IVF coverage

I'm a lurker who stumbled across a message board discussion of IVF coverage that I thought might be of interest to this group. The issue is being argued in a fairly objective and (so far) largely non-confrontational way.

I'm not sure how to link on this board, so the website is the best I can do:

www.abovethelaw.com.

The discussion of IVF is the first article on the page, at least at the moment.

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note that I'm a moo/parent with two little dumplings of my own at home, but I'm a full-time lawyer, an active contributor to my community, involved in local politics, and not likely to whip out pictures of my little crotchdragons at the first opportunity. We are self-insured, my children attend school and are cared for by family while I'm at work, I don't impose them on the unsuspecting public at movie theaters, art galleries, or fine restaurants (we generally confine ourselves to places where children are, I assume, expected to be present, like the park, the zoo, and the library story hour). I hope I haven't crossed any lines by posting, and I do promise not to intrude again. As a career woman of a certain (ahem) age, I have plenty of close friends and colleagues, and even a family member, who have chosen to remain childfree, and although that wasn't the choice I made, I respect and understand many of the issues that would lead thinking folks to make that choice.

Bowing out now.

Lowkey

I personally think IVF coverage is a load of bullshit for several reasons.

1. it often (often enough to be a problem) produces preemies with - at the very least - month-long stays in the NICU which are a horrible financial burden on the insurance companies; some preemies spend MONTHS in the NICU - can you imagine the costs involved?

2. these preemies sometimes (the exact percentage escapes me) grow up to be disabled on some level which I think is totally unfair to the child - blindness, developmentally delayed, lung problems, etc.

3. parents who MUST BREED AT ALL COSTS and use IVF are not thinking of any consequences whatsoever

4. covering IVF means less