S/O Insurance + IVF

jennylove810

So I'm reading all the awesomeness of several posts below, and I can't help but wonder...

Do women have the 'right' to have children?  Should fertility treatments/IVF be covered by insurance?

I get the sense that a lot of people will disagree with me, but I say no.  Children are wonderful, but I don't necessarily think women are entitled to bear them simply because we have the equipment for doing so.  I don't think it's our insurances' responsibilities to pay to fulfill our emotional needs.  Not having children won't kill a woman or make her unhealthy in any way, so if we want IVF, shouldn't it be OUR responsibility to cover the cost?

I also accept that maybe, someday, my opinion will change, but right now I'm curious what the rest of you think.

M&R7111

Why is Viagra covered under many insurance prescription plans?  Do men have the right to get a hard-on just because they have the equipment?

[Deleted User]

I'm torn on this one. 

Most of me agrees with you in that IVF is not something that insurance should be paying for and that having children is not something that people should be entitled to. I actually never even knew until TK that insurance did cover it. I always assumed it wasn't covered.

On the other hand, I've seen the devastation and hopelessness that infertility can cause in people and it breaks my heart to imagine taking that away from them. One could probably argue that psychological benefits of IVF could be a health issue.

M&R7111

I agree with cew - I know, personally, I want to have children.  One of my biggest fears is that I won't be able to conceive.    I don't know if I would be able to just say "oh well, guess it wasn't meant to be".  I would be devistated to not be able to have kid on my own, knew their was a method that could help, but couldn't afford it.

For those who don't want to have children, or having children is not so important to them, they might feel different.

Do all insurances cover IVF?  I know some insurances don't cover things like birth control (the opposite of this, I know) .

Nebb

I dont think its necessary. My husband and I have tried to concieve normally before, and in the time that we did not only did I not get pregnant I didnt get a period the entire time, so Im almost 100% certain that if/when we try again I will have fertility issues to deal with. While I want kids, I dont think its anyone elses responsibility to fund my pregnancy in any way shape or form. I think there is a point in time when we have to stop expecting everything in life handed to us - if we want something we better save up for it or just accept it isnt in the cards for us. My husband and I have already discussed that if we cant get pregnant through whatever treatements we can get and afford, we will adopt. End of story.

I think wanting a baby, is the same thing as wanting bigger boobs (kinda different, but it is still a selfish want - no one NEEDS children or bigger boobs). I think when you WANT something, it is your responsibility to fund it yourself.

SarahPLiz

My friend had all of her fertility treatments covered by insurance. My coworker had to pay $12K to go through IVF. After one try, they have decided to adopt. 

I may get flamed for this, but I think forcing your body to do something that it doesn't want to do naturally is unhealthy. Yes, you CAN get pregnant with IVF, but I believe that you body's biology should also be respected. 

I want to have children, but if we can't conceive or we can't have a viable pregnancy, then FI and I are both open to adoption. I don't know if I would want to go through all the hormone treatments and shots. I saw what my friend went through to try to force her body into getting pregnant, and it was awful. I love my godchild like he was my own, but I don't know if I would have gone through the same thing.

My point, summed up, is that just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean you should be a parent, and just because you can't get pregnant doesn't mean you shouldn't be a parent. However, there are other ways to be a parent than screwing with your body chemistry. 

If an insurance company wants to cover it, then that is their prerogative. 

Off topic, but one of the things she doubts herself about is that she forced the pregnancy, and then ended up with a special needs child. She (not me) wonders if the 2 are connected. 

jennylove810

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:b7df81e8-d1a2-4faf-8c28-c1ebb0664dac">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Why is Viagra covered under many insurance prescription plans?  Do men have the right to get a hard-on just because they have the equipment?
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

I've wondered that myself.

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:b7df81e8-d1a2-4faf-8c28-c1ebb0664dac">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Why is Viagra covered under many insurance prescription plans?  Do men have the right to get a hard-on just because they have the equipment?
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

This is completely comparing apples to oranges.

[Deleted User]

Just to play devil's advocate, Sarah, but couldn't one argue that treating disease is forcing your body to do something? Like with chemo. Isn't that forcing your body to get rid of the cancer that it is growing?

