Is it a right or a privlege??

[Chesna]

In our local paper they are running a series of articles discussing infertility and whether or not insurance companies should cover the costs. They went on to say that one of the reasons why it is a tricky thing is some feel it gets into the fray of whether infertility is a disease and then if it is a disease, then is that making being a parent a "right" vs a privlege.
So me and my hubby talked about it and wondered is being a parent a "right". I admitted to him that my view may be jaded due to my line of work. But even putting that aside..I am not sure that becoming a parent is or should ever be considered a "right". I look at children as a gift from something more powerful and divine than myself and who am I to demand anything from it?? We rarely take care of the kids we have ( talking collectively as a planet) and to make them a "right" just seems to cheapen it. So I voted that becoming a parent a privlege.

Anyone have thoughts on it??

here is a link to todays part and the other parts in the series:
http://www.startribune.com/infertility/

Chesna

[Klucky]

Having children is definitely a gift. If it were considered a privilege, think of all of the dopes that would squeeze out wee ones. (Oh...wait a minute...)

But as far as insurance paying for infertility treatments, I think they need to first start paying for everything else. They sneak out of just about everything (eg. Medicare won't pay for cough, cold, or anxiety medications), and infertility treatments would be a massive jump.

On a personal note, I think insurances would need to first be better with covering birth control products rather than infertility treatments on the basis of overpopulation. But that's just me.

-Klucky

[Ceres]

I have seen this argument play out several times now. I think that the monetary issue is deliberately clouded by the right versus privledge argument because insurance companies know its a hot button topic that will get the majority (parents) riled in the favour against the minority (infertile couples). They also know that the majority will turn against their not paying if the issue becomes one of how much is it worth to you to have children. They know parents know you cant put a price on it.

Make no mistake, insurance companies are not concerned with the morality of the question, they simply dont want to pay for the treatments.

[Morr]

I think its both a right, a privliage and a choice.


If someone wants kids, and they cannot have it the natural way, they should be granted some sort of insurance plan that covers some or all infertility expanses. If the medical community has the answers for this medical issue, it should be covered by medical insurance just as any other medical issue is covered (in one way or another).

Its another medical problem just like any other medical problem.

[Lyrien]

I do not think that the art of having children could be pigeonholed into a right or privilege. It is definitely a privilege to have children, but as humans it is also a right. A right is a legal term, meaning legally entitled to have children. Do we really want the government in on that as well?

As for insurance paying for infertility treatments, no. The insurance industry is incredibly flawed as it is. I worked for UHC paying and denying claims for years. I personally have cried as I've had to deny claims for necessary things that would help people tremendously just because their policy didn't cover said expense. I would like to see these people receive necessary meds, DME, home care, and specific testing before I see a couple get infertility treatments. I feel for those that can not have children, but I feel more for those that have children with needs the insurance company refuses to pay for.

[Chesna]

I do not think that the art of having children could be pigeonholed into a right or privilege. It is definitely a privilege to have children, but as humans it is also a right. A right is a legal term, meaning legally entitled to have children. Do we really want the government in on that as well?

I agree that to pigeonhole it has it's issues.....but I wonder why you feel that it is a human right to have children??? Like I said in my post, I may be incredibly jaded on this, but when I see ( in my line of work) how some kids are treated and abused, neglected..I am pissed. But once aperson has a child there are rights..but I am talking about before that child is born and in this case conceived..is it really a right?? Why should it be considered a right?? Just because we have the "equipement"?? I just don't think that can be the measuring stick. But I am really interested to her why you feel this way..maybe I can see it a different way.

I do agree with Klucky...before insurance companies pay for this..lets get other needed and neccessary medical problems treated.

Ohh I have no doubts the insurance companies don't want to pay for it as it is a very expensive thing, Ceres and I am sure they may be manipulating the arguement..but I was looking for others ideas on if it is a right or privlege..sadly like most things in life...someone always tries to put a price on things.

Chesna

[Shanti]

Its neither a right or privilege.
Its just biology. Our species usually has the capability to reproduce.

