Awesome idea! And once we get that in place, let's have Enron alumni operate the Treasury and raise the ghost of John Holmes to do safe sex education.

I'm going to live on an island and waiting to be abducted by aliens.

Oh, and do you know what else this would increase? The number of botched sterilizations, either by incompetent quacks or by doctors who suposedly do the operation but really don't, just fake the paperwork. Plus, it's really easy to reverse a vasectomy.

And people would get selective memory and pretend they don't know why that stuff is happening. The people who supported these agendas would hide and blame someone else for the failure.

Now why would a doctor do that? "Haha fuckers jokes on you in nine months":D

If you look at the direction society has been moving in the last 50 years in terms of government regulations in how you give birth to how you raise your child it really wouldn't surprise me if in 50 years from now one would have to file a permit to conceive.

Um, for the same reason all kinds of quackery exists? Because they get paid and then vanish?

Ditto docs who'll say "I'll sign something saying you're barren as the desert if you'll split the grand with me."

Easy peasy. Charge a $10,000 vasectomy reversal tax.

Medicare/Medicaid fraud is already huge. If this would put a dent in generational poverty, worth it.

And Hitler? You lose the thread DrPhil, Godwin's Law. Sorry.

You need to learn the context of Godwin's Law. It is not Godwin's Law when using Hitler in response to someone who is proposing a form of eugenics. Hitler is among the most noted eugenicists in the world.

You need to learn about eugenics. You need to understand how what you typed is the same thing that has been done throughout history. Same rationale, same justification, and same outcome.

So, yeah, Hitler was just minimizing the undesirables so the desirables could have more oxygen. No harm, no foul.

What Hitler did is nowhere close to offering people money for sterilization. Quit being so hysterical.

I really want you to learn something so here goes:

1. Who gets to choose the less desirable (target) population?

2. Why do the people in #1 get to choose the less desirable (target) population? That already reeks of classism, racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, conservatism, religious idealism, sexism, and heterosexism.

3. Paying "less desirable" people a relatively miniscule amount does not make paid sterilization substantively different than compulsory sterilization and Nazi eugenics.

4. Perhaps ninety percent to ninety-five percent of "less desirable" people will not accept money to be sterilized. Either they think it is a dumb or offensive idea; they don't feel like being bothered; they don't have the necessary resources such as time off from work/transportation/outpatient care; or don't trust doctors/government/researchers. So, the "paid sterilization program" is a complete failure. Then what? I can tell you what. It becomes less about paying informed consumers and more about excessive encouragement, coercion, lack of information, and force. History repeats itself. DUH. You were warned.

In this proposal, the people decide for themselves.

If people decide for themselves, how is it your business?

In the proposed system, anyone could elect to take the money. That's a little different than what the Nazis did, asshole. How you could even compare that to the concentration camps is imbecilic at best.

Doubt it. Having worked extensively with said demographic, I'm nearly positive that most of them would take $1,000 or some amount for a free medical procedure which would result in the savings of billions of dollars and the elimination of generational poverty.

They aren't targeted and informed by themselves. How will these people hear about the program? Mailings and notifications will use outlets that reach particular demographics (not the middle to upper class). Who decides the audience to be placed on the list of targets?

The same way you consider it enough of your business to form an opinion in support of such a program. The same way other programs are my business. And "decide for themselves" has been a much debated phrase for generations.

First off, bigoted bitch, Nazi eugenics spanned beyond the horror of concentration camps and compulsory sterilization occurred in the USA and around the world up until relatively recently. You really need to read. Do your brain a favor.

"Anyone" cannot elect to take the money because you already said it targets the "less desirable". In your mind, it is as simple as saying "yes" or "no" to some money. These are overwhelmingly disadvantaged people who are being labeled and stigmatized as "less desirable" and told that it is ideal that they be sterilized. Even if they do not participate in the paid sterilization program, membership in the "less desirable" group will resonate. You don't see the downward spiral because you are truly a clueless bigot.

I have also worked extensively with particular demographics and I know researchers and practitioners who have struggled for years to get particular demographics to participate in PAID research and PAID medical procedures. This is no different. Minimal success in a couple cities or states doesn't mean a substantive percentage of people are willing to be sterilized for money. It also doesn't mean billions of dollars are saved and generational poverty is eliminated. This has not been supported by research. Target populations aren't obligated to care about hypothetical savings of billions of dollars and hypothetical elimination of generational poverty.

From the Louisiana article Kevin linked:

It also could include tax incentives for college-educated, higher-income people to have more children

Most of us aren't shocked that proposal was frowned upon.