The NZ Herald reports:
NZ First social policy spokeswoman Asenati Lole-Taylor said it was difficult to justify the amount of public money spent on vasectomies.
"Why should the population in New Zealand pay for something that is supposed to be a personal expense? It's astounding really.
Who cares how much WINZ spends on vasectomies so long as they don't spend money on reversing them!
But if we accept the NZ First argument, where does the line get drawn on what "is supposed to be a personal expense"? What about raising your children? Paying your rent? Do you suppose that NZ First are launching an attack on all welfare? Because that's going to look pretty funny up against the privileges pumped out under the Super Gold Card.
Generally I am against the "spend now to save later" arguments so loved by the Left. Too often there are those unintended consequences, and it's a licence to ramp up spending enormously in the here and now when there is no guarantee there will be a later saving.
But as vasectomies do provide an almost 100 percent certainty of future saving I can make an exception.
4 comments:
I'm not sure whether the 'pay now save later' is a specifically left argument, Lindsay. Many classical liberal friends of mine like the idea as well, rationalising it as a cost/benefit analysis- including pro-choice classical liberals in the context of other subsidised forms of contraception and abortion
Fair enough. I was thinking along the lines of what happens when people DO have children they can't afford. The Left are big on early intervention and investment to save on later social costs that might be incurred. Things like early childhood education, free doctor visits, home insulation etc none of which substitute for attentive, prioritising parents.
I would put subsidised contraception and abortion in the same basket as vasectomies.
Asenati Lole-Taylor wants her head read. The only annoying thing in the article involving WINZ paying for vasectomies is that it's only paid for twenty of them.
I would prefer WINZ to pay for or perhaps require temporary birth control measures as a condition of ongoing welfare entitlements.
This seems a reasonable requirement if people are going to be dependent on the state.
Post a Comment