As for insurance. Hell the industry's a mess period.
It needs a complete over haul as is.

[Nature's Kiss]

I don't believe it's a right. The majority of humans reproduce so carelessly with such ignorance of how to properly raise a child. The responsibility of bringing another life into this world is no longer looked at by the majority of our species.

As for insurance on infertility. Well, as you said, it's being debated if it's a disease or not. My personal belief is that birth control is the leading cause of infertility. I think that people should be able to (morally) utilize any means to become pregnant and carry a child of their flesh and blood.

On the other hand, I don't like fertility treatments (IVF) on a whole because I think it goes against the grain of nature. Some people aren't meant to have children (for whatever reason) and it is natures way of not allowing some to do so, or it's our way of population control.

[Klucky]

If the medical community has the answers for this medical issue, it should be covered by medical insurance just as any other medical issue is covered (in one way or another).

Its another medical problem just like any other medical problem.

(I'm not aiming for any sort of major debate at all here. ;) ) Although I agree it's a medical problem, plenty of other medical problems (with answers) aren't covered by insurance. The Medicare example I gave is one, but to broaden it, most vaccines aren't covered by any company at all (per American insurance companies). This includes Gardisil, the new vaccine meant to lessen the chance of women developing certain types of cervical cancer. I mean, come on. We finally have a vaccine for CANCER, albeit a small percentage, but no company covers for it? Ack!

-Klucky

[Autumn]

I don't object to insurance paying for the diagnosis of the infertility issue, as in why there isn't conception/retention, I object to them paying for fertility treatments. If they were to cover infertility they should also alternatively cover the costs associated with adoption. I know hell will freeze over before that happens but it certainly puts covering infertility treatments in perspective.

I also happen to think there should be strong pressure to adopt if at all possible. Why are we going to such effort, risk and expense bringing new children into the world when there are plenty here already who lack parents?

[Klucky]

I don't object to insurance paying for the diagnosis of the infertility issue, as in why there isn't conception/retention, I object to them paying for fertility treatments. If they were to cover infertility they should also alternatively cover the costs associated with adoption. I know hell will freeze over before that happens but it certainly puts covering infertility treatments in perspective.

I also happen to think there should be strong pressure to adopt if at all possible. Why are we going to such effort, risk and expense bringing new children into the world when there are plenty here already who lack parents?

I had debated treading on this since I've been shot down in other threads, but thank you for bringing it up. _pounce_

-Klucky

[wolfjan1]

Having children is definitely a gift. If it were considered a privilege, think of all of the dopes that would squeeze out wee ones. (Oh...wait a minute...)

But as far as insurance paying for infertility treatments, I think they need to first start paying for everything else. They sneak out of just about everything (eg. Medicare won't pay for cough, cold, or anxiety medications), and infertility treatments would be a massive jump.

On a personal note, I think insurances would need to first be better with covering birth control products rather than infertility treatments on the basis of overpopulation. But that's just me.

-Klucky
Yes, You are right. I just think that there are som many kids sitting in foster care and group homes looking for some one to care for them, take responsibility and just love them, unconditionally.
These kids may be a bit difficult at first, because they had no one to give them love and teach them boundaries. Plus they are testing you. But miracles DO happen and adopting a foster child is worth it.
Let's take care of our strays before we start spending money on making more.

[WillowsMuse]

I do not see whether or not parenting is a privilege or right and insurance covering infertility treatments or not as exclusive. That said, it is my privilege to parent my children.

It is a medical deficit when a couple is unable to conceive and insurance that covers infertility diagnosis and treatment should be available.

[Sun Sprite]

I too have very strong feelings on this.

My response may be a bit of a rant.

Let's just say the evil bio mother I had, convinced a doctor who never saw me prior to the operation, that I was mentally retared and did not need my female organs. They were removed. Funny, a few years later I was in National Junior Honor Society.

Is my infertility a medical issue? Caused by the medical establishement - yes.

Could it be cured? - Uterus transplants are still laughed at, and no one knows for sure if you could carry a child after such a transplant.

