Cheap birth control expires on campuses
The New York Times ran a story about the recent exponential cost increase for birth control on college campuses. Because of a change in federal law, young women are now paying much higher prices for their formerly subsidized prescription contraceptives. Get me a violin.
Planned Parenthood, however, has opened its doors to encourage promiscuous, dehumanizing sexuality on college campuses. At Tufts University in Boston, for example, the contraceptive NuvaRing rose in price from $8 to $50. The nearby Planned Parenthood facility offers the contraceptive for $27.
“The potential is that women will stop taking it, and whether or not you can pay for it, that doesn’t mean that you’ll stop having sex,” said Katie Ryan, a senior at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks, who said that the monthly cost of her Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo, a popular birth control pill, recently jumped to nearly $50 from $12.
Ms. Ryan, 22, said she had considered switching to another contraceptive to save money, but was unsure which one to pick. She has ended up paying the higher price, but said she was concerned about her budget.
“I do less because of this – less shopping, less going out to eat,” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. “For students, this is very, very expensive.”
Here’s a crazy idea: What if college women stopped having sex until they established, with their male cohorts, a committed, whole-life partnership for the good of each other and for the rearing and education of children, cultivated in an ancient institution called marriage? The intimate commitment of life and love which constitutes the married state is the best context for human sexuality, even for college students.
By not having sex at all, however, the high cost of contraceptives can by-pass college women altogether. Wounded, narcissistic college men use young women for personal gratification, disguised by manipulative phrases like “I love you” and “you’re so beautiful,” but the men have no interest in living out the full implications of human sexuality, namely, a life of love committed to one woman and to nurturing children. Wounded, narcissistic women willingly participate in the premarital sex factory that ultimately produces nothing but emotional, physical, and spiritual pain.
Some will welcome the cost increase in hopes that the expense may retard the injurious practice of narcissistic sex and raise awareness of the great divorce of sexuality from its marital intention to produce children and cultivate life-committed love–a divorce, many argue, accelerated by the introduction of artificial contraceptives.



WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Free Hardcover ESV Study Bible!
















back to top60 Comments to “Cheap birth control expires on campuses”
College students having sex! What has the world come to? It’s all the pills fault; before the pill college students never had sex. And if we get rid of the pill college students wont have sex anymore.
Sounds sensible.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, we aren’t “getting rid” of the pill, we are simply letting the students foot the bill themselves for their extra-curricular activity. And since you can already get stuff cheaper at Planned Parenthood, this makes total sense to me. (Perhaps some of the guys could help out their girlfriends by paying half, too.)
Report comment to moderator
I am reminded of King Canute ordering the waves to go back.
Or perhaps Don Quixote jousting with windmills.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Luke, since the introduction of safe, effective, readily available contraception, rates of bastardy have increased markedly.
So, regardless of how you feel about taxpayer-funded OCP’s, it’s ridiculous to imply that college students have always had sex at the present rate. To believe that, you must believe that the availability of OCP’s somehow makes women or men more fertile or that OCP’s don’t work.
Some colleges have real clinics, dispensing such things as, say, insulin. It’s perfectly reasonable for those clinics to dispense OCP’s. Others have OCP dispensaries. This is State sponsorship of Aphrodite worship and should be condemned.
Report comment to moderator
Sex dehumanizes people. Right.
And you gotta love the specificity of establishing a partnership “…with their male cohorts”. We must exclude the gays at every possible turn of a phrase, eh Anthony?
Report comment to moderator
“So, regardless of how you feel about taxpayer-funded OCP’s, it’s ridiculous to imply that college students have always had sex at the present rate.”
And if they have, you need to give us more than your say so Luke…
Report comment to moderator
Uh.. reproduction isn’t much of a concern for gays Stephen… Or hadn’t you noticed?
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a crazy idea: What if college women stopped having sex until they established, with their male cohorts, a committed, whole-life partnership for the good of each other and for the rearing and education of children, cultivated in an ancient institution called marriage?
Here’s an even crazier idea: What if you took your nose out of other people’s private business?
Report comment to moderator
Great idea. Lets not fund their private business….
Report comment to moderator
“Sex dehumanizes people. Right.’
What is it with our liberal contingent today?
They keep putting words in our mouth.
Report comment to moderator
#7
Precisely, MIM, which is why there’s absolutely no reason to specify that those ladies are having sex with male partners. If we’re talking reproduction, then clearly it must be heterosexual intercourse.
