SAHD turned SAHW and husband seeking donations for IVF

[Mama Mia]

The issue isn't that the husband is away so much that they're not getting enough opportunities to try - they have both apparently seen multiple doctors who have told them they won't have kid without IVF. I really don't think there are healthy issues preventing the wife from working. The family believe that women should be wives and mothers and home-school their kids from what I have read. But I have always wondered how that worked when you have no kids and a husband who is away a lot.

I think there's really not enough information for us to know if shes unable to work . A lot of people believe very strongly that kids should have their mom at home, but don't have that strong an opinion about women in general. Especially since there really are a lot of home based money earning opportunities.

[Mama Mia]

US taxes are artificially low because the cost of health care is separate. For many people their employer pays as much as their wages for health insurance. Ours is around $25,000 per year (it's on your W2 now, plus you usually get papers which mention employer contribution amounts when you enrol). That's not nearly half our income, but the insurance cost is the same for all employees, so it's more than half for some staff, and they pay the same per month as we do out of pocket, $600. For a $8 an hour employee, that's 41% "tax", plus the amount the employer pays, plus actual tax. Cry me a river about those "high tax" countries with single payer systems. Do they really charge the lowest income tier more than 40% tax like we do?

can I get a U! Gimme an S, gimme an A! USA! USA! USA!

Health care being based on employment is just insane on every level. When i was an employer we did have one employee, an older woman, who we paid more in health insurance premiums than in actual salary. It's awful for employee's, because you feel compelled to keep the job with the good insurance - but its also bad if you're a company that cares about your workers. I kept one employee who really wasnt doing a good job, primarily because i knew she wouldnt be able to afford her ongoing health treatment without our excellent insurance. Its a stupid, stupid system.

And I think its fine to have high taxes if your basic needs are covered as part of it. How much disposable income do people need? If everyone gets comprehensive, universal health care, a decent education and you dont have children living in cars and only getting food at school --seems worth it to me.

[Mama Mia]

I don't think people who already can't provide for the kids they have should have more (there is a point where it becomes abuse of a right, like if you have 8 kids who are already starving and severely neglected, and you just have to have more and don't care that it means the kids who don't have enough have less), but I'm not going to sit here talking about taking away rights, which is exactly what happens when an infertile couple is told having kids aren't a right. Their right, and their choice, is taken away, and demoted to a privilege, and what sucks worse is that it's salt on the wound. Not deserving of parenthood simply because the parts don't all work. While watching people argue for increasing aid to people who keep having kids while living on aid since that's their right.

Shrugging off someone else being deprived of choice in their fertility is another form of being anti-choice that a lot of people never stop to think about. If a fertile woman wanted a baby and had a willing and fertile partner, and they were forced apart so that they couldn't conceive, that would be considered atrocious because they have no choice. Infertile couples have no choice.

If you're pro-choice (from a legal standpoint, as in not supporting laws that limit choice), then you really need to be PRO-CHOICE, and that means supporting infertile people who have had no choice. Sure, you could say save up a few years to try IVF once, but imagine if YOU, as an infertile person, had to pay a fee for EVERY MONTH you wanted to try, even if that fee was $50. Imagine being told you could only try as often as you had the money out of pocket.

Why is is okay, and expected, that we support Jill and David's RIGHT (supporting a right doesn't mean agreeing with someone does with it), legally and financially, but tell infertile people that having a choice is a privilege to those who can afford it? How nice it would be for the cost of exercising a choice to be free.

Is it the same people arguing for supporting the right of people to have huge numbers of children they can't afford, and arguing against infertility treatment being paid for by insurance/public funds?

I know these are frequently debated topics on this forum - but not sure that the same posters hold those conflicting views.

Personally, I'm completely against limiting peoples rights to have children - whether thats because they dont believe in birth control or they need extensive assistance to have a child . Im also for paying taxes that have children, however they are conceived, on a relatively equal playing field.

For the record I'm also strongly pro sex ed, free birth control for all, but only moderately pro-choice when it comes to abortion.