Do I think insurance should cover fertility treatments in general? - If they are part of an underlying medical porblem, such as high blood pressure - then yes, I can see why they should pay to help the potential mother or father lower their blood presure.

Do I think they should spend hundreds of thousands on one couple? No.

Do I think the medical community, ie, the illegal doctor who performed the illegal surgery on me, should be held responsible? Yes, however, with no documentation, there is nothing I can do.

As for adopting, that costs more than most houses, and I have been trying to get there for 16 years. I have a degree in Social Work, Child Development, and a background in psychology, and am still considere to have suffered too much to be allowed to adopt a child, especally since I don't have a few hundred thousand dollars to give the government for a child.

In fact, I don't Want a baby, I want a child, perferably between age five and seven, already walking, talking, and potty trained.

Back to the original question, in some cases, if the answer is simple, perhaps so, in most cases, the doctors should attempt to help those who want children to adopt. We need to get these adoption agencies, including the states! off their you know whats and attempt to adopt out children to the millions of waiting homes, with often dozens of couples begging for the same child, yes even the teens, who never know that a dozen families are begging for them to join them in a new, larger family!

[Brightshores]

Its neither a right or privilege.
Its just biology. Our species usually has the capability to reproduce.

As for insurance. Hell the industry's a mess period.
It needs a complete over haul as is.

QFT! I agree completely.

[Lyrien]

I agree that to pigeonhole it has it's issues.....but I wonder why you feel that it is a human right to have children??? Like I said in my post, I may be incredibly jaded on this, but when I see ( in my line of work) how some kids are treated and abused, neglected..I am pissed. But once aperson has a child there are rights..but I am talking about before that child is born and in this case conceived..is it really a right?? Why should it be considered a right?? Just because we have the "equipement"?? I just don't think that can be the measuring stick. But I am really interested to her why you feel this way..maybe I can see it a different way.



Chesna

As humans we are biologically capable of breathing, eating, farting, and having babies. To deny someone the right to have a child would open a door to deny a person the right to breathe...or fart. To selectively remove the right to have children based on horrific things that could happen is akin to selectively removing air because that individual just might do something horrible.

I view procreating as a basic human right, but completely agree that some people abuse this right.

[Nature's Kiss]

I too have very strong feelings on this.

My response may be a bit of a rant.

Let's just say the evil bio mother I had, convinced a doctor who never saw me prior to the operation, that I was mentally retared and did not need my female organs. They were removed. Funny, a few years later I was in National Junior Honor Society.

Is my infertility a medical issue? Caused by the medical establishement - yes.

Could it be cured? - Uterus transplants are still laughed at, and no one knows for sure if you could carry a child after such a transplant.

Do I think insurance should cover fertility treatments in general? - If they are part of an underlying medical porblem, such as high blood pressure - then yes, I can see why they should pay to help the potential mother or father lower their blood presure.

Do I think they should spend hundreds of thousands on one couple? No.

Do I think the medical community, ie, the illegal doctor who performed the illegal surgery on me, should be held responsible? Yes, however, with no documentation, there is nothing I can do.

As for adopting, that costs more than most houses, and I have been trying to get there for 16 years. I have a degree in Social Work, Child Development, and a background in psychology, and am still considere to have suffered too much to be allowed to adopt a child, especally since I don't have a few hundred thousand dollars to give the government for a child.

In fact, I don't Want a baby, I want a child, perferably between age five and seven, already walking, talking, and potty trained.

Back to the original question, in some cases, if the answer is simple, perhaps so, in most cases, the doctors should attempt to help those who want children to adopt. We need to get these adoption agencies, including the states! off their you know whats and attempt to adopt out children to the millions of waiting homes, with often dozens of couples begging for the same child, yes even the teens, who never know that a dozen families are begging for them to join them in a new, larger family!
_pounce_

[Nature's Kiss]

As humans we are biologically capable of breathing, eating, farting, and having babies. To deny someone the right to have a child would open a door to deny a person the right to breathe...or fart. To selectively remove the right to have children based on horrific things that could happen is akin to selectively removing air because that individual just might do something horrible.

