They are 'reproductive endocrinologists' a completely different specialty.

The DMV will now decide who gets covered and who does not. Some of us will get covered, and some of us will not. Some of us are going to die sooner than we would have under our old plans. The government will decide. Doesn't this sound like a great improvement?

The fact remains: having a child is an "I want" rather than a lifesaving measure. And the costs of infertility treatments run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Such treatments should be excluded from regular health care coverage. Medical skills are much better used elsewhere. If someone is that obsessed with having offspring, then I'd use the age-old Republican response: You want it, you pay for it.

Jersey Bob said:

The fact remains: having a child is an "I want" rather than a lifesaving measure. And the costs of infertility treatments run into the tens of thousands of dollars. Such treatments should be excluded from regular health care coverage. Medical skills are much better used elsewhere. If someone is that obsessed with having offspring, then I'd use the age-old Republican response: You want it, you pay for it.

B.P. 42 said:

Okay, Jersey Bob, the fact truly remains that people also eat crap, sit on their couches and die from heart attacks - why should my insurance have to pay for that? For the cost of the triple bypass that my mother in law got, because she has a horrible lifestyle, I could have had 10 rounds of IVF. You are an idiot.

How about this?

- Tax junk food. Subsidize fresh fruits & veggies. We already tax cigarettes, what's the difference? You wanna eat 3,000 calories worth of grease and sugar per day? Go for it, it's a free country...but you need to chip in and pay for the treatment of the problems you're causing.

- Bob is right. Fertility is NOT a medical necessity. Neither is Viagra. If you're sick, injured, or disabled, health insurance should help. Having kids is different.

Do some people really believe quality-of-life is enhanced by producing offspring? Sure they do. But my quality-of-life would be enhanced by traveling the world and living in Tuscany--doesn't mean I have a right to it.

If you want something, pay for it.

Good, intelligent response, Carl. Methinks I.Q.42 was just whining. Lifesaving versus wished-for option is still hugely different. And to start monitoring ones individual lifestyles would be akin to super-totalitarianism - not to mention impossible to implement. I like the idea of subsidizing healthy options and taxing unhealthy options. As you said: If you want something, pay for it. Thanks for the input.

Currently, viagra is covered more often than birth control. Ridiculous.

The only issue with not covering it is...the people that need it most are usually a little older (35+) really want a child, but waited til they were financially ready. SO if you take away coverage and make them all pay for everything, then really only stupid people will be breeding...(at least percentage wise) ack!

The fact still remains that I should not have to pay for someone else to go to excessive means in order to have a baby. Couples that were infertile still managed to live full, productive lives before fertilization techniques were available. If having a child is so important, then adopt one that is already here and needs parents. The world will not necessarily benefit by your leaving behind your DNA, but it will benefit if an unwanted child is adopted into a good home. Not everyone gets what they want in life. Deal with it but not at my expense.

On another note...in the photo attached to the article, Leigh Elliott is obviously obese. It is a known fact that obesity can alter ones endocrine system by halting a woman's natural cycle and making it difficult to conceive. Why should anyone pay for an obese woman to receive infertility treatments, especially if she has not lost weight and tried to conceive the natural way before resorting to artificial means?

Scales, how about we leave the diagnosis to the medical professionals instead of assuming because someone is obese she has caused her own infertility? Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome is a common cause of infertility and because of the endocrine disruption, obesity is a common symptom caused BY the hormone imbalance, not a result of it and losing weight is extremely difficult because of the condition.

I don't necessarily think anyone else should have to pick up the tab for my infertility treatment, but the reverse of that is I shouldn't have to pick up the tab for someone else's abortion. To me, it's really about balance- if you don't want to pay for me to get pregnant, fine, but don't expect me to pay for you to get unpregnant (and until Planned Parenthood is 100% privately funded or out of the abortion market, you will not convince me that tax dollars aren't spent on it). If you don't want to pay for my Clomid so that I can try to conceive, that's OK, but don't expect me to pay for your Viagra so you can knock someone else up.

Jersey Bob - "Lifesaving versus wished-for option is still hugely different."

So would you agree that anyone who ate themselves into diabetes should not have medication covered? If you want to keep eating like a pig and having meds fix the problem you have, pay for it yourself. Otherwise, lose weight and lose the diabetes. If you are unlucky to have the diabetes that isnt caused by diet, I see no problem covering that.

"And to start monitoring ones individual lifestyles would be akin to super-totalitarianism - not to mention impossible to implement."

Who needs to monitor? One's weight speaks for itself. Tax the products we know contribute to specific conditions - like fatty foods = heart attacks. sugary foods = diabetes, and so on. Will it be perfect and catch everything, no...but its better than where are now.

"I like the idea of subsidizing healthy options and taxing unhealthy options. As you said: If you want something, pay for it. Thanks for the input."

its quite a concept isnt it? who really wants a healthy society though? certainly not doctors! they'd go out of business.

This health care bill is a DISASTER for small business and self employed.

My current $1500 deductible family plan with great benefits and 5 million lifetime cap costs me $665/month with my wife and three children.

I call my insurance company, and to RAISE my deductible to $2500 will cost $1,100 per month...!!!!!

So since I don't qualify for government assistance, if I ever lose my grandfathered plan the ONLY way I can afford insurance is to buy a $10,000 deductible plan for about the same price my current $1500 deductible plan.

What a DISASTER.

Suzy "how about we leave the diagnosis to the medical professionals instead of assuming because someone is obese she has caused her own infertility? Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome is a common cause of infertility and because of the endocrine disruption, obesity is a common symptom caused BY the hormone imbalance, not a result of it and losing weight is extremely difficult because of the condition."

Isnt this the chicken or the egg arguement? Since most, if not all, women who have this are Obese &/OR have insulin resistance...it seems highly unlikely to me that its the disease causing the obesity, not the obesity causing the disease. Perhaps, there is a genetic component to this...

"I don't necessarily think anyone else should have to pick up the tab for my infertility treatment, but the reverse of that is I shouldn't have to pick up the tab for someone else's abortion."

And you dont. nearly ALL insurance companies do not cover it unless its a medical emergency to save a womans life. very very very few cover elective abortions. Check your insurance plan, it's very likely its not included. And if it is, you - and other employees, can always go to your HR and demand it be dropped.

"To me, it's really about balance- if you don't want to pay for me to get pregnant, fine, but don't expect me to pay for you to get unpregnant (and until Planned Parenthood is 100% privately funded or out of the abortion market, you will not convince me that tax dollars aren't spent on it)."

Fertility treatment costs thousands of dollars, an abortion...about $400.

You really are comparing the two? Furthermore, Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services...here's a neat fact:

In 2008, contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility were 10%, and 3% of total procedures involved surgical and medical abortions.

3 % of all proceedures are abortions. I bet you didnt know that, I suspect you still wont believe that. There's a lot of people roaming this planet in which facts are utterly useless to them, they've got opinions after all!

"If you don't want to pay for my Clomid so that I can try to conceive, that's OK, but don't expect me to pay for your Viagra so you can knock someone else up."

again, comparing two is silly. Viagra, about $300-700 for a bottle of 100 pills.

I have no problem going the route of arguing that we should cover needs, not wants...but that leaves you and fertility issues sitting on the curb.

Im a lesbian. I cant conceive without fertility treatments, should that be covered? Im married to my wife of 11 years...dont tell me I can have sex with a man, I most certainly can not.

Mr. Rogers - Don't you realize you are a perfect example of someone who will be MUCH BETTER OFF under the health care reform?

You won't have to qualify for "government assistance" to get a reduced rate on your health insurance when the bill takes effect in 2013 - there's a sliding scale for the portion of your coverage that will be picked up by the government. That's not just for people on TANF, it's for everyone making under $88k a year:

Subsidies:

• Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.

Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050

Your health insurance premium will be capped as a percentage of your income. Here are the brackets (for those who have to purchase individual insurance):

$22,050 to $33,075 will pay 2.1% to 4.7% of income for health coverage
$33,075 to $44,100 will pay 4.7% to 6.5%
$44,100 to $55,125 will pay 6.5% to 8.4%
$55,125 to $66,150 will pay 8.4% to 10.2%
$66,150 and above will pay 10.2%

If you get insurance through work, your employer will receive subsidies to cover the cost of insuring you. Currently, they're receiving nothing. That means that if your employer is making you pay a portion of your health coverage, your cost should go down.

I wish more people understood how this is going to work before they decide to repeal it.

RealAmericansFirst

My income ranges from 50K in bad years to 125K in good. For a family of 5 that doesn't make me "wealthy". Also as I said, I like tens of millions of americans are self employed or run our own small business. We have to buy individual policies. The problem with the new law is we are FORCED to pay for COVERAGE we don't need.

For instance, when I bought my individual policy 4 years ago, I knew EXACTLY what coverages I needed. I didn't need baby or pregnancy care since that's not possible for me and my wife anymore. I don't need to get a colonoscpoy every year since I am under 35. The problem with the new bill is that is covers many things I don't use every year and even then, I don't need to spend an extra 4K/year to get these things done.

Bottom line is my total out of pocket health expenses WILL GO UP under the new plan, whether someone gets sick or not.

The problem with health insurance is that ANYTHING you are almost CERTAIN to do, you should not need INSURANCE for.... Think about it. Do you use your auto insurance to change your oil or buy new tires? The fact insurance has become an item to take care of 100% of health needs makes health care cost more.

Finally, you speak of subsidies like the grow on trees? Where does the government get the money for subsides from? Tax payers like me.

RealAmericansFirst: Without children and not qualifying for Medicaid, what happens to the people under the FPL ($22,049 and below)?