Report comment to moderator
I think finding me proof that making the pill less available to college student would make them have less sex is a much bigger bill to foot. Presumption goes to the reasonable.
But I’m not here to make logical arguments; logic is racist!
I’m more interested in using this opportunity to point out a flaw in conservative pundants that has always bugged me. It seems they open the news with a goal of what they are going to talk about and the news story itself is just a way of getting there! I perceive them getting giddy when they find the news story that (isn’t going to launch a germane discussion but) is going to give them license to soapbox about what’s wrong with the college aged generation.
Referencing the actual news is only a play to credibility for what would be (without it) an outdated codgers rant!
This is head lining the NATIONAL section. We have a rants and raves section, lets talk about the news in the news section.
Report comment to moderator
RE: #11
I don’t think being wordy is necessarily proof that Anthoney has it in for Gays… That’s just ridiculous.
Why did you bring it up? I hadn’t even given it a moments thought until you mentioned it. And I doubt very seriously whether anyone else did either. I think you’re just using it as an excuse to pound Anthony.
Report comment to moderator
“I think finding me proof that making the pill less available to college student would make them have less sex is a much bigger bill to foot. Presumption goes to the reasonable.”
Evidently what is “reasonable” depends on your point of view… I don’t buy your implication that college students have always had sex at these levels for a moment. It’s exceedingly obvious that they didn’t. Or do you think that co-eds managed to sneak past their dorm mothers in enough numbers to warrant needing the present numbers of abortions and birth control?
Laughable really if it weren’t such a tragedy.
Report comment to moderator
“Because of a change in federal law, young women are now paying much higher prices for their formerly subsidized prescription contraceptives. Get me a violin.”
Yea, my heart bleeds for you. Get married!!! Then you won’t have to worry about getting pregnant.
Report comment to moderator
See what happens when you have publicly funded health care? Everybody has an opinion about what kind of health care should be given to whom!
Why don’t we all pay for our own health care and then we won’t have to fuss about who gets what, when they get it and how much it costs. We will all pay for our own anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Hats off to Bob Buckles, because he is exactly right!
Report comment to moderator
MIM, I certainly don’t have a grudge against Anthony, nor do I mean to suggest that his phrasing was an intentional dig. It’s simply an unfortunate slight that, as you pointed out, added absolutely nothing to the content of the sentence.
Report comment to moderator
And since when does getting married solve any worries about getting pregnant?
Report comment to moderator
Stephen see http://www.cbmw.org! All your questions will be answered.
MiM, I’m talking about the quality of conservative pundantry, what are you talking about?
Report comment to moderator
Stephen #19
“Some will welcome the cost increase in hopes that the expense may retard the injurious practice of narcissistic sex and raise awareness of the great divorce of sexuality from its marital intention to produce children and cultivate life-committed love–a divorce, many argue, accelerated by the introduction of artificial contraceptives.”
Getting married will solve any worries about getting pregnant because it’s the right condition for a pregnancy.
Look beyond the ‘undesired’ effect of pregnancy at the other repercussions Bradley mentions. Subsidizing contraceptives for college women encourages them to participate in the empty, dehumanizing practice of uncommitted sex. If they are married, then contraceptives or not, they are doing something productive.
Report comment to moderator
MIM #13
Apparently you need to undergo sensitivity training. How could you let that conspiratorial dig at homosexuals slip right past you?
Report comment to moderator
No matter the price of birth control, people are still going to have sex.
You can bet that if these college women end up pregnant because they couldn’t afford birth control, the conservatives will turn around and damn them for getting pregnant. And if they turn to abortion, the conservatives will go ballistic.
In short, women will be damned by conservatives no matter what they do. And that’s the point, is it not?
Many of us are thankful for sensible organizations like Planned Parenthood!
Report comment to moderator
Let’s just attack the premise from the start. Sex between unmarried peoples is NOT empty and dehumanizing. Can it be? Yes. So can sex between married people, especially when love is not present. If you ever have meaningful conversations outside of your ideological bubble you will find that people are much more complex and interesting than the cartoon characters you make them out to be in your black and white world.
I think the original post comes across as being not merely unreasonable, but frankly arrogant, condescending, insulting and inhuman. We’re talking about adults over the age of 18 who have a right to make their own choices. Most of those people have considered your argument, rejected it, and consider their lives better for it.