[August]

Health care being based on employment is just insane on every level. When i was an employer we did have one employee, an older woman, who we paid more in health insurance premiums than in actual salary. It's awful for employee's, because you feel compelled to keep the job with the good insurance - but its also bad if you're a company that cares about your workers. I kept one employee who really wasnt doing a good job, primarily because i knew she wouldnt be able to afford her ongoing health treatment without our excellent insurance. Its a stupid, stupid system.

And I think its fine to have high taxes if your basic needs are covered as part of it. How much disposable income do people need? If everyone gets comprehensive, universal health care, a decent education and you dont have children living in cars and only getting food at school --seems worth it to me.

If only we were the majority.

I can't comprehend why big businesses aren't all for it, and Republicans, too. They claim that people should be out there starting businesses and pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, but then handicap businesses and entrepeneurs with this massive massive cost and roadblock to hiring.

[Toothfairy]

If fundies start using ivf, then they no longer can say the number of kids is up to god because science is involved. Also how many times will they do ivf? Is there a limit? What if they end up like Octo mom. I can't imagine a doctor consider ivf when s couple always had ls 10 kids through ivf, especially since ivf increases the chances of mutiples

[Mama Mia]

If fundies start using ivf, then they no longer can say the number of kids is up to god because science is involved. Also how many times will they do ivf? Is there a limit? What if they end up like Octo mom. I can't imagine a doctor consider ivf when s couple always had ls 10 kids through ivf, especially since ivf increases the chances of mutiples

Why would the number of previous pregnancies make a difference to the physician? If the woman had health issues directly attributable to the number of previous births it would be a medical consideration. But if she was healthy, why would it be the Doctors concern?

Having a large number of children individually isn't the same thing as carrying them all at the same time.

[Coco]

But that would only be utopia if the consensus fit your own range of acceptable. What if the group consensus was closer to the Pearls version of acceptable? Or if "following Doctors order" meant you had to be induced to fit his schedule?

i meant the utopia bit sarcastically - sorry that didn't come across :lol: Of course this would only function in a world where there were 1) no corruption at high levels and 2) a well-informed population who believed in holistic approaches. Similar to countries where home births and midwifery are common practice - because studies show that it's good for babies. What i described is an impossible scenario, i agree. It will never happen.

And... i'm not saying everyone would know EVERY thing about everyone's business, just that in this day and age, privacy is almost obsolete.

I'm a social optimist - i think more openness and law-enforced equal rights for everyone lead to real fairness, albeit very slowly. An ugly society like the abuses of the poor and child labor in the 1900's or the slave economy in the 1860's - those things are not going to fly anymore... except that they've moved overseas by corrupt people in power. We have to fight that.

(i'm a huge fan of Bill Moyers, if that helps explain my point of view)

[Coco]

If only we were the majority.

I can't comprehend why big businesses aren't all for it, and Republicans, too. They claim that people should be out there starting businesses and pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, but then handicap businesses and entrepeneurs with this massive massive cost and roadblock to hiring.

A million amens. Trickle down isn't working. Same with the rape of the environment. Taking the long view just isn't in their plan. Republicans and pro-business politicians know it would benefit everyone to ensure the lowest people were cared for and well-paid. But the short-term profits win out.

[Coco]

If fundies start using ivf, then they no longer can say the number of kids is up to god because science is involved. Also how many times will they do ivf? Is there a limit? What if they end up like Octo mom. I can't imagine a doctor consider ivf when s couple always had ls 10 kids through ivf, especially since ivf increases the chances of mutiples

It just proves the lie to their "God in control" spiel. If they were honest, they'd be saying their version of obeying God is to keep going and produce as many as possible at any cost. Trew believers can't decide to stop for any reason, including well-being. If they were honest they'd admit popping out the kids is one of their basic requirements for "holiness". They don't allow infertility to be God-ordained. It's not in their idea of what it means to follow God. Such horribly damaging beliefs, to the families who are already hurting, to heap that condemnation and pressure on their shoulders.

