Forums | MacLife

ScifiterX wrote:

Actually Res, section 8 is open to either individuals or Family but there are specific qualifying and maintenance criteria and the renter never sees a check from section 8, rather the landlord gets a check from them equal to the rent or full market rate (which ever is less) minus 30% of the renter's income (which the renter is expected to cover).

Ah - OK.
I didn't know it was open to individuals.
I did know the landlord got the rent check directly - my parents use to manage a house, it wasn't being offered as section 8 but my mom met a family that really needed housing and worked it out for them to move in under section 8.

Unfortunately, after six months, their kids totally trashed the place - and the parents just didn't have the money to fix it.

I don't understand why they did what they did - there were holes in the wall, dents in appliances, etc.

resedit wrote:

ScifiterX wrote:

Actually Res, section 8 is open to either individuals or Family but there are specific qualifying and maintenance criteria and the renter never sees a check from section 8, rather the landlord gets a check from them equal to the rent or full market rate (which ever is less) minus 30% of the renter's income (which the renter is expected to cover).

Ah - OK.
I didn't know it was open to individuals.
I did know the landlord got the rent check directly - my parents use to manage a house, it wasn't being offered as section 8 but my mom met a family that really needed housing and worked it out for them to move in under section 8.

Unfortunately, after six months, their kids totally trashed the place - and the parents just didn't have the money to fix it.

I don't understand why they did what they did - there were holes in the wall, dents in appliances, etc.

Which is the reason a lot of landlords go to extreme measures to avoid section 8 renters. I know a landlord who requires the first month, last month, and a security deposit equal to the rent - specifically to exclude section 8 renters, who generally can't come up with 3 months rent at once. Frankly, based on my own experiences with section 8 renters at my grandfathers old house, I can't blame him.

resedit wrote:

[snip]
When I pointed that out, the response was that 1 in 5 are naturally mis-carried (something I doubt, btw, unless he is counting fertilized embryos that never implant) anyway.
[snip--bold added]

No, the miscarriage rate of 1 in 5 is for ALL pregnancies, not for IVF. If anything a 20% rate is actually a bit low compared to some numbers out there--here is a BBC report saying that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and here is a small study which has numbers which agree with a miscarriage rate of 25%. The BBC article above points out that the rate for 25- to 30-year-olds maybe as low as 1 in 6 while women over 45 may miscarry in half of all pregnancies.

Most of these numbers have to be guesses since many early miscarriages can be mistaken for an extra heavy menstruation and unless the woman used a pregnancy test or (preferably) was checked by a doctor she may not be aware that she had miscarried. While some miscarriages may be due to misadventure--either accidental or deliberate--most of them are natural (AKA "God did it").

For IVF I was unable to find a separate number, but here is a chart showing that about 1 in 4 pregnancies using "assisted reproductive technology" (ART) goes on to a live birth when the embryo is frozen (at least in the US of 2005--for some reason the CDC has no numbers past that year on their web pages)--thus the failure rate for ART pregnancies is about 75%. BTW: "nondonor" means that the woman who provided the egg is carrying the pregnancy.

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

[snip]
When I pointed that out, the response was that 1 in 5 are naturally mis-carried (something I doubt, btw, unless he is counting fertilized embryos that never implant) anyway.
[snip--bold added]

No, the miscarriage rate of 1 in 5 is for ALL pregnancies

All pregnancies where the embryo successfully implants in the embryo wall, or are you counting fertilized embryos that never implant?
I've never heard the latter referred to as a mis-carriage.

Last edited by resedit (2008-10-15 5:22 am)

Alien wrote:

Apparently, you wish to make it a point that the fetus' dependency is temporary. Now, why is that important?

I was stating the fact.
It is only temporary.

What do you want me to say?
I honestly don't know why me pointing out that the pregnancy is a temporary dependence is a big deal to you.

resedit wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

resedit wrote:

[snip]
When I pointed that out, the response was that 1 in 5 are naturally mis-carried (something I doubt, btw, unless he is counting fertilized embryos that never implant) anyway.
[snip--bold added]

No, the miscarriage rate of 1 in 5 is for ALL pregnancies

All pregnancies where the embryo successfully implants in the embryo wall, or are you counting fertilized embryos that never implant?
I've never heard the latter referred to as a mis-carriage.

If you read past the part you quoted it would be quite clear: for this I am taking about ALL (not just IVF) pregnancies. That you can even ask this question shows that you cannot even read with any comprehension beyond your own prejudices. It is rather pointless to argue with you since you wlll not deign to understand what others have written.

I even included a link with figures which attempts to answer the question you are asking (although these numbers may include methods other than IVF): in 2005 US 72% of all attempts at implantation are unsuccessful if the embryo was frozen and the woman was the donor of the egg. This has to be stated this way because short of examining a woman during the entire process where the embryo becomes established along the uterine wall it is impossible to tell the difference between an unsuccessful implantation or an early miscarriage.

*chirp, chirp*

.tsooJ