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

[Wheezer]

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.

This is all well and fine, but a simpler approach to the hydraulic argument would seem to be that any effect of subsidizing abortions relies upon a hypothesis of unmet demand. This is different from offering free car washes with every five abortions.

[morpheus]

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.

Don't take my word for it.  How about Susan Cohen of the (very pro-abortion-rights) Guttmacher Institute?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/3/gpr120320.html

Or this Literature Review published by that same institution?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf  Please note that of the 24 studies they look at, 20 of them find a positive relationship between funding and abortion rates.  Why would it be different now?

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

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.

This is all well and fine, but a simpler approach to the hydraulic argument would seem to be that any effect of subsidizing abortions relies upon a hypothesis of unmet demand. This is different from offering free car washes with every five abortions.

Abortions are like Big Macs.

Insofar as women will get abortions instead of mammograms if the abortions are cheaper.

Price elasticity of demand: it's the law.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

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.

Don't take my word for it.  How about Susan Cohen of the (very pro-abortion-rights) Guttmacher Institute?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/3/gpr120320.html

Or this Literature Review published by that same institution?  http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf  Please note that of the 24 studies they look at, 20 of them find a positive relationship between funding and abortion rates.  Why would it be different now?

Both of those are looking at the effects of funding or not funding abortion, all other things being equal.

That's not what we're discussing here at all.

We were initially simply talking about the effect that subsidizing contraception and healthcare for infants and pregnant mothers might have on abortion rates.

We weren't even discussing the question of subsidized abortions (which, as your first link above notes, isn't even happening here) until you inserted that into the conversation.

[morpheus]

Both of those are looking at the effects of funding or not funding abortion, all other things being equal.

That's not what we're discussing here at all.

We were initially simply talking about the effect that subsidizing contraception and healthcare for infants and pregnant mothers might have on abortion rates.

We weren't even discussing the question of subsidized abortions (which, as your first link above notes, isn't even happening here) until you inserted that into the conversation.

Depends on the the meaning of "initially."  Since, after all, the actual discussion started by bifurcating the possible reasons into two cases:

1) Not enough free contraceptives and
2) "free" health care for a scared unwed mother's baby and "free" abortions ----> fewer abortions.

I then used my overly simplistic rule of thumb on the second case.  You then started conflating all three.  Ok, fine.

Now... if you're asking for PROOF that any of these effects are stronger than any of the other ones... Perhaps we can look at the case of Tennessee?  Tennessee had a program to cover the uninsured through expanded Medicaid coverage, much like ObamaCare in many ways; however, much like ObamaCare will down the road, it ran out of money and had to be cut back in 2005.  So, it was in force in full from 1995-2005.  During that period, in which all of the factors in question ("free" contraceptives, "free" abortions, and "free" health care for the poor unwed women's babies) were in force, what do you think happened to the abortion rate in Tennessee?

It fell!

But only by about 3%, as opposed to the national average of 13.8%.  (Source: Guttmann Institute)  Yeah, it's only one case yada yada yada, but the conditions are pretty darn close to what we're talking about here.

I will concede to you that the glib rule of thumb I was using is overly simplistic for such a complicated issue.

[MikeC]

36 hours isn't 5 days, but i wasn't the one promising that either....

Video of Obama breaking another promise....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html

On the bright side the public and the people who voted on it get a chance to finally read it.

Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/

If you got insurance now, get ready to get slammed with higher premiums. Its going to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised. Wow, another lie.

By December Obama's deficit reduction team will release its recommendations for reducing the deficit, what are the odds a VAT tax will be recommended to help pay for ObamaCare?

But don't worry the Democrats are going to move onto Global Warming and Cap and Trade next, its an effort to spend the mythical 1.2 trillion in health care savings over the next 20 years by the end of 2010.

You got to pay for ObamaCare some how, and that requires taxing the shit out of every single American in every aspect of the economy to do it. But don't worry Obama promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the people. Damn, another lie.

[Quality Start Machine]

Where the fuck were you yesterday? I could have used you then.

[Gilgamesh]

36 hours isn't 5 days, but i wasn't the one promising that either....

Video of Obama breaking another promise....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/03/23/flashback_obama_promises_public_5_days_to_view_bills_before_he_signs_them.html

On the bright side the public and the people who voted on it get a chance to finally read it.

Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/

If you got insurance now, get ready to get slammed with higher premiums. Its going to do the exact opposite of what Obama promised. Wow, another lie.

By December Obama's deficit reduction team will release its recommendations for reducing the deficit, what are the odds a VAT tax will be recommended to help pay for ObamaCare?

But don't worry the Democrats are going to move onto Global Warming and Cap and Trade next, its an effort to spend the mythical 1.2 trillion in health care savings over the next 20 years by the end of 2010.

You got to pay for ObamaCare some how, and that requires taxing the shit out of every single American in every aspect of the economy to do it. But don't worry Obama promised not to raise taxes on 95% of the people. Damn, another lie.

I like your avatar.

[Quality Start Machine]

Because health care is passé...

[Yeti]

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/
ObamaCare?
ObamaCare

Slak, your point yesterday was valid. My bad.

[Wheezer]

Here is a look at what will be kicking in soon.

Dammit, I should have known to save the trichomoniasis line.

[Slaky]

http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/03/22/obamacares-immediate-impact/
ObamaCare?
ObamaCare

Slak, your point yesterday was valid. My bad.

It's just semantics, really.

[Yeti]

So my parents operate a small business and while I was explaining my support of a plan for a plan to cover people with healthcare, but not necessarily this plan since I don't know all the details (log that as a neutral stance as opposed to against), they were saying how worried they are that it'll cripple their business, their premiums will go up etc.

Well, I didn't know what to respond, but I searched and found this:

For employers

•By 2014, employers who have more than 50 employees must offer health insurance benefits or pay penalties. Companies with 25 or fewer employees who meet certain wage requirements will also be able to get credits toward health insurance purchases.

•By 2014, small-businesses owners, the self-employed and those who don't get work-provided coverage can get benefits through Small Business Health Options Programs (SHOPs). These state-run marketplace exchanges will work with carriers to pool insurance options, with the hope that costs will be lower for a larger, more powerful, group.

Firms will get a one-stop source to find out about insurance, says Shawn Nowicki, director of public policy at HealthPass, a commercial health insurance exchange.

•By 2018, high-end health plans with premiums of more than $10,200 for an individual policy per individual and $27,500 per family — not including vision and dental — would be subjected to a "Cadillac" tax. (The average cost of a family plan in 2009 was $13,375, with employees on average paying $3,515 and employers paying $9,860, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.)

The excise tax would be paid by employers that self-insure (most large firms do) and insurance companies, but small-business experts expect these costs to be passed along to smaller firms via premium increases.

Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

[Pre]

Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

[Quality Start Machine]

Is this pretty accurate? I would assume so. Is there more information that might be pertinent to them? I know it's probably been mentioned/discussed to death, but what about the claims about the premiums? (And I'll accept a link to a previous post I obviously didn't read)

Starting this year, there will be business credits for insurance premiums, so small businesses (at
least in the short term) should save money from this as far as I understand it.

Pool purchasing will also enable small businesses to save dough on premiums.