Taxpayers asked to foot bill for morning after pill without prescription

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:04PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

Well then in principle you're right and in the real world you'd be shooting yourself in the foot to oppose this.

In other words this is something that both results in you paying less for other people AND gives you the opportunity for a broad spectrum rant. You should be delighted. Or angry. Seems to be the same thing in your case.

There is an easy solution to your rant too.

Stop child benefit after the second child which is halved after the first child and means test it as well. That would be too sensible for Ireland though.

kneemos · 25-04-2015 06:05PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why the hell should I pay for some one else's birth control? They can pay for it themselves.

Numbers is not the issue here or what is cheaper. Principle is the issue. I believe everyone should take personal responsibility for their own lives and the culture of state dependency should stop.

As stated in the OP as someone in the middle I get feck all help from the state yet we are told to pay for everyone else. It's not right. They can run their own lives and take responsibility.

What does the birth of a child cost in checkups,birth,ongoing medical costs,schools,children's allowance,teachers salaries,mothers healthcare?not to mention the social problems of single mothers or unwanted children.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-04-2015 06:08PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

There is an easy solution to your rant too.

Stop child benefit after the second child which is halved after the first child and means test it as well.

Totally agree with means testing child benefit. Not sure of the point of introducing an administrative nightmare like the first suggestion, and I fail to see how it's better than reducing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:08PM

Lia_lia wrote: »

:rolleyes:

So you think the medical card should be gotten rid of altogether then?

Preferably. I would prefer to see a move to a more corporate health care model taking the strain off central taxation. If you are not a feckless imbecile you would be bloody well sure to be able to afford a policy of some sort and have your act in gear. Idleness and dependency is promoted under the current model and so is a welfare trap.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:11PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

Totally agree with means testing child benefit. Not sure of the point of introducing an administrative nightmare like the first suggestion

You should not be able to have a career out of having children. The current model is paying people to have children. Any number of children and you get the same amount per child. It's insane from an expenditure and social point of view.

kneemos · 25-04-2015 06:13PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You should not be able to have a career out of having children. The current model is paying people to have children. Any number of children and you get the same amount per child. It's insane from an expenditure and social point of view.

That's classic dude.Giving out about a free contraceptive pill and childrens allowance

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-04-2015 06:14PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You should not be able to have a career out of having children. The current model is paying people to have children. Any number of children and you get the same amount per child. It's insane from an expenditure and social point of view.

So again, perhaps we should actively facilitate people NOT to have children that they don't want or can't afford by providing affordable and accessible emergency contraception. And abortion, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:15PM

kneemos wrote: »

That's classic dude.Giving out about a free contraceptive pill and childrens allowance

Neither is "free".

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:16PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Preferably. I would prefer to see a move to a more corporate health care model taking the strain off central taxation. If you are not a feckless imbecile you would be bloody well sure to be able to afford a policy of some sort and have your act in gear. Idleness and dependency is promoted under the current model and so is a welfare trap.

Yeah because jobs are so easy sure theres a choice of 3 for everyone. No people leaving abroad to get jobs or anything. Sure everyone is earning bombloads of money. You need a reality check kermit

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:17PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

So again, perhaps we should actively facilitate people NOT to have children that they don't want or can't afford by providing affordable and accessible emergency contraception. And abortion, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

We should neuter everyone at birth.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:17PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

So again, perhaps we should actively facilitate people NOT to have children that they don't want or can't afford by providing affordable and accessible emergency contraception. And abortion, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

We should not be providing anything. I'd just about go along with 2 children max child benefit. Ideally i'd scrap it completely.

People should provide for themselves and if they can't - tough. You just have to make do.

kneemos · 25-04-2015 06:18PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

We should neuter everyone at birth.

Not for free though.

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:18PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We should not be providing anything. I'd just about go along with 2 children max child benefit. Ideally i'd scrap it completely.

People should provide for themselves and if they can't - tough. You just have to make do.

Kim Jong Un is proud of you.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:20PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Yeah because jobs are so easy sure theres a choice of 3 for everyone. No people leaving abroad to get jobs or anything. Sure everyone is earning bombloads of money. You need a reality check kermit

Nonsense. You could have a job if you really wanted one. Go start your own business or up skill or do something. Plenty of things you can do as an alternative to pumping out children and then moaning about it.

Your argument is the equivalent of a scrote after putting in someone's window complaining "nuthin to do"...

shruikan2553 · 25-04-2015 06:20PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We should not be providing anything. I'd just about go along with 2 children max child benefit. Ideally i'd scrap it completely.

People should provide for themselves and if they can't - tough. You just have to make do.

Thats all well and good in theory but what happens when a person cant afford their third or forth child? Take them into care? How much would that cost instead? You already want them to have children rather than provide contraception.

You can talk about personal responsibility all you want but if people arent responsible for themselves are we to let them die?

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:21PM

kneemos wrote: »

Not for free though.

Neuter them at birth then put then in a labour camp at age 13 with one slice of bread per week. They dont leave the camp and earn a wage until 18. The 5 unpaid years in the labour camp with meagre rations will equate the nuetering costs.