Deal with that. And get back to me when you can approach this issue with a modicum of humility and understanding.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR #23
I found myself agreeing with your first two paragraphs, except the part about “damn them” and “go ballistic”, which sounds like hyperbole.
The last part about some kind of Catch-22 sounds like you don’t understand that there’s any alternative open to college women besides having sex, getting pregnant and then getting an abortion. Conservatives shouldn’t “damn” anyone, but “the point” is that women have options (isn’t this pro-choice in a way?), and colleges shouldn’t subsidize what conservatives consider a bad decision.
Report comment to moderator
If men used condoms instead of expecting women to use the pill, women wouldn’t have to worry about using the pill 89.7% of the time.
OK, that was meant to be amusing. We’re talking responsible sexuality here. Recreational sex is a losing proposition most of the time. The more partners an individual has the more likely it is that (s)he will get a STD. Not to mention the emotional toll of serial monogamy. Or the loss of reputation for woman labeled as “floozies, easy, ho’s” or worse, and men labeled as “players, lotharios and dogs.” Being labeled a player is a derogatory name for these men by women, and a medal of honor by men in the locker room.
It’s not just about having sex. People have sex because it’s enjoyable. But responsibility has to be factored in. If you insist on having sex while unmarried and in college, no one should be expected to subsidize our lifestyle.
If you insist on having sex then be responsible enough to budget for it.
Report comment to moderator
DC Lawyer #24
Just so that I can translate for people who know the true meaning of the abstract concepts you just threw around:
I think what you really meant by “humility” and “understanding” was “tractability” and “tolerance”.
Also, I think by “love” you meant “affection”.
Don’t worry, liberals often conflate these terms.
Report comment to moderator
No matter the price of birth control, people are still going to have sex.
So what’s the problem with no longer having the government and educational system (government-run and -funded) subsidizing the cost of birth control, Anlir?
Aren’t we supposed to be getting the government and our political opponents OUT of our bedrooms??
Report comment to moderator
Yorick [21], the fact that marriage is necessary for the right conditions of a pregnancy in no way makes it sufficient.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick,
Well, it does come across that way to many of us.
Let’s face reality: people have sex. One can argue and preach and rail until they’re blue in the face, but the bottom line is that people are going to have sex. It’s not the end of the world, and it shouldn’t be the end of someone’s life because they have sex.
Burying one’s head in the sand and saying “No, no, no – don’t have sex” is not going to stop people. Never has. Never will. Having sex, whether one is married or not, is an almost universal human experience.
I know some people like to pretend that everyone waits until they’re married, but it doesn’t square with reality. I understand that conservative Christians live in a sheltered world where everyone is a virgin until they marry, where there are no un-wed mothers, where every Christian boy is a perfect gentleman and saves himself until his wedding night.
But it doesn’t square with the reality of the other 95% of us. (Nor, by the way, does it square with the reality of many conservative Christians, who are not “as pure as the driven snow” as they pretend they are.)
Denying that single people are going to have sex and that sex leads to pregnancy does not change the reality. Providing birth control is a reasonable response to the realistic premise that people are going to have sex. Making it more difficult to obtain birth control will not stop them. It will only increase the number of pregnancies.
I understand that conservatives are pissed off that women don’t suffer a penalty for having sex outside of marriage (getting pregnant or getting an STD). Interestingly, men get a free-pass on that because he’s just being “one of the boys”.
In any event, conservatives need to get over their anger that single women aren’t being punished for having sex anymore. There are far more important things to be angry about: poverty, war, poor health care, the environment, for starters.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen #29
I see what you did there, and you are correct. But marriage is still necessary. Sorry, but what’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
Yorick, it supports my rejection [19] of JBlanc’s statement [15].
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR #30
Thanks for responding.
Despite that all this ranting strays far from the main point about subsidizing contraceptives, as Outkast pointed out (#28), it is worth clarifying something about Christian morality that makes your whole post miss the mark for me.
You talk about percentages, majorities, and how some Christians are hypocrites. So, I guess you’re missing the point. Christian morality and judgment isn’t poll-driven, or based on the present cultural climate. It’s based on what is immutable, and that immutable morality is a difficult one that is usually followed by few people. This doesn’t make it impossible, unreasonable, or changeable.
Now. Why should schools subsidize, and thereby enable what some consider bad judgment?
Report comment to moderator
Yorick at #25: colleges shouldn’t subsidize what conservatives consider a bad decision.
