Fuck its silent in here.......

[Gilgamesh]

I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Maybe a relief program for med school debt?  I have no idea.

[Wheezer]

I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

[R-V]

I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

Fistulaoligists, for one.

[Chuck to Chuck]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

[Gilgamesh]

I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

I should amend my remarks to replace the word "useless" (who I am to judge which medicine is the right kind?) with the phrase "over saturated fields."  Like plastic surgery for one.

[Wheezer]

I'll add that while there are certain provisions in the bill that address the need for more primary care doctors, comprehensive health care reform means nothing until the INCENTIVES for specializing into often useless fields are reduced.  However, I do not believe that is something that legislation can do entirely.

Which ones would these be?

I should amend my remarks to replace the word "useless" (who I am to judge which medicine is the right kind?) with the phrase "over saturated fields."  Like plastic surgery for one.

If they're oversaturated, doesn't Adam Smith's Invisible Dong automatically disincentivize them?

[Gilgamesh]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

[Quality Start Machine]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

Forget it. As much as they wrap themselves in Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt, the modern GOP base would have a shit hemmorage if either of those guys were President today.

Even Nixon would be a Democrat today.

[Pre]

OK.  There is a wealth of information out there that shows that if you subsidize a particular behavior you will get more of it, and if you tax a particular behavior, you will get less of it, ceteris paribus.  You can see this all over the place, in various products and services that the government is involved in.  A great example: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/

Ok, I misunderstood your point on BC/abortion.

However, you're calling out 3 years of data isn't enough (and I'm not saying it is), but a great example is a
chart with a sensationalist title and basically no other supporting information that includes this quote?

Of course, there are surely other reasons why burgers are cheaper than salads. These might include
production costs, since harvesting apples is probably more naturally seasonal than slaughtering cows (even
though both are in demand year-round). Transportation and storage costs might also play a role, as it's
probably easier to keep ground beef fresh and edible for extended periods of time, by freezing it, than
cucumbers.

[R-V]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

[Slaky]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

Somewhere, Jose Guzman shakes his head and goes back to his tv dinner.

[MAD]

David Frum, who I am sure at one point was considered to be a Republican, makes a lot of sense in his column today.

You can boil down his piece into one core fact: The GOPs didn't bother to try to govern, they tried to score political points.  Maybe if they'd argued the merits instead of the "Waterloo," we'd have a better law.

Reagan was a pretty good president, but his legacy on the GOP has been to spend more and tax less.  Reagan raised taxes in 1982.

If the GOP would only articulate what they would cut, they'd have an audience in me.

I should restate something that should come as no surprise.  I went to the Nixon Library again this weekend (third time; took a photo with the Nixon pose outside Marine One) and there were an awful lot of Republicans who feel the exact same way.

Find me another Nixon in the GOP and I'll vote for that man (or woman).

Somewhere, Jose Guzman shakes his head and goes back to his tv dinner.

And subsequently blows out his shoulder.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

That's kind of what debate is... someone posts something purporting to show why some change is a good thing... and then I say, wait a a minute, that doesn't really prove anything at all... and I'm the one that's somehow doing it wrong?  Is that really what you're saying?

I'm not saying that a couple comments on here proved the health care
bill is awesome and will work and save money QED.  It's some of the
specifics like how increased access to birth control can decrease
unwanted pregnancies.

OK.  There is a wealth of information out there that shows that if you subsidize a particular behavior you will get more of it, and if you tax a particular behavior, you will get less of it, ceteris paribus.  You can see this all over the place, in various products and services that the government is involved in.  A great example: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/why-a-big-mac-costs-less-than-a-salad/

This economic rule of thumb is a rule of thumb for a reason.  If you want to say it doesn't apply to a particular situation, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to show that it doesn't apply.  The doctor in that medical journal took 3 years of annual numbers and said, good enough!  I said there's an awful lot of uncertainty around that, because it's a short time period and because there are lots of other things going on there (such as a much longer-term downward trend in the abortion rate that was already there before MassCare).  If I tried to use three data points as a thesis for a contrarian investment I'd get laughed out of the room.

So, tell me again what I did wrong?  I pointed out that such a study, based on its lack of data, is pretty meaningless.  Also... I never said that more access to (i.e. more subsidization of) birth control would not decrease unwanted pregnancies.  The burden of proof would then be on me, clearly.  I said that subsidizing abortions would lead to more of them, which is the intuitive conclusion.

The point is that a rule of thumb is only just that: a rule of thumb. It's not something that always holds true, let alone a proof.

It is something that is generally true, ceteris paribus, but doesn't alone suffice for things where ceteris is not paribus or where there are contradicting factors.

Consider again my earlier question to you (twice asked, twice unanswered). Let's take this rule of thumb at face value:

If you subsidize abortions... people will have more abortions.

If you subsidize pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care... people will have more babies.

If you subsidize contraceptives... people will use more contraceptives.

Now, let's get pedantic...

The occurrence of abortions is at least partially dependent on that of pregnancies. And, obviously, the number of pregnancies carried to term is also partially dependent on the number of total pregnancies. If we disregard miscarriages, a pregnancy has a binary outcome: childbirth or abortion. If pregnancies that are carried to term and those that are terminated both increase, it's fair to assume the total number of pregnancies would thus also have to increase as well.

Finally, all things being equal, one would think total pregnancies would be inversely correlated with successful use of contraception. If people use more contraception while engaging in the same amount of sex, we would expect the number of pregnancies to decrease.

The only way all three of these things increase at the same time is if people start having a lot more sex (and/or we see both a massive contraceptive failure and a massive decrease in miscarriages, independent of subsidies).

Therefore...

Subsidizing healthcare = Everyone fucking like Irish rabbits?

Or would you say that at least one of the three have to give? If so, which one(s)?

In other words: this simple rule of thumb, while generally useful and true, is on its own insufficient to relieve you of the burden of proof in this case, due to countervailing factors to which it applies just as well. Several of us have made our case. Let's hear you make yours.

Sophistry allowed, natch.

[Powdered Toast Man]

I'm amazed that TankhovanFalk knows so much about heterosexuality.

[Yeti]

I'm amazed that TankhovanFalk knows so much about herterosexuality.

I thought that about the bible shit he loads the Lost thread up with, but since it's on the internet, he knows it. Therefore, none of this contradicts his fagness