Senator John Labruzzo (R) member of the Louisiana State House believes that generational welfare is a major problem in Louisiana.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsRgp6qSKL4[/youtube]
Here are two other news clips on the same topic with some more detailed information:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D9DvlIXT7o[/youtube]
and
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0z3zsLdL7o[/youtube]
Absent from these videos is the following discussion: Payment for the reversal of the tubes, and/or IVF (aka invitro – if normal intercourse is not an option due to tubal failure) – if the female choosesto have a child anytime after the process. According to Webmd.com, “The price [for tubal ligation reversal] is somewhere around $7,000-$10,000.” [http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/is-tubal-ligation-reversable] Socialfertility.com states that, “The cost of an IVF cycle has been remarkably stable over the past 10 years. In any reputable program across the country, a cycle of IVF costs about $10,000-$12,000 including medication.” [www.socalfertility.com/ivf–cost-information.html]
According to yourcontraception.com, “The cost of tubal ligation usually ranges from $1,200 to $6,000. It depends very much upon the state, region and private clinic.” [http://www.yourcontraception.com/birth-control-methods/tubal-ligation/tubal-ligation.html] At minimum, it should cost the government no less then aprx $30,000 per person in upfront fees should the individual need to exhaust all the means of having a child after accepting the original tubal ligation.
If the person chooses tubal ligation, then has it reversed and successfully has a child – all at the cost of the State – Will the state then offer an incentive to have the tubes tied a second time and will it pay to have them untied a second time? This question can go on forever. My view being – if the state were to offer such an incentive program to help cut its own costs, is it willing to subject itself to future costs associated with serving an end, it in itself aided in making impossible – having a child. Children build families, families build communities, communities build cities and cities build nations…if the State is to keep with the traditional model of human nature – it would have a social responsibility to incur those costs as a “welfare” to its citizens.
In conclusion, I feel this idea may seem economically pleasing and implementation may seem feasible but if the State were to take up this program and walk in the footsteps of tradition – then such a program requires to many unknown variables financially – predominantly – Will this person decide to have a child once her tubes are tied, how many times will she try to get pregnant, do we WANT her to have her tube tied again and at what cost?– These are costs that cannot be projected or approximated at any one point in time and are not budget compatible – instead, this type of program lends itself to what I like to call,” the rolling stone budget bug” – or those type of programs requiring funding with unrealistic projected figures, any approximation is viewed in too narrow of a time frame and will only present a budget crisis later on. The curse of economic relativity!
In end, if their arguement for Tubal Ligation is strictly economic, then it immediately fails my test.
One problem does not fix another. It simply costs more money later.