Debi - Those people will now qualify for Medicaid. It's being expanded to include anyone up to 100% of poverty level whether or not they have dependent children.

Also, on the small business front:

To help sustain small business coverage, the Affordable Care Act also includes a tax credit for up to 35% of their premium contributions.

Scales, how about we leave the diagnosis to the medical professionals instead of assuming because someone is obese she has caused her own infertility? Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome is a common cause of infertility...

Suzy - if your will take the time to read more carefully, you will realize that I was not diagnosing anyone. I made a statement that many obese women experience disruption of their menstrual cycle that can result in difficulty or inability to conceive. That is a fact. Look it up in a reputable medical book or journal.

BTW, it's polycystic ovarian syndrome, not poly cystic ovarian syndrome. Also, if you take a moment to research treatments, you will find that when PCOS is associated with overweight or obesity, successful weight loss is usually the most effective method of restoring normal ovulation/menstruation. That is, weight loss is recommended and prescribed to patients with PCOS. Low-carbohydrate diets and sustained regular exercise are recommended to assist in weight loss and maintenance.

So, learn you facts before you criticize other people for making statements that are true. Leigh Elliott is obese in the photo that is attached to this article. It's inconsequential whether her excess weight is a result of bad eating habits or if PCOS contributes to the problem. Either way, weight loss is a possible means by which to increase or restore fertility.

I wish more people understood how this is going to work before they decide to repeal it.

I wish more people knew how it was going to work, including politicians, before they voted on it.

Mr. Rogers - can you do math?

You say you're paying $665 a month - that's $7980 a year in premiums.

If you make $50,000 (your "bad" year) - your maximum premium is $3750.

If you make $125,000 (your "good" year) - your maximum premium is $12,700. However, you don't have to spend that much if you can find a cheaper policy for your family.

And it may already be cheaper to provide care through your small business than for you to buy individual coverage. For tax years 2010 through 2013, there is a tax credit of 35% of a small business employer's premium expense. For 2014 and later, that credit increases to 50%.

Have you or your employer checked to see which is more cost-effective?

RealAmericansFirst: You said in an earlier post:

You won't have to qualify for "government assistance" to get a reduced rate on your health insurance when the bill takes effect in 2013 - there's a sliding scale for the portion of your coverage that will be picked up by the government. That's not just for people on TANF, it's for everyone making under $88k a year:

Does your example to Mr. Rogers' $125,000 salary qualify because he would make more than $88,000/year maximum?

And just curiously, would those who have very good accountants have to show they made the minimum $22,050 in order to purchase the individual coverage?

If you make $125,000 (your "good" year) - your maximum premium is $12,700. However, you don't have to spend that much if you can find a cheaper policy for your family.

Don't you get it? The only way to get a cheaper plan is to go to a $10,000 deductible and pay $6K/year to basicaly cover the cost of getting a cold and having almost ZERO coverage for anything between a cold and cancer.

Have you or your employer checked to see which is more cost-effective?

I AM my employer as I AM the small business owner.

I don't have a problem helping those who REALLY need it. I do have a problem lining the pockets of insurance companies, big pharma, and everyone else with their hands in the cookie jar.

Why do you think insurance companies supported this bill? Because they expect to MAKE MORE MONEY. That should tell you all you need to know.

I'm not sure how the 35% tax credit for the small business owner who does not already provide employee coverage will help, as employers are required to pay half the premium.

Also, does anyone know exactly what these policies will cover? Any deductible? Any Co-pays or co-insurance? What is the out of pocket?

Mr. Rogers.

This health care bill is a DISASTER for small business and self employed.

My current $1500 deductible family plan with great benefits and 5 million lifetime cap costs me $665/month with my wife and three children.

I call my insurance company, and to RAISE my deductible to $2500 will cost $1,100 per month...!!!!!

So since I don't qualify for government assistance, if I ever lose my grandfathered plan the ONLY way I can afford insurance is to buy a $10,000 deductible plan for about the same price my current $1500 deductible plan.

What a DISASTER.

Dude, where have you been?!?!? This was going on LONG before health care reform. But if you've been on your plan for more than a couple yrs, I'm sure you already know that. Do you really think buying an individual policy prior to health care reform & things like no denial for pre-existing conditions, etc was BETTER? Get your head out of the sand already.

RealAmericansFirst

Mr. Rogers - Don't you realize you are a perfect example of someone who will be MUCH BETTER OFF under the health care reform?

Amen brother! Just b/c Fox news & Glenn Beck tell you something is bad doesn't mean you should buy into it. Have to do your own reading & research.

"Mr. Rogers.

This health care bill is a DISASTER for small business and self employed.

My current $1500 deductible family plan with great benefits and 5 million lifetime cap costs me $665/month with my wife and three children.

I call my insurance company, and to RAISE my deductible to $2500 will cost $1,100 per month...!!!!!

So since I don't qualify for government assistance, if I ever lose my grandfathered plan the ONLY way I can afford insurance is to buy a $10,000 deductible plan for about the same price my current $1500 deductible plan.

What a DISASTER."

And this has What? to do with covering infertility?

"Mr. Rogers.

If you make $125,000 (your "good" year) - your maximum premium is $12,700. However, you don't have to spend that much if you can find a cheaper policy for your family.

Don't you get it? The only way to get a cheaper plan is to go to a $10,000 deductible and pay $6K/year to basicaly cover the cost of getting a cold and having almost ZERO coverage for anything between a cold and cancer.

Have you or your employer checked to see which is more cost-effective?

I AM my employer as I AM the small business owner.

I don't have a problem helping those who REALLY need it. I do have a problem lining the pockets of insurance companies, big pharma, and everyone else with their hands in the cookie jar.

Why do you think insurance companies supported this bill? Because they expect to MAKE MORE MONEY. That should tell you all you need to know."

Thank you for making the case for the public option that the Republicans refused to allow in the HCR. The public option would have provided reduced premiums but would have cut into those insurance companies' profits.

To Helen at post 1: Reproductive endocrinologists are not endocrinologists who leave their specialty to help people get pregnant. They are OB/GYNs first, and complete fellowships in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI.)

Don't worry, Wes at post 1.1 is correct-- diabetics are not losing doctors because of assisted reproduction. Endocrinologists are internists first, who then complete fellowships in endocrinology, and are a completely separate specialty.

To scales67 at posts 1.9 and 1.19:

"If having a child is so important, then adopt one that is already here and needs parents. The world will not necessarily benefit by your leaving behind your DNA, but it will benefit if an unwanted child is adopted into a good home."

How many children have you adopted, scales? If there is a moral imperative to adopt, do you think that only the infertile have this responsibility? If you have children of your own, why did you decide to pass your DNA down to the next generation rather than provide a home for an already-living child who needed one?

Why should anyone pay for an obese woman to receive infertility treatments, especially if she has not lost weight and tried to conceive the natural way before resorting to artificial means?

How do you know she did not do that very thing? You are seeing a picture of her now, not a picture of her when she was trying to conceive. Do you have some personal knowledge of this woman's history that the rest of us are unaware of?

Yes obesity can lead to hormonal dysregulation, which can in turn lead to fertility problems. Yes, there is a good chance that she has PCOS, since this disorder affects 5-10% of women whether they realize it or not. Yes, PCOS is often--but not always--associated with obesity. But what would you say to the approximately 1/3 to 1/2 of women with PCOS who are normal weight? How about anorexic PCOS women such as "Posh Spice" Victoria Beckham?

"YourTruth4u

Obamacare does nothing to help control the cost of medical care, medicine, or insurance costs. Just because the government forces you to buy healthcare it doesn't mean you can afford any of it. Repeal this nonsense and redo it."

Show me the better plan that will replace HCR, after it is repealed, and I will support it.

The better plan needs to take effect on the day after the repeal of HCR, so Americans will continue to receive the benefits of the old HCR, until the benefits of the new HCR go into effect.

Isn't that reasonable?

PuddleDuck,

You're asking a Teapublican to be in favor of something. Not gonna happen. They only know how to oppose other people's solutions.

Yeah, I know, but I want to hear their solution from them. All I hear, so far, is crickets chirping.

The better plan needs to take effect on the day after the repeal of HCR, so Americans will continue to receive the benefits of the old HCR, until the benefits of the new HCR go into effect.

Isn't that reasonable?

No it's not.. this thing is a DISASTER.

My current $1500 deductible family plan with great benefits and 5 million lifetime cap costs me $665/month with my wife and three children.

I call my insurance company, and to RAISE my deductible to $2500 will cost $1,100 per month...!!!!!

So since I don't qualify for government assistance, if I ever lose my grandfathered plan the ONLY way I can afford insurance is to buy a $10,000 deductible plan for about the same price my current $1500 deductible plan.

In America we have a COST problem AND a COVERAGE problem.

Fix the COST problem and you will AUTOMATICALLY solve the coverage problem.

This bill tried to solve the coverage problem first and it only makes costs higher.

Personally, i think they should make it easier/cheaper to adopt in the US. Having friends and family that went through the adoption process, its much cheaper and easier to adopt from Guatamala or Ukraine etc than adopt in the US. If we addressed that, i think the fertility issue would be much less an issue aside from the people that want only their flesh and blood as offspring.

I am not a fan of subsidising fertility, viagra etc. If you want that, you should pay for that, as its not a necessity, and if we are going to offer some semblance of quality healthcare to everyone, which i am for - we need to focus on the necessity, and push the wants to the side till all the necessities are covered.