And #33: Now. Why should schools subsidize, and thereby enable what some consider bad judgment?
Why should whatever it is conservatives think have any bearing on the matter?
Report comment to moderator
I see, and you have a point there. So, I wouldn’t go as far as saying “Then you won’t have to worry about getting pregnant” (JBlanc #15), but I would say that marriage is necessary for the right conditions, which is much better than being guaranteed the wrong conditions outside of marriage.
So, if college students worry because they know they’re guaranteed the wrong conditions for a pregnancy, and they don’t worry if they have at least some chance of the right conditions, they should wait until marriage.
I’m kind of rushed because I had no idea how time consuming commenting can be, but let me know if my logic holds up there so that I can correct it before I go for my JD.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, previous post was for Stephen #32
Report comment to moderator
STEVEG #34
My two points were consistent. But did you just ask why conservatives’ opinion matters? I’m not sure where to start on that one.
Maybe you’re not seeing that if schools do not subsidize contraceptives, then they are taking a neutral approach? By not subsidizing, they are not restricting or enabling the use of contraceptives.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick [35],
So, if college students worry because they know they’re guaranteed the wrong conditions for a pregnancy, and they don’t worry if they have at least some chance of the right conditions, they should wait until marriage.
Still a couple of problems. First, I don’t think the boldface bit above is a defensible assertion. Secondly, even if you moderated it to be “…they worry less if they have at least some chance of the right conditions…”, you’d still have to argue:
1. At what level of worry sex becomes justified.
2. Why marriage will make worry equal to or less than that level.
3. Why it is that the minimum level of worry which would arise from a single non-marital sexual encounter must necessarily be greater than the level of worry that would justify sex (#1).
Report comment to moderator
Actually I don’t have a problem with the change in policy (clunk! the sound of jaws hitting the keyboard.)
Upon reading the article, I understand that only birth control pills were discounted on campus whereas other prescriptions weren’t part of the policy.
HOWEVER … There are better ways of dealing with drug costs for students. Almost all universities in Canada have a mandatory drug insurance plan for students. Students pay the premium as part of their incidental fees and are entitled to free prescriptions including birth control plus a nominal co-payment (usually $2). Some conservatives raise a minor fuss because they are forced to pay higher premiums when birth control is added to the list. However the Pill is a legitimate medication for more than just birth control.
The second thing needed to be done is to use the power of bulk discounts when buying drugs for government plans or institutions. The cost would lower quite substanially. Planned Parenthood’s cheaper meds are probably based on bulk buying power.
As for some of the moralistic sermonizing being spewed forth here, its no wonder Luke and others take a no prisoner approach. I wouldn’t be far less willing to compromise if I had to put up with the attitude seen here.
#15
Get married!!! Then you won’t have to worry about getting pregnant.
Sex education programmes are definitely lacking in America. Marraige eventually acts like birth control for some but usually pregnancy occurs quite frequently.
#20
Scary website just the phrase “Biblical Manhood” sends images of patriachs with their many wives.
Report comment to moderator
Sex always costs ya something. Youngsters haven’t learned that sex is way over rated (been there, done that long before they were born) and that love, which is free by the way, is where it is at. Kids would rather pay for something virtually worthless most always and don’t want the really great free stuff. But youngsters are usually whack job socialists anyway and don’t yet realize that they are “oh so wrong about about a great many things” and that conservatives get way smarter the older these error prone, young, whack jobs get
Others just suffer in misery with their socialist slave masters, never grow up and remain children forever. Forever being childish is like the end of the means for them. Luckily, God takes care of children and drunks, which are about the same thing, why they can be so funny sometimes that you just got to love em.
Report comment to moderator
Stephen #38
Yeah I knew that was a specious argument once I got into playing around with the degree of “worry”. I will have to stick with the judgment that marriage is necessary for the right conditions, and sex is justified only when those conditions may be met.
Report comment to moderator
Llama #40
You have certainly redefined the phrase “free love”.
Also, “Sex always costs ya something.” Wise words, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick,
We subsidize all kinds of morally objectionable things in this country. Unless one lives in the woods, completely off the grid, one funds all kinds of things, either directly or indirectly that are objectionable. For example, where can you buy gas in this country that doesn’t sell alcohol or cigarettes? Christians who morally object to those two things still buy gas from the store, which keeps the doors open so they can sell more alcohol and cigarettes. When I eat a Chick-fil-A, I fund a company that gives money to Republicans, which I object to morally. When a student pays their Activity Fee to a university, some of their money goes to groups that they find morally objectionable. I morally object to my taxes going to George Bush’s war in Iraq. It’s just a fact of life.
One doesn’t have to agree with all the choices that people make or the options they are given.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir #43
Uh.. ok. What you just wrote doesn’t contradict my point, in fact it strengthens my argument. It seems that you and I both don’t want to subsidize things we don’t agree with, so, in this case if contraceptives aren’t subsidized then that’s one less thing that we don’t agree with being subsidized. Just because it’s happening all the time doesn’t mean we shouldn’t object to it.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick,
I’ll make a deal with ya. In exchange for you not having to subsidize contraceptives on college campuses I get a break on my taxes that is going for the war in Iraq. Fair is fair
Report comment to moderator
“One doesn’t have to agree with all the choices that people make or the options they are given.”
I totally agree. I just don’t want to directly subsidize other people’s choices and options. Students who want less expensive birth control and STD protection should go to Planned Parenthood (which some of my tax $$ already subsidize through government grants) and pay for it themselves, just as the people who want alcohol and tobacco have to pay for that themselves. No one is providing those things under a special subsidy.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir #45
Nope, but I have a deal for you. As long as I get to object to subsidizing contraceptives on college campuses, you can object to your tax contribution to the Iraq War.
Report comment to moderator
Luke, I understand your frustration about “conservative pundants” and their disdain for college students. You’re correct in that assessment. I’d love to follow up with you about that because you raised an excellent critique because we do need constructive dialog. Should me an e-mail or shoot me a note on facebook and I can explain why I offered this up: it’s want not to highlight what’s wrong with college students, but rather the problem in lots of other areas (abradley@acton.org). Thanks again for your comments Luke!
Report comment to moderator
#46 Janie
I agree.
I can also resentfully verify that no one is subsidizing my alcohol intake, despite contributing to its cause.
Report comment to moderator
Yorick at #37:
Maybe you’re not seeing that if schools do not subsidize contraceptives, then they are taking a neutral approach? By not subsidizing, they are not restricting or enabling the use of contraceptives.
Have you actually read the article linked to from Anthony Bradley’s post? The schools are not subsidizing anything.
What is happening is this: Under the law, the cost of prescription drugs under Medicaid is calculated using a formula that takes into account the lowest prices the drug companies sell the products for anywhere. However, for prescription contraceptives, those provided to university health centers and clinics serving low-income people have been exempt and not counted in the Medicaid calculations.
This has allowed the companies to provide the contraceptives at heavily discounted prices to universities without worrying that it will lower the prices they can charge the government for those provided through Medicaid.
The companies have done that not to make a profit but to build brand loyalty in hopes that women will continue to prefer their products at full price after they graduate. But a new law has eliminated the university exemption (inadvertently according to some legislators), so now the companies either have to raise their prices for the universities, or charge less for those provided to the Medicaid program.
See? We are not talking at all about the government picking up part of the cost. No public money is being spent to provide contraception.
(Anthony Bradley doesn’t seem to understand this either, so I don’t fault anyone who read just his post for it. But the linked article does spell out just what is happening.)
Now, if we were talking about an actual subsidy, I’m not sure where I’d fall. I see some merit in your argument about neutrality. On the other hand, this is to me more a public health issue than a moral one. Given the reality that young adults do have sex despite the preaching from busybodies like Anthony Bradley, it’s not out of line to spend a bit of money to help them be responsible.
But we’re not talking about a subsidy, so it’s moot.
My two points were consistent. But did you just ask why conservatives’ opinion matters? I’m not sure where to start on that one.
Well, I sort of did. More correctly, I was asking why you seem to be implying that the conservative opinion should be some sort of veto. “Sorry, conservatives don’t approve, so this must stop.”
Report comment to moderator
Hi Janie,
If you buy anything at all, you’re subsidizing other people’s choices and options, including some morally objectionable ones. There’s no other way around it. As I pointed out in one of my examples, if you buy gas, you’re keeping a store open that sells alcohol. The store owner doesn’t separate out his gas sales and keep the money separate to promote only gas. It gets dumped into the kitty and the money is used to advertise alcohol. Gas is actually used to sell all those other items. Whether or not you buy them, you’re still subsidizing them when you buy gas. Worse, the money we pay for gas is going to Saudi Arabia and other countries where radicals are being trained. Talk about subsidizing something that’s immoral.