[August]

A million amens. Trickle down isn't working. Same with the rape of the environment. Taking the long view just isn't in their plan. Republicans and pro-business politicians know it would benefit everyone to ensure the lowest people were cared for and well-paid. But the short-term profits win out.

But even by their own logic (which puts zero value on people) it is a cost to business which could be shifted elsewhere and reduced in the process. It's like not covering IVF, in pure money money out terms it would be cheaper for companes to cover it, but they don't so they can look all hard ass. Just like it would be cheaper to set reimbursements and pay them automatically instead of spending all that money on coding and denying claims.

[fun2beme]

If fundies start using ivf, then they no longer can say the number of kids is up to god because science is involved. Also how many times will they do ivf? Is there a limit? What if they end up like Octo mom. I can't imagine a doctor consider ivf when s couple always had ls 10 kids through ivf, especially since ivf increases the chances of mutiples

I'm not an expert on IVF but know several people who went through it (most were unsuccessful). One friend said that clinics discourage you to go through more than 3 cycles because it messes up their success rates. She and her husband did 4, which resulted in one pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage. Both she and her husband had fertility issues. She didn't have insurance coverage for the treatments and said their marriage almost ended over the stress. Another woman I know went through 6 unsuccessful treatments - not covered by her insurance. I think a lot of people probably given up (either because of finances or the emotional toll) after a few attempts.

And thank all of you for the kind words. :)

[Burris]

i meant the utopia bit sarcastically - sorry that didn't come across :lol: Of course this would only function in a world where there were 1) no corruption at high levels and 2) a well-informed population who believed in holistic approaches. Similar to countries where home births and midwifery are common practice - because studies show that it's good for babies. What i described is an impossible scenario, i agree. It will never happen.

And... i'm not saying everyone would know EVERY thing about everyone's business, just that in this day and age, privacy is almost obsolete.

I'm a social optimist - i think more openness and law-enforced equal rights for everyone lead to real fairness, albeit very slowly. An ugly society like the abuses of the poor and child labor in the 1900's or the slave economy in the 1860's - those things are not going to fly anymore... except that they've moved overseas by corrupt people in power. We have to fight that.

(i'm a huge fan of Bill Moyers, if that helps explain my point of view)

I'm not an optimist: If privacy is almost obsolete, then there should be a backlash against invasive technology, not the embrace of it. It doesn't seem to hurt when no one is aiming their cannons at those who hold your views/come from your background. If that changes, and privacy is not respected, you are fucked; screwed; boned; in an unescapable position of facing persecution - and not the fake crap US Christians bitch about, but the real thing.

As long as human beings remain human beings, there will never be an entire population of well-informed people and you're right - there will never be a utopia. (Movements based on a utopic ideal are bad news, in part because you and yours might not be part of that ideal.)

[August]

I'm not an expert on IVF but know several people who went through it (most were unsuccessful). One friend said that clinics discourage you to go through more than 3 cycles because it messes up their success rates. She and her husband did 4, which resulted in one pregnancy that ended in a miscarriage. Both she and her husband had fertility issues. She didn't have insurance coverage for the treatments and said their marriage almost ended over the stress. Another woman I know went through 6 unsuccessful treatments - not covered by her insurance. I think a lot of people probably given up (either because of finances or the emotional toll) after a few attempts.

And thank all of you for the kind words. :)

It's more complicated and subtle than that. Overall people need to asssume they'll need three cycles, and the vast majority of people get pregnant in three cycles, and success rates drop after three cycles. Clinic cherry picking takes place mostly before they even do a single cycle, and during the initial phase of a cycle. Success rates used to be cited as pregnancy per egg collection, so unscrupulous clinics would cancel people who'd taken the drugs but weren't responding so well. Now they cite per cycle started as well, so clinics screen even more vigorously. But the number in big print is still clinical pregnancy per EPU, and is very very misleading.

