Well at least not until the second edition of your book comes out and the student who tries to sell the first edition of the book which he bought three months prior and hardly used only to be told that it’s worthless because the university’s switching to the second edition of the book which has only been released because the royalty checks have been dropping off due to the fact that the author doesn’t get paid for every book that’s sold by a flier in the lobby of the campus library.
Nah, writing college texts doesn’t dick anybody over.
I don’t want to write college text books at all. I want to write general non-fiction because I want as many people exposed to it as possible. The main reason I want to write is that I find most history books to be terribly dry, and I’m sincerely interested in the subject. I want your average Joe to find it enjoyable.
FWIW, I used to work at a college bookstore, and the publisher is usually the one in control of putting out new editions. For the most part, the second (or 3rd, etc) edition is identical, it just has a new cover, maybe a few new pictures inside, and they might have rearranged the chapters. Very rarely does an author add a new chapter or 3, and usually only in science texts because of new discoveries…
I’m as pissed about the price of college texts as anybody, but my classes tend to use the type of general non-fiction books I’m interested in writing. Actually, about 6 months ago I bought a book that looked interesting, and it’s one of the 6 books that was required for the class I’m taking now. So the books I use don’t come out with a “new edition” once a year because they’re marketed to the general public, not just college students.
Short run publishing in college level texts is a very high risk business.
Many reference materials of this type do not have a single author but are assembled by a team.
If you want someone to yell at, yell at the teachers who write their own books and send you to kinkos for a spiral bound print on demand book @ $42, with the printing price being $12 and the other $30 going to the teacher.
Publishers have massive overhead and its all frontloaded. More than a few dopers here have mentioned doing fact checking work for textbooks and it pays pretty well IIRC. When you have to pay a team to write and another team to doublecheck, you start incurring boatloads more costs than whipping out a novel that can probably be checked for spelling and grammar by MS word.
I worked in wholesale books for many years, short runs books are orders of magnitude more expensive than their long run counterparts. Sure the latest issue of Clifford Cleans House Costs $0.73 wholesale including royalties and retails for $3.99, but thats because the print runs are 500,000 copies and the author recieved $125K for a 16 page childrens book.
Make that a 300 page history book requiring extensive fact checking and production costs could easily approach $30-$40 a copy.
That’s because the court didn’t say that. That’s an incorrect paraphrase by Planned Parenthood’s lawyer. Had you quoted the correct part, you would see that the court wrote:
They didn’t say “pregnancy is unrelated to birth control”; that’s just stupid.
You have to understand that courts deal with specific legal issues, not vague generalities. There is a law that prevents discrimination against pregnant women, which, as I understand it, arose out of the problem of employers not wanting to treat pregnancy as a disability. It’s not about birth control.
BTW, I think that court decision you cited that says it IS discrimination is a horrible decision. One of the things the defense argued was that they don’t cover Viagra. The judge said that that might be a case of discrimination against men, but that that issue “wasn’t before the court” at that time.
So basically what that court is saying is that women can sue for birth-control coverage, and men can sue for Viagra coverage. Is that really what you want?
Oh, well I assumed she was more mad at the way he said it. If he were a nice guy, he would have offered to go down on her first, and then get his dick sucked. (although that still seems rather a stupid thing to do with a stranger without any protection)
No, I really don’t want any more suing than we already have in this country. But what I do want is better health care, for everyone. Of course, then that invites another huge debate about why we should or shouldn’t have socialized health care, blah blah blah.
I think what I will do is go catch up on the RSSchen/MizGrand trainwreck I’ve been missing.
And the book will retail at the university book store for 90-100$, where it will be a required text for every student in the 0100 level history class. That’ll be around 400 students at one university alone. Let’s take your number of 40$ per copy production cost and say that it applied to my Statistics & Probability for Engineers textbook. The edition that I had to buy was used for exactly one semester. I had to buy the book new, because it was not used in a previous semester. The price at the cheapest book store on campus was 115. A tidy 75 profit on one copy of the book, applied across all engineering students, as stats & prob was a required class for every engineering major, and since we had homework after every class we needed the book. That edition, or else we’d do the wrong homework problems (they’d been renumbered) and fail. For every 1000 engineering students that’s 75,000$ in profits at one university in one semester.