I view procreating as a basic human right, but completely agree that some people abuse this right.

I do not agree with telling someone that they cannot have children. The responsibility to realize this lies within the individual themself. Unfortunately, ppl who don't deserve children aren't going to be intelligent enough to realize this.

[Philosophia]

I think it depends on how a right or privilege is defined. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege):

A privilege—etymologically "private law" or law relating to a specific individual—is a special entitlement or immunity granted by a government or other authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. A privilege can be revoked in some cases. In modern democracies, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from birth.

From this definition, it would have to be a right since no government can stop a group, culture, or social level from having children. However, if it is an insurance company then they don't have to pay for fertility treatment if it is not in their best interest.

Infertility is a complex issue and can involve a range of medical, emotional, and physical trauma. It cannot be a simple tick of the box because it can involve thousands of dollars and a couple of complex treatments that can last for a month or more. If they do fund it, I wonder how much the cost of insurance will rise (if at all) and how much the consumer will have to pay.

Like Autumn stated in an earlier post, if the insurance companies fund infertility treatments then they should also cover adoption costs as well.

[Ceres]

FYI, the provincial health care that we in ontario have that is covered by taxes and costs nothing extra out of pocket covers in vitro, up to three tries. I am not sure about other fertility treatments, but certainly diagnosis is covered. I dont hear of it being an issue much for anyone and I know a lot of mums and babies :)

[Sequoia]

I suppose I could understand fertility treatments being covered - a certain number of times. Some people are desperate, and will try indefinitely even when they have little to no chance of conceiving.

I still have other things I would like to see covered FIRST, though. Real illnesses, for example. Infertility may be emotionally upsetting, but it isn't going to kill you or damage your quality of life.

And frankly, on a merely personal note, I think that more couples should ADOPT and less should spend thousands on risky 'treatments' (that too often end up as miscarriages and dead premies anyway).

And yes, the cost of adoption should be drastically lowered.

[Chesna]

As humans we are biologically capable of breathing, eating, farting, and having babies. To deny someone the right to have a child would open a door to deny a person the right to breathe...or fart. To selectively remove the right to have children based on horrific things that could happen is akin to selectively removing air because that individual just might do something horrible.

I view procreating as a basic human right, but completely agree that some people abuse this right.

Thanks for clarifying. I will agree that we are biologically capable to reporduce...but what does it mean when nature decides that we should not reproduce? I know that I do not have the right to say you can't have kids, that was not my point. If a woman or a man are incapable to reproduce...then that is where I am wondering if it is a right or a privlege. Should that then mean that insurance should cover infertility treatment because they have a right to try and be parents? Like I think one person stated, maybe infertility is natures way of regulating itself..a type of population control.

Chesna

[Lyrien]

Like Autumn stated in an earlier post, if the insurance companies fund infertility treatments then they should also cover adoption costs as well.

Some insurance companies will pay for infertility, albeit only at 50%. However, I do know that some of UHC's policies do pay some adoption expenses. They are few and far between, but there are some that do exist and are used.

My personal feelings are that insurance should cover neither expense. I also feel that adoption should be more easily accessible financially and with fewer contingencies. It saddens me that there are so many children in a system that only wants to place them with a certain type of family. These are the children that NEED a home. I have a family member that has a combined family income of over 200k, a huge home, loads of education, and is a very loving and caring individual who wants to adopt special needs kids. He's gay...no go. Private adoption agencies are even worse, especially internationally. Have you ever seen the requirements that China has set forth in order to adopt from their country? They want young, straight, rich, skinny people to adopt their children. Link (http://www.gwca.org/why_china/requirements/married)

UH OH...rant...sorry.

[Philosophia]

Some insurance companies will pay for infertility, albeit only at 50%. However, I do know that some of UHC's policies do pay some adoption expenses. They are few and far between, but there are some that do exist and are used.

How many times will they pay for fertility treatments or is it the total cost of all the treatments? I'm generally curious about the adoption expenses.

[Lyrien]

If a woman or a man are incapable to reproduce...then that is where I am wondering if it is a right or a privlege. Should that then mean that insurance should cover infertility treatment because they have a right to try and be parents?