Getting pregnant still has tons of unknowns, and the best indicator of fertility/infertility is having a baby or not. If you go through several IVF cycles and don't have a baby there is something unknown going on making you less likely to get pregnant. That's why some clinics refuse them.

For example, Columbia, which takes women with dud ovaries, and old women, and lots of them!

https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_P ... cPKID=2092

or this place, which specifically takes hard cases who've failed multiple cycles or been denied treatment elsewhere

https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_P ... cPKID=2030

compared to CRC, which brutally screens its patients

https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_P ... cPKID=1902

[Sundaymorning]

Health care being based on employment is just insane on every level. When i was an employer we did have one employee, an older woman, who we paid more in health insurance premiums than in actual salary. It's awful for employee's, because you feel compelled to keep the job with the good insurance - but its also bad if you're a company that cares about your workers. I kept one employee who really wasnt doing a good job, primarily because i knew she wouldnt be able to afford her ongoing health treatment without our excellent insurance. Its a stupid, stupid system.

And I think its fine to have high taxes if your basic needs are covered as part of it. How much disposable income do people need? If everyone gets comprehensive, universal health care, a decent education and you dont have children living in cars and only getting food at school --seems worth it to me.

If you look at it, those high tax countries take away a lot more than 40% of peoples income. It's not only the income tax, but all those other taxes, fees and high costs due to unnecessary bureaucracy that take away huge amounts of their income.

You see, this is the thing. I believe that people should actually be the ones who decide how to spend their own money. Taking away most money from them "for their own good" might sound good, but basically it's the same argument that was used back when government or parents could decide who could marry who and who could have children, and whose children were taken away from them cause the parents weren't married and such.

I think it's highly dangeours if you have a central planning government which has the power to decide on all of this things. You want universal healthcare, a decent education and such? I'm absolutely positive that a free market (and no, the things we all have are not free markets!!) would provide much better solutions than a central planning government. Socialism doesn't work. It might sound like a good idea but in the end, it becomes a huge mess. Just look at countries like Venezuela or Cuba, who all promise their citizens all of this things.

Or look at European countries with high taxes such as France and Scandinavian countries, who pays their taxes there fully? No one if they can. Tax fraud is a national sport,and the screwed ones are the ones who have to pay fully and aren't rich enough to move somewhere else.

High taxes demotivate people and highly hurt the economy and therefore the people especially the poorer ones who usually lose their job first if the economy tanks.

But, I happen to strongly agree with you on one thing: I think its stupid too, that healthcare is based on the employment in the US.

[August]

Yes, the USA is paradise.*

*for the 1% who, incidentally, don't pay their taxes.

[Anny Nym]

I might be chiming in here a little late, but I just couldn´t Keep quiet on this recent comments!

Being born, raised and living in a so called "high tax" country with one of the most sufficient and advanced government systems, as well as one of the highest standard of living in the world (so, no Venezuela or Cuba speaking here...) I have to fully agree with you, @Mama Mia, and absolutely nothing with the neoliberal theories of a so-called free market @Sundaymorning promotes.

A free market and unregulated economy would provide jackshit to people, we already found that out over the course of history. That´s why we are having workplace laws and things like universal health care, welfare systems, public schooling,affordable housing etc. right now. People fought hard and died for that.

Given, it has its flows, there is no perfect system. But here, whenever we are fuzzing a bit over any of this flows, what we usually say is

"Well, at least we have it not as bad as the people in the USA." (no offence to any us-american citizen! This is targeted to the social system differences only.)

[Sundaymorning]

I might be chiming in here a little late, but I just couldn´t Keep quiet on this recent comments!

Being born, raised and living in a so called "high tax" country with one of the most sufficient and advanced government systems, as well as one of the highest standard of living in the world (so, no Venezuela or Cuba speaking here...) I have to fully agree with you, @Mama Mia, and absolutely nothing with the neoliberal theories of a so-called free market @Sundaymorning promotes.