Three months later, I wanted to sell that book hoping to get maybe half of what I paid for it new. I was informed repeatedly that the book was completely useless as the university was using the new edition for the following semester.
I read it more as a case of being angry that she thought he was going to put out and then he changed the deal.
You say that, but weren’t you one of the people poo-pooing Viagra and saying “Men don’t need to get a hard on” and such?
Some insurance companies don’t cover Viagra, and if we’re using the definition of “gender discrimination” that the OP was asserting, then that’s gender discrimination against against men. Title VII works both ways, you know.
Why do we only hear outcry from women when it’s something that happens to work against them? How does the fact that some insurance companies don’t cover Viagra fit your idea that “They don’t know what it’s like to have a vagina?” Personally, I think all this wailing about “discrimination” is self-serving bullshit.
lowbrass, perhaps I never stated it in such a way, but my problem was with companies that covered Viagra but not the pill. I don’t have a problem with Viagra being covered at all, I’d imagine ED would really suck, especially if you’re relatively young and active.
The entire Viagra thing was part of the medical necessity argument. If you’re going to say that the pill isn’t covered because it’s not a medical necessity, then what about the companies that don’t cover it but do cover Viagra? Viagra is likewise not a medical necessity. I know not all companies are like that, some cover neither, some cover both, some might even cover the pill but not Viagra.
The entire reason I first posted in this thread was to bitch about that fact- the companies that cover Viagra but not the pill. I didn’t have any numbers, but recalled seeing that on the History Channel’s Modern Marvels (Sex Tech), you know the little factoids they give you before cutting to commercial. ISTM that those companies were more concerned with men’s sexual pleasure than women’s control over their reproductive system. It also seemed counterintuitive- you’re going to make it easier for men to have sex, but not pay for women’s birth control?
Then I got sucked into a thousand different side arguments about profitability and what actually constitutes gender discrimination. I don’t think it’s even possible to argue those points without analyzing each insurance plan individually, and frankly, I’ve got a sinkful of dishes and a dirty litter box to take care of.
And, for what I hope is the last time, (it’s my fault I brought it up), my problem with that jerk had nothing to do with the fact that he wasn’t going to “put out” and although the way he put that did piss me off, I was using it as an example of 2 attitudes:
Oh, you don’t have condoms? Well, then, fuck you (or not as the case may be ;)) that’s not my responsibility.
and
Why don’t you just suck my dick then? IOW, I’m more concerned about ME than YOU, and I won’t even bother entertaining ideas like taking your feelings into account.
I tried to use it as an example of both 1) men who think birth control is completely the woman’s responsibility and 2) insurance company decision makers that don’t think that maybe, by not covering contraception, they’re giving women a raw deal.
That’s it. It obviously did not come across as intended.
And lowbrass, I’m not going to get involved in that trainwreck, but it might be entertaining on a “slow news day” if you will.
Yes, but you don’t seem at all concerned about companies that cover The Pill and not Viagra, which seems self-serving to me. I don’t feel that you’re really as egalitarian as you pretend.
As for the other thread, you’re smarter than me. I did get involved. :smack:
Well I won’t pretend I’ve been outraged from the beginning that some companies don’t cover Viagra. I’ve never really thought about Viagra before, not being a man and never having a partner who suffered from ED. So you could throw all my accusations about not caring what it’s like to have a vagina because you don’t have a vagina back at me.
I don’t pretend to be egalitarian. Sometimes a heated debate can make you reevaluate your opinions, or take a look at things you’ve never considered before. Or it can make you spout off nonsense because you’ve got a bad temper and nothing to do. What this thread has really done, though, is make me hate insurance companies even more.
