Posted on 07/26/2007 9:31:13 AM PDT by Pyro7480
For years, drug companies sold birth-control pills and other contraceptives to university health services at a big discount. This has served as an entree to young consumers for the drug companies, and a profit center for the schools, which sell them to students at a moderate markup. Students pay perhaps $15 a month for contraceptives that otherwise can retail for $50 or more.Not only hadn't I realized that there was effectively a federal subsidy for drug companies to sell birth control to colleges, I hadn't even realized that colleges actually had found a way to profit from student fornication. Nice work if you can get it.
But colleges and universities say the drug companies have stopped offering the discounts, and are now charging the schools much more. The change has an unlikely origin: the Deficit Reduction Act signed by President Bush last year. The legislation aimed to pare $39 billion in spending on federal programs, from subsidized student loans to Medicaid. And among the changes was one that, through an arcane set of circumstances, created a disincentive for drug makers to offer school discounts.
My own college, the Academy for Fancy Lads, didn't seem to follow this pattern and instead tried to give us as much free birth control as we could carry. I suspect their financial plan was that more childless alumni would be inclined to leave their vast fortunes to their alma mater, rather than demanding the university accept their moronic progeny before they forked over any of the long green.
I think they pretty much gave the girls free IED's or pills or whatever they wanted through the student health plan. As for the gentlemen, I went back from Freshman orientation armed with enough condoms for a week's shore leave in Tijuana, which I promptly filled with water and threw out the window at passing feminists. There were always more Trojans in an envelope on the college dean's door, which sort of diminished the seriousness of a visit to him. Son, you need to work much harder, and don't forget to grab a fistful of jimmy-hats on your way back to study hall.
Anyway, this is a good deal even though it will affect college norms not a whit. That's not what I care about so much as that I feel zero obligation to have my tax dollars subsidize some DKE's consequence-free Natty-light-fueled post-toga contemplation of the sweet mysteries of life, when they could be applied instead toward introducing some terrorist to his seventy-two appointed hotties. And it's downright creepy that colleges have been turning a buck off of pushing the pill. Talk about your perverse incentives.
There is no reason the federal government should be subsidizing birth control for college students.
I’m surprised no one on this thread so far hasn’t voiced outrage at the colleges yet for profiting in this little endeavor. They already receive enough money as it is.
Interesting how the gummit will pay boys and girls(through discounts) to be sexually promiscuous, but the elderly on medicare (that they paid for all their lives) can’t get false teeth for under $3,000 so they can eat a meal without choking.
{shakes head}
Good if you stop selling the abrogation of bad choices some will stop choosing to pursue those bad choices (premarital sex that may result in pregnancy, which they would then use this “pill” for abortion!).
BRING BACK PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!
Sort of like "Joe Camel".
OH, no, no, no, no——
the quintessence of modern liberalism is that
they play, you pay.
Why should we be paying for HIV drugs anyway? They volunteered to get the disease (in the vast majority of cases), they can pay for it. If they can't afford the drugs, let them die and stop spreading it.
Guess what, wheter you want to call them “Birth Control” or “Abortofacients”, they’re legal, and looking to stay that way. These “Girls” know that they prevent pregnancy. If you don’t agree with their use, then don’t use them. These women have every right to buy and use them, and the drug companies are providing a legal product.
I’d rather they use ‘protection’ if they are going to have sex, than have unwanted children. If they’re over 18, again, there’s nothing the Feds, the Pope or anti-abortion corwd can do to stop them. Abstinence only ain’t cutting it, so provide them with the means to protect themselves.
Ha - the only way that abstinence only wouldn’t cut it is if they weren’t really practicing abstinence. Otherwise, abstinence is 100% effective against unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases. The main problem is that, while you teach a kid that abstinence is the way to go, the rest of our degraded pop culture is encouraging them to run out and have as much sex as possible.
Correction. There is no reason my tax money should be subsidizing birth control for unmarried college students.
Can you tell us how much is an “untold amount” of money?
Where has abstinence only education been tried and failed?
Please provide specific information and sources. Oh, and no “everybody knows” cop-out.
That’s not what I care about so much as that I feel zero obligation to have my tax dollars subsidize some DKE’s consequence-free Natty-light-fueled post-toga contemplation of the sweet mysteries of life, when they could be applied instead toward introducing some terrorist to his seventy-two appointed hotties.
Should be printed out and handed out to every entering college freshman.
We shouldn't do it for married students either.
Call me cold hearted but let those with HIV, which is primarily the “gay” community fund their own treatment. Let them max out on their insurance and have liberals through charity fund the rest.
It’s flat out wrong that taxpayers should fund this crap.
“I’m surprised no one on this thread so far hasn’t voiced outrage at the colleges yet for profiting in this little endeavor. They already receive enough money as it is.”
GOOD POINT!
Missed that.
the quintessence of modern liberalism is that
they play, you pay.”
;)
Just not being “played” or want to “play”.
Prefer to be responsible and accountable for my own behavior. Guess I’m not a good little liberal ... :)
We lead adolescents right up to the point of intercourse having taught them nothing more than how to "protect" themselves with a thin layer of rubber and some hormone pills – anything more would be too judgemental, and we loudly excuse our shameless counsel by asserting that they'd just do it anyway. By even cursory reflection we must realize that we are doing nothing at all to prepare their minds for this experience – though hardly anyone would suggest that the psyche of an adolescent can easily cope with the vulnerabilities and misjudgements of an early sexual relationship. We are also abdicating our responsibility to take seriously their moral development, and substituting a misleading practicality in its stead. It is considered an act of miraculous forbearance (or an indication of social incompetence) if our children wait until college before having their first sexual encounter. -Udolpho.com
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.