S/O Insurance + IVF

J&K10910 · August 2010

Well I realize that we have education here and many countries don't. My point was that even with the education here, the US is still moving towards overpopulation and over consumption of resources.

Steph0871 · August 2010

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:f1317c3b-a975-42ec-bc14-5eace364d416">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : ... I have a family member who used IVF and it took her like four times (I think, some ungodly high number) and I just think: <strong>1) get the clue 2) that's so much heartbreak every single time it failed and </strong>3) They couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have done it anyway, her parents were paying for it. Anyway, that's my two cents. Nothing personal to those whom I may have offended.
Posted by shellydiane820[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>My mom and dad had me when they were 23 (oops baby), then my mom went on BC for a few years. When she went off it, they couldn't have kids. I think they went through 3 rounds of IVF, without any luck. Even though I was only like 5 years old, I still remember my mom being so sad for awhile.</div><div>
</div><div>They eventually gave up after awhile. A year later, my sister was born. Then two brothers (3 kids in 5 years, almost 8 years after me.) I think that says something. I'm not super religious or anything, but I still feel ike my mom's body was going to have kids when it was ready, not when they were trying to force it with science.</div><div>
</div><div>I really don't think insurance should cover IVF. There are so many kids out there who need to be adopted (in our OWN country, by the way.) On a semi-related note (since it was already brought up), it's ridiculous that Viagra is covered. But, anyway, having a child is not something you physically NEED to survive. Insurance is meant to keep you alive and healthy. Considering all the risks that come with being pregnant, it's kind of backwards. </div><div>
</div><div>A PP compared having kids to getting a boob job. As weird as it is, I kind of agree. To some women, altering their physical appearance will enhance their quality of life. Isn't that what children do for other people? Yes, it would be nice to have kids. No, they aren't not necessary to survive. </div><div>
</div><div>I, personally, am a little concerned about whether or not FI and I will have difficulties. We're not planning on TTC for 2-3 years, so we still have time. I've been on BC for 9 years (since I was 15 for cramping, etc.) I know everything out there says it's mostly safe in the long term. I'm still concerned, though, considering what my parents had to go through. If that's what happens, we're both completely open to adoption.</div><div>
</div><div>ETA: Holy novel. Sorry about that. At least I used paragraphs?</div><div>
</div>

M&R7111 · August 2010

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:9eebc2e0-c04b-4dc5-a102-143ddca91ef6">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Well I realize that we have education here and many countries don't. My point was that even with the education here, the US is still moving towards overpopulation and over consumption of resources.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

I was jus adding this to my previous post as you were writing this I guess:
countries like the US are not major contributers to overpopulation. The major contributers that have the largest growth momentums are Nigeria, India, China (duh), and Mexico. It's not the number of children we have in the US every year, its related to replacement numbers. On average, US families reproduce at (2 kids) or slightly above (3kids) replacement level. In some of these developing nations, couples are having 10 - 12 kids!

And it's not just "education" like knowing math and reading. It's education on female health and reproductive issues.

Also, we do not have what is called "people overpopulation" like developing nations, we have "consumption overpopulation" Basically, people in developing nations do not consume many resources - they only use the bare minimum. There are just SO MANY of them that they end up overconsuming.

People in developed nations have lower populations since they have gone through demographic transition, but consume much much much more than what an average person needs. Therefore, they are still overconsuming their resources, but it's not because there are too many of them, they are just using too much. Here they don't have to have population control, but instead adopt a method called "voluntary simplicity"

J&K10910 · August 2010

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:2926dc85-4916-4f09-80dc-7045263eb556">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : I was jus adding this to my previous post as you were writing this I guess: countries like the US are not major contributers to overpopulation. The major contributers that have the largest growth momentums are Nigeria, India, China (duh), and Mexico. It's not the number of children we have in the US every year, its related to replacement numbers. On average, US families reproduce at (2 kids) or slightly above (3kids) replacement level. In some of these developing nations, couples are having 10 - 12 kids! <strong>And it's not just "education" like knowing math and reading. It's education on female health and reproductive issues. Also, we do not have what is called "people overpopulation" like developing nations, we have "consumption overpopulation"</strong> Basically, people in developing nations do not consume many resources - they only use the bare minimum. There are just SO MANY of them that they end up overconsuming. People in developed nations have lower populations since they have gone through demographic transition, but consume much much much more than what an average person needs. Therefore, they are still overconsuming their resources, but it's not because there are too many of them, they are just using too much. Here they don't have to have population control, but instead adopt a method called "voluntary simplicity"
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

Yes, I realize what you meant by education, in fact I specified that type of education in my first post addressing this point. I'm not a moron.

