• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

I Had A Feeling This Was The Case

Mike

Well-known member
when I first posted the story about the lady (?) that bore the octuplets a few weeks ago. I eluded to the fact that she had a "litter" , which clearly stirred Alice to question my motive and ask. "What's your point"?

Well....here's my point Alice:
Mom already on food stamps before having octuplets
By ALAN ZAREMBO, JESSICA GARRISON and KIMI YOSHINO Los Angeles Times
Feb. 10, 2009, 5:17AM
LOS ANGELES — The Beverly Hills doctor whose fertility treatment led to the birth of Nadya Suleman’s octuplets — and her six previous children — has one of the worst success rates of any fertility clinic in the country, according to federal records reviewed by the Los Angeles Times.

Taxpayers are already footing part of the bill for a situation he helped create. Suleman receives $490 a month in food stamps, and three of her first six children are disabled and receiving federal benefits. Moreover, Kaiser Permanente Hospital in suburban Bellflower has asked California’s health plan for the poor to cover the cost for the eight premature infants in its care, according to multiple sources familiar with the case.

Suleman’s publicist, Michael Furtney, confirmed the information about the food stamps and federal supplemental security income after two sources informed the Times of the benefits. Three sources told the Times that Kaiser has requested Medi-Cal reimbursement for care of the octuplets, which is estimated to run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Furtney declined to confirm the Medi-Cal coverage and referred the question to Kaiser, which also declined comment.

The disclosures came as information emerged about the doctor who provided Suleman, a 33-year-old single mother, with the in vitro fertilizations that led to all 14 of her children. In an interview on NBC, she identified the clinic as West Coast IVF Clinic, which is run by Michael Kamrava.

According to federal records reviewed by the Times, of the 61 procedures Kamrava conducted in 2006 — the most recent data available — only five resulted in pregnancies and only two of those resulted in births. One of those births was Suleman’s twins.

“These are the worst numbers I’ve ever seen. This is absurdly low,” said Dr. Mark Surrey, another fertility specialist in Beverly Hills.

But in Suleman, Kamrava found a patient who got pregnant and gave birth every time. For seven years, Suleman attempted to get pregnant through artificial insemination and fertility drugs. When she finally tried in vitro fertilization at Kamrava’s clinic, it worked the first time — and each time after that.

Kamrava, 57, has been a proponent of placing newly created embryos in a capsule and cultivating them inside the vagina for a few days before transferring them to the uterus in hopes of achieving a pregnancy. More recently, he has promoted a little-used technique employing a camera to help place embryos in the lining of the uterus. In 2006, he and Suleman appeared in a local television news segment about how the technique could boost the chances that embryos would take.

And on his Web site, he touts his “breakthrough technology that has revolutionized IVF.”

In fact, Kamrava’s clinic has a much lower rate of pregnancies and births than the vast majority of fertility clinics. Suleman’s five previous pregnancies — which resulted in four single births and a set of twins — represents a sizable portion of his success over the past several years.

His history of poor results comes despite Kamrava placing more embryos per procedure than all but 10 of the nation’s 426 fertility clinics for patients under 35. In 2006, he averaged 3.5 embryos per in vitro fertilization treatment, compared with the national average of 2.3.

Other fertility specialists said that placing high numbers of embryos is a common way that poorly performing clinics try to boost their pregnancy rates. But that increases the risk of multiple births, which pose a danger to the woman and her babies.

Dr. Philip McNamee, a fertility specialist in Honolulu, said Kamrava might have figured he had little to worry about when he transferred six embryos to Suleman last year since his success rates were so low and her embryos had been frozen and thawed. Frozen embryos lead to pregnancy less often than fresh ones.

“That is one logical explanation of why he thought in his mind he could do it,” McNamee said.

Still, he and other doctors strongly condemned the decision, especially because Suleman had a history of successful pregnancies.

In her NBC interview, Suleman defended her doctor. She called her treatment “very appropriate,” particularly because of her history of miscarriages and scarred fallopian tubes.

“The most I would have ever anticipated would have been twins,” Suleman said. “It wasn’t twins times four.”

Kamrava declined comment Monday.

This is not the first time he has faced controversy. At least two former employees have sued him, including Shirin Afshar, an office administrator who alleged that Kamrava engaged in insurance and tax fraud. She also said he routinely asked her to participate in medical procedures even though she was not licensed to do so.