Wrong tree, yourtruth; provisions of the Health Care Reform bill which would have prevented unreasonable and unwarranted increases in insurance rates were removed from the bill at the insistence of Republicans.

Cost savings from the health care reform:

The Trustees Report shows total Medicare expenditures are now projected to grow much more slowly. For example, Medicare is projected to equal 5.76 percent of the economy (GDP) in 2040 rather than the 7.96 percent projected in last year’s report. The unfunded obligations of the program over the next 75 years have plunged to $22.8 trillion from $38.2 trillion, and the solvency of the Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund has been extended from 2017 to 2029.

I agree 100%. If Viagra isn't a "quality of life" drug, I don't know what is.

Generally Viagara isn't a covered medication on most employer-sponsored health plans.

Why? I would consider impotence a serious problem, while infertility could be a blessing (ever heard of overpopulation?). Of course either one could actually be a symptom of an issue that should be dealt with directly by determining the cause and that should be what is covered.

To call infertility a "blessing" is truly disgusting. Ever heard of compassion?

If "overpopulation" is to guide health policy, then it makes sense to scrap life-saving treatments too, doesn't it? Good thing health policy isn't about reducing population. And wouldn't Viagra give a person an opportunity to reproduce that they wouldn't otherwise have? I mean, if you're impotent, you're as good as sterile...

Sorry ladies - yet again, since we have a uterus, we get the short end of the stick. But having problems with your penis - insurance will cover it!

Got to love the double standard when it comes to reproductive health.

Guys get the short end of the stick too. Health insurance usually doesn't cover breast enlargements either.

"sunnybunny1269

Why? I would consider impotence a serious problem, while infertility could be a blessing (ever heard of overpopulation?). Of course either one could actually be a symptom of an issue that should be dealt with directly by determining the cause and that should be what is covered."

Impotence is only a problem for the guy with the limp dick.

If you have some medical problem that is causing the impotence, then your doctor should be treating the medical problem and not the symptoms.

If you don't like your doctor's diagnosis, then change doctors.

Go buy yourself some Viagra and pay for it, out of your own pocket.

If you can't afford it, then buy your wife a vibrator, which will be a one-time expense, also not paid for by us taxpayers.

"liz-2411829

To call infertility a "blessing" is truly disgusting. Ever heard of compassion?"

A real act of compassion would be for a childless couple to provide a loving home for an unwanted child.

Some of those would be the children of mothers, who didn't want a child, but were forced to bring it to term, anyway, just so that they could give them up for adoption.

I used to be anti-fertility treatments, and pro-adoption, until someone close to me found out she was infertile. She first tried the adoption route. It's more expensive and much more difficult. It requires all kinds of hoops, even with international adoption. The waiting list is very long and the process very difficult unless you are very rich.

"Carl W

Guys get the short end of the stick too. Health insurance usually doesn't cover breast enlargements either."

Don't you mean "the limp end of the stick". :).

And just why would a man want a breast enlargement?

Just kidding. I get it.

I think that a thoughtful Valentine's Day gift for your wife would be gift certificate for a breast enlargement.

Generally Viagara isn't a covered medication on most employer-sponsored health plans

The UAW is the largest purchaser of Viagra in the world. Thank goodness Obama's GM bailout of your tax dollars was for a good cause.

The UAW is the largest purchaser of Viagra in the world. Thank goodness Obama's GM bailout of your tax dollars was for a good cause.

Sorry, but I can't help picturing Glenn Beck with his chalkboard drawing a line from taxpayer-stick-figures to cars to erections to Nazis to George Soros. It's all connected somehow, and we're just puppets.

Lifestyle drugs -- chiefly Viagra -- are costing General Motors $17 million dollars a year and the cost is passed along to car, truck and SUV consumers. The blue pill is covered under GM's labor agreement with United Auto Workers, as well as benefit plans for salaried employees.

GM executives estimate health care adds $1,500 to the price of each vehicle but they do not break out how much of the premium is caused by erectile dysfunction expenses. GM provides health care for 1.1 million employees, retirees and dependents and is the world's largest private purchaser of Viagra.

GM recently raised the co-pay for erectile dysfunction drugs to $18 under a new agreement with the UAW and the company has also pared benefits for salaried workers.

The automaker spends almost $5.6 billion each year on health care. While lifestyle drugs are a small fraction of the total medical bill, every health care expense is added into the price of every new vehicle and is a drag on the struggling goliath's earnings.

Given the large number of aging autoworkers in the U.S., the industrys Viagra tab and bill for other erectile dysfunction drugs is certain to continue rising.

Neither Ford nor Chrysler will disclose the amount spent on erectile dysfunction drugs.

While many government and company health plans have eliminated impotence drugs from coverage plans, GM has more than two retirees for every active worker on its rolls and must negotiate eliminating the drugs from the union health plan with the UAW.

LOL!

Let's stop using the ED drug vs IVF argument. There are many men who take daily Cialis (an ED drug) to treat the symptoms of prostate enlargement. For the insurance companies, this is a financially sound decision----low cost drug treatment versus high cost surgery.

Covering infertility makes no financial sense so thus it should not be covered.

@karen - many women take birth control for things like PCOS, and to help with intense bleeding and cramps - but many insurance companies won't pay for birth control. It's all about gender politics - they will cover all aspects of a man's reproductive system, but won't do the same for women.

Puddle Duck at 3.9:

A real act of compassion would be for a childless couple to provide a loving home for an unwanted child.

Are only childless couples responsible for providing homes to these children?

How many of these children have you adopted, Duck? Shouldn't all loving homes welcome a child who has no home of his own?

Are you planning on buying into one of the state-sponosored health insurance plans? If not, then you don't even need to worry about this.

If Obama has his way, you won't have a choice but to buy in.

Like it or don't, over crowding is the biggest problem the world has to date.

7 billion people on the planet is toooo many!

The earth really can not sustain more people.

If Obama has his way, you won't have a choice but to buy in.

You're making an assertion with no proof. Where has he said that he wants all Americans to buy their coverage from state pools?

Traci: Haven't you been reading courts having been striking down mandatory health insurance as unconstitutional?

Right. So mandatory car insurance should be unconstitutional too? Not likely.

"Debi-1314897

Traci: Haven't you been reading courts having been striking down mandatory health insurance as unconstitutional?"

The Supremes haven't ruled, yet, so the mandate is still constitutional until that ruling comes down.

Even if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, the rest of HCR will be left intact.

It just means that you will be paying more for your health insurance, as the uninsured will just continue to go to emergency rooms for their health care, at taxpayer expense.

Unfortunately you wouldn't be able to do that. Health insurance relies on healthy people to prop up people who are in need of costly services. If you only add those who want infertility treatment covered as an "add on" option, then obviously every single one of those people who choose that are going to want to cash in on it (otherwise why would they opt to pay more for it?). Since the risk pool in that group would be so high, the costs would be astronomical for those wanting to do it since they'd pretty much just be paying for each others' IVF's.

I agree, Trev. There's just no way to get fertile people to buy into that policy, so there'd be no subsidies left for the infertile. You could tag it onto other elective benefits, but you run into the same problem: people purchasing the elective add-on obviously have an expensive procedure in mind. You could have a 10-year wait list before coverage, to give premiums time to add up, but delaying fertility treatment by 10 years after discovery is a good way to kill your chances of ever having a baby.

I think it's just one of those quality-of-life issues that a person must fund by themselves. Caring for children is a huge expense itself, so they could be using that savings (of not having childcare expenses) to save up for the desired treatments. If frugal, a person should be able to capitalize on the financial advantages of delaying childbirth.

There are plenty of quality-of-life issues that aren't covered. "Ugly" people have lower quality of life, so should we fund elective cosmetic surgery? Gender reassignment? I mean, when people risk-pool, they're sharing costs for the same risks (of death and disability). People aren't really interested in subsidizing others' expensive choices... just the health risks we all fear.

Maybe fertility treatments and maternity benefits could be a lumped together option. That way, those of us that are past our "child-bearing" years or those that choose to not have children could opt out of that coverage for a lower premium, while those that are doing family planning, be it with or without help would share the cost...

My insurance covers infertility treatments, costs of adoptions and birth control, but not Viagra! lol Guess the women got the last laugh there. :)

I completely understand what you are saying...the problem with this is that many insurance companies do not even cover the testing to determine the problem. Most OB/GYNs do not run the tests, are not experts in the area of infertility, and thus can not help with diagnosing what may possibly be an underlying disorder. Instead...many couples have to consult with an RE...something that is not covered because it is a specialist in the area of infertility. So essentially, couples suffering from infertility are screwed. You want coverage for diagnosis but not treatment and essentially...they go hand in hand at this point.

You can have it if you can afford it America - disgusting. I have a disease that is causing my infertility and the kicker - my disease can be cured by becoming pregnant... I have already paid for 2 rounds of IVF myself for a total of over $25k in an attempt to 1. have a child and 2. cure the disease... this is not something I would consider "elective" at all and it is disgusting that in America in 2011, you can't have a medical treatment that exists simply because you are not rich. And on top of it, I have to pay taxes for public schools! NICE!

Well, sorry, you're wrong. Having children is elective. If I don't have kids, I don't die. See, what people don't realize is that as a nation, we're in a situation financially where we can no longer afford (couldn't ever, really) to cover everyone for ridiculously expensive fringe treatments. Have you looked at the rate of increase of health care costs lately? By the way, I think Viagra and the like being covered is also absurd. If you need a knee surgery to walk, then obviously you should be covered. Sperm count too low? Sorry.

Having children is elective. If I don't have kids, I don't die.

By your logic, then, if you do have kids, you don't die, so insurance shouldn't cover that either, right?