A free market and unregulated economy would provide jackshit to people, we already found that out over the course of history. That´s why we are having workplace laws and things like universal health care, welfare systems, public schooling,affordable housing etc. right now. People fought hard and died for that.

Given, it has its flows, there is no perfect system. But here, whenever we are fuzzing a bit over any of this flows, what we usually say is " Well, at least we have it not as bad as the people in the USA." (no offence to any us-american citizen! This is targeted to the social system differences only.)

Please, give me one example where there has been a really free market? Like a really free one?

And no, before you come up with this example, the markets in the 19th century weren't free. And yes, the working conditions were bad, but still better than those in the centuries before them.

oh, and I'm not neo-liberal at all. Those are the ones who really like corporatism. I'm libertarian.

[Anny Nym]

What do you understand under a ideal free market? How would that look like in your Imagination?

[Sundaymorning]

What do you understand under a ideal free market? How would that look like in your Imagination?

I will gladly write you a longer answer once I have the time. In the meantime, just some short answers from other people whom I generally agree with.

catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B2

lp.org/news/press-releases/how-liberty-makes-health-care-virtually-universal

[Anny Nym]

I will gladly write you a longer answer once I have the time. In the meantime, just some short answers from other people whom I generally agree with.

http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#B2

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/h ... -universal

Why do I have this weird feeling you sound like one of that guys who hung out on a remote farm in the Waldviertel and had some media coverage this summer... ?

http://derstandard.at/2000003639693/Gru ... aldviertel

[Sundaymorning]

Why do I have this weird feeling you sound like one of that guys who hung out on a remote farm in the Waldviertel and had some media coverage this summer... ?

http://derstandard.at/2000003639693/Gru ... aldviertel

So you think everyone who disagrees with you is some crazy esoteric violent criminal?

In the meantime, here is one example what ebil markets will do to you if you let them a bit of the leash:

huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/22/sandy-springs-georgia-privatize-outsource_n_852466.html

[Anny Nym]

So you think everyone who disagrees with you is some crazy esoteric violent criminal?

In the meantime, here is one example what ebil markets will do to you if you let it a bit of the leash:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/2 ... 52466.html

Oh, no ... certainly not everyone ...

Then you should move to Sandy Springs, Georgia.

[Sundaymorning]

Oh, no ... certainly not everyone ...

Then you should move to Sandy Springs, Georgia.

would be difficult with all those immigration laws in effect, wouldn't it? (another thing libertarians are against)

I really should be working on other stuff, but to answer your question: here is what I would understand under a free market system. econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html

Other interesting articles:

marottaonmoney.com/why-i-lean-libertarian-part-1/

forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/18/free-markets-dont-just-benefit-corporations-the-consumer-profits-too/

So now, since you claim that the free market has been proven to fail, when was there ever a period in history where there was a legitimately free market?

[Anny Nym]

would be difficult with all those immigration laws in effect, wouldn't it? (another thing libertarians are against)

What, not enough cross-continental support or a sufficient free-market-useable skill already accumulated? No international friends & acquaintances network established? Not even a igg. campaign?

Where is you libertarian go-getter-spirit? Your libertarian personal responsibility?

Well, I see black for the libertarian social revolution then. ^^

[Sundaymorning]

What, not enough cross-continental support or a sufficient free-market-useable skill already accumulated? No international friends & acquaintances network established? Not even a igg. campaign?

Where is you libertarian go-getter-spirit? Your libertarian personal responsibility?

Well, I see black for the libertarian social revolution then. ^^

I'd rather have a useful answer to my question (if you claim that free markets are proven to fail, where was there ever a time period when there were genuinely free markets? And don't confuse free markets with crony capitalism and corporatism).

I actually back my claims up with substancial arguments and facts. You seem to be out of answers and resort to making stupid remarks and insults. I'm up to discussing my personal convictions, I like to hear other view points and opinions, it keeps things interesting, and I respect and value that other people have very different opinions than me. But if all you can do is to make dumb comments without any useful content, well I think we can stop this discussion now.