The suit said Kamrava required patients to pay their bills in cash, which was then put in an envelope and given to Kamrava’s wife, who “never entered the payment into the computer and never deposited the payment in the bank” so that Kamrava could avoid paying income tax on the money. The clinic kept two sets of books, one for insurance payments and one for cash payments, the lawsuit alleged.

Afshar also claimed that Kamrava’s office defrauded insurance companies by double billing for procedures and by billing companies for unnecessary medication that Kamrava kept and then re-sold to other patients. In addition, the suit claims that Kamrava’s office billed insurance companies for one procedure and then performed another.

The suit appeared to have settled in 1999, shortly before it went to trial.

In another case, Shantal Rajah, an embryologist from England, was awarded more than $300,000 in back pay, attorneys fees and damages after working for Kamrava for less than a month. Court papers show that Rajah and Kamrava did not get along and at one point got into a fight over the proper heating of embryos.

(End optional trim)

Suleman’s case has evoked both fascination and fury by the public and medical community, with many wondering how she will care for 14 children.

Suleman, who lives with her mother in a three-bedroom home, acknowledged in the NBC interview that she was struggling to support her six children before the birth of her octuplets. But she said she knows she will be able to pay their bills, especially after she earns her master’s degree in counseling.

She denied that she was on welfare — a comment her publicist later clarified.

“In Nadya’s view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program ... and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare,” Furtney said. “They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare.”

Staff writers Garrett Therolf, Andrew Blankstein, Joanna Lin, Victoria Kim, Cara Mia DiMassa and Maloy Moore contributed to this report.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
She denied that she was on welfare — a comment her publicist later clarified.

“In Nadya’s view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program ... and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare,” Furtney said. “They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare.”

What is the difference between programs designed to help people with need and welfare?

Aren't they one in the same?

I really have to question the mental health of this woman.

And where did she get the money to pay for fertility treatments if she had a low enough income to qualify for food stamps?

I support most welfare programs. I strongly support food stamps. But this is outrageous abuse.
 

Mike

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
She denied that she was on welfare — a comment her publicist later clarified.

“In Nadya’s view, the money that she gets from the food stamp program ... and the resources disabilities payments she gets for her three children are not welfare,” Furtney said. “They are part of programs designed to help people with need, and she does not see that as welfare.”

What is the difference between programs designed to help people with need and welfare?

Aren't they one in the same?

I really have to question the mental health of this woman.

And where did she get the money to pay for fertility treatments if she had a low enough income to qualify for food stamps?

I support most welfare programs. I strongly support food stamps. But this is outrageous abuse.

I suppose "Welfare" as we know it, has helped many who needed a leg up when in dire circumstances, but it also diminishes "personal accountability".

It's only a natural effect for some to take the easy way out... plus when you see your neighbor getting welfare/food stamps, etc..... this would be that choice.

Welfare has created a league of welfare brood mares and it keeps perpetuating itself through the years.
 

newmexicobound

Well-known member
OH MY GOD!!!!!
This woman is crazier than a LOON!
I heard on the news that she also gets disability from a back injury while working at a mental hospital 6 years ago. I think the media might have been confused and she was a PATIENT there!
Why in the world, if you have 3 kids already that are disabled would you keep having more??? There is no way she can give those three what they need let alone the other three and now eight babies that are sure to need special care.
Now the state of California has to pay the 1 to 3 million dollar hospital bill?? With what...California is broke!
I did hear that Oprah offered her 2 million to appear on her show. Maybe she will step up and pay all this crazy womans bills!
I agree that the Doctor should have to foot the bill for all these kids. He sounds as crazy as she is.
The sad part is the kids. Now that they are here, they have to eat and be taken care of so I guess California has some more debt!
Sad Sad sad!!!!!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Mike said:
I suppose "Welfare" as we know it, has helped many who needed a leg up when in dire circumstances, but it also diminishes "personal accountability".

It's only a natural effect for some to take the easy way out... plus when you see your neighbor getting welfare/food stamps, etc..... this would be that choice.

Welfare has created a league of welfare brood mares and it keeps perpetuating itself through the years.

You might be right, but I'm not sure many see welfare as the easy way out. In my experience, the folks I have had contact with who could be described as generational welfare recipients are the kind of people who, for whatever reason, simply can't manage their lives.

They shouldn't have kids, but they do. And just like the octuplets case, society sort of has to step in because it isn't the kids fault that their parent or parents were basket cases.

I don't know what the solution is.

But overall, I think welfare is necessary and that quite a few myths abound. Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" is by far the exception and not the rule.

http://www.apa.org/pi/wpo/myths.html
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
newmexicobound said:
OH MY GOD!!!!!
This woman is crazier than a LOON!
I heard on the news that she also gets disability from a back injury while working at a mental hospital 6 years ago. I think the media might have been confused and she was a PATIENT there!
Why in the world, if you have 3 kids already that are disabled would you keep having more??? There is no way she can give those three what they need let alone the other three and now eight babies that are sure to need special care.
Now the state of California has to pay the 1 to 3 million dollar hospital bill?? With what...California is broke!
I did hear that Oprah offered her 2 million to appear on her show. Maybe she will step up and pay all this crazy womans bills!
I agree that the Doctor should have to foot the bill for all these kids. He sounds as crazy as she is.
The sad part is the kids. Now that they are here, they have to eat and be taken care of so I guess California has some more debt!
Sad Sad sad!!!!!

At the very least there needs to be an investigation about her "back injury".

If she can manage to lug around as many kids as she has, I would guess her back is in fine shape.

One of my cousins married a woman who is on disability for an "anxiety disorder". They have had 5 kids in six years.

That would be enough to give me an anxiety disorder. If she can handle the amount of kid-chaos in her own home, I'm pretty sure she can go back to work.
 

alice

Well-known member
I asked "What's your point" when there was no information about the woman and the circumstances. I questioned your use of the word "litter" when it came to referring the woman's newborn babies. I still think that word is belittling when it comes to children. AND, at the time, there was no further information on the woman, her kids, her life, nothing other than she had 8 babies thru IVF.

You made assumptions without facts, much as you have relentlessly accused KOLA of doing about the woman who's house was burned and that there was a possibility that it was a hate crime. We now see the facts have changed, just as they have changed in this IVF case.

I agree...the woman is NUTZ, the doctor who performed the IVF should be sanctioned and fined heavily. Her children are going to be the ones who suffer the most. You making pronouncements with only the sketchiest of information is as ridiculous as you've accused others here of doing.

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
And where did she get the money to pay for fertility treatments if she had a low enough income to qualify for food stamps?

Angela Suleman said that her daughter "spent a lot of money on toys" but never contributed rent or food money and failed to tell her mother about the $167,000 she received from worker's compensation claims.

she might not have claimed it... or "paid up front" so the money is gone... and then she has no money and can qualify..

sadly the children will suffer..
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
alice said:
I asked "What's your point" when there was no information about the woman and the circumstances. I questioned your use of the word "litter" when it came to referring the woman's newborn babies. I still think that word is belittling when it comes to children. AND, at the time, there was no further information on the woman, her kids, her life, nothing other than she had 8 babies thru IVF.

You made assumptions without facts, much as you have relentlessly accused KOLA of doing about the woman who's house was burned and that there was a possibility that it was a hate crime. We now see the facts have changed, just as they have changed in this IVF case.

I agree...the woman is NUTZ, the doctor who performed the IVF should be sanctioned and fined heavily. Her children are going to be the ones who suffer the most. You making pronouncements with only the sketchiest of information is as ridiculous as you've accused others here of doing.

Alice

That's what I understood you to mean as well, Alice.

I think there will be way too much focus on the welfare aspect of this case, important as it is, and not enough on the questionable ethics of some of these fertility treatments.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Alice wrote:
You made assumptions without facts

Show me in my original post where I made assumptions without facts when you asked, "What's your point?".

I did ask the question if she was a "welfare brood mare", but asking a question and an assumption is quite different.

The FACT is that this woman had 8 children at once that exceeds most litters of pups that I know of.

But the difference between me and KOLA is that any questions I originally had were RIGHT, and KOLA was DEAD WRONG!!!
 

alice

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
alice said:
I asked "What's your point" when there was no information about the woman and the circumstances. I questioned your use of the word "litter" when it came to referring the woman's newborn babies. I still think that word is belittling when it comes to children. AND, at the time, there was no further information on the woman, her kids, her life, nothing other than she had 8 babies thru IVF.

You made assumptions without facts, much as you have relentlessly accused KOLA of doing about the woman who's house was burned and that there was a possibility that it was a hate crime. We now see the facts have changed, just as they have changed in this IVF case.

I agree...the woman is NUTZ, the doctor who performed the IVF should be sanctioned and fined heavily. Her children are going to be the ones who suffer the most. You making pronouncements with only the sketchiest of information is as ridiculous as you've accused others here of doing.

Alice

That's what I understood you to mean as well, Alice.

I think there will be way too much focus on the welfare aspect of this case, important as it is, and not enough on the questionable ethics of some of these fertility treatments.


Exactly.

Alice
 

Mike

Well-known member
Alice wrote:
You made assumptions without facts

Show me in my original post where I made assumptions without facts when you asked, "What's your point?".

I did ask the question if she was a "welfare brood mare", but asking a question and an assumption is quite different.


But the difference between me and KOLA is that any questions I originally had were RIGHT, and KOLA was DEAD WRONG!!!

Plus, KOLA pulled some of her info out of her azz. :lol: :lol:

Sucks to be you, huh? :lol:
 

alice

Well-known member
Mike said:
Alice wrote:
You made assumptions without facts

Show me in my original post where I made assumptions without facts when you asked, "What's your point?".

I did ask the question if she was a "welfare brood mare", but asking a question and an assumption is quite different.

The FACT is that this woman had 8 children at once that exceeds most litters of pups that I know of.

But the difference between me and KOLA is that any questions I originally had were RIGHT, and KOLA was DEAD WRONG!!!

You brought it up, you show it.

The rest of what you've written...bah!

Alice
 

Mike

Well-known member
You brought it up, you show it.

YOU'RE the one who said I made assumptions without facts.

Shouldn't the accuser be the one to substantiate his claim? :roll:

You just can't stand it that KOLA was sooooooo wrong and that I was so right, can you?
 

alice

Well-known member
Mike, you come across as crude, hateful, vulgar, arrogant, and self important. I have no intention of falling into one of your little tit for tat traps that you seem to thrive on. I do not consider you "Right." I do consider you "Wrong...." and woefully tiresome.

Oh...Boo!

Alice
 

Mike

Well-known member
alice said:
Mike, you come across as crude, hateful, vulgar, arrogant, and self important. I have no intention of falling into one of your little tit for tat traps that you seem to thrive on. I do not consider you "Right." I do consider you "Wrong...." and woefully tiresome.

Oh...Boo!

Alice

To be called any of what you called me, and coming from a whiney liberal is a badge of honor.

I must be doing something right. :lol: :lol:
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
I don't know why you guys are argueing this...the answers pretty simple to me.....Fertility Dr. that implanted the babies goes before an ethics committee,then hes forced to help pay for those babies until they're out of {hopefully} college. He should also be changing nappies,feeding,burping... :evil:


IMHO,for what its worth he should have been sending her to a mental health Dr. NOT implanting babies.....hes a POS in my books!!!!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I don't know why you guys are argueing this...the answers pretty simple to me.....Fertility Dr. that implanted the babies goes before an ethics committee,then hes forced to help pay for those babies until they're out of {hopefully} college. He should also be changing nappies,feeding,burping... :evil:


IMHO,for what its worth he should have been sending her to a mental health Dr. NOT implanting babies.....hes a POS in my books!!!!

I agree!

Ps. Hope that does not hurt your crediability on here! :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
I don't know why you guys are argueing this...the answers pretty simple to me.....Fertility Dr. that implanted the babies goes before an ethics committee,then hes forced to help pay for those babies until they're out of {hopefully} college. He should also be changing nappies,feeding,burping... :evil:


IMHO,for what its worth he should have been sending her to a mental health Dr. NOT implanting babies.....hes a POS in my books!!!!

At some point the woman has to be held accountable.....not just the Dr.

Am I missing something?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Mike said:
Mrs.Greg said:
I don't know why you guys are argueing this...the answers pretty simple to me.....Fertility Dr. that implanted the babies goes before an ethics committee,then hes forced to help pay for those babies until they're out of {hopefully} college. He should also be changing nappies,feeding,burping... :evil:


IMHO,for what its worth he should have been sending her to a mental health Dr. NOT implanting babies.....hes a POS in my books!!!!

At some point the woman has to be held accountable.....not just the Dr.

Am I missing something?

I agree!

Ps. Hope that does not hurt your crediability on here! :lol:
 
Top