anything that didn't fit into your worldview, I would guess.

Pardon me if I don't take your word for anything. Vishnus blessings upon you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GSH

You do realize that correlation doesn't prove a cause/effect relationship? Strike that - I know you understand it.

Are you open minded enough to at least listen to some reasons why the studies are skewed? (I think intentionally so.) I'm not talking about pitting this study vs. that study, or quoting some conservative blog with its own agenda. And I'm not even saying that there is not truth to the idea that unwanted kids commit more crimes. I just don't like skewed studies - even when they try to confirm something on "my side" of the fence. Yep, I know it's hard to believe, but I get just as pissed about the manipulative, bullshit right-wing "studies" where the conclusion is decided before the study is done.

All I'm saying is that even if there was a real world cause/effect relationship between Roe v Wade and the drop in violent crime, it is VASTLY over-stated by the studies.

One reason the "Roe effect" carries so much weight is because it is logical. Unwanted kids commit more crime. Let me ask you this, as long as we're turning what seems logical into reality. When this new free-birth-control-for-all goes into effect, isn't it logical that there should be a HUGE drop in the number of abortions across the country? And shouldn't the reduction in abortions be especially large in those urban areas where, logically, more women can't afford contraception? I'll make a friendly wager that it doesn't work out that way.

---

Free birth control is merely a policy proposal, not anything that has passed into law. So far as I know, it isn't even a bill being considered.

At this point, I would not say any such program would see a HUGE drop in abortions.

Measurable, I would bet for, but huge I would not.

That is another factor to consider.

If one hates abortions, one should want free birth control for all women.

If one hates taxes, one should want free birth control for all women.

rational self-interest and conscience are not always congruent. moral or spiritual commitments sometimes conflict with rational expedience.