Heil Kermit.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-04-2015 06:21PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We should not be providing anything. I'd just about go along with 2 children max child benefit. Ideally i'd scrap it completely.

People should provide for themselves and if they can't - tough. You just have to make do.

Look, if you're giving out about the size of the social welfare bill, then it makes no sense to oppose this.

If you're arguing against the need for social welfare altogether, then this is still a strange opener.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:24PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

If you're arguing against the need for social welfare altogether

I'm not against all social welfare but I am against the broad welfare state. That applies to the rich as well. They get welfare too.

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:25PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nonsense. You could have a job if you really wanted one. Go start your own business or up skill or do something. Plenty of things you can do as an alternative to pumping out children and then moaning about it.

Your argument is the equivalent of a scrote after putting in someone's window complaining "nuthin to do"...

Starting a business is easy yeah. Dont have very expensive costs in first year. Dont require liquid assets. Sure its not like people of got into debt over failed start ups. And majority of start ups do fail woeully. But yeah not a bother everyone can do that.

Lordy you clearly didnt study business or economics.

kneemos · 25-04-2015 06:27PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We should not be providing anything. I'd just about go along with 2 children max child benefit. Ideally i'd scrap it completely.

People should provide for themselves and if they can't - tough. You just have to make do.

Will you take your pension when you retire?

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:28PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You can talk about personal responsibility all you want but if people arent responsible for themselves are we to let them die?

The vast majority would think twice. Why should anyone else care? If they want to be stupid and wreckless...

All the state reliance will ultimately bankrupt the country and culturally it's poisonous because it breeds dependency and generational reliance.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-04-2015 06:29PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not against all social welfare but I am against the broad welfare state. That applies to the rich as well. They get welfare too.

But this will REDUCE THE WELFARE BILL. The exact people who will benefit the most from this are the people who are going to end up costing 'the middle' a whole lotta welfare over the course of their lives if they have children. This is a reasonably priced, easily implemented way to reduce the numbers who are going to be dependent on welfare.

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:30PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Starting a business is easy yeah. Dont have very expensive costs in first year. Dont require liquid assets. Sure its not like people of got into debt over failed start ups. And majority of start ups do fail woeully. But yeah not a bother everyone can do that.

Lordy you clearly didnt study business or economics.

More complaints - more why something can not be done as opposed to why something can be done. It's that exact attitude problem the welfare state facilitates and nurtures.

If you were so minded to check you would find out really quickly the sheer level of support from the state toward start up businesses. I guess you didn't though.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 25-04-2015 06:32PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

More complaints - more why something can not be done as opposed to why something can be done. It's that exact attitude problem the welfare state facilitates and nurtures.

If you were so minded to check you would find out really quickly the sheer level of support from the state toward start up businesses. I guess you didn't though.

That is the opposite of what I have heard successful entrepreneurs say. Are you saying it as matter of principle or of fact?

Kermit.de.frog · 25-04-2015 06:34PM

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

But this will REDUCE THE WELFARE BILL.

No, I am against universal unlimited child benefit as well. Stop paying for both and there is real savings that could be put to better use.

I don't see on principle why some slut (for example) should be given taxpayers money to be irresponsible.

It's wrong in principle.

Tombi! · 25-04-2015 06:35PM

So what exactly is the problem with giving people free birth control?
Or would you rather us all revert to being a bunch of purists in regards to sex?

El Weirdo · 25-04-2015 06:36PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you were so minded to check you would find out really quickly the sheer level of support from the state toward start up businesses. I guess you didn't though.

Support that I imagine you want to get rid of?

shruikan2553 · 25-04-2015 06:36PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The vast majority would think twice. Why should anyone else care? If they want to be stupid and wreckless...

All the state reliance will ultimately bankrupt the country and culturally it's poisonous because it breeds dependency and generational reliance.

You'll care if they start breaking into your house. Where you find poverty you'll often find crime.

You wish to breed poverty and crime, but hey, at least you can say there isn't a generation dependent on welfare when you get up one morning to see your car gone.

Sometimes it is best to cut your loses and pick the option which will lead to less hassle for yourself.

jprender · 25-04-2015 06:37PM

Why do I keep opening threads from After Hours ? :rolleyes:

I should know better :cool:

pmasterson95 · 25-04-2015 06:38PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

More complaints - more why something can not be done as opposed to why something can be done. It's that exact attitude problem the welfare state facilitates and nurtures.

If you were so minded to check you would find out really quickly the sheer level of support from the state toward start up businesses. I guess you didn't though.

Check what? Gee a final year student of Economics clearly knows nothing on you. And I thought you disliked Government payments. Do you not think funding a failed start up more expensive? I like that you told me to check but unfortunately Kermit you are woefully misinformed. Maybe you should do research no?

Francisco Ashy Urchin wrote: »

That is the opposite of what I have heard successful entrepreneurs say. Are you saying it as matter of principle or of fact?

Opposite of anything I've learned in College. Strange.

Taxpayers asked to foot bill for morning after pill without prescription

Comments