SarahPLiz

It is. That is true. 

jennylove810

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:57b67898-13e8-4dc4-a5ed-e88a9f0d264c">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]My friend had all of her fertility treatments covered by insurance. My coworker had to pay $12K to go through IVF. After one try, they have decided to adopt.  <strong>I may get flamed for this, but I think forcing your body to do something that it doesn't want to do naturally is unhealthy. Yes, you CAN get pregnant with IVF, but I believe that you body's biology should also be respected.</strong>  I want to have children, but if we can't conceive or we can't have a viable pregnancy, then FI and I are both open to adoption. I don't know if I would want to go through all the hormone treatments and shots. I saw what my friend went through to try to force her body into getting pregnant, and it was awful. I love my godchild like he was my own, but I don't know if I would have gone through the same thing. My point, summed up, is that just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean you should be a parent, and just because you can't get pregnant doesn't mean you shouldn't be a parent. However, there are other ways to be a parent than screwing with your body chemistry.  If an insurance company wants to cover it, then that is their prerogative.  Off topic, but one of the things she doubts herself about is that she forced the pregnancy, and then ended up with a special needs child. She (not me) wonders if the 2 are connected. 
Posted by SarahPLiz[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on that, but I also understand how deeply personal and unique it is to each person.  *I* might say, 'ok, getting pregnant just isn't in the cards for me, so I'm going to adopt,' but I also see Cew's point about the hopelessness and depression that some women experience if they can't get pregnant.. I would never ever tell another woman that she needs to respect her body's biology.. even though I feel that way about myself.

Nebb

My unpopular opinion for the day is I think the treatement of diseases and IVF proceedures are all part of why the world is over populated. People dont die in their natural time, they are kept alive or have their lives extended further than they would be naturally. People who naturally shouldnt be able to have babies, do. I think fucking with nature is a bad thing, though I know we do it in so many ways it isnt even funny.

jennylove810

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:ba88cf22-2d9f-422e-aed3-93a1c759a175">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : This is completely comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

How so?

SarahPLiz

Jenny, I would never tell another woman that either, even though its what I believe. I am not one to push my beliefs on others. I support my friends in their endeavors even though I may not agree with their measures. 

And Cew, I think preserving a life (chemo) is different from creating a new life. I still need to think that through a little more, though. Thanks for bringing it up. 

J&K10910

Well there's a huge difference between having an erection and having a baby.   Yeah, same idea (have the equipment, does that make you entitled to use it?), but I think having a baby is a totally different ball game than having a boner.  Not to mention the fact that Viagra is way cheaper than IVF.  I think a more accurate comparison is that most insurance companies will pay for Viagra but many won't pay for BCP. 

[Deleted User]

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:99a5305f-eff5-4234-a6c9-4b4dad5bda5e">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]My unpopular opinion for the day is I think the treatement of diseases and IVF proceedures are all part of why the world is over populated. People dont die in their natural time, they are kept alive or have their lives extended further than they would be naturally. People who naturally shouldnt be able to have babies, do. I think fucking with nature is a bad thing, though I know we do it in so many ways it isnt even funny.
Posted by Nebb[/QUOTE]

So if you got sick now, you wouldn't want to get treatment for it? Surely you would, right?

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:ba88cf22-2d9f-422e-aed3-93a1c759a175">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : This is completely comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

Not really, if you are looking at the situation strictly between insurance companies paying for treatments that are not necessary to life and survival.

It will not save someone's life to have a baby, or to get an erection. 

However, I am sure the cost of covering Viagera is minimal compared to the cost of IVF.

Nebb

I dont know that I can answer that question. Ive never been majorly sick and im only 26 so I dont think I can honestly say. Maybe im not meant to live, I think seeking treatment at all costs is screwing with natural selection. Death is inevitable, but no one WANTS to do it. I dont think I could honestly answer for certain unless I was in that situation.

[Deleted User]

You better get treatment. The world would suck without Nebb.

M&R7111

And to look at treating disease as a reason for overpopulation - you are correct, in scientific terms. 

Over-population in nature is controlled by disease, which is a density-dependent factor.  The more of a species, the faster a disease spreads, killing off the overhead.

Also, allowing young to survive to reproductive age with bad genes is not good for the population either.

However, treating disease and allowing a child born with a dysfunction to grow old enough to have a family of their own (and pass down the gene) is what we do because we are also human.  Without human compassion, all you are left with is science, which is very cold.

megk8oz

I'm a bit torn ... and I know I'm the one who started all the trouble by posting that thread below (But seriously, I'm still angry about that).

I don't think I have the right to say somebody can or can't have a baby ... but at the same time, IVF is fighting nature. I'm also anti-insurance covering Viagra for the same reason. And in cases like the BPS secret, IVF doesn't always work the first time, so doing it more than once is like "double" fighting nature. I guess a fair compromise would be insurance covering one treatment, and then if it doesn't work, you're on your own.

With all of the unwanted babies and children in this world, I just kind of think if you can't have one of your own and you want to be a parent so badly, there is absolutely nothing wrong with adoption. I almost think deciding to adopt is a more "mature" decision than IVF, considering all of the things it does to your body that can't be the "safest" thing for your potential child (And shouldn't the child's safety be the #1 concern if they want to be parents so badly?).