And, really, I don't see much of a difference between "people overpopulation" and "consumption overpopulation." Sure, we don't have the overcrowding that places with people overpopulation have, but if we're over consuming our resources, I don't really think it matters if it's being done by 1 million people or 100 billion people.

katiewhompus · August 2010

I honestly don't know if my insurance covers IVF, but honestly I hope it does. I put tons of money into my insurance every year and only use it for a yearly annual exam and that's it. For me, I feel like I should be able to get something out of it.
I also think IVF is fairly misunderstood. It doesn't always mean hundreds of thousands of dollars, or manipulating nature or forcing something to happen. Some bodies may not mesh well together or may not be perfect for reproduction. If your progestering level is low, than why shouldn't a person be able to take a pill to boost it up? We take multi-vitamins to help boost our bodies, so why is this different?

I do think people are going crazy with it which is giving IVF a really negative impact in the media and the public eye. For me, I will try one or two of the minor treatments and be saving my money for adoption. I really want to be pregnant, to have birth and to nurse. It's horrible when you want kids and are told that you can never have your own. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but I really think it's something that people who don't want children just will never understand.

If we do go adoption we will go foreign, which I know will cause huge drama. I just would not be able to mentally survive paying over $20,000, raising a kid for 11 months while knowing that at any time the mother could come and take him/her away from me.

(Might be a post and run, company coming any time).

M&R7111 · August 2010

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:51b11d57-dd86-413e-980a-af4f61ef8de5">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : Yes, I realize what you meant by education, in fact I specified that type of education in my first post addressing this point. I'm not a moron. And, really, I don't see much of a difference between "people overpopulation" and "consumption overpopulation." Sure, we don't have the overcrowding that places with people overpopulation have, but if we're over consuming our resources, I don't really think it matters if it's being done by 1 million people or 100 billion people.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

I wasn't calling you a moron - so relax. I guess I missed it in a previous post.

There is a difference between the two and it dictates how demographers study and attempt to set out policies to reduce overconsumption and over population.

Obviously, they are the same in that they lead to overconsummption of resources and environmental degragation.

But in one situation, people need to use less to conserve resources. On the other - reducing the actual number of people needs to happen.

I really can't argue this all day - I need to leave and run errands, and I feel that you are getting testy wtih me. These are not my opinions but facts that I have been taught and trained in while I earned my BS and Masters pertaining to environmental science. So I assume you can disagree on if there is a difference or not, but I 'm not going to continue to argue things I work with on a daily basis to be true.

Nebb · August 2010

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:6e360149-7946-40aa-8492-2e5ac2d0735f">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : I don't agree with this because we haven't just suddenly started treating disease, and we're not necessarily doing anything that is not natural. Many medicines are simply concoctions of things found in nature; how it is unnatural to cure yourself of a sickness by using something found in nature? Penicillin for example, one of the most widely used antibiotics, was used before people even knew it existed when medics centuries ago put moldy bread on wounds. We just happen to be better at finding ways to cure disease now. If you argue for not advancing medicine to cure disease, then you should also argue for a return to a non-mechanized/non-electronic form of life since a lot of disease around the world is caused by unnatural toxins released through manufacturing, construction, travel that brings things between locations that would have otherwise been unreachable (think european diseases coming over to the indians by boat), etc. Doing anything other than that would make you a hypocrite since you'd be saying it's ok that people are dying of man-made causes but it's not ok that people are surviving because of man-made cures.
Posted by vegasgroom[/QUOTE]
Im not really strongly arguing for or against anything, just stating a loosely formed opinion that has no real matter towards anything because I will not go on a crusade or try to change peoples minds to agree with me. Just stating an opinion. I would be 100% fine with a return to a non mechanized/non electronic form of life. I can see many benefits to that, but I dont think the world would know wtf to do with themselves to lose that technology because people have become reliant on it.

stinkerbell6879 · August 2010

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:8af607d4-8e7e-4cd3-81cf-292dbe919ae1">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]<strong> I do think people are going crazy with it which is giving IVF a really negative impact in the media and the public eye.</strong>
Posted by katiewhompus[/QUOTE]
THIS!! I truly think this is why so many people misunderstand IVF and WHY people do it. Not everyone wants to be like Octomom.

megk8oz · August 2010

Katie, I know I don't "know" you, but see, you sound like somebody that I can actually understand the whole IVF thing with. It's the people that will go bankrupt, like the KPS poster, or people like Octomom that make me I "hate" on it, for lack of a better term.

But if you're going to be responsible about it, and you're willing to entertain adoption instead of just sinking every dime you have into getting pregnant (Because pregnancy, not actual parenthood, is the be-all, end-all), then I think you're thinking about the well-being of the child and being a good parent. Like I said earlier, I think when people go overboard, they're more in it for the AW aspect of pregnancy and having a baby, not seeing the clear picture of sleepless night, doctor's appointments and actually having to raise said child once it's here.

I'm not even sure if such a thing is possible, but perhaps if IVF could be more regulated (Like after x amount of tries you're cut off, or after you have x amount of kids you're cut off unless you can prove you can provide for them), then I think I'd be more comfortable with it.

Like I've said, I really don't judge people who go that route up to a point. But when you get into extreme cases where people are bankrupt on purpose or they're having 14 kids they can't afford, I have a problem.

M&R7111 · August 2010

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:fabefeac-a69b-448d-9f63-b5ca27bd354d">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Katie, I know I don't "know" you, but see, you sound like somebody that I can actually understand the whole IVF thing with. It's the people that will go bankrupt, like the KPS poster, or people like Octomom that make me I "hate" on it, for lack of a better term. But if you're going to be responsible about it, and you're willing to entertain adoption instead of just sinking every dime you have into getting pregnant (Because pregnancy, not actual parenthood, is the be-all, end-all), than I think you're thinking about the well-being of the child and being a good parent. Like I said earlier, I think when people go overboard, they're more in it for the AW aspect of pregnancy and having a baby, not seeing the clear picture of sleepless night, doctor's appointments and actually having to raise said child once it's here. I'm not even sure if such a thing is possible, but perhaps if IVF could be more regulated (Like after x amount of tries you're cut off, or after you have x amount of kids you're cut off unless you can prove you can provide for them), then I think I'd be more comfortable with it. Like I've said, I really don't judge people who go that route up to a point. <strong>But when you get into extreme cases where people are bankrupt on purpose or they're having 14 kids they can't afford, I have a problem.</strong>
Posted by megk8oz[/QUOTE]

It's like a snow-ball effect in this case: the system is strained to pay for multiple IVF, then parents have a gazillion kids they can't support and end up needing federal assistance!

stinkerbell6879 · August 2010

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:49f4cce1-9abb-4e70-b205-660dfccf59d5">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : It's like a snow-ball effect in this case: the system is strained to pay for multiple IVF, then parents have a gazillion kids they can't support and end up needing federal assistance!
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]
True. But what about the people who do this naturally? Can we or should we force them to go on BC before they can collect there check? Just a thought....

megk8oz · August 2010

And I also do understand that IVF can lead to multiple births, so I'm not all like "Oh, if you can only afford one kid and IVF results in quints, then too bad, you can only keep one". Once you're pregnant, you have to deal with it accordingly to do the best you can to do right by your kids. But starting out in a hole you dug for yourself is just a stupid thing to do.

trisha_nybn · August 2010

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]

Viagra was originally designed to cure a type of heart disease. People were amazed of the side effect of it (long lasting boner..lol). It is still used for heart disease so that'w why it's covered by insurance.

katiewhompus · August 2010

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:38df5b33-1bca-4411-a103-e3e5f6d44976">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]And I also do understand that IVF can lead to multiple births, so I'm not all like "Oh, if you can only afford one kid and IVF results in quints, then too bad, you can only keep one". Once you're pregnant, you have to deal with it accordingly to do the best you can to do right by your kids. But starting out in a hole you dug for yourself is just a stupid thing to do.
Posted by megk8oz[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with this, and also with looking at restrictions on IVF (again, depending on the type). I would honestly be fine if insurance said "Ok, we'll pay for 1 successful IVF treatment or 5 unsuccessful treatments" (pulling random numbers). After that you are on your own.

