Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9949)	2/21/2012 1:00:41 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 85487

Do the men get vasectomies paid for by insurance? I'm not sure sterilization is required by this law. But it might be, and if it is then that one part of my equation goes away, or technically become 1, rather than maybe .51. On 2nd thought it doesn't go away (in terms of unwanted pregnancies). Men don't get pregnant. The fact that some men, who will not be covered, might not get vasectomies, will itself increase unwanted pregnancies (and more plausibly then not covering oral contraceptives, since vasectomies aren't cheap) But 1 - The majority of men don't get vasectomies. 2 - The relevant additional group is not "all men", but rather all fertile, sexually active men, who don't want kids, who (together with their partner(s) are not reliably using contraception. Moving from .51 to 1, would imply adding all men. 3 - And that modest increase (not sure exactly how large but its not very large, no where near to 1) is offset, by a reduction on the women's side that I didn't include when considering the women's side. I didn't subtract for women with infertile partners (including those who had vasectomies). I got through number 1 Tim, that's as far as I read............ Too bad. You missed a demonstration about how almost no unwanted pregnancies will be prevented