Monday, June 23, 2008

Who Could Be Against Babies?

Who could possibly be against babies? Against twins and triplets?

Be careful now, we're encountering a ruse not dissimilar to that of the eco-pagans as in, "Who's against clean air and clean water????"

If you need a more pop-cultural analogy, remember when Kramer wouldn't wear the AIDS ribbon? They interrogated him with, "Aren't you AGAINST AIDS?"

Now, getting back to multiple births. By no means am I AGAINST them or even AGAINST paying for them collectively through my health insurance premiums.

I've been to 4-5 barbecues in the past month so unfortunately I've been forced to endure sheeple talking about Boston Globe headlines. Here's one from last week that's been widely discussed:

Massachusetts, Land of Twins

In a collision of science and demographics, Massachusetts has emerged as the nation's most prolific producer of twins, triplets, and other multiple births.

The combination of an unusually large number of pregnancies in older women, who are more likely to have multiples, and a heavy reliance on readily available infertility treatments, which also increase the odds, has propelled Massachusetts to the top: The state has a twin birth rate of 4.5 for every 100 live births, compared with a national rate of 3.2, according to the most recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

I actually saw the headline before I was pelted with the BBQ scuttlebutt. But I never did read the article. Why would I? The Boston Globe nauseates me.

But last night I said to myself, I'll bet that Globe article didn't even mention WHY Massachusetts leads the nation in multiple births. I jumped out of bed, found the article, and sure enough was proven correct. Read it for yourself by clicking the link above.

The reason Massachusetts' mothers have so many twins is simple - IVF, in vitro ferilization, is covered by health insurance. In fact it's freakin' mandated by law.

So every time some 43 year-old career woman in Wellesley Hills (average household income $364,281) can't get pregnant, the working populace at-large is subsidizing her $20,000 per attempt IVF. (A lot of propaganda sites insist the cost is only 10k. That's pure BS.)

Putting aside the issue for a moment, this article thoroughly demonstrates why the Globe in an intellectually bankrupt entity. An article with a "WHAT" and lacking a "WHY" is utterly pointless.

Why would it kill them to mention the role that insurance subsidies play in fomenting multiple births?

Obviously, blatant omissions like this always admit strong bias. To the Boston Globe, the reluctant career-prioritizing mother is a sacred cow. As is universal, umbrella, health coverage. And there may be a side issue of subsidized IVF for homosexuals. I found it very hard to find much information on the latter.

Therein lies my fundamental gripe. The Boston Globe has failed as an instrument of edification precisely because it pushes an agenda, a worldview, and leaves its tripe too often bereft of basic facts.

Again, I don't even really care about subsidizing the infertility treatment of others with my healthcare dollars. I just think the public, consumers, and taxpayers would be better served by the facts.

For example, I was playing golf this weekend and member of my foursome told me, "I know for a fact, of many people who have MOVED to Massachusetts, who have taken jobs here simply to get in vitro fertilization paid for by health insurance!"

As far as I am concerned, that is a gross exploitation of state resources. I want to see a study, an analysis on where these moms lived in the years preceding their insurance-covered IVF. It may in fact be a small percentage but why not at least run the numbers?

An older Globe article wasn't so polished:

Lack of means is a constant theme among callers to Resolve's infertility help line, said its coordinator, Davina Fankhauser. She can relate: She is now 17 weeks pregnant through IVF, but she and her husband went through eight years of infertility treatments -- stopping short of IVF because they could not afford it -- before moving to Massachusetts, where they found that insurance would cover it.

"I have to say the economy made me not try, actually, until I moved to Massachusetts," she said.

Yeah, SURE, they "found" that insurance would cover it.

Massachusetts has a wonderful immigration policy in place. Scare away private enterprise but attract welfare recipients, special needs children from surrounding states, homosexuals who want to marry, and infertile women looking for expensive OPM-covered medical treatment.

The follow-up study I want to see is this - after they've moved here to conceive, how many of these infertile women moved back out-of-state shortly thereafter?

I just want to see the numbers - apparently that's far too much to ask.

What's the difference between an Oprah viewer and a Boston Globe reader?

Both are Automatic Morons - only the latter fancies himself incredibly well-informed.

I NEVER pass up a chance to mock the sh*t out of anyone who reads that garbage.


Anonymous said...

For totally different reasons I agree with you kind of. I don't see why In Vitro should ever be covered. If you can't conceive, you can't conceive. Its not like theres a shortage of population. If you have to have a child-adopt. There are millions worldwide that need homes. But no, these people have to have THEIR kids. Nature won't let them so they cheat. Some, ok 1, couple I know tried the insurance limited 3 times to conceive. It did not take . The woman was a raging alcoholic. It is good for any child that she did not conceive. No adoption agency would have vetted her. The daughter of an ex-employee of mine has 1 set of twins and 1 set of triplets. Both in vitro. First set, 1st husband. Had to have their kids! Gets divorced. Gets remarried-new husband has to have his kids. now they have 5, are not economically self sufficient (its tough to be when you have 5 kids and low to middle incomes). Kids are on state health insurance cause they can't afford private. yada yada yada. If they had to pay for it, I wouldn't have to pay for them. I have no problem with in vitro-but it is optional and no more a necessity than a boob job. There are sometimes good reasons why people can't conceive and sometimes its very sad. Either way, if they had to pay, it would solve the problem.

Rambling on today.

Slow out.

CaptiousNut said...

I figured you for a hater!

That was an easy prediction.

Taylor Conant said...

Everyone should want gays in their state-- they work well-paying jobs and live in safe neighborhoods. You get enough gays in your state, and suddenly EVERY neighborhood is a safe one and anyone who wants insurance-covered IVF can get it because there are plenty of gays to subsidize the cost!


It doesn't matter what IVF costs, $20k, $10k, it's wrong to mandate, legally, that any insurance policy cover it or any other treatment.

Think about something... if IVF only cost $1, and an insurance company refused to cover the treatment, then that'd put the State in the position of imprisoning or killing insurance people over a mere $1!

Is that insane? People who argue "policy X only costs $Y, [where $Y is something relatively miniscule], why shouldn't people be willing to pay that?" seem to ignore that, should their policy be put into place, they're asking the State to imprison and kill for paltry sums of money.

It'd be like hiring a local mafia hitman to kill someone who stiffed you $5 at dinner the night before, risking imprisonment or worse yourself for a measly $5... what a laugh. The State is absolutely absurd, and so are the people who support it.