Insurance and IVF

Does your family have IVF coverage through insurance?


  • Total voters
    84
This would not be up for discussion if not for the fact of the socialization (and long held myth that it's the woman's problem) you allude to. Same reason PT after a joint replacement and many many other procedures is standard and covered but during and after pregnancy is not.

Absolutely. I got hyperemesis to the point of hospitalization with my youngest, and my OB had to fight hard to keep me inpatient by justifying the number of times I puked each day, constant blood tests to prove my kidneys , etc. To use meds to battle the nausea that were originally intended for other things was a huge battle. Meanwhile, if I'd been a runner with severe dehydration and ketosis or my other symptoms, they don't fight you.

It's one of a billion hypocrisies that surround women's health!
 
This is a really interesting take, explain for the rest of the class how it was "nimble competition" and not government regulations that ended the Standard Oil and AT&T monopolies.

"By 1874, his share of the petroleum market jumped to 25 percent, and by 1880 it skyrocketed to about 85 percent. Meanwhile, the price of oil plummeted from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to eight cents in 1885. Put simply, Rockefeller increased production and lowered prices while creating thousands of well-paid jobs along the way (he usually paid his workers significantly more than his competition did)."

"Furthermore, and also in contradiction to monopoly theory, Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling. These facts, however, did not faze the judiciary. The court ruled that because Standard Oil had consolidated some 30 divisions under one single management structure it counted as a monopoly. In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased rather than cut production, it lost rather than “controlled” market share, and it paid its employees more rather than less than its competitors—yet the theory that Standard Oil engaged in “predatory practices” and “exploited” consumers has prevailed in our history books."
 

"By 1874, his share of the petroleum market jumped to 25 percent, and by 1880 it skyrocketed to about 85 percent. Meanwhile, the price of oil plummeted from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to eight cents in 1885. Put simply, Rockefeller increased production and lowered prices while creating thousands of well-paid jobs along the way (he usually paid his workers significantly more than his competition did)."

"Furthermore, and also in contradiction to monopoly theory, Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling. These facts, however, did not faze the judiciary. The court ruled that because Standard Oil had consolidated some 30 divisions under one single management structure it counted as a monopoly. In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased rather than cut production, it lost rather than “controlled” market share, and it paid its employees more rather than less than its competitors—yet the theory that Standard Oil engaged in “predatory practices” and “exploited” consumers has prevailed in our history books."
Now look at US Steel, Bell Telecommunications, Microsoft in the 90’s, phone chargers recently. Hell, look at Martin Shkreli. The fact is, a 100% free market is a myth where you’re banking on everyone involved to “return the shopping cart to the corral”. Here in the real world, we have seen that a 100% free market hasn’t worked.
 

"By 1874, his share of the petroleum market jumped to 25 percent, and by 1880 it skyrocketed to about 85 percent. Meanwhile, the price of oil plummeted from 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to eight cents in 1885. Put simply, Rockefeller increased production and lowered prices while creating thousands of well-paid jobs along the way (he usually paid his workers significantly more than his competition did)."

"Furthermore, and also in contradiction to monopoly theory, Standard Oil’s share of the market had declined from close to 90 percent in the late 1800s to about 65 percent at the time of the court’s ruling. These facts, however, did not faze the judiciary. The court ruled that because Standard Oil had consolidated some 30 divisions under one single management structure it counted as a monopoly. In other words, Standard Oil did precisely the opposite of what monopoly theory maintains—it reduced rather than raised prices, it increased rather than cut production, it lost rather than “controlled” market share, and it paid its employees more rather than less than its competitors—yet the theory that Standard Oil engaged in “predatory practices” and “exploited” consumers has prevailed in our history books."

Why is a mod posting libertarian economic think tank articles outside the cave?
 
Now look at US Steel, Bell Telecommunications, Microsoft in the 90’s, phone chargers recently. Hell, look at Martin Shkreli. The fact is, a 100% free market is a myth where you’re banking on everyone involved to “return the shopping cart to the corral”. Here in the real world, we have seen that a 100% free market hasn’t worked.
Martin Shkreli could not have done what he did without using established law (as do most of them). Without that protection, most of these things could not be done. Yes, some people will try to gain any advantage that they can, but a free market will eventually punish those who try.
 
Advertisers and recruits right now

Ideas_Surprised_Pikachu_HD.jpg
 
Martin Shkreli could not have done what he did without using established law (as do most of them). Without that protection, most of these things could not be done. Yes, some people will try to gain any advantage that they can, but a free market will eventually punish those who try.
You're speaking in generalities and have no proof that a 100% free market would actually punish those who try. You're living in a fantasy world while the rest of us are here in the real world.

How come you keep avoiding all of the other examples? How come you can't find anything that supports your argument that doesn't come from a Libertarian think tank? How come you keep avoiding the hard questions?

(Hint: I know all of these answers, I just want you to admit it)
 
You're speaking in generalities and have no proof that a 100% free market would actually punish those who try. You're living in a fantasy world while the rest of us are here in the real world.

How come you keep avoiding all of the other examples? How come you can't find anything that supports your argument that doesn't come from a Libertarian think tank? How come you keep avoiding the hard questions?

(Hint: I know all of these answers, I just want you to admit it)
We're in off topic, so there's only so far the conversation can go (it's already gone well beyond the boundary, myself included). In the real world, the things you support have led us to where we are today.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: CyDude16
We're in off topic, so there's only so far the conversation can go (it's already gone well beyond the boundary, myself included). In the real world, the things you support have led us to where we are today.
You're the one that brought this closer to the Cave, Mr. Mod.

In the real world, a 100% free market economy has never existed nor ever will work because it's based on the invisible hand theory which has proven to be a farce. Once you (and every other Libertarian nimrod) realizes that, we can all start working to fix the Capitalistic society we live in.

But I also notice how you still refuse any questions that pee all over your fantasy land. Par for the course, I guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CyDude16
Nothing like having pure caffeine powder and perchloric acid in the same room in the lab. You just pray the fume hood doesn't quit while you're working with it.
I worked with sodium cyanide pretty regularly when I was at ISU. It stabilized some of the interesting hemoglobin mutants we made when we removed the histadine that coordinated the heme.
Nothing quite like making a cyanide buffer and dropping HCl to pH it, and watching the cyanide fumes rise from the solution.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: GMackey32
Sort of like how it wouldn't work if you allowed people to not have insurance and then decide to join after they are diagnosed with cancer.
Correct. Late adopters kill the system. Just like people who claim they want to "pick and choose" their insurance coverage would also kill the system. It's not how it works and it's for a reason.
 
LOL Pride accused me of pushing politics into this when he was literally posting political links in here and then deleted it. Screenshots are forever, Pride.
It's weird he never posts in the cave anymore, must have got opted out on opt-outapalooza day. 20,000 minutes or so ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GMackey32
It seems hard for you considering you believe a 100% free market would actually lower costs when all it does is let monopolies run rampant. Then when asked for proof, it was provided and you disappeared like a fart in the wind.
It would basically be a eugenics program, selecting for the healthy and rich.