"mn-1062959

Coverage for fertility treatments could be made available at additional cost as a policy option. That way some of the financial burden is helped but the person wanting the treatments has to shoulder the cost as well."

You mean that you could actually have a policy option, that you pay extra for, that is outside of the normal coverage?

What a great idea!!! We could do that for abortion coverage, also, couldn't we?

"No, we can't", which is the Republican mantra. You can't pay extra for abortion coverage, so you shouldn't be able to pay for any other optional coverage.

The GOPTP will not allow it, if they are to be consistent in their negativity.

mbrickell at 5.6:

Having children is elective. If I don't have kids, I don't die....we can no longer afford (couldn't ever, really) to cover everyone for ridiculously expensive fringe treatments

Lots of medical disorders are non-fatal. Do you think only diseases that lead to death should be covered?

You've already decided knee replacement is OK. Why not just make that person use a wheelchair instead? Cheaper, and the patient still won't die--right?

If you were to develop a serious dental problem, do you want the tooth pulled (cheaper) or would you rather have a root canal (more expensive.) Either way, you won't die.

Do you wear glasses or use a hearing aid? Were they covered by your insurance? People like me, with perfect vision and hearing, have to subsidize the cost of these items for others when paying our insurance premiums. Yet you won't see me complaining about that because I don't mind helping those who are less fortunate than myslef.

Who gets to decide which non-fatal disorders are worth treating, and which are not? Why is a disorder that is treatable but expensive seen as outrageous, while one that is treatable but cheap is OK? As technology advances, the treatment of infertility may become cheaper, too.

Are you going to let someone like Dick Cheney--an overweight smoker--have his chest cracked to re-route the blood supply to his heart, but deny a 30 year old woman with endometriosis (who did nothing wrong to cause her infertility) a round of IVF? Performing a CABG like Cheney's costs around $45K, while an IVF cycle is usually under $15K. For all we know, the kid born after that IVF cycle may be the person who grows up and develops a cure for cancer or heart disease, and will save countless Cheneys in his lifetime.

What adoption laws need to be changed? The only issue with adoption is that most folks who adopt want to adopt an infant and they are in short supply. The only law that would affect that supply is the abortion law.

It's apparently very difficult to adopt if one is poor or has any kind of a criminal record for example. I'm not sure what factors go into qualifying , but there sure are a lot of people who don't meet the standards to adopt, yet who are able to get fertility treatments (look at octomom -how would that situation differ if she gave homes to 14 orphans?)

Wrong, Infants are not in short supply and neither are children eligible for adoption in short supply. What IS in short supply are infants who fit the profile the adoptive parents are looking for.

Adoption is expensive, and it has nothing to do with "supply".

Loveland

I agree with you. There are plenty of children to be adopted. But many many people are looking for an infant. And you are right, they want an infant that matches their demographic usually. Those matches are in short supply, hence the tidal wave of adoption from eastern europe. To suggest that the abortion laws do not have an effect on the level of availble adoption is laughable.

One area of law that could improve adoption rates is revoking parental rights earlier in cases of abuse/neglect. Too many infants linger in the foster system before they are eligible for adoption, and by then, they are no longer at the prime age for adoption. Early adoption is best for the parents and the child. But the people who foster parent aren't the same people who adopt. Parents hoping to adopt are not going to want to care for an infant that they will probably have to give back. So the newborn gets raised by foster parents, and then gets adopted by a new family years later.

I think that a drug-addicted mother should lose her parental rights immediately, and then have only the option of updates (and possibly visitation) should she come clean in the future and wish to participate in her child's life. This is a typical open-adoption arrangement. We worship the rights of unfit birthparents far too long, at the expense of the child, the future adoptive family, and society who funds it all before an adoption.

I love how cavlier everyone is in their comments about adoption, and it being easy enough. My husband and I are in the middle of a pending adoption right now, and it's been the most horrific, emotional rollercoaster. The hoops that we've had to jump through to prove that we are "fit" to parent would absolutely BLOW your mind. These hoops would remain the same, no matter the race or age of the child! Please don't speak about this topic unless you know what you are talking about.

Bottom line, we chose adoption because IVF was so cost prohibitive. Turns out in the end, we're paying just about as much for an adoption. None of it is easy. None of it is cheap. And none of it is guaranteed. So how about a little compassion? It's easy to have an opinion when you haven't lived the scenario yourself.

Adoption is an industry in the US. It's very costly because agencies know they can charge that much. it's also rife with hoops to be jumped through. And the waiting list is very long. Adoptable children are in foster homes and there are parents ready to adopt them, but there is red tape preventing that. It's a ridiculous system.

What adoption laws need to be changed? The only issue with adoption is that most folks who adopt want to adopt an infant and they are in short supply. The only law that would affect that supply is the abortion law.

11madness- That is about the most assinine argument for not allowing legal abortions that I have ever heard. Why would anyone ever consider forcing a woman to carry a baby to term that she doesn't want just to accommodate a few selfish couples that fail to accept the fact that they can't conceive?

As for people who are unwilling to adopt a child that is not an infant or does not meet their ideal demographic, then maybe your reasons for wanting a child are not as pure as they should be. If you really want the experience of raising a child, then you should be willing to accept any child. What guarantees do you have that the infant you deem perfect won't have it's share of problems? Will you be able to cope?

"11madness

What adoption laws need to be changed? The only issue with adoption is that most folks who adopt want to adopt an infant and they are in short supply. The only law that would affect that supply is the abortion law."

Not true. Adopting young children takes a long time.

That's why a friend of mine went to China, twice, to adopt a girl and a boy.

Their standards are a lot lower for adoptive parents and they have shorter wait times.

But there are plenty of children, in the U.S., that are ready for adoption, right now, if you don't mind adopting a black or special needs child.

When you get serious about adoption, check out your options, but don't blame abortion laws because you can't get the child you think you deserve.

Adoption is expensive because of all the hoops you have to jump through. In order to adopt you have to pay legal fees. You have to pay for a physical, an HIV and other medical tests, FBI fingerprinting and background checks, state fingerprinting and background checks, National Child Abuse Registry clearances, a home study, training classes plus the fees you are paying to the adoption agency, medical expenses that the birth mother incurs that aren't covered and her living expenses.

If you adopt through the foster care system you eliminate the adoption agency and birth mother fees but you still have to pay for the other stuff.

There is not a shortage of infants. There is a shortage of the perfect blonde, blue-eyed infant with birth parents with nothing in their background. It took us 9 months exactly to adopt a bi-racial baby whose birth mother had done cocaine and had Hep C.

scales:

"If you really want the experience of raising a child, then you should be willing to accept any child."

Does this only apply to the infertile? Why can't fertile people be held to the same standard?

"What guarantees do you have that the infant you deem perfect won't have it's share of problems?"

True for both adopted and biologic children.

I dont think that anyone is arguing that helping couples with a fertility issue is a bad thing. The point is that resources are scarce and where should those resources be used. To create new life or to save a life is the question.

11madness hit the nail on the head. At a time when resources are scarce we need to cut back on non-medically necessary services. People can survive without IVF. Especially since this legislation is ONLY for public-sponsored options, why should the general public be forced to pay for non-life threatening services? The public health insurance options should be fiscally responsible and only there for medically-necessary, life and death, situations.

Kind of a leap to go from birthing a baby - which is what this discussion is - to an opinion as to whether people would be good parents. There are "good parents" all over the place who don't produce highly productive members of society. Paris Hilton would be one example of parents being totally qualified and yet something went awry.

There are already a lot of high quality families in the United States - I'm not sure I see the additional benefit to society of this resource outlay.

Don't agree with you on the "great parent" thing. Just because you experienced infertility doesn't mean you will be a good parent. I have a friend who went through years of infertility with two husbands who finally adopted. She ignores issues he has and caters to his every whim. So, she now has a super-spoiled teenager with untreated ADHD who is out of control. Not a good parent in my book.

We cover thousands of births each year to people who aren't fit to be or planned on being parents

If they're insured, then they paid the premiums for it and were entitled to that coverage. Whether or not they were "fit" or "planned" it, they were financially prepared for it by being insured. If you're insured, you're entitled to that same coverage, should you become pregnant (planned or not). Now if you wanted coverage for infertility, then you should have bought an add-on option (available with many private plans) before you realized your condition. Then your fertility treatments would be covered.

Expecting infertility coverage AFTER you realize you're infertile would be akin to expecting prenatal/childbirth coverage AFTER you realize you're pregnant. And trust me... you can't buy affordable health insurance that covers maternity care AFTER you become pregnant! So it really is fair.

I agree that adoption costs should be covered. The prenatal care and delivery costs for the birthmother, as well as routine adoption costs, should be covered by the adoptive parents' insurance. After all, it would have cost the insurance company practically the same money if the insured couple had given birth themselves, and insurance companies shouldn't get a "break" from the normal costs of childbirth just because their customers happen to be infertile and adopt.

Infertility is a disease and there are many side effects such as depression and anxiety that can result from it.

bkpat - Infertility is not a disease. It is a symptom or side effect of a condition or disease. As for depression and anxiety...those are side effects of countless medical conditions and environmental situations. No, I should not have to pay for your IVF just because you are anxious, depressed, and unwilling to accept what Nature has given to you. I'm not opposed to those treatments being available to you at your expense, but don't ask me to pay for them. There are plenty of things that most of us want in life that we will never receive, but most people don't expect others to foot the bill.

You raise a good point. Maybe something is wrong when it's tougher to get a driver's license than it is to reproduce and possibly burden society with your spawn.

scales:

"Infertility is not a disease. It is a symptom or side effect of a condition or disease"

And as such, it deserves to be worked up so that the underlying cause(s) can be found and treated.

Here's an analogy: Pruritus (itching) never killed anyone directly. But pruritus can be from something as obvious, treatable and non-fatal as eczema...or from something as significant as underlying liver or kidney disease, TB, leukemia, lupus, and a number of other diseases. Therefore, unexplained pruritus that persists for many weeks, and/or does not respond to treatment for common disorders that make people itchy needs to be worked up.

If I order labs to screen for internal causes of pruritus, that is covered by almost all insurance plans. If the patient needs medication for the pruritus, such as an antihistamine, it is also usually covered by the insurance--even though the itching itself is just a symptom. Medication, surgery, and whatnot aimed at the underlying disease causing the itching is also covered.

But some causes of itching have no cure. If you knew someone who spent all day scratching because of severe eczema (which can be treated but not cured with current technology,) and was unable to get restful sleep as a result, which in turn made him anxious and depressed, would you say this to him?

No, I should not have to pay for your {cortisone creams, topical calcineurin inhibitors, antihistamines, light treatments, etc} just because you are anxious, depressed, and unwilling to accept what Nature has given to you. I'm not opposed to those treatments being available to you at your expense, but don't ask me to pay for them.

Likewise, there are cases where infertility is unexplained. Even if a cause can be found, not all of those causes have treatments (at least not yet) other than assisted reproduction techniques.

Sure, many insurance companies will cover screening for hormonal imbalances, and will cover laparoscopic surgery to find and (at least attempt) to treat endometriosis. Genetic testing, semen analysis, and more esoteric things like the hamster oocyte test are sometimes covered, and sometimes not.

But sometimes an extensive workup leaves you with an unsolved mystery. Some couples with "unexplained infertility" will successfully conceive and carry to term with IVF, having failed all the other (cheaper and less invasive) ART options.

And sometimes the workup finds an obvious answer, but the current technology only has one treatment to offer. A good example would be panhypopituitarism. Nothing will work for that other than replacing every darn hormone the pituitary has stopped making. That includes replacing gonadotropins if you want to actually produce sperm or oocytes. (Simply replacing estrogen, progesterone or testosterone might help other symptoms, but they won't restore fertility on their own.)

Now here's the kicker: You have someone who needs to replace LH and FSH because of hypopituitarism, and the only way to do that is to prescribe the exact same kinds of drugs you would use for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in an IVF cycle.

Even if that couple goes home and conceives in the back seat of their car like teenagers after starting these meds, the fact remains that these meds and the proper monitoring of their use cost an arm and a leg (often ~$2000-5000 per cycle, not counting the time missed from work for the daily monitoring appointments.) And most insurance companies refuse to pay for these drugs at all, regardless of why they are being used.

There is much more to infertility than the average fertile layperson can even imagine. Please try not to judge others and make proclamations about what you think "Nature" has ordained when it comes to people struggling with infertility. My suspicion is that you have neither the medical training nor the personal experience to do so in an informed matter, although from your writing style it is obvious you are generally well-read and eloquent.

Because it is taking extraodinary means to help a couple conceive. It is extremely expensive and half the time will not succeed.

Because it's going in the opposite direction- instead of preventing something, you are making something happen.

Yeah, you're making something expensive happen. Birth control makes something expensive NOT happen.

However, having a child before the age of 35 decreases your risk of breast cancer, so maybe that should be factored into the equation. Insurance companies could consider that customers who have a child now may be less likely to require cancer treatment later, and adjust their risk assessment accordingly...

I don't know how IVF treatment compares to the costs of a patient having breast cancer, or how much the incidence actually differs. Perhaps it's negligible.

Then no coverage for Viagra. Fair is fair.

Emily - you fail to realize that Viagra is given away free to indigent men on Medicaid. Why should the taxpayer pay for that? Impotence is not a life threatening issue, no matter how important men think it might be.

Infertility can be caused by disease.

Spoken like a true "Mom of Four" who doesn't have these problems - and apparently can't put herself in someone else's shoes...

How cold hearted of you to say this. You have been BLESSED with four children. My husband and I have been trying for 8 years to get pregnant. I have had surgeries, taken meds, shots, gone through multiple procedures and traveled many miles. And we have paid for this. We both work two jobs. How dare you say that the insurance that WE PAY FOR shouldn't help us to try other methods that we haven't been able to afford financially. COSMETIC SURGERY?????? I am not trying to take away wrinkles, we want to get pregnant and have a baby to love and raise and take care of. What is wrong with you???

hopeful - why not adopt? You're spending all this time and money for something that obviously isn't in the stars for you. So again I ask, why not adopt a child that you can "love and raise and take care of"?

How dare you say that it is like cosmetic surgery. Since it does not affect you (since you apparently have kids) you want to do away with it. What if we wanted to do away with something that you needed. I am sure your kids are a major part of your life. How would your life be without them. You are a foolish person and you need prayer for your selfishness and lack of compassion towards your fellow Americans.

Mom of four:

How selfish of you!!! So your 4 children are nothing more than nose jobs? It doesn't affect your fertile behind, so you don't care!! It's a shame you were blessed with that many liposuctions!!!!

Hopeful6729, the insurance coverage "YOU PAY FOR" doesn't account for the costs of fertility treatments. If it did, you'd be paying much more. What it does is pay for your maternity care (prenatal and delivery, pediatric care for the child), which you are still qualified to receive if you pay for the fertility treatments yourself and they are successful.

Just because you pay insurance premiums doesn't make you entitled to every medical option under the sun. You get what you pay for, and you obviously didn't pay for an expensive add-on policy that would have covered infertility. (You probably would have had to buy a private policy for this purpose.) You can't risk-pool for the basics and then expect coverage for more than the basics.

Mom of four, I guess that kind of says it why you don't see this as anything more than cosmetic surgery - because you have your family! After having gone through 5 IUI procedures, 2 surgeries, and over $7,000 out of our pockets, we still were unable to have a child of our own. We now are trying to adopt. Consider life without your four children and then tell us how "cosmetic" having a child is. We may be able to live without it, but our hearts feel something else. I hope your children mean more to you than being a mere procedure!!

Your comment absolutely makes me want to vomit. My husband and I have been trying for almost 6 years. I have had 5 unsuccessful IUIs and 3 rounds of IVF...1 ended in an early miscarriage, 1 ended in the still birth of our beautiful twin boys, and I am currently on hospital bed rest at 27 weeks with a beautiful little girl that we are hoping stays put a bit longer. I am fortunate enough that my insurance does cover the treatments as we were diagnosed with male infertility last year in the form of OATS...there is currently NO medical treatment for this...so IVF was the only way for us to get pregnant! And in all honesty...to those of you all about adoption...we will NOT be doing this a second time around and WILL be adopting a second child! But what you don't understand...because you already have your family...is the need for many of us to have children that are a combination of our genes and that will pass along our traits...something you have taken for granted and probably never even thought about. Don't tell me you didn't once dream about what your LO would look like and whose personality they may have...because you would be full of poop!

I have many friends that have not been fortunate enough to have their treatments covered and have and are spending thousands of dollars in hopes of fulfilling their dreams of having biological children. You are very naive mom of 4 and I hope that one day your own children do not face the hardships of infertility. It is a long road that many of us walk all in hopes of having something that came so easily to you.

Yes, infertility can be a symptom of another disease, but my insurance did not pay for the tests needed to determine that I had PCOS nor will it pay for the medication I need to treat the symptoms so I might have a baby. I feel for your children if you can equate them to a nose job.

Mom of four -

I really can't get past the fact that you are a mother - period! There isn't anything more miraculous than creating a human being in your own body, in your own uterus. And if it takes fertility treatments to get you there, well all the better.

People who have fertility treatments really want children! I have the feeling you are the mother of four by chance, not choice. And how narcissistic of you to think people who want children need to pay for it themselves! Did you pay out-of-pocket for your four little deliveries and all your pre-natal care? NO!

Your comments are really offensive and hurt at an unforgivable level of hatred for those who suffer from infertility. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I'm sorry for your four kids. For your sake I hope none of them have fertility issues.

wow... easy for you to say.. "Motherof4"... do the taxpayers pay for your kids health, food, or anything?

Why is it ok to get welfare assistance for 3-4 kids but tough if you cannot afford 15k for infertility treatments? Explain your logic a bit more clear.

BTW, I found my partner late in life. He is 11 years younger and we tried for seven years to get pregnant, finally resorting to infertility treatments. We wanted children, lots of children, but I'm not complaining because we were finally blessed with one wonderful child.

Fortunately, our insurance covered most of it, thank goodness, but there were expenses that were not covered and it took us a few years to pay for it.

We are now the proud parents of a beautiful, smart and completely loved young lady. She will be 13 this year!

Oh, one more thing, and then I will get off my soap box.

For us, adoption was not in the cards. I was past the age of being a good candidate for adoption. The majority of birth mothers are looking for young couples, not over-the-hill or middle-aged couples.

There, done!

Wow. How ignorant you are 'Mom of 4'. (And by the way, choosing 'Mom of 4' as your name here is just as ignorant as your comments.) And truly spoken like someone who has never suffered the heartbreak of infertility! I bet you'd change your tune if you ever had to go through it!! It's the most agonizing thing I've ever been through and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. We went through 4 rounds of IUI and 6 rounds of IVF, and 2 miscarriages. It was worth it as we now have two beautiful little girls, but the endless shots, appointments, tests and worrying was brutal. For you to compare it to cosmetic surgery, well it leaves me speechless. I feel sorry for your children if this is an example of what kind of person you are.

All of you who are complaining about "the heartbreak of infertility", you should realize that you are not entitled to fertility treatments at my expense. There is no law written anywhere guaranteeing that everyone who wants one will be able to have a baby that has his or her own DNA. What gives you the right to feel that you are owed any guarantees when it comes to childbirth or anything else in life? If you truly want a child to raise for the love and experience of raising it, then you should have no complaints about adopting any child that you are allowed to adopt. The problem is that many of you aren't so altruist when it comes to loving and caring for another human being that doesn'thave your DNA. You are only willing to settle for a child that has your DNA for your own selfish reasons, so don't go moaning and groaning about your heartbreak over not being able to conceive. Mom of Four is making the point that infertility is not life threatening and therefore, just like cosmetic surgery, there is no justification for other people to pay for your IVF treatments. Give her a break.

Auzziegirl - if you are past the age of being a good candidate for adoption, you are probably also past the age where you have the highest chance of giving birth to a healthy baby that isn't born with genetic defects such as Downs Syndrome. Even so, if it was so important to you to raise children, you could have become a foster parent if your age prevented you from being a good candidate for adoption. If one is determined to raise children, there are ways to achieve that other than expecting other people pay for your IVF.

Mom of Four is making the point that infertility is not life threatening and therefore, just like cosmetic surgery, there is no justification for other people to pay for your IVF treatments. Give her a break.

Pregnancy is not life-threatening either.

How insensitive could you be? Obviously you have not lived through infertility and spent every last sent you had to give birth to a child. If you had gone through the hard ache, I am sure you would be singing a different tune.

Scales67 --- What gives you the right to feel that you are owed any guarantees when it comes to childbirth or anything else in life? If you truly want a child to raise for the love and experience of raising it, then you should have no complaints about adopting any child that you are allowed to adopt.... Mom of Four is making the point that infertility is not life threatening and therefore, just like cosmetic surgery, there is no justification for other people to pay for your IVF treatments. Give her a break.

Scales67, you obviously have not experienced infertility either. You clearly are not aware of the fact that adoption costs as much as (and sometimes more than) a round of In Vitro Fertilization and most companies do not offer Adoption coverage or assistance. You seem to be under the impression that adoption consists of people standing on the street corner giving their children away and any stranger can just walk up and take one home like a puppy.

If all you can think about is how YOU and YOUR copays would be affected by your private insurance adding fertility coverage to your plan to help people who have a medical condition which prevents them from having children then you are the selfish and narcissistic one.

My insurance doesn't pay a dime for infertility or adoption expenses, but covers gastric bypass and liposuction. Basically what you are saying is that this is ok because obesity is a life threatening condition????? These people made poor life choices and could have prevented or fixed their condition before it was too late, but didn't. I on the other hand have been a healthy person all my life and so has my husband, but do we get anything in return for sparing the healthcare system any type of burden whatsoever over the last 28 years??? NO. You also can't say that infertility isn't life-threatening...do you know for sure that there have never been women who have been so depressed by their inability to bear children that they have considered or attempted committing suicide? Didn't think so.

uhh abortion is NOT covered.

I do have a question on that issue. Why do so many republicans want abortion outlawed and want the mother to have the kid BUT once the child is born - they don't want the child or mother to have healthcare, education, food on the table etc. isn't that all a part of having the child?

Why do you think Republicans don't want kids to have healthcare, education, food on the table, etc. ? Isn't that part of personal responsibility?

By your line of reasoning, Democrats want everyone else to provide them with healthcare, education, food on the table, but don't want to have to provide it themselves.

Casual Observer - getting pregnant isn't your golden ticket to get on the dole. If you cannot support your child and abortion is considered as an option you obviously don't want the child in the first place, all we are saying is give birth and give the child a chance in life by giving it to someone who can provide the necessities. It's not about outlawing it, just looking at better options for the baby than dismembering it and discarding it.

I love the Republican mantra of "keep the government out of our private lives." yet they want to invade and control my uterus...

No woman should ever be forced to carry a pregnancy to term - you can keep your right to bear arms Republicans, if I can keep the right to control my uterus.

I agree that adoption is great and also believe that abortion is wrong, but to expect someone to go through pregnancy is a pretty outrageous demand (unless a child is specifically desired). Pregnancy is a very difficult medical condition. Can you imagine 3+ months of food poisoning? (I consider it equivalent to first trimester nausea in intensity, having experienced both.) Rapid onset of obesity, resulting in permanent disfigurement? (Most women experience permanent stretch marks and a sagging abdominal region that never retracts, and can be quite unsightly.) Having an internal organ forcibly ripped from your body through a small oriface over the course of 8-14 hours? (That is the average length of a first-time labor, and it feels exactly like torture, no matter what drugs you take. If you're a man, pass a kidney stone before forming an opinion on pregnant women's obligations.)

Human life is precious, and it breaks my heart that perfect little unborn babies are killed during abortions. But unless you are willing to suffer long-term illness, disfigurement, and ultimately torture to save someone else's life, you can't really demand pregnant women carry their babies to term. If I hadn't wanted children so much, I never would have gotten pregnant. I wanted a second child, but was still terrified and hesitant to endure pregnancy/childbirth after my horrifying first experience. In any other situation, a woman in that much pain would have been put out of her misery.

dclady----you can keep your right to control your uterus, just don't expect insurance companies (who pass on their costs to the consumers) to pay to put a baby in that uterus via IVF

why shouldn't IVF treatments be covered? As a non-smoking, non-obese woman, I pay into the pool that covers smokers and obese people, who are more likely to have health problems and be more expensive. Smoking is an option - being infertile isn't, why should infertile people have to pay extra / out of the pocket for a condition they can't control, but insurance companies will cover smoker health risks? Every day your insurance is shelling out money to cover expenses for high risk people - why are they constantly trying to single out women?

I'm not sorry that I have a uterus - I pay into my insurance, and they damn well should cover my uterus, in all aspects. Being a woman isn't a pre-existing condition.

But you'll pay for the delivery fee when people who can't afford babies get pregnant anyway? So to remedy that, you'll have to pay for birth control. And if you pay for people not to get pregnant, it's only fair to pay for others to get pregnant. And for the record, infertility is a symptom of a disease.

@july - it very often is caused by disease. Treatable disease that I would much rather see paid for then some other things.

July7 how dare you say that this infertility isn't a disease. My husband has cystic fibrosis and part of the disease is the loss of the vas defrens in males. He can't have children because of his disease. Why should he be punished because of a genetic illness.

It is so upsetting to me that someone like you is blessed with 4 children and we are fighting just to have one.

Why should I have to pay my tax dollars to the tax system to pay for your children's education then?

Infertility most certainly can be considered a disease. I have been diagnosed with PCOS, a disease, and it affects how easily my husband and I will be able to conceive. We have been trying for over 3 years now and have had numerous tests and I have been on several different medications to fix the problems associated with PCOS.

You say you shouldn't have to pay for other people's children. Do you work? Do you pay taxes? Guess what, you are already paying for other people's children. Why shouldn't those of us who have a diagnosed disease that is affecting our fertility not have the chance to have children of our own. Shame on you and your close minded views.

Maybe you should think before you post. What a horrible thing to say.

Keep your thoughts to yourself

So I guess when people get cancer, it's just their body telling them to die?

While it may seem insensitive, I have to agree with Casual Observer. What is so wrong with adoption? My husband and I can't physically have any more kids (we have one) and are now getting ready to adopt. We are paying for it ourselves because it's our responsibility to do so. So many kids out there need loving parents. Why not use your desires to be a parent to do good in the world and give a child some hope!

And to compare IVF treatments to cancer is just incredibly... insane.

Why are you so judgemental? You have children, so why do you think you need to be the spokesperson for infertile couples? To pass judgement on something you know nothing about is......insane.

<sigh> Look, I feel very bad for couples that are infertile. I can't imagine how hard it must be. I watched my aunt and uncle spend over $100,000 on IVF cycles that kept failing. She was devastated. But they ended up adopting three kids and they love them to pieces and are a happy, happy family. My aunt told me that it took her a long time to realize it, but she said that she wanted to be a mother so bad that eventually it didn't matter to her if they came from her own body. She said that in hindsight, she wishes they would have adopted sooner rather than suffer through the financial and emotional burdens of IVF.

Look, I feel very bad for couples that are infertile. I can't imagine how hard it must be.

That's where you should have just shut up. You don't know. Period. But then you go on about your aunt and uncle, who cares? My brother's-sister's-cousin- had a nephew- you don't know so what else can you say about the subject. Who elected you the representative for infertile couples?

Are you people (CleanHands & Mom of 4) really that shallow and insensitive? And the scary thing is you people were "blessed" with having children!!!

"As long as there are babies to adopt" hahaha.

I had an infertile family member whose first choice was adoption. After seven years on the wait list and two birthmothers who changed their minds, they opted for fertility treatment. When that failed, they adopted overseas, but it was $100,000 all said and done, and they got a 3-year-old with disabilities (whom they love). Just because there are orphans and abandoned children in the world doesn't mean they are possible to adopt, let alone healthy newborns!

IVF is in such high demand because adoption is equally expensive and difficult.

Melanie - you're right, I don't know. But I did watch a family member go through it and that's what I was trying to point out. I'm not completely in the dark about it even though I can no longer have any children of my own. And yes I was blessed with having a child. I know it. But don't you dare judge me because I was able to conceive or expect me to apologize for it.

Why are the people with children telling the people that are unable to have children what they should do? That's like me telling a blind person how they should feel because they're unable to do something that I can.