Chesna


Any living organism has the right to reproduce. If it can't happen, it can't happen. Such is life for that organism. Humans are the only ones who seek ways around nature and try to trick nature in to doing things that it has already decided you can't do. Just because it is a basic human right to procreate, doesn't mean that any government agency or private agency should be required/obligated to help you along or inhibit your right as an organism to reproduce on its own.

Sometimes nature sucks, it sucks when momma lion watches her cub get eaten, or when momma bird's egg doesn't hatch, or after years of trying a woman can not get pregnant...but that is the nature of nature. Fortunately nature built in coping mechanisms. You've seen the picture of the lion that raised the little piglets. Or the family down the road that adopted a child. Nature allows us to raise other people's children. MANKIND has put a price tag and requirements on this. MANKIND has figured out how to trick nature and charges for this service. THIS is not a right, this is a privilege only when you have the money to pay. Right or wrong, that is how we as organisms have evolved into what we call a civilized capitalistic society. Doesn't that open up a whole new debate? LOL

[Lyrien]

How many times will they pay for fertility treatments or is it the total cost of all the treatments? I'm generally curious about the adoption expenses.

That is completely individual to each policy and sometimes individual to the employer offering the policy.

I've seen infertility stated as number of attempts and just as an overall % regardless. I have no idea what adoption expenses are covered, there was an entire special covert operation located in some dark room underground that handled those. /wink

[Philosophia]

That is completely individual to each policy and sometimes individual to the employer offering the policy.

I've seen infertility stated as number of attempts and just as an overall % regardless. I have no idea what adoption expenses are covered, there was an entire special covert operation located in some dark room underground that handled those. /wink

Thanks for the information. :hugz: I hope you won't get in trouble about the special convert operation. I've heard that those things can get pretty dangerous. :gagged:

[WillowsMuse]

Thanks for clarifying. I will agree that we are biologically capable to reporduce...but what does it mean when nature decides that we should not reproduce? I know that I do not have the right to say you can't have kids, that was not my point. If a woman or a man are incapable to reproduce...then that is where I am wondering if it is a right or a privlege. Should that then mean that insurance should cover infertility treatment because they have a right to try and be parents? Like I think one person stated, maybe infertility is natures way of regulating itself..a type of population control. Chesna

I can say with no uncertainty that anyone desiring to have children who is experiencing infertility would say that it is his/her right to insurance that covers infertility treatment.

Even if we exclude the children born to parents who have undergone assisted reproduction, it is quite obvious that infertility is not the key to human population control.

Additionally, infertility has many causes, one of which is DES (Diethylstilbestrol). Daughters of mothers who were prescribed DES during pregnancy are often infertile. DES is surely not natural. Prostate cancer causes infertility in men as the passage for the semen/sperm is virtually removed during treatment. I suppose some misguided beings may consider cancer natural. I surely don't.

Walk a mile...

[WillowsMuse]

How many times will they pay for fertility treatments or is it the total cost of all the treatments? I'm generally curious about the adoption expenses.
*barge* =) Like Belleshazar said, it varies per policy. But these are the things I do know: Few states here mandate infertility coverage and even then there are loopholes (small employers do not have to provide coverage, nor do Christian organizations, etc...).

There are many degrees of infertility treatment from a simple stimulated cycle using Clomid to IVF (in vitro fertilization) using needle-aspirated sperm and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. In the state of Illinois, US insurance will cover up to four egg retrievals (for IVF) including any you may have self-payed prior to coverage. If a child is born, two more egg retrievals are allowed. The total monetary amount varies as methods other than IVF may be used. For example, some insurance companies put a cap on how many IUIs (intrauterine insemination) a patient may undergo. Others simply have a maximum pay-out amount.

Individual companies do have control over what type of insurance and other benefits they offer. When my husband worked for Eddie Bauer they had an adoption reimbursement program. Wendy's fast food restaurant also does (or did when Dave was alive). Although there should most definitely be programs for adoption. It is important to note that adoption is social. Fertility treatment is medical. And we are, after all, discussing medical insurance. So, while an insurance company may not pay for adoption, it may cover medical costs for donor cycles showing that [some] insurance companies do understand that there are alternative roads to parenthood.

[WillowsMuse]

Just to comment on adoption... We started the process more than once. The proverbial hoops were exhausting. The cost was rediculous. The timeline enough to squelch hope in the most optimistic.

Now that is a system that needs an overhaul!

[LadyKaty]

I'm going to piss somebody off with my opinion, I'm sure.

No, people don't have the right to exhaust every technological avenue to bear biological children. The option of having a child is not an inviolable right. Especially not if it's on someone else's dime.

If we cannot have another child on our own? That's it. We aren't going to try various medical routes to have another child. We may branch out into private adoption, but we won't be doing IVF, or surrogacy, thanks.

And why adoption, as opposed to medical intervention? Because there are already kids who need a home, and a loving family.

[Ceres]

It would be interesting to do a poll and see how many people on this thread have actually been through infertility.

[Autumn]

It's not so much that I think infertility treatment is bad, it's that in some areas health insurance is more expensive than rent! NYS mandates that insurers cover addiction treatment and psychiatric care but, despite this mandate it is difficult to get either until you reach a crisis point. Our health care system is badly hobbled and some people can't get the care they need. I don't think it's fair to the rest of us to pay for 10,000 a pop IVF! especially when I have to remind my pediatrician to code the anual physical a certain way or it won't get paid!

In some states insurance companies don't want to pay for birth control. (NYS mandates that too except for certain circumstances) From an underwriters standpoint that's insane! I wonder if those companies are willing to pay for IT?

Yes the whole system, health insurance and adoption both need fixing desperately! If we fix them maybe ordinary people would be able to pay for IT. We should be happy that most of the time our insurance covers the result of successful IT!

[Ceres]

Its off topic, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with health care being run as a business for profit. I think a good thread would be to discuss whether health care should be a right or a privledge.

[WillowsMuse]

Its off topic, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with health care being run as a business for profit. I think a good thread would be to discuss whether health care should be a right or a privledge.

Yes!

[Lyrien]

It would be interesting to do a poll and see how many people on this thread have actually been through infertility.

Not I, but I take a non-emotional approach to this thread. If I had been through such issues, I don't think I could speak on the subject without that bias.

It's not so much that I think infertility treatment is bad, it's that in some areas health insurance is more expensive than rent!

We are a family of four with no major health issues. We pay 760. USD monthly for a mediocre health insurance plan.

Its off topic, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with health care being run as a business for profit. I think a good thread would be to discuss whether health care should be a right or a privledge.

I am very much for a thread like this.

[LadyWinter]

I think if I pay my monthly insurance premiums for the 80 years I will need insurance, and I am having trouble conceiving I should be able to be covered for the infer. treatments...that is what my money pays for.

If I dont want to adopt someone elses kid I dont have to......and I am not sure I would want to.

Winter

[Ceres]

Not I, but I take a non-emotional approach to this thread. If I had been through such issues, I don't think I could speak on the subject without that bias.

I think not having experienced the condition, you cant fully appreciate the situation and therefore are biased against spending money on a condition you dont understand. Being unemotional doesnt make for a better assesment when we are discussing the lives of humans since humans are emotional. Perhaps Vulcans experiencing infertility might benefit from that approach :lol:


I am very much for a thread like this.


I see you have already visited, Belleshazar, but for those who havent yet seen it, I created a poll about whether health care should be a right or privilege over in the Health and Beauty Forum.

[RainInanna]

It would be interesting to do a poll and see how many people on this thread have actually been through infertility.

You might find some of us who have are biting our tongues.

[LadyWinter]

You might find some of us who have are biting our tongues.

cmon now! Thats no fun! and it cant taste good either!!
:fpoke:

W.

[Nature's Kiss]

I may not like fertility treatments such as IVF and the like, but I do not have any ill-feelings towards them or those who use them. I wish we didn't have something like this that goes against the grain of nature (in a big way), but since it's here, I cannot hold others as "bad people" for utilizing everything possible to conceive a child of their own. I cannot imagine going through the turmoil of infertility and I would be the first to try treatments if I was infertile. However, this doesn't make my opinion invalid in that I don't think they should be covered by insurance unless it's due to a medical condition. Insurance needs to be spent on people who are dying from real sicknesses who can't get their companies to cover their conditions because it's not in their plan. It's a joke. We need to take care of those already living instead of focusing on bringing more into the world. It's a harsh reality, but it's true.

[RainInanna]

Its off topic, but I think there is something fundamentally wrong with health care being run as a business for profit. I think a good thread would be to discuss whether health care should be a right or a privledge.

One thing to keep in mind too is some of us are Canadian and some not. I'm not concerned about dropping dead from not having insurance, for example, because of our health system.

[WillowsMuse]

We, the insured, pay for insurance and insurance that is state granted is not going to cover infertility. It seems as though some keep pointing out the expense of infertility treatment as if it is someone other than the insured and his/her inurance company is paying for it. As a general rule having insurance that covers infertility is an option, even within any given company, not a requirement. And merely mandating or not mandating, or offering or not offering infertility coverage is not going to create a marked difference in the overall cost of insurance. Insurance is expensive (see Belleshazar's monthly cost. I know she is not alone). Thankfully we make very few visits to the doctor (knock on wood)...but this leaves me wondering, where does my money go?

As an aside, we are very fortunate to have good insurance, but it is, nonetheless, expensive in my eyes.

ETA, Although I speak as someone living in the US, I do realize that we MWers are from many different places.

[Ceres]

You might find some of us who have are biting our tongues.


Thats why I spoke up. Its easy to say what should be when you havent experienced the consequences first hand. That said, I agree that part of the indifference towards infertility as a medical issue may indeed stem from the differences in how Canada and the USA treat health care.

[Nature's Kiss]

I agree that part of the indifference towards infertility as a medical issue may indeed stem from the differences in how Canada and the USA treat health care.
I agree.

[wolfjan1]

I think the legal red tape has it's uses, to provide the child a good home. But it goes too far. WAY too far. With poeple who have NO idea what they are doing, and a LOT of social workers using government service as a resume stepping stone.
IF you visit, bond with a child, are serious about the interest of a child, you should be able to adopt them. Look at the children who die in foster care from abuse and neglect. It's ridiculous.

[LadyKaty]

It would be interesting to do a poll and see how many people on this thread have actually been through infertility.

Been there, done that, have the testing to prove it.

And I still don't think that having children is a right.

[Lyrien]

I think not having experienced the condition, you cant fully appreciate the situation and therefore are biased against spending money on a condition you dont understand. Being unemotional doesnt make for a better assesment when we are discussing the lives of humans since humans are emotional. Perhaps Vulcans experiencing infertility might benefit from that approach :lol:



I think having experienced the situation would make one more biased. I don't feel it should be covered by insurance, see my reasoning below.

We, the insured, pay for insurance and insurance that is state granted is not going to cover infertility. It seems as though some keep pointing out the expense of infertility treatment as if it is someone other than the insured and his/her inurance company is paying for it. As a general rule having insurance that covers infertility is an option, even within any given company, not a requirement. And merely mandating or not mandating, or offering or not offering infertility coverage is not going to create a marked difference in the overall cost of insurance. Insurance is expensive (see Belleshazar's monthly cost. I know she is not alone). Thankfully we make very few visits to the doctor (knock on wood)...but this leaves me wondering, where does my money go?



We, the insured, pay for insurance as a pool. A group of individuals get together to purchase insurance and the total of the premiums are spread equally against all that are insured. When you want treatments such as these covered, you are essentially asking for everyone in your policy pool (employer) to pay for this premium with you. WillowsMuse, I do beg to differ, these types of riders or inclusions DO raise everyone's premiums substantially, especially in smaller companies. The reason my insurance premiums are so high is because my husband's company employs about 100 people, maybe half of which are insured. There have been several family members of employees in the past few years that have had life threatening illnesses and accidents. (cancer as one example) Because of this, everyone's premiums almost doubled two years ago. BECAUSE we are spreading the burden. I was irritated, yes, but understand that these particular situations happen and can not be controlled. Had my insurance gone up that much because a couple of people wanted IF treatments, I'd have been pissed.


