College students to have less money or more babies

Let's see, what were my options in college?

1) Abstain - is this no longer an option? Cost to me: 0. Risk: 0. Embarrassment: 0. Hassle from parents: 0. Cost to taxpayers: 0. Resulting health issues: 0.

2) Pay full price to go on the pill, risk STDs, risk having to discuss sex with my parents, lose the respect of my classmates and myself, etc. . . .

3) Have sex and trust a man, with nothing to lose, to be careful. HA!

4) Have sex without being bothered about what happens.

Hmmm, since nobody was trying to convince me that (1) was not an option, I chose it, and never had a moment's regret. Why do you always pretend this isn't realistic? Because YOU didn't choose it? Please be honest.

Reply

Yeah, I remember you or one of your colleagues posted a link to that story, with a headline like "everyone" does it.

First of all, sex before marriage isn't the same as sex before finishing college.

Secondly, even if the majority of people have sex before finishing college, there are still many who don't. It's unquestionable that abstinence is the healthiest choice for unmarried people who don't want the natural consequences of sex. You should never imply that it's not a realistic choice.

It's not my problem if people choose to have sex instead of abstain - whether it costs them more or not, in the short run or the long run. But if you ask me, they would be less likely to do it if the media (including your types) weren't continuously influencing kids to visualize, accept, and give into sex instead of abstinence.

Reply

Generic pils (for example, ortho-tricyclen is the name brand and the generic brands include Tri-Sprintec and Trinessa, among others) work just as well as the name brand stuff. I don't really see what the issue is here... other than, perhaps, college students might not know that generic drugs are just as good as name brand drugs. Hopefully someone will be telling them or they could google to find this article... yes. ;)

Reply

So, you're saying that the kids are "mature" enough to decide to have sex, but not "mature" enough to take reasonable precautions, like getting a job to pay for the pill?

Sounds to me like they should take a page from SKL's book, and lay off the sex until they grow up a little.

Reply

See Heather's entry below. It's called "Are we raising an entitled generation?"

Figure it out, people...either you're an adult or you're not.

Reply

Wow, what's with all the vitriol? Who says that these students aren't working or feel "entitled" to get anything? College is a time of just scraping by for a lot of students and most of them are employed (at least, they were at the college I graduated from last year).

There are legitimate reasons for preferring and sometimes needing the name-brand drugs. There isn't always a generic equivalent available, like with Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo or the Nuva Ring. The generic drugs have higher levels of estrogen, which can be a problem for some women. Or maybe you just find that you can't remember to take a pill the same time each day and need the Ortho Evra patch or the Nuva Ring.

This isn't about being a spoiled brat. It's just about having affordable options. We should be doing everything we can to encourage birth control use by anyone who chooses to be sexually active, including providing both generics and brand-name options at low cost.

Reply

@ SKL
Why do think choosing to have sex means losing "the respect of your classmates and yourself"?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to abstain through your college years, but it's not the choice most students make. And there's nothing wrong with THAT, either.

I think what might really be bothering you is that you don't like the idea of subsidizing birth control and therefore "enabling" a lifestyle you apparently disapprove of.

Reply

Why is it anytime you bring up the pill or other contaceptives theres the one person who says well I didnt have sex so why would anyone need to use it? First good for you that you didnt have sex unitl you were married, I know plenty of people that havent had sex however, this does not mean that there aren't people out there having unprotected sex. If the pill were not needed then there would be no unplanned pregnancies, no abortions, and the rate of teenage pregnanices wouldn't keep going up. Everyone is going to have a different opinion and everyone will make or have made a different desicion doesn't mean your teenage daughter wont have sex just 'cause you didn't, and vice versa. I would feel much better knowing that my child had access to contraceptives should they be sexually active. I do not believe that giving contraceptives to kids is going to "give" them permission to have sex as soo many claim. If your going to do something then your going to do it, if your not going to do something then you won't do it regardless.

Reply

Why the grudge, abstainers?

You talk about choice, but you're OK about people who choose another option than your own (and who are often poor) losing benefits that help them in their quest to stay child-free. Unless the drugs are funded out of your pocket, why would you want to cut off that deal? It just smacks of pretentious moral high ground.

