Random Politics & Religion #00

The premiums are probably not enough to cover the entire cost of the procedure.

So, the subsidized premium is paid for by the US and the individual/family.

The bulk of the payment will come out of the insurance coffers.

You can say taxpayers are indirectly paying for this procedure.

You can say that taxpayers are indirectly paying on every procedure, if any of the customers in a insurance company/risk pool have subsidized premiums, partial medicade/medicaid, or any other government help.

What percentage the government is paying, good luck finding those numbers from a private company.

It still doesn't seem like an especially useful distinction to make. Repeating myself but you (in the general sense of the word) pay for premiums, the value of which is distributed by the insurance company as goods and services according to regulations and the insurance companies policies. To use what I'm sure will be a totally non-controversial example, if I pay an employee a wage and she uses that wage to pay for an abortion, my money was not used to pay for it. It was her money.

It's indirect, and the argument only seems to get dredged out in instances where there's controversy over what is and isn't necessary (hello, birth control).

No, because then I'd be claiming that the government is subsidizing what the doctors do with their money after the surgery, but if you want to blow my argument out of proportion to try to win an argument, I'm used to that.

A better analogy would be saying that the government is handing someone $20 and forcing that person to buy tires from the shop, knowing beforehand what the shop is likely to do with it. Is the government subsidizing those activities? Yes. That's why knowingly funding illegal activities directly is illegal, and paying someone wages who then goes to do something illegal with that money isn't.

You and Jassik both apparently miss the distinction between subsidies and wages.

They don't miss it, it's irrelevant.

Point being the money (subsidy, wage, w/e) is in the control of the insurance company. The company is the entity that actually spends money on services.

Well, sure, but that's not the argument. The actual argument from your side should be, "Yes, taxpayer money is going to fund these procedures indirectly, but stop whining because doctors say it's valid and necessary."

So you guys are now comparing subsidy's to wages. Buying hookers and blow, then getting an abortion. All of which is illegal to some degree.

But I'm the crazy one.. /sigh

Pretty sure that's what I said last page.

Maybe, but you still wanted to argue the point about subsidies. Gotta make sure it sounds 100% politically correct in your favor and all.

Almost everything you (general) purchase, use, or even where you work can be indirectly linked back to taxpayer money.

Subsidies for companies (employment, buildings, R&D, etc)
Subsidies for food
Subsidies for utilities

The list is endless.

Yes. But nobody's trying to sugarcoat those things, are they?

Well, that depends on the discussion and who you are talking with.

Well fortunately (unlike the conservative dream) abortions aren't illegal.

Prostitution shouldn't be, and the same argument could be made about cocaine, but I'm not going to make that argument as it's a bit rough of a drug.

My bad I was under the impression the last trimester was still illegal in most states unless extenuating circumstance. The rest of my statement still stands though.

Illegal under certain circumstances =/= illegal to some degree, take a course in English, you need it.

It and the rest of your statement were inaccurate and stupid, and doesn't stand at all.

Oh noes i didnt use proper english oh woe is me. Don't come up with a rational response or anything just be a *** as normal.

You don't know what the word rational means either, got it.

You have yet to see me be a ***. I'd hate to see Flion or KFH around still, it'd be like a lamb to the slaughter.

Jet is conceding your point when he busts out the grammar book. Angry fella.

I hope you aren't referring to tax credits as subsidies....

If you are, then you have no clue as to what a subsidy is.

Heck, lets hear these subsidies for companies too while we are at it.

When did debate start for the legislation that became PPACA? It certainly wasn't before Obama was president, because that's his brain child.

Last I checked, the presidents in the 90's were Bush Sr. and Clinton. Heck, Obama wasn't even in the Senate then. Well, he wasn't in the Senate for most of the 2000's, as he was only "present" there most of the time.

But since you like to rewrite history, no matter what I say will change the "truth" in your mind....

I'm not blowing anything out of proportion, you're posing that what an entity chooses to spend it's money on has some kind of direct link to where the money came from. Premiums aren't tied directly to the cost of claims for an individual, so you can't argue that because this person gets subsidized premiums that the government is paying for a procedure. And I still don't understand why it's preferable to have that money lining the pockets of the insurance company instead of the hospitals when a person's life can be made so much better in the process. It's better for the economy as well, since the money is getting spent on the premiums even if there is never a claim filed.

Oh good, someone who knows more about this than me. Take it away!

Edit: Preferably before Jassik spends even more time picking out parts of things I've said instead of getting the whole picture.

Even in your narrow definition of "subsidy", which is wrong, Kara is right. There are subsidies for raw goods and energy given to companies all the time. Subsidy also is any monetary support given to a company by the government to lower the burden of businesses or to help control prices. Tax credits are a subsidy, whether you want to look at it that way or not.

The whole picture is that you feel some need to tie anything you don't like to some liberal ideal, granted to a lesser extent than the usual fruitcakes.

Yes, but only because I love sugar coatings...

If a conservative admits Tax Credits are functionally subsidies, they'd be faced with the harsh reality that 90% of the Republican states are just burdens of the federal government.

And how would that look when you're propped up on a mound of Mississippi mud screaming to the locals about "big gubbment in ya lyves."

We're arguing about a definition. I don't see what that has to do with a liberal ideal, other than the fact that the definition in question only seems to be supported by our typical forum-goers to promote a liberal-based policy.

I take it you have no clue what a subsidy is. I mean, why would anyone, government or otherwise, give free "raw goods and energy" to another company at all?

You know, free as in before the event takes place and without need of repayment.

But why don't you give an example of a "raw good" subsidy then.


Yeah, you have no clue what a subsidy is. So you have to alter the definition to fit your needs.

A subsidy is money given prior to an expense being taken to help support the individual or entity.

R&D Credits is not a subsidy, because the individual/entity has to have spent the money to engage such R&D before receiving a part of the money back. R&D Credits is a reimbursement (gasp!) of part of the expenses made on qualified R&D.

Employment Credits is not a subsidy, because the individual/entity has to hire and pay the new employee for at least 6 months before qualifying for a reduction of payroll paid by the employer. Employment Credits is a reimbursement (gasp again!) of part of the expenses made on a few new employees.

I would love to hear yours and Kara's explanation of "subsidies in buildings." I have a feeling that you are going to say depreciation.

But let me ask you something. If a subsidy is a reduction of tax burden, as you so said, then is a deduction/expense a subsidy? It fits your definition like a glove, but only an idiot would consider an expense as a subsidy....