I also wonder about the Viagra as a mental health issue too. I kinda get where you are coming from Vegas, but not really. Not getting pregnant is a huge emotional roller coaster and takes a lot of out of you. Most of the women I know who are going through fertility issues are also going to individual and partner counseling because of the mental impact of their issues. So if not getting an erection is cause for insurance coverage because they guy gets mental issues, then IVF should get coverage as well.

Steph0871 · August 2010

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:cbfd98e4-72d9-496b-8015-4e7b72a9161f">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : True. But what about the people who do this naturally? <strong>Can we or should we force them to go on BC before they can collect there check</strong>? Just a thought....
Posted by stinkerbell6879[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>Yes.

</div>

M&R7111 · August 2010

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:0162b6fb-c66e-4aeb-b979-ecce341e0fc3">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : I completely agree with this, and also with looking at restrictions on IVF (again, depending on the type). I would honestly be fine if insurance said "Ok, we'll pay for 1 successful IVF treatment or 5 unsuccessful treatments" (pulling random numbers). After that you are on your own.<strong> I also wonder about the Viagra as a mental health issue too. I kinda get where you are coming from Vegas, but not really. Not getting pregnant is a huge emotional roller coaster and takes a lot of out of you. Most of the women I know who are going through fertility issues are also going to individual and partner counseling because of the mental impact of their issues. </strong>So if not getting an erection is cause for insurance coverage because they guy gets mental issues, then IVF should get coverage as well.
Posted by katiewhompus[/QUOTE]

Right - what about those situations where a husband leaves his wife because she cannot conceive? (a sh*tty thing to do, regardless, but it happens!)

I think anything that has to do with sexuality and parenthood (for those who want to be parents) can cause stress on a relationship and result in counseling - which costs money. ED and infertility both.

[Deleted User] · August 2010

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:82dac858-3eb9-43c4-b060-941a5b90f8a8">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : Right - what about those situations where a husband leaves his wife because she cannot conceive? (a sh*tty thing to do, regardless, but it happens!)
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

Or a wife leaving a husband because he can't get a hard on. I'm sure that happens too.

M&R7111 · August 2010

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:d14570b8-fd55-4092-a35e-1eda73f3aff8">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : Or a wife leaving a husband because he can't get a hard on. I'm sure that happens too.
Posted by cew515[/QUOTE]

True! - which is why I said that both ED and infertility (men and women!) can cause stress that leads to counseling and costing insurance money.

[Deleted User] · August 2010

Ah. Okay. I must have misread. Gotcha now.

flyjawn · August 2010

i would love to comment on this but i can't....

in ontario we have universal healthcare and there is a debate underway in gov't as to whether to cover these services.

i for for said gov't so i'm not allowed to voice my opinions. biting tongue... hard....

vegasgroom · August 2010

Anyone ever see the saturday night live fake cialis commercial? LOL, they had Cialis for threesomes and Cialis for anal. ROFL

[Deleted User] · August 2010

No, but I want to now.

vegasgroom · August 2010

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:66081cf2-2d08-451e-8882-e18d02f13c93">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]No, but I want to now.
Posted by cew515[/QUOTE]

As you wish lol <a href="http://www.hulu.com/watch/126476/saturday-night-live-cialis" rel="nofollow">http://www.hulu.com/watch/126476/saturday-night-live-cialis</a>

[Deleted User] · August 2010

yay! Thank you. This is blocked at work, so I'll watch it as soon as I get home.

S/O Insurance + IVF

Re: S/O Insurance + IVF

Choose Another Board

Search Boards