I had a choice, I knew I had a choice and I chose to have sex when I was 17 (and I never had a moments regret, either). Thank goodness I grew up in Sweden where contraceptive is free, or nearly free, for everyone between 15-21. Not that it needed to be for me because my mum brought up the issue of contraceptive when I had my first boyfriend.

I'm not hating on abstinence. To each his own. I just don't get why abstainers think it's either abstaining or "risk STDs, risk having to discuss sex with my parents, lose the respect of my classmates and myself, etc. . . .", and talk about choice, when clearly they want everyone else to make the same one they did.

Reply

To clarify my earlier statement, I don't care what choice other adults make. I have two problems with the blogger's post:

1) He implies that abstinence is not a realistic or reasonable choice, while it certainly is.

2) He implies that birth control should be subsidized (by my tax dollars, presumably) for college students, as if there is no question college students are entitled to this subsidy. There should always be a question whether an "entitlement" is appropriate.

Make your own choices, I don't care what they are as long as you aren't my kid. But don't expect others to pay. Making your own choices means living with the results. Living with the results of your choices means paying for them at full price. There is always the cost-free choice if you don't like paying.

Reply

And yes, I do believe young people would be better off abstaining from sex. That is my opinion to which I am entitled to. Nevertheless, at the age of 18, they have a right to do whatever unhealthy but legal thing they choose to do, whether it be smoking, eating like hogs, playing video games instead of doing their homework, or having sex. I don't believe my tax dollars should subsidize any of these behaviors.

You all have the right to disagree with my opinions on young people having sex. But that is a different issue from the issues of whether (a) another choice is available, or (b) my tax dollars should subsidize it.

Reply

If they are working, aren't these kids subsidizing their behaviours through income tax? I've worked since 14 and paid taxes since then. If they are paying into the system, they are very much entitled to be provided with services, are they not? And since when are college students less worry of being entitled to the services of their country than anyone else? At what point are young people allowed to be treated as humans? Can they join the army or drive? If yes, then I think they are very much entitled.

It doesn't appear that he's claiming abstainance is unrealistic as much as he's stating a fact that offering protection will assist those who choose to have sex. I didn't read any sort of derision in the post.

Reply

To #13, most college students don't pay federal income tax even if they are working, because most of them don't earn more than the standard deduction plus personal exemption. Those few who do typically pay a very small amount of tax.

In return, these folks are indeed getting plenty of benefits that are financed by taxes. Every benefit I ever got and more. Subsidized education, student loans, housing, the roads they drive on, national security, police force, fire department, availability of free ER if they need it, the earned income tax credit, etc., etc.

Adding subsidized birth control as an additional benefit, which isn't benefiting everyone equally, is inappropriate in my opinion.

Reply

"Unless the drugs are funded out of your pocket, why would you want to cut off that deal?"..."Thank goodness I grew up in Sweden where contraceptive is free, or nearly free, for everyone between 15-21."..."If they are paying into the system, they are very much entitled to be provided with services, are they not?"..."At what point are young people allowed to be treated as humans?"

First, those drugs are NOT "free". They are paid for by taxes, and through the drug companies' profits that every body complains about. If the companies weren't making such a high profit, they couldn't afford to offer drugs at no- or low-cost.

Second, congratulations to you who lives in Sweden and received "free" drugs. But you didn't. I looked up your tax rate, and it's substantially higher than here in the U.S. That means that your drugs AREN'T free, they're just paid for in a roundabout way.

Third, nobody is saying that these students shouldn't have access to the drugs, or to any type of contraceptive that they need or desire. All we're saying is that they should have to pay for them just like everyone else. Jonathan states in the original post, "Now college students either have to pay full price, switch to cheaper, generic brands, or admit to their parents that they're having sex so they can get the pill via mom and dad's health insurance." Those poor, poor little college children... having to be "treated as humans", stand up to their responsibilities, and figure out a way to either pay for their contraceptives (either out-of-pocket, or by - HORRORS! - admitting to parents that they are having sex and utilizing the health insurance that still covers them), or abstain from sex until they can do so.

Reply

Ha.

