Taxpayers asked to foot bill for morning after pill without prescription

El Weirdo wrote: »

Support that I imagine you want to get rid of?

I sense moving goalposts.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So it comes as no surprise then that the ultimate act of a female choosing to open her own legs should be protected and paid for as well

- with free morning after pills paid for by the rest of us. It's already available through a GP prescription but some feel this is too much to ask.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/pharmacy-union-calls-for-free-morning-after-pill-for-medical-card-holders-674372.html

It comes down one of two things; the after morning pill, or mickey money for a number of sprogs for 18 years, and possibly the mother on the dole as she can't afford childcare so quits her job.

IMO, the after morning pill is a lot cheaper!

Deadly buzz. I'm going to get loads of them, nip over to England and sell them on at a highly discounted rate.
Cha ching.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Corporatism is the way to go. Ultimately more free market, less state intervention.

Just like that shining beacon of equality, America?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So it comes as no surprise then that the ultimate act of a female choosing to open her own legs should be protected and paid for as well

When I see comments like this, I know that the person in question has a hard time respecting other human beings, categorises them as being worthy of his contempt or respect and probably has an issue about women.

You might argue about that but again, someone who describes women engaging in sex as "opening her legs" does not respect said women. End of story.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

- with free morning after pills paid for by the rest of us. It's already available through a GP prescription but some feel this is too much to ask.

It has been available without prescription but at a cost for some time. The religious outfits threw a fit because they believed that the existence of the morning after pill and the removal of any hoops to be jumped through would cause women to be even more feckless.

Have you ever noticed that no one ever talks about men not having sex that might result in women getting pregnant?

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/pharmacy-union-calls-for-free-morning-after-pill-for-medical-card-holders-674372.html

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If you are working hard in this country, if you are in the middle you are getting screwed.

Sunshine, most people in this country are getting screwed. The cost of accommodation is going up, homelessness rates are increasing. These don't actually hit the middle or the richer levels, but the poorer levels.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Never mind the banks and all this lark that dependents use as an excuse - the biggest expense is the social welfare system.

Trust me, it isn't.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The government are taking your money and handing it over to the most feckless in society while you try to pay your mortgage, pay your bills and hold on to your job and live a decent life. Those at the bottom and the top are cuddled and well taken care of. Us in the middle are forced to pay for everything.

Have you met anyone from the middle who has been laid off at all? DO you understand the insurance part of social insurance by any chance?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Where will this end? What else do we have to provide? This is a welfare state we could not afford in the boom and we can't afford it now.

The morning after pill is not that expensive. Seriously. In the grand scheme of the cost of things in this country, it's minimal.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'd say a new political party that promised to put a stop to this would do well in Ireland with the silent majority.

ReNua made some noise about being neoliberal conservative ideologues. Are they not up to it for you?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

I wasn't aware you were being directly invoiced for it.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

By extension, presumably this means you'd build your own roads, pay for the electricity for the street lights on the street where you live, pay a non-equalised cost for postage?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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.

You get a lot of help from the state. YOu're just unable to recognise it. Believe me, if the state did not exist, you would not have a refuse collection, you wouldn't get educated, you would not have reasonable access to health care be it private or public. You would have no roads to travel on. There would be significantly more beggars pulling at your coat tails. The crime rates would be a metric tonne load heavier.

The state contributes a massive amount to making life in Ireland a reasonable place to live. That includes supporting people on the lower income scale. You may not be aware of it, but even if you're working, it's possible not to be able to afford to live in Ireland. Cf issues with Dunnes working hour contracts.

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. That would be too sensible for Ireland though.

To some extent, this punishes children, not adults.

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.

Ireland's health care system is more corporate than public. Hence massive numbers of people with private health insurance.

I lived abroad for a period. I don't know if you have. But I can tell you that the public health care that I got in Belgium, France and Germany, paid for either through social insurance or through mandatory health insurance (Germany) was significantly better than any private health insurance product I have had here. Whatever the problems are here, it's not the purely the fact that it's public.

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.

Children are a social good and Ireland is one of the few countries where the birthrate is just about above replacement rate in Europe. Given economic issues linked with aging populations, the tax rates in this country and the cost of accommodation which is utterly obscene, we probably need to look at supporting birthrates at the higher education levels rather than the lower levels. This is economically important for the health of the economy by the way.

