Wait a sec... Doesn't birth control pay for itself?

[TATG]

@Terr

There is no lag between receipt of premiums and payouts, across the whole customer base.

Why do you think that?

[erislover]

@Terr

To expand - once the insurance company is past the set up stage, every month X in premiums comes in and Y in benefits+administration is spent out. According to the claims of the UK poster above, X<=Y. Thus, for the insurance company the ongoing insurance business is either unprofitable or non-profitable - a deadweight on the supposedly profitable investment business.

This would be true of every business ever, if it made sense, which it doesn’t. Obviously, actually providing a benefit of any kind is going to be a “loss” compared to taking people’s money without giving anything in return, but it is such a bizarre standard I cannot fathom why you suppose it is relevant.

[Terr]

@TATG

Why do you think that?

Why do you think there is?

[Terr]

@erislover

This would be true of every business ever, if it made sense, which it doesn’t. Obviously, actually providing a benefit of any kind is going to be a “loss” compared to taking people’s money without giving anything in return, but it is such a bizarre standard I cannot fathom why you suppose it is relevant.

I can only bring horse to water.

[TATG]

@Terr

Why do you think there is?

If there was any lag to begin with, “in the set up stage” if you like, and business continues in the same way, then the lag is perpetuated. This was the reasoning in post 159.

Take what you said in post 158, and apply it to the following situation; every year 10 people give a company 10 dollars, and every year the company pays back the 10 people 10.1 dollars. If they managed to have a 100 dollar float for the first year, they will continue to have it, so long as the situation is maintened. This case fits the following.

@Terr

every month X in premiums comes in and Y in benefits+administration is spent out. According to the claims of the UK poster above, X<=Y.

In this case, X<Y. If the company keeps taking in money, and paying it out (at the same rate as the first year), it will keep a 100 dollar float, at 1 percent interest. If it doesn’t, it won’t. Point being, the X<Y thing is a red herring; that gives you the cost of the float, it doesn’t tell you the ammount of the float.

[erislover]

@Terr

I can only bring horse to water.

But you can’t convince him he suffered a loss in quenching his thirst.

[monavis]

When one considers how many women died in pregnancy years ago, before there was Birth Control or the medical care one can get now,if one considers the woman’s health, finacial situation, and mental state, there are exceptions to every rule. It should be the decision of the woman and her doctor.No one can judge a woman they don’t know ,and will possibly never meet. Jesus is qouted as saying;" Judge not;lest you be judged"!

[monavis]

After thinking about this debate I wondered, if a person used their food money to buy condoms, then went to a RC food pantry, thus saving money on food and use that money for buying Birth Control, would that be the Church paying for contraception?

[kanicbird]

Ultimately BC cost. Less children mean less people growing up to adults to eventually pay into the system. The person who used the BC to not have children is now old and needs expensive assistance without having produced the people to continue to pay into the system.