Birth control and insurance: while the college kids are probably still on their parent's insurance, what's the chance that their parent's insurance covers birth control anyhow? I've been on 1 employer/group plan out of 3 that covers the pill--in a state where coverage is "required." There are ways around those laws.

Generics: As an adult with insurance, I'm currently paying $30/month out of pocket for my generic; the name brand costs $50. This is for a name brand pill that has been around since the 1970s--not even one of the "new-fangled" ones. And, since my insurance doesn't even cover it, those are the prices from the warehouse club, not Walgreens.

Tax dollars: If these college students are over 18, get pregnant, and drop out of college, they lose access to their parent's health insurance. In addition, some health insurance plans do not cover pregnancy care for dependents--so even if they retain access there is a good chance the pregnancy wouldn't be covered. Therefore, if college students get pregnant, they generally end up on Medicaid (and probably WIC).

I'd rather my tax dollars were helping to cover the $30-$50/month for the pill, than the $10,000-$20,000 cost of a standard pregnancy.

Reply

So, given all the obstacles and disastrous consequences you've just outlined, hp, why can't the responsible college student just say NO? Plenty of us out here did it, even when we didn't want to. It's called restraint. Self control. Willpower. Sometimes it's even called self respect. It's also a part of learning to grow up. If you can't bear the consequences, don't perform the act. It's as simple as that. Not always easy, but simple.

They want to be treated as adults, they have to act like adults. Period.

Reply

"So, given all the obstacles and disastrous consequences you've just outlined, hp, why can't the responsible college student just say NO? Plenty of us out here did it, even when we didn't want to. It's called restraint. Self control. Willpower. Sometimes it's even called self respect. It's also a part of learning to grow up. If you can't bear the consequences, don't perform the act. It's as simple as that. Not always easy, but simple."

Again with the bashing of people with other set of values than yourself. And again: "Previously, drug companies sold birth-control pills and other contraceptives to college health services for cheap. The health service would then sell the drugs at a mark-up, which made them a little money; the students got the pill for $15 a month instead of $50, which made them happy; and the drug companies got to introduce their product to a younger generation -- everybody wins!"
Meaning no one paid for this with their tax money - and I bet the drug companies came out even by doubling the number of students who could afford to buy the pill. Problem solved.

"Second, congratulations to you who lives in Sweden and received "free" drugs. But you didn't. I looked up your tax rate, and it's substantially higher than here in the U.S. That means that your drugs AREN'T free, they're just paid for in a roundabout way."

Taxes and paychecks balance out in the end - the benefit of our high taxes is health care for everyone, good educations (definitely with no children left behind), social security for EVERYONE and we don't need insurance to give birth in a hospital - I mean, come on! The American dream looks a bit deflated from here at this point in time.

Reply

"Adding subsidized birth control as an additional benefit, which isn't benefiting everyone equally, is inappropriate in my opinion."

So should we eliminate everything that doesn't benefit everyone equally? If so, I can think of something that would get thrown out real quick - every subsidy someone gets from the government for having a child.

That doesn't benefit everyone equally. Why subsidize the choice to have children but not the choice not to have them? And before you shout that you can "abstain," well, the unwed mother who could barely pay the bills before her kids came along could have done that, too.

Reply

"Again with the bashing of people with other set of values than yourself."

I never bashed anyone. All I'm asking is that those who make the decision to participate in an adult activity ACT like an adult and be responsible. If that means that they need to buy birth control at full price, then so be it. If they can't afford birth control, then they shouldn't have sex. Further, if reduced-cost pills aren't available at the Student Health Center, what is keeping these people from trekking down to Planned Parenthood? And if they can't find P.P., what's wrong with a condom? ("Condoms have been available free on many campuses, and are considered the best form of contraception for preventing sexually transmitted infections." - quoted from the article)

As for the benefits of your highly-taxed socialism-structured society vs. our lower-taxed democratic-structured society, we could argue for days and never come to a consensus. Frankly, I prefer the free-market system which encourages free thinking on the part of individuals, and free-enterprise on the part of businesses. It's how progress happens. I think that you and I should agree to disagree on this point, and remain friends.

Reply