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.