I'm sure there's tons of people that would be horrified to hear any of that.

Nebb

I think if I found out I was going to die, I would just get in touch with some kind of robotic scientist so that I could record a bunch of funny things and have them program a computer to say them for me at random times, so it was like I lived on.

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:55dce2f9-fad9-41cc-8c6b-528fedc1e93f">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Well there's a huge difference between having an erection and having a baby.   Yeah, same idea (have the equipment, does that make you entitled to use it?), but I think having a baby is a totally different ball game than having a boner.  Not to mention the fact that Viagra is way cheaper than IVF. <strong> I think a more accurate comparison is that most insurance companies will pay for Viagra but many won't pay for BCP. </strong>
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

Well, yes, this is ridiculous too.

Lenore2010

I have two friends who have had IVF. One successfully and one not. In neither case was one dime of it covered by insurance. One had Blue Cross, one had Medica and that is all I know for sure. Both friends had to undergo physical and psychiatric testing to even have IVF. That is in MN. Not sure how it is elsewhere.

I look at my friend's daughter and cannot find it in my heart to judge anyone for choosing to do IVF if they are paying for it. The total cost of getting her here via that method was 80K. They did strain to afford that, but that did it (without bankruptcy! lol!).

Would I do it had I wanted kids and been unable to conceive? No. Health risks, financial issues, all of that. However, I hate when people make adoption sound like an easy solution. It is not. there is a very long waiting list for adoptions, and it is also expensive in many cases. yes, you can adopt a special needs child, but do you have the finances or TIME for that? Fostering kids would also be heartbreaking I would think. I for one could never watch them go back into sometimes very crappy homes. Do not even get me started on Child Protection in most states.

Bottom line, I try not to be to judgy about other people's reproductive choices, as long as they are footing the bills and they are ready to be good and responsible parents. 

Considering that I never for one minute in my life wanted kids this is kind of an amusing topic for me to be sounding off on, but it is just what I think.

jennylove810

From a totally disconnected, "I only look at the world objectively" standpoint, I completely get what Nebb is saying.

But I do know people, and I'd like us all to live long healthy lives.  Though to be completely honest, I'd prefer if our long healthy lives were the products of exercise/eating right, and not medication.  My grandmother must take 5 or 6 pills every day, and obviously I don't want my grandma to die but someday when that's me, I'd prefer to NOT have to take pills for cholesterol, blood pressure, and lord-knows-what else every morning.

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:a89f747d-54d3-4309-8589-b80ae11af776">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : Well, yes, this is ridiculous too.
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

Now that I can wholeheartedly agree on :)

FTR, I'm against insurance companies paying for IVF but I don't really have a good, logical explanation why.  I'm also biased because I don't want kids at all.

Nebb

Im not saying I want everyone to die because of natural selection or anything. I just think that maybe all of the medical advancements we are making, while keeping people alive, arent helping out the world in the big picture. I dont want my family and friends to die, but we all have our time. We cant live forever. I think expecting life to last forever because you can engineer it to is sort of selfish to the rest of the world.

megk8oz

My main point yesterday was bankrupting yourself on purpose in the name of getting pregnant was bad parenting.

I mean, I can understand why people try with IVF, I really do get that some people really want a child of their own. But bringing a kid into this world that you can't afford by your own doing is just plain irresponsible.

Anyway, I don't judge IVF on the whole, although it's something I personally would never do (Because, like I said, I feel it's fighting nature). But I do judge people putting themselves deliberately in the hole, for pretty much any reason that's not necessary. And having a baby of your own, as mean as this may sound, is not necessary.

M&R7111

I like what Meg said - that maybe a compromise is they pay for the 1st, then you are on your own.

I can see how it would get very expensive if a couple keeps trying and then failing over and over and over.  Though I don't know if I would want to go through all those treatments over and over and over.

Also, couldn't infertility be considered a disease? 

[Deleted User]

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:cce2a3bd-8aa6-43fe-a1e1-8f9dbaedc912">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]And Cew, I think preserving a life (chemo) is different from creating a new life.
Posted by SarahPLiz[/QUOTE]

And I totally agree with you there.

Lenore2010

On a side note, I would be really carefully with thoughts about how if we get sick it is natural to just die. By that measure, none of us should ever take antibiotics. A good percentage of the population alive today would have been long dead had they been born in 1850. The difference is antibiotics in many, many cases. I understand that much of what goes on now in medical care is way beyond a simple Rx for antibiotics. I saw bless it all and be very thankful you were not born in 1850 and have some options. I will never criticize how you choose to utilize those options - or not.