Report comment to moderator
#50 Steve G.
Actually Steve it is a subsidy. I hope you don’t actually believe that the “discounted” rate is not covered in the corporate welfare that drug companies receive from the government to makeup the difference. Drug manufacturers are for-profit institutions and if the distribution of these supposedly discounted drugs were not profitable they would not continue to produce them.
You are correct the article does not talk about the corporate welfare that drug companies receive allow them to absorb the “discounted rate” at still make a profit.
For an example of how corporate welfare (funded by tax payers) from the government provides “discounted” drugs for those in need read this: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0718/p09s02-coop.htm
Report comment to moderator
Yorick [41], sex is justified only when all the right conditions for pregnancy are met? That might be the strictest principle I’ve ever heard proposed!
Janie [46], what if subsidizing birth control for college students lessens the substantially greater cost to you of them having a child?
Report comment to moderator
Bradley’s against premarital sex? Sure he is. Over here. But over on his blog where he posts stuff “for da bruthas”, he posted a video of Robin Thicke performing Lost Without You. If you listen to it, notice the women screaming when he tells his woman he wants her to masturbate when thinking of him . . .
Here’s the link
http://tinyurl.com/yvbyyo
Yeah, it really sounds like he’s opposed to premarital sex. I guess singing filthy songs about sex to thousands of women is OK, and apparently it’s OK for women to “pleasure themselves” while thinking of men, but sex itself is out of bounds.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley at #52: Drug manufacturers are for-profit institutions and if the distribution of these supposedly discounted drugs were not profitable they would not continue to produce them.
Companies sell things at a loss all the time, if they think it can bring them more profit in other ways. Retail stores frequently sell certain products as “loss leaders,” i.e., they take a loss on that item, but they get people into the store where many of them will buy more things.
In this case, the calculus is that women in college will continue to buy contraception for decades after they graduate. If the companies provide drugs at low cost (it’s not clear that it’s actually at a loss, though it may be) to for four years, women will become comfortable and familiar with the brand and will very likely continue to buy that brand at full price for the next few decades.
Your linked article in your response to me is about the prescription drug provision in Medicare, where conservatives in Congress successfully killed the government’s power to negotiate prices for drugs provided by Medicare. I agree that’s corporate welfare, and the Republicans who supported it should be ashamed. But it has nothing to do with this.
In Medicare, the government is actually buying the drugs. On this issue, inidividual college students are buying the drugs,, and the companies are (or have been until now) setting the prices low for their own long term corporate purposes. The two have nothing to do with each other.
Report comment to moderator
#51
Anlir,
I agree about buying one thing subsidizing another because the money all goes to the owner’s profit and business expenses, but I’m not so sure about the gas subsidizing alcohol purchases. We have a friend who used to own a chain of gas stations with convenience stores, and he said most of his profit came from alcohol, cigarettes, and lottery tickets. The gas doesn’t give much profit at all, it just gets people to come into the store. If anything, it’s the alcohol subsidizing the gas purchases. (Our friend sold the chain after becoming a Christian, because he didn’t like to be making his profits off people’s self-destructive habits.)
Report comment to moderator
#51 Anlir,
It looks like Pauline gave part of the response I was going to give. The remaining part of mine is that everyone goes to the store and pays the same price for the alcohol and tobacco they are going to use. Someone does not pay part of the sale price for them. Birth control should work the same way–if you need some go to Planned Parenthood and buy it yourself (at an already discounted price subsidized by my tax dollars), don’t expect your school to give it to you practically for free.
Of course all of this is made moot by SteveG’s post, which correctly states that the drug companies were providing the pills as part of a marketing plan.
I’m well-aware that I am subsidizing all sorts of things I don’t like every day. When I can do something about it, like change brands, I do.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t imagine that young college men wouldn’t pony up the difference to maintain access to a sex partner (it would still impinge on the anonymous hook up thing, but that wouldn’t be such a bad thing anyway).
Report comment to moderator
What’s wrong with the anonymous hook up thing? I mean compared to, say, “maintain[ing] access to a sex partner”?
Report comment to moderator
Janie post 57,
you never buy things on sale?
You never use a wholesale club?
Do you ever get a AAA, AARP, etc. discount?
How about when you sell stock?
How about when you buy an airline ticket?
Nope, everyone does not pay the same, and as markets get more sophsiticated, they are establishing micro-markets to maximize the profit from each sale.
Report comment to moderator