The Million-Condom Farce
My fave cafe closed early today for a photo shoot, so I went to pick up the mail and listened to John and Ken on KFI on the way.
I think I'm as mad as they are that tax dollars are being sucked up to provide A MILLION FREE CONDOMS to people in Los Angeles.
From City Council Ass Zev Yaroslavsky's site:
Each year, grant money is distributed by the county to local health care providers to purchase and distribute free condoms, which help prevent sexually transmitted diseases. (About 250,000 have been handed out so far this year, at a wholesale price of about six cents apiece, Beck says.) The contest is a small part of a larger centralization of STD prevention that has already merged three county programs.
As John and Ken pointed out, the reason people don't use condoms isn't because they aren't free. It's because they're reckless, drunk, impulsive, etc.
The fact that Ass Zaroslavsky is proud to be associated with this shows you how separated from reason and any sort of sensible budgeting these jerks are.
It's now about $70 if you happen to sleep in one morning (perhaps from working seven days a week to make ends me) and you get a street cleaning ticket. They were $25 or so, if I'm remembering correctly (and I think I am) when I moved here -- and I moved here in the late 90s.
What's next -- will we be providing free toothbrushes and dental floss to all residents of Los Angeles?
A million condoms is $60,000. That is peanuts.
I'm at the point that I am wanting the government to pay for every abortion, vasectomy and tubal ligation that medicaid wants to pay for. It should be encouraged.
There is a need for a social safety net -- a family is widowed, disabled, etc. and needs support for a while.
Getting fucked and pregnant by the neighborhood stud is your own fault.
If you don't know who the father of your child is, I'm not the father either. I don't owe you a fucking dime.
Jim P. at June 30, 2012 7:12 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/the-million-con.html#comment-3249154">comment from Jim P.A million condoms is $60,000. That is peanuts
Not to me. And there are countless expenditures like this. Which is why LA is so far in the hole we are practically Beijing.
Amy Alkon
at June 30, 2012 7:35 PM
Amy,
California's budget is between $9B and $16B for this year alone.
I agree it adds up, but not adding wards of the state, in any form or fashion, is probably a good thing.
Jim P. at June 30, 2012 8:03 PM
...the reason people don't use condoms isn't because they aren't free. It's because they're reckless, drunk, impulsive, etc.
The reason people don't use condoms is because it feels like you're fucking a trash bag when you use one. That being said I suck it up and strap on a rubber when I'm banging a chick until she's on some form of birth control, and I see recent papers showing that she's STD free.
Back to the issue at hand. Amy seems to be a student of basic economics. In which case she should know that if you subsidize something you get more of it. So yes basic economic theory tells us that more people will use condoms if we subsidize condom use.
That's a good thing because children and their welfare mothers are very expensive. So is the HIV treatment that the government pays for if you don't have health insurance.
Generally things like free condom programs, needle exchange programs, or free HIV testing have very high rates of return. That's true even if you're only concerned about these expenditures from a financial perspective, and don't care about the untold amount of human suffering that they prevent.
Mike Hunter at June 30, 2012 11:22 PM
Mike, do any of those programs actually accomplish any of those things? If they're so great, why do we still have poverty?
Cousin Dave at July 1, 2012 6:12 PM
If you don't know who the father of your child is, I'm not the father either. I don't owe you a fucking dime.
Posted by: Jim P. at June 30, 2012 7:12 PM
You hate children. Think of the children!
/s
Sio at July 1, 2012 6:42 PM
Cousin Dave:
Way to misrepresent my position. Who said that handing out condoms would eliminate poverty?
I said that subsidizing condom use would mean that more people use condoms. Which in turn means less unplanned pregnancies, and less new HIV cases. That ends up saving taxpayer money. Supporting someones kid though welfare, or providing a lifetime of HIV treatments can be very expensive. Much more expensive then a $0.06 condom. The numbers are there, look them up.
Mike Hunter at July 1, 2012 9:03 PM
Leave a comment