If children are such a luxury and you "birthers" are all are such do-gooders, then why were you all so selfish that you had to have your own children, why didn't you all just adopt all the poor orphaned kids around the world? How selfish of you to want a child from your body and not just a poor, unloved innocent child who needed a home and love? You should all be ashamed that you had your own children!

For those of you "blessed" to have children, why don't you give me your kids, since you are all so judgemental you don't need to be raising children anyway. I'll raise your children and you can all adopt. Since it doesn't matter whose belly they came from anyway, you should all be OK and overjoyed about this proposal.

It's really not easy to adopt. People should stop throwing that option around as if most people wouldn't want a child through adoption. The issues are that it's very expensive and the process can take many years, so women may have missed their oportunity to try IVF. If IVF doesn't work, adoption is a good option, but if you wait and try to adopt, it might be too late to try IVF if you're not getting far with adoption.

Emily, isn't IVF just as expensive? Not to mention the success rates of IVF rate are just simply not high enough to justify full coverage? I can understand maybe partial coverage for a certain number of cycles, but full coverage for something that is not just elective, but chances of failing are higher than chances of success?

Hahaha. I actually thought Melanie's post was pretty clever. I'd give her my dog to raise, but he's all I have considering I couldn't have kids! :)

CleanHands - your name is judgemental. How self-righteous of you to think that I should apologize to you because you were able to have children. My previous example was meant to be "exaggerated." BUt that exaggeration is what you people keep talking about. Why ws it okay for you to have children, but I must be punished from God, or it's the natural order of things for your uterus to work and mine not to? I don't want to adopt, because I'm scared such traits that many of you possess such as stupidity, judgementalness, closed/small minded, and arrogance are indeed genetic!

Listen to how crazy you all sound! If you were all such do-gooderss, then shame on you for being so selfish that you wanted your "own" children!! Because my uterus is broken, I must have done something for God to punish me this way, right? Listen to how ridiculous you are!

Melanie is being just as judgmental towards those of us with children as she is accusing us towards her. She's a hypocrit. And she's obviously got jealousy issues as well.

Because it is somehow the job of the infertile to be responsible for the unwanted children created by the fertile we should all just shut up and adopt? IVF is cheaper, faster, and in most cases easier than adoption, which one of the many reasons (besides the obvious) as to why it is preferred.

I love how people are saying that if you choose to have children you should have to pay for everything OOP. I assume most of these people had insurance to pay for their expensive hospital stay when they gave birth. That's why insurance pools were invented, to spend the pain of medical conditions around. I didn't do anything to cause my infertility, it's not a lifestyle condition. An unbelievealbe double standard.

First of all, Melanie, I don't believe in God. Therefore, I don't think you're being punished and I don't think that you should feel that you are! This God person shouldn't be punishing good people. Do you think that I think it's fair that I am an epileptic and some murderer in jail isn't? Why should I have to suffer through such a debilitating disease while there are people in this world who kill, rape, and abuse others? And what about the cervical cancer? It's because of the cervical cancer that I can't have anymore children of my own.

I just really think that people get so obsessed with having their own child rather than being a parent. Which is why I told you what happened with my aunt and uncle. And it's because of their experience that my husband and I are doing the same.

CleanHands - There you go again telling me how I should feel. You are right - I am jealous that your uterus works and mine does not. I do not think that is fair. And later on when I am praying for you, I might slip that question in and ask God why yours works and mine does not.

I am not judgemental - you are the one that has resorted to "name-calling." I am not a hypocrite, but I can spell it.

What if I told you - I don't care about your epilepsy and you and your husband should pay for your epileptic drugs, it's not my fault something is wrong with your brain? How is that different from what you are telling me about my infertility? Like me, you too, will not die from your medical condition, but medicine would greatly enhance our "quality" of life.

I would never say that - I'm sorry you have epilepsy, (so does my younger brother) but I don't mind working today to pay for your (or his) medications. Too bad you've already said you wouldn't do the same for me today. My uterus doesn't work, but my heart does. Too bad we couldn't say the same for you.

You don't pay attention. My uterus doesn't work anymore either. And you are being judgmental of people who are able to conceive. Whether you want to admit it to yourself or not - being jealous is being judgmental.

And since you're the religious one, whatever happened to thou shall not covet thy neighbor?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with adoption...my husband and I fully plan to adopt our second child. But right now...I lay in a hospital bed at 27 weeks pregnant praying that my IVF miracle stays put. We have been through multiple IUIs and 3 IVFs, we have lost 3 babies...1 to early miscarriage and twin boys born still. We continue on this infertility journey because we want a biological child of our own...a child that is a combination of our genetic make up to continue passing on our family genes. I am not judging couples that easily got pregnant and had easy going pregnancies...I am simply saying that something that came so easily to you does not come easily to others and that while you may not think of it the way many of suffering infertility do...this is something that we long for. Because seriously...infertility or not...why don't more families adopt...why does it just have to be those with fertility issues that have to adopt?

I understand what you're saying, Melanie. But when it comes to someone (including your brother) having life-threatening seizures or someone who wants fertility treatments, I'm gonna take the former every time. And my husband and I do pay for my medication - out of pocket, because my meds are not covered by his insurance. $378/month.

Bed Rest - I feel for you! I was on bedrest for 6 and a half months and it was by no means easy! My little one still came 6 weeks early, there was no stopping it. But after a couple weeks in the NICU he caught up in size and strength and he's a healthy 3 and a half year old now. Keep your head up and I wish you the best!

CleanHands - why is it everytime someone else has it, you have it worse? Your uterus used to work, now it doesn't, you have your own children now, why are you still complaining? I knew you't take the "former" because it's about you and you have already proven to be selfish. So your answer is no surprise to me.

Your uterus doesn't work (anymore) and now you proclaim to know how I feel. Bed Rest and Praying sounds like she's been through hell and back trying to just have 1 (child) and now you know exactly how she feels.

You are a hypocrite. What if people told you, that they didn't want to pay for your baby's NICU stay? It's not your fault my uterus doesn't work, just like it's not my fault your baby needed 6 (expensive) weeks in the NICU. Why did you want to jeopardize the risk of passing epilepsy onto your child? Why didn't you just adopt? Those last 2 judgmental questions are what your responses to me sound like.

And of course I will take the former. I find it ironic that you criticized me for not understanding infertility and then you turn around and do the exact same thing with my epilepsy. Let's see, what were your words? Your brother's uncle's nephew - who cares? Something along those lines? There ya go, being a hypocrite again.

After all, I've been pregnant and had a child. What kind of support or advice can you offer her when... well, do I really need to say it?

You're the type of woman that us mothers in play groups keep out. Perhaps there is a reason you have been denied a child. But only your Man upstairs knows that for sure.

Said the fertile woman to the infertile woman.

I am no longer responding to you, your last comments are cruel. I don't want to lower myself to your level by "replying" to you. I have a higher set moral standards that I try to live by. I don't always succeed, but I do try. I do wish you and all of the fertile women and all of your children the best.

I am no longer responding to you

Good. Then my mission has been accomplished.

Now, if you'll excuse me. I have to go make dinner for my amazing husband and beautiful son. Good luck in all your future endeavors.

Clean Hands wrote: "After all, I've been pregnant and had a child. What kind of support or advice can you offer her when... well, do I really need to say it?"

REALLY low blow, Clean Hands! Very inappropriate thing to say to an infertile woman, rubbing your success in her face. It was bad enough when you missed the sarcasm in her earlier post and said she was out of her mind and a hypocrite, and that you wouldn't let her raise a dog. But this one was the final straw for me. Reported as inflammatory.

Oh my good lord, a_long. You seriously report people? How childish is that!

CleanHands,

You still never answered my question: whatever happened to Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor?

Assuming you're referring to the Ten Commandments, it's wife, or goods, but "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor" doesn't exist. You made that up. A child is neither, and you can't change the Bible just to suit your whim. Maybe that's why you didn't get a response.

Infertility is a medical condition, not a life style choice. Insurance covers medical conditions - not just life-threatening diseases. Pregnancy is not a disease nor is it life-threatening. Fertility itself is not a disease nor is it life-threatening, but insurance covers 'fixing' that - a vasectomy or a tubal ligation are routinely covered. If it covers making the fertile infertile, why shouldn't work both ways? It sounds like you're argument is just "I've got mine, why should I put myself out for you?"

As the father of three, and grandfather of 2 beautiful IVF kids, it's perfectly obvious that fertility treatments should be covered. Best wishes to all those out there who are still trying.

Some of your comments are insensitive at the very least. You have no standing to call someone else childish.

tim:

the 10th Commandment: "You shall not covet thy neighbor's house, you shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."

That doesn't sound familiar to you?

CleanHands,

You're perfectly welcome to change what you previously said, but don't you think the mature thing to do would be to have the courtesy to admit it? I mean, since you're calling other people childish, it does put the onus on you to be a grownup yourself, don't you think?

Clean Hands wrote: "Oh my good lord, a_long. You seriously report people? How childish is that!"

When a bully is caught doing something inappropriate, he might call the other person "childish" for pointing it out rather than accept responsibility for his actions. Are you going to shake me down for my lunch money now, too?

Judging by your collapsed comment, I wasn't the only one to click the little exclamation point on your post. Tim is right when he points out that you are being quite childish yourself. And Sally has the best advice of all.

Most infertile couples I know don't give a crap about their genes, or having a child that looks like them. They want a child who hasn't been ruined by prenatal exposure to drugs, alcohol or other toxins, or by years of abuse/neglect with an unfit birthparent or serial foster homes.

At least with IVF, you can protect your child from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, you can raise it from the day it's born, and you don't have to fret about wishy-washy birthmothers changing their minds or putting you through expensive legal proceedings.

There is only a 3% chance of any birth defects if you have your own child. It's much higher with adoption. Just because someone is infertile doesn't necessarily mean they are more qualified to raise special-needs children, yet that is how it often works out.

Sally,

In my defense I have not "replyed" back to CleanHands since Wednesday, because I stated that I have a higher set of morals to live by and true to my word, I've been living by them!! And Sally, looks like more people agree, or have compassion for me (since it was CleanHands comment) that was collapsed by the community.

But don't worry, I have no intention of stooping to the level of other posters. Thank you to the rest of you for your supportive comments.

FYI: I do not feel like taxpayers should pay for our IVF, or adoption!!!! I was just playing the "devil's advocate" all along- but then I did become angry when other people had such insensitive, cruel remarks. This entire post has been an "eye-opening" experience for me. I know we are a great country, but I just never realized how many cold-hearted, selfish people that we have in it- this thought saddens me. Thanks for the support tim and a_long!!!!!! Don't worry, Sally, I have no desire to reply back to CleanHands. I apologize if I offended anyone.

How much do you think it costs to raise a child to 18? If you are worried about the cost, perhaps you should rethink having a child.

Give me a break o'reallly!!!

Most people don't have to fork over 20,000 to 40,000 dollars just to have a baby.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't worry about o'really. The anonymity of the internet has rendered their heart useless. What a horrible thing to say.

It cost nearly $20,000 per child for us in the form of prenatal care, delivery and first year pediatric care (for a pretty standard childbirth and healthy babies). Of course, we did not pay that because insurance covered most of it, but that is a realistic cost. We paid about $5,000 out-of-pocket between co-payments and deductibles for the both of them, maybe more. Of course, we pay about $500/month in insurance premiums for a family of four (rip off!) so in the long run (5 years) we might as well have paid the full $40,000 ourselves and kept our premiums!

That's a good point.

You spend hundreds of thousands of dollars raising kids, what's a fraction of the cost to procure them?

JM-

Adoptive parents have to pay expenses for first year pediatric care and whatever delivery costs are not covered by insurance.

Your post is pointless.

It's related to health as well, I think that the diagnostic process should be covered. Treatments to become pregnant other than health-related issues like endometriosis or fibroids should not be covered under the plan.

Do you think treating symptoms of all diseases is elective? Like, once cancer is no longer treatable should we not cover hospice? It's just quality of life after all.

oh I'm sure a democrat congressman could find it in there, they found the right to health care in there.

Kent, if we don't have the innate right to produce, why does Medicaid pay for prenatal care and births?

Because those people became pregnant as a result of a natural occurrence.

Yeah and 100 years ago you could have died from a lot things you don't today. Ridiculous argument.

You're not born with an innate right to see either. Or hear. Or walk. When you've had all the children you want to have, you're not entitled to a vasectomy or tubal ligation. These are all elective life style choices.

Apparently you're also not born with an innate sense of empathy either. Perhaps we should have insurance cover that condition as well.

@emma - you make a great point, we do pay for women to reproduce, not once but as many times as they desire. The least we could do is pay a portion.

Try getting "knocked up" 6 times and miscarrying every single time. Try getting "knocked up" with fraternal twins and then losing one of them to miscarraige. Just because I ended up with 4 beautiful children does not mean I did not suffer. And guess what? There is no treatment for unexplained multiple miscarriage, as mine was. My trouble was staying pregant, not getting pregnant. Yet all they do for me was blood work and painful, invasive tests. Then, when they could find "nothing wrong" I had to either give up or try again and hope it didn't end bad.

I miscarried three times while my sister in law on wlefare popped out 4 kids while having no job. I shelled out $35,000 and she paid nothing. I think all of womens reproductive health should be looked at. Why is viagra covered but not birth control? All I am asking for is to having some portion covered.

How quick those who can reporoduce on their own can judge us who have problems.

How quick those who have problems are to order others to subsidize them...

Some people are truly clueless. I think insurance should at least cover the costs so a family can have one child. Perhaps no more than one.(unless multiples are born) For you people saying adopt. It costs a boat load of money to adopt as well. Both fertility treatments and adoptions are expensive. It's not like these people chose to be infertile. Have a heart.

sheryl you make a good argument. Definitely something to consider.

Childless couples also helped pay for your four kids.

Traci, you really don't get it. You sound like that congressperson who said that men don't need to worry about maternity coverage. Who's going to have the babies? Their wives? Their mothers? Their daughters? That single male might need treatment, when he gets married and finds that his wife doesn't ovulate on her own, or there's something wrong with her tubes, or as is just as common there is something about his sperm that makes him not able to get his wife pregnant without help.

If you had four kids (unaided or not) while insured, we all paid (a lot) for it. If you had treatment for your miscarriages, we all paid for it. My husband and I are not able to get pregnant on our own (unexplained infertility), but after less expensive treatments failed and multiple exploratory surgeries didn't help, we were able to get pregnant with IVF (which was covered by his employer). I will never know why both of us, who are as healthy as can be, have this one thing wrong with us. We have paid into the system for years and are as entitled to coverage as anyone else who suffers from a medical problem, life threatening or not.

Studies have shown that offering infertility coverage (like they do in Europe) actually lowers costs as couples are not put in a situation where they transfer multiple embryos which is more likely to result in multiple births and lots of expensive (and covered) NICU time for their premature babies, and sometimes a lifetime of increased care.

And before anyone harks on about adoption (which is lovely for those who chose it) and overpopulation (which the entire medical profession helps every day), look around at your family. Do you have your own children? Why? It is why we are here, it gives stability and happiness and purpose to people's marriages and lives. Most people want to have their own children with their spouses. It's the most innate desire. To question it, is just beyond ridiculous.

Yet, I will pay more because another couple is struggling to get pregnant.

For someone who claims to know insurance, you seem awfully ignorant of how it actually works.

Traci, as an insurance agent you should know that that is the whole POINT of insurance--to spread the risk across a large population. While the older couple is paying to cover younger families who are having children, we younger families are paying for the older couple to have medical care related to their age. I don't ski, for instance, but know that my insurance company will pay to cover someone who broke their leg skiing and I have no problem with that. That's what insurance is FOR.

Well, aren't we lucky that you stopped by to tell us all how it ought to be.

As soon as they stop using MY tax dollars to bail out Wall Street, I'll stop asking for something that I consider vital. We're not spoiled brats, we're human beings in a very painful situation, so you need to think before you type.

Hahahhaa. Are you serious? I'm as Christian as they come, but you and your judgemental "abomination" talk is hilarious in the most disturbing way. I suppose we should still be burning witches, and not sailing to the edge of the earth so we don't fall off! HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

Nothing happens that isn't God's will, so if it's an abomination for a couple to conceive via IVF, take it up with the Big Guy.

My husband and I did six rounds of IVF with our own money. We have spent well over $50,000 trying to conceive a child of our own. This was a decision we made together to spend our hard earned money on. We never conceived a child through IVF but have decided to go through the adoption process to become parents. IVF is a choice and I do not believe the procedures should be covered but the cost of the drugs to faciliatate this process are outrageously overpriced. These drug companies are the ones that should be regulated or develop some program that could make the medications more reasonably affordable. I will be a parent one day but lets spend our tax dollars on saving abused and neglected children not on people like myself choosing to go the IVF route there are plenty of other ways to become a parent.

Good lord Bethcat, I hope you never reproduce.

I went through 3 rounds of IVF to conceive my daughter, it was painful, emotional and luckily successful. What so many people don't understand is that many couples that go through with IVF DO have medical conditions; whether it be genetic predispositions or related to either the male or female body. I have PCOS and needed help to conceive, yes it is a medically diagnosed condition, and am very blessed and fortunate that IVF was around and it worked. Should it be covered, that's for the individual insurance companies to decide, not the state.

Adoption isn't for everyone, IVF isn't for everyone, children aren't for everyone, but that's the great thing about this country, we have the ability to choose our own path. My husbands company chose to add fertility treatment on to their insurance policy, they also would give $5,000 to a couple going through the adoption process, different couples chose different paths and there are a lot of happy families that are blessed with children that otherwise would not have them.

sfrancis.

I feel the same as you and have stated so on other blogs. If God determines who can have children and who can't then that makes him a monster in my eyes. If he decides then why would he allow abusers and those who kill their kids to have children.

If it wasn't for IVF I wouldn't have my daughter. (who is 10 now). Hubby and I checked into adoption the only question I was ask was if I had $10,000 in the bank. Why do I need $10,000 in the bank? If I could conceive on my own I wouldn't need $10,000 up front. Just because I don't have $10,000 in a savings doesn't mean I can't provide for or give that child the love that is needed. So because of that we decided to try other options.

I can't imagine my life without our daughter. She is the reason I get up every morning. She is my life. She has taught me as much as I've have taught her. There is no greater reward in life then to have the love of a child.

I wish other would try to imagine how empty their lives would be without their children before they make rude and cold comments.

Couldn't agree more. The IVF success rate at my clinic is now over 60%. Twenty years ago it was in the single digits. I'm glad they didn't stop making it better. If God really doesn't want you to have kids, no amount of IVF will make it happen. We are just working with what God gave us anyway. It's just eggs and sperm, it's not science fiction. All medicine is messing with God's plan anyway: surgeries, transplants, chemo, life support, etc., etc... People need to catch up to the 21st century or get the heck out of the way.