There are prescription drugs the “insurance empire” I work for does not cover. Sometimes, there are good reasons for this. For example, a druge may be new and experimental. It may be very expensive. There may be chemically identical alternatives that are much, much cheaper. Let me give a couple examples:
Once upon a time there was a drug called Claritin (loratidine) which was a very profitable, non-sedating antihistamine. Eventually, the patent ran out, which meant other companies would be able to sell the generic loratidine for much less than brand-name Claritin. So the company came out with another drug, called Clarinex, a.k.a. desloratidine, which is what your liver turns normal loratidine into once you ingest it. In other words, not much different in structure or effect. And the company started lobbying hard that it was so much better to justify keeping people on a prescription that they could profit a lot from. The insurance companies pushed back, saying that there was no proof desloratidine was better in any way loratidine and why should the insurance companies and their customers pay more than they have to?
Once upon a time there was a drug called Xolair, which was developed to reduce the sensitivity of the highly allergic. It’s a wonderful drug, and it can moderate a life-threatening allergic reaction into a simply really uncomfortable but NOT life-threatening reaction. Problem is, it’s about $1,000 a month. Insurance companies that cover it will only cover it when there are absolutely no alternatives that cost less. In other words, they’ll cover it if it’s an allergy where you can’t stay away from what causes the problem, or if a person is winding up in the hospital a lot, and they can’t undergo desentization, but not for ordinary allergies, or allergies that can be treated by other means.
So sometimes a company won’t cover something not to be mean or even penny-pinching but because it’s not proven to work, or there are alternatives that cost less. “Newest” isn’t always best.
And let me point out that there is a WIDE variation in health insurance companies. The one I work for typically gets an average 5% profit on a policy. That’s hardly outragous price gouging. Other companies are fly-by-night thieves. And out of that 5% profit a certain amount is spent on supporting and promoting charities that care for those without health insurance, and lobbying to get the uninsured covered - if not by us then by SOMEONE.
Well, I could tell a few horror stories of my own, but I don’t see the purpose of it. Yeah, the current system IS shitty and has major, major holes. I may have good insurance now, but I’ve been without insurance and needing medical care, including running up bills because I landed in the ER. Anyone who says the uninsured aren’t treated differently is full of shit.
I solved my problems in getting HI by working for a HI company - but we can’t all work for one. The current system needs fixing.
For me the salient point here is that women have to pay more for health care than men do, and that’s fucked up.
That includes birth control, which I believe should be covered. To say it’s not related to pregnancy because it prevents pregnancy is akin to saying your allergy medication is unrelated to your allergies because it prevents an allergic reaction. It is ridiculous. I think most people would not argue with that.
I believe that part of the problem is that the healthcare system was built around a model that has most everybody married with children at the age of 20, and that the woman stays home taking care of the kids. So they have been “patching” the problem, if you will, to adjust to the fact that times have changed AND medicine has changed, too. I do believe part of the problem is that women are underrepresented in the healthcare system altogether. This is why it takes legislation to cover women’s annual exams and pap smears. I also believe part of the problem is that more and more people in this country are focusing on prevention and treatment, rather than just treatment for a condition. Unfortunately, this doesn’t make the insurance companies any more money.
Why doesn’t an insurance company consider the cost of prenatal healthcare as being split between both sexes? There is EQUAL responsibility for both persons when a pregnancy occurs. So why not split the extra costs of pregnancy prevention and treatment among the sexes? To claim that men are not getting benefits from these treatments is simply not true. If 1/3 of the workforce is using prescription birth control, it’s a fair extrapolation to say that another 1/3 of the workforce is benefiting from it as well. It’s not fair to deflect the cost onto the woman just because she’s the one who has to take the drugs.
As far as the Viagra thing goes, if a normal adult male NEEDED it medically, OF COURSE it is fair to cover that too. But let’s face it here. Many if not most of the men who use Viagra are men who are beyond the normal years of sexual function. It is natural for a man’s sexual drive and ability to slow down. So if you want to justify covering all men for Viagra because some men NEED it, even though the rest are just want to have sex, then you should cover the birth control pills that some women NEED, even if the rest of them just want to have sex. I hope I made that point clear. Guess I’ll find out soon enough.
No they don’t. The OP’s article says women go to the doctor more. They pay the same amount as men, they just use it more times than men do.
Let’s say you and I go to the corner store. I buy one candy bar for 50 cents, and you buy 2 candy bars for a dollar. Would you say you “pay more for candy bars”? No, because that would be a fucking ridiculous assertion.
And like we said, men use birth control too.
Which is why nobody ever said that. Can you understand that the LAWYER FOR PLANNED PARENTHOOD incorrectly characterized the insurance companies’ argument as being that? The insurance company never made that argument.
cite?
But you only want to have one gender subsidize the other when it works to your advantage. I notice further down the page you don’t endorse having women subsidize Viagra for men.
Silly argument. It’s natural for women to have babies. So where does that argument get us?
Besides which, it’s NOT natural for a man not to be able to get an erection. Where on earth did you get that idea? You might as well say Alzheimer’s is natural, or cancer is natural. Ridiculous.
Imagining how Margaret Atwood might have written this into The Handmaid’s Tale. The Commander insists that Viagra is necessary for the well-being of the citizens. But birth control is contrary to the interests of Gilead and would only be advocated by “unwomen.” He says this with a tight smile.
lowbrass, I can not argue with the fact that women go to the doctor more often. But I don’t think that necessarily means anything other than women need to go to the doctor more because they are women. Do you think women go to the doctor for fun? Maybe it’s because women take their children to the doctor while the father is at work. Women tend to spend more time with their kids and get exposed to more germs. (Should women be punished for taking the “risk” of interacting with their children?) Maybe it’s because they are pregnant and need regular checkups. Why should women be penalized for that?
Man don’t have prescription birth control. I don’t see why you think there is no difference.
The insurance company didn’t say birth control was unrelated to pregnancy. The fucking court did.
So because I never mentioned that men should be subsidized for Viagra, that means that I’m a man-hating bitch? I am for a fair system. See my previous post regarding Viagra.
The difference is that men don’t have significant costs associated with their natural functions. Women inherently do.
It’s not natural for a 70 year old man to want to have sex every day. Notice the differentiation between younger men who need it, and older men who still want to get some pussy. Women also experience a decline in sexual function as they get older. I’m not making this up.
Please stop reading between the lines and making inferences about what I’m saying without any support. I’m saying women unfairly bear the health costs for reproductive adults, and I believe birth control should be covered by health insurance. I still think this is true.
God, I get tired of the pit drama. “So what you’re saying is that all men cannot possibly have any health care, ever, no exceptions!?!?!?” Please.
Right there, you just answered why women pay more for heath insurance. They use it more. I mean WTF? You know the answer, but you keep arguing. :dubious:
You are buying two or three times as many candy bars as I do, and then trying to complain that the store charges me less per candy bar. No they don’t give me a discount, I just don’t eat as many as you do.
I don’t go to the doctor as often, so guess what, I pay less for my insurance.
YOU complained that women pay more for health insurance.
I pointed out that’s only because women USE it more.
What is it you want? Do you want men to pay a higher rate per visit because women make more visits? Do you believe that would be fair?
Did I say that?
Maybe this, maybe that. How about some facts?
Women aren’t penalized. In fact, YOU want men to be penalized.
Bullshit. Please provide a quote from the court decision saying “Birth control is unrelated to pregnancy.” You can’t, because no such quote exists.
Did I say that?
What on earth are you talking about?
As an argument AGAINST covering Viagra, YOU said it’s “natural” for men to slow down sexually as they age. Yet you say birth control should be covered.
So I pointed out that it’s “natural” for women to give birth, as a way of showing that the argument “it’s natural, therefore it should not be covered”, is invalid.
Your response to that is a complete non-sequitur.
There is no set number of times per week that a man of a given age is “supposed” to have sex.
So you’re arguing that no man should get Viagra because “older men want to get some pussy”? You’re seriously going to go with that argument?
But you argued that men don’t NEED Viagra. You said:
“Many if not most of the men who use Viagra are men who are beyond the normal years of sexual function. It is natural for a man’s sexual drive and ability to slow down.”
Your argument seems to be:
Older men don’t need Viagra because it’s “natural” for them to be impotent.
or a more generalized statement:
Insurance shouldn’t cover cures for things that are “natural”.
Cancer and Alzheimers are “natural”.
Therefore, treatments for Cancer and Alzheimer’s should not be covered by insurance.
(although that still seems rather a stupid thing to do with a stranger without any protection)
What this thread has really done, though, is make me hate insurance companies even more.