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.

Comments like this are indicative of cluelessness. There is no point starting a business if you do not have an obvious product to sell and a viable market. You may be dumb enough to think this is straightforward but it is not always the case.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

Now this is just, uhem, the equivalent of online yowling.

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.

I'm not against "all" social welfare. Seriously, the next time you write a sentence, maybe highlight what you consider to be good social welfare, acceptable to your particularly mean and selfish standards. No doubt it'll include all the stuff that benefits you, like roads, police, hospitals and related stuff like that which I listed above earlier.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

Reckless. I realise that there's a thing on this site about grammar nazism, and while I'm not against typos per se - they are so easy to make - this is actually a misspelling, not a typo.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

There are a lot of issues in this country regarding generational reliance. Some of them relate to education attainment options. Some of them are linked to aspirational issues. Many of them are location based.

I volunteered to tutor children in deprived areas when I was a student. The ones who volunteered to be tutored were the ones who had some chance. Others often don't get the opportunities which are more available to oh wait, middle Ireland. Yeah.

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.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about here actually. You might want to run a comparison between Ireland, Dublin 1913 and Ireland, most of it, 2015. In particular, take a look at things like life expectancy, education levels and living standard. The welfare state - which includes things liked education and health - contributed a lot to the improvements in Ireland in that time.

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.

Most people, I find, when they are coming up with this argument wind up suggesting window cleaning for which I don't believe there are many grants available. I think you'll find some of the financial support available is business plan dependent.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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 really don't appreciate your value system, you know.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

There's that dehumanisation of and lack of respect for women again.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It's wrong in principle.

Your principles, perhaps. But you are not the arbiter here.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Do it yourself.

I believe you brought up all that stuff about government support for setting up businesses, therefore I think it is, in fact, your homework to support the argument with, you know, facts.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No start up is a lost cause or failure because it's someone getting off their arse taking a big risk to make something of their lives and contribute significantly to society.

There's that pesky problem with an idea to sell again.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This is a better use of money then the life long dependency you defend. And unless you want to be an economist for Siptu you may struggle a little bit, just sayin.

This is rank nonsense.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Many do. I know a good few investors in start ups that give a lot of support to many people who are trying - yes, many fail and it's difficult commitment to make not least financially despite support (and the idiotic welfare system that gives owners no backup if it goes wrong) - but that is not the point. It only takes one success to provide jobs and a bigger contribution over all.

Again, there's this pesky idea for a good or service problem. Start ups are kind of fancy tech new companies. The vast majority of people you're targeting this rant at are likely not to be in that sector. I'm not sure there's a lot of venture capital available for travelling mechanics, for example.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

We need more support for this and less hand outs to able bodied people contributing nothing to society only causing damage and with no intention of doing anything.

Handouts again suggest a desire to demonise people who are unworthy of your respect.

Meanwhile, we will get back to the crux of this problem. People need the morning after pill for a bunch of reasons, not always because they've not bothered with a condom. It may be because of a contraceptive failure or a rape, for example.

Your assumption that it's only about women being slutty is rather heartless and lacking in respect or empathy, I must say. I'd prefer to live in a country where people like you were a minority. I think, at the moment, I do.

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

It's wrong in principle.[/QUOTE]

who are YOU to describe anybody who uses the morning after pill a "slut" - your clearly a misogynist fool -

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is, partially. Hence I included in brackets the words "for example". The rest of your post is standard defence with nothing substantive to comment on.

Mod: I'd strongly advise you to stop assuming women are sluts if they get pregnant.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

It is, partially. Hence I included in brackets the words "for example". For the uninitiated that does not imply everyone just in case you don't know or missed that.

So, issues with women. Fine. I'm sure I'm not alone in thanking you for clearing that up.

Someone needs to explain to you that women do not get pregnant on their own and do not necessarily wind up bringing up children on their own without decisions made by men.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The rest of your post is standard defence with nothing substantive to comment on.

The rest of my post contained quite a lot for you to comment on. The fact that this would be your response suggests that you do not have the nous to do so.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I didn't assume that hence

Let me put it another way: don't mention it again and you know by now not to dispute instructions on thread. Don't do it agian