Snarky Brides

WWYD

2»

Re: WWYD

  • Not saying that I agree or disagree, but why shouldn't IVF (beyond a successful pregnancy) be covered by insurance?
  • Winged - at 29 I have no plans of spawning. That *could* change, but it most likely wouldn't be until I was well into my 30's. I know some people will do whatever it takes to have kids, and that's fine for them. But if I couldn't have them then so be it. Maybe this is because I am wishy washy about them now. But I would prefer to let nature take it's course. Then adopt. I firmly believe I would feel no differently for an adopted child then I would my own. I don't need to pass the chicken/monkey genes onto anyone.
    image
    For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
  • Yeah, I think I'm with Sam. Knock yourself out but pay for it yourself. Or you could always ebay auction the hypothetical kid's second middle name, subject to approval.
    image
    Mucho likes purple nails and purple cupcakes
  • Not saying that I agree or disagree, but why shouldn't IVF (beyond a successful pregnancy) be covered by insurance? It's not a medical necessity.
  • This isn't a board where you get to play the "I won't state my opinion but you tell my yours" card. Why should IVF be covered?
    image
  • I think it should be covered, but I think there should be limits.  Insurance shouldn't have to pay for 17 IVF attempts but for couples that can't conceive on their own and wnat a biological baby I think coverage to a certain point is awesome.  I have a lifetime max on my insurance of $24,000. 
    imageimage
  • myboys, I don't want to debate anything more with you until I have some evidence that you can intellectually comprehend the arguments at hand. So far you haven't.
    image
    The hair grows in thick where the horn used to be.
  • Not winged, but I would guess because it's not medically required or good for your continuing health (like covering preventative care and BC).  What about plastic surgery?  Should it be covered by insurance?

    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
  • I don't think it should be covered under insurance right now. There are still life or death treatment/tests that aren't covered under insurance.
    image
    For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
  • Ditto the plastic surgery thing, SB.
  • Fallin I look at IVF as a last resort for those that can't conceive naturally due to infertility. Maybe insurace covering part of the expense vs 100%. But I think there should be a limit to the amount of successful IVF's, maybe 2 or 3. Now, when you have someone that has had a tubal ligation and now want to have IVF, that shouldn't be an option
  • Fallin I look at IVF as a last resort for those that can't conceive naturally due to infertility. Everyone looks at it that way. But why does that mean insurance should cover it?
  • Is this her blog, Lanie? [url]http://hyperfertileinfertile.blogspot.com/[/url]
    image
    I bet her FUPA's name is Shane, like the gunslinger/drifter of literature.--HappyTummy
  • Fallin I look at IVF as a last resort for those that can't conceive naturally due to infertility. Everyone looks at it that way. That actually made me LOL
    imageimage
  • on one hand, I am a firm believer that zero population growth is important for environmental/resource factors, especially right now, even if you can afford more.on the other hand, I'm my mother's 5th biological child conceived after she was 40 & 4 miscarriages (no treatments though), and boy am I glad to be here.I don't believe there should be a limit on the age/number of children a person has.  I don't think it should be covered by insurance as it's not a medical necessity and drives up costs for things that ARE medically necessary.and myboys drives me crazy with her non-opinion opinions.this has been a Tasty Tidbit.
    image
  • But why does that mean insurance should cover it? Insurance should cover it because it's a medical defect that prevents a woman from conceiving naturally. Maybe insurace can cover the treatements vs the acutal procedure.
  • Maybe insurace can cover the treatements vs the acutal procedure.What does this mean?
    imageimage
  • But it's still an elective procedure. A woman doesn't have to "conceive naturally" order to survive.
    image
    I bet her FUPA's name is Shane, like the gunslinger/drifter of literature.--HappyTummy
  • Insurance should cover it because it's a medical defect that prevents a woman from conceiving naturally.Conceiving a child is not a medical necessity.Not to mention, it makes little to no financial sense for insurance companies to cover it.

    image
    The nerve!
    House | Blog
  • Yes it is beth. You are superlibrarian.
  • That seems kind of shitty, no? Here, we'll pay to pump you full of hormones but we won't pay to implant the eggs. That is just counterproductive and wasteful.
    image
    For less then ten cents a day, you can feed a hungry child.
  • I saw her "I'm engaged!" post and didn't think to link it. My bad! What a loon.
    image
    I bet her FUPA's name is Shane, like the gunslinger/drifter of literature.--HappyTummy
  • What part of medical necessity is confusing to you?
  • No one thinks insurance should not cover treatment for endometriosis or conditions like that, if that is what you are talking about.
    image
  • fallin, if that is what she means than I give up hope that she understands logic versus something that medically can cause you problems versus wanting to concieve, which is neither a life nor medical necessity.
  • Interesting. I just read somewhere else that the reason the Savages did IVF for the 4th child is that their previous tries gave them 5 total embryos, and this was the last surviving one in frozen storage. And as per their religious beliefs, they wanted to give it a shot at life.Man, I dunno. Risking your own life just to avoid destroying a single frozen embryo....and then not even having the right one transferred.
    image
    The hair grows in thick where the horn used to be.
  • pdx, i thought that it said they had more and were going to try to find a surrogate now.
  • The intersection of using science to defeat infertility and create embryos and then religious beliefs to justify every other decision about them confounds me.  I can make the argument they make but my gut just doesn't buy it.
    image
  • The intersection of using science to defeat infertility and create embryos and then religious beliefs to justify every other decision about them confounds meYes, this exactly.  You can't really have it both ways
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards