Birth Control Pill Tax: Forbes Writer Argues Women On Hormonal Contraceptive Pills Should Pay More

[oceandezignz]

While President Obama wants to grant women access to free birth control, this guy thinks women ought to pay more for access to contraception -- $1,500 per year more, to be precise.

Comments

[spiffynamehere]

what.

[saint_monkey]

Worstall should be forced to pay for sex forever after writing this. Tell him it's a pass-through cost.

So much stupid.

[oceandezignz]

Actually in the comments on the first page someone said they ought to tax sex seeking males for intercourse with a woman! NGL I did chuckle at the thought.

[lone_concertina]

Why doesn't he find another more accessible method for us to use and then start whining about it. Because I can see not wanting all those hormones in our water system, but you can't tell use an IUD is a better option when that shit costs hundreds (or a thousand) of dollars I don't have.

[saint_monkey]

vasectomy = $400 bucks

best money i EVER spent.

[oceandezignz]

Heathen!!! Its a man's God given privilege to throw his white baby batter all over the world! To end that means you are going against everything good decent and overbearing in this world.

How could you...

[girly123]

A thousand? Were are you going that an IUD costs a thousand? I mean, they're stupid expensive, no lie, but I haven't heard of them being THAT expensive, even without insurance.

[lurkch]

Yeeah. Let's just overlook the fact that many, many pharmaceutical drug by-products (including male-soecific medication) end up in sewage and can't be removed through current treatments. Let's also overlook all of the industrial chemicals with hormonal effects (e.g. BPA) that end up in the environment and affect wildlife. Let's just pin it all on one drug class and one subsection of the population. Let's also forget about all the money saved and all the pollution that doesn't happen because more humans weren't added to the planet.

In fact, let's just abandon logic, science, economics, etc. altogether then, shall we?

Sigh.

[skellington1]

No shit. My first thought was "And this is an issue specific to birth control pills because...?"

Also, would this mean that I get off without the proposed giant fee because I take progestin only pills (no ethinyl estradiol ), or would he come up with a different way to penalize me for being female? I'm betting on the latter.

[mollywobbles867]

Right? What effect does Viagra have? Antidepressants? Pain medication? Heart meds? Et al? This guy is a sexist piece of shit.

[mutive]

Anti-depressants and birth control pills are the two that I've seen highlighted for screwing with fish. Probably other meds aren't real great either, though.

Really, though, my primary concern is still all those antibiotics we keep feeding farm animals. (The thought makes me shudder.) So I'll worry about that first, *then* worry about sex changing fish. (Or fish who are peculiarly mellow.)

[mirhanda]

While the point that hormones are messing up the ecosystem is valid, it seems that the burden should fall more on the pharmaceutical companies rather than individual women. That spreads it out more fairly, plus it also considers the other drugs being excreted into the ecosystem, not just the hormones.

[crossfire]

I think the burden should be on society at large to clean up after itself. Better water purification and waste management infrastructure is what we need. It's not hard, we just don't want to spend the money.

[nikoel]

Paid for with a higher tax on the manufacturers.

[crossfire]

Partially, yes. I'm thinking that bc hormones in the ecosystem is one symptom of a much larger problem that needs to be solved by us as a species. Certainly a good chunk of the funding should come from big pharma (you'll find more drugs than just bc hormones in our water) as well as other manufacturers (like fertilizer manufacturers, oil companies, chemical companies, etc).

I know, it's mostly a pipe dream. :-/