Should insurances have to cover IVF or other fertility treatments?
- Fullxbusymom
- Princess Royal
- Posts: 5931
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:29 am
I think that the $20,000 lifetime max should be a required thing.
this is a good point. Often times when doing tests for infertility other medical conditions are discovered and can be diagnosed and treated. Sometimes women find out they are insulin resistant or diabetic or have a blood clotting disorder or have cancer through infertility tests. It can reveal other problems which are causing miscarriages and preventing pregnancy.SolidlyAverage wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:05 amInfertility treatments restore normal function. It is the normal function of a woman’s body to be able to get pregnant and have a baby, do you disagree?Anonymous 3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:37 am And again, those aren’t elective procedures.
And yes, the people who also pay for your insurance can be considered a fragment of society. But the word choice is irrelevant. I’ll change it to “ the people who also use your insurance company”, if that makes you happier.
No, having a baby isn’t necessary to keep living, but insurance covers plenty of things that fall into that category. Glasses, cochlear implants,
-
- Regent
- Posts: 3884
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:06 pm
Yet insurance covered your decision to have your tubes tied. That was a choice when you decided not to have more children. Why should they have to cover family planning in the prevention arena and not expansion? It’s hypocritical.
mcginnisc wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:30 am I went through infertility and no I don't think it should be covered in all honesty. You don't *have* to have children. Does infertility suck? Absolutely. That does not mean that people are entitled to have children. Having children is a choice. It is not necessary like a life saving measure is IMO.
-
- Regent
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:53 pm
There is no way you can say that a pregnancy and birth is even close to being similar to a cosmetic procedure:a nose job!
One is a meaningful life event and the nose job is pure vanity and a waste of money.
If you can’t see that, you’re too stupid to have kids.
One is a meaningful life event and the nose job is pure vanity and a waste of money.
If you can’t see that, you’re too stupid to have kids.
Anonymous 3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:33 am I had two miscarriages. Your elective procedures shouldn’t be society’s responsibility. If my hypothetical nose job, etc. wouldn’t be covered, neither should your IVF.
RedBottoms wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:31 amPeople that have not experienced miscarriages or infertility are often very unemphatic about it.
- Fullxbusymom
- Princess Royal
- Posts: 5931
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2018 11:29 am
That is a fantastic point!!!!!Msprekteacher wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:12 am Yet insurance covered your decision to have your tubes tied. That was a choice when you decided not to have more children. Why should they have to cover family planning in the ore room arena and not expansion? It’s hypocritical.
mcginnisc wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 8:30 am I went through infertility and no I don't think it should be covered in all honesty. You don't *have* to have children. Does infertility suck? Absolutely. That does not mean that people are entitled to have children. Having children is a choice. It is not necessary like a life saving measure is IMO.
If you can’t afford to pay out of pocket for fertility treatments you can’t afford children. I don’t think insurance should cover it. There’s no reason to socialize the cost of that. It’s not necessary- no different than getting breast implants or a tummy tuck.
-
- Regent
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:53 pm
WTF ? Did I say it would?
You’re the one who is completely illogical and , obviously, cold hearted.
You’re the one who is completely illogical and , obviously, cold hearted.
Anonymous 3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:01 am My caring, or not caring, about giving birth to children doesn’t suddenly cause infertility treatment to stop being elective. Illogical argument.
Libbylu2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:51 am Obviously you don’t think giving birth to children is very important.
I’d rather pay more taxes to help people have babies than pay for alcoholics, druggies and over eaters’ health problems.
Anonymous 3 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:32 am Heartbreaking isn’t reason for insurance to pay for electives. Adopt or save your money.
-
- Regent
- Posts: 3107
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:53 pm
Do you think we should pay for people who make very unhealthy choices that result in expensive medical treatments to save them even though they have chosen to drink excessively, drive drunk or drink themselves intoCandTmom wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:06 amI have had two miscarriages. One was at 6 months. I am very empathetic and sympathetic. I still don't believe it should be covered.Libbylu2 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:57 amTrue.RedBottoms wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:31 am
People that have not experienced miscarriages or infertility are often very unemphatic about it.
A serious disease , or people who overdose on narcotics or those who chose to overeat until they have heart attacks? Just a few examples of CHOICES!
Oh so you had $20,000 to spare when you had your kids? Because half the parents I know cannot say they had thatAnonymous 5 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 10, 2019 10:16 am If you can’t afford to pay out of pocket for fertility treatments you can’t afford children. I don’t think insurance should cover it. There’s no reason to socialize the cost of that. It’s not necessary- no different than getting breast implants or a tummy tuck.