I don't want you thinking that I am making light of the heartache that infertility brings to a family, but please don't make light of the fact that I have high enough insurance premiums and can't afford much more. Infertility treatments, unless medically necessary, are elective. I'm not just biased against this type of elective procedure, I don't want to pay for someone's boob lift either.

[WillowsMuse]

I think having experienced the situation would make one more biased. I don't feel it should be covered by insurance, see my reasoning below.



We, the insured, pay for insurance as a pool. A group of individuals get together to purchase insurance and the total of the premiums are spread equally against all that are insured. When you want treatments such as these covered, you are essentially asking for everyone in your policy pool (employer) to pay for this premium with you. WillowsMuse, I do beg to differ, these types of riders or inclusions DO raise everyone's premiums substantially, especially in smaller companies. The reason my insurance premiums are so high is because my husband's company employs about 100 people, maybe half of which are insured. There have been several family members of employees in the past few years that have had life threatening illnesses and accidents. (cancer as one example) Because of this, everyone's premiums almost doubled two years ago. BECAUSE we are spreading the burden. I was irritated, yes, but understand that these particular situations happen and can not be controlled. Had my insurance gone up that much because a couple of people wanted IF treatments, I'd have been pissed.


I don't want you thinking that I am making light of the heartache that infertility brings to a family, but please don't make light of the fact that I have high enough insurance premiums and can't afford much more. Infertility treatments, unless medically necessary, are elective. I'm not just biased against this type of elective procedure, I don't want to pay for someone's boob lift either.

I can appreciate what you are saying regarding insurance and how it fluxuates based on the monetary amount the insurance company is paying out. As an employee of a company of 100 you are going to feel it more than a company of 1000. I still feel that the cost of infertility coverage is nominal when factored in. I have been insured with various companies over the last twelve years with varied degrees of infertility coverage to no coverage. The price difference between each policy, all things considered, has been minimal.

You are mistaken if you think I am making light of the fact that anyone has high insurance premiums. I do, however, consider comparing a boob lift to treating infertility making light of the effects of infertility.

[Autumn]

Another factor is state laws regarding health insurance. in NYS you are part of a larger regional risk pool, that way a company won't decline to hire a diabetic (for example) out of fear that person will drive up the premiums. It has helped on a micro level but then each December EVERYONES rates get jacked by as much as 20% in a bad year. At the same time we are loosing our specialists and having a hard time attracting new ones because their reimbursements are sub par as compared to other parts of the country.

In Canada I wouldn't object to covering IT, but here in the US? I have issues.

[Lyrien]

I do, however, consider comparing a boob lift to treating infertility making light of the effects of infertility.

I'm not making light of the effects of infertility by comparing it to a boob lift. I'm stating that both are elective procedures that I don't want covered by health insurance. I'd love a tummy tuck, boob lift, and hell...all kinds of other stuff I can't afford on my own. It would be so much easier for us financially if it were covered under our insurance. However, I still think elective procedures shouldn't be covered.

[heikemarie]

There's a difference between wanting a tummy tuck and wanting a child.

And in the US, were our money spent a little more efficiently, and the system "rebooted", I guess you could say, we could do universal health care and in that case I don't think paying for infertility treatments would be a problem. Unfortunately (to me at least), I'm grown up enough to understand that universal health care is a LONG way away in the United States. People still value the ideal of freedom over the ideal of equality.

[Thunder]

There is a certain amount of logic to the stance that having children is not a medical necessity and since people die because medications and procedures that could save them are not covered by insurance ... Those things should be remedied first. Then we can use medical intervention to continue overpopulating the planet.

[Nature's Kiss]

There is a certain amount of logic to the stance that having children is not a medical necessity and since people die because medications and procedures that could save them are not covered by insurance ... Those things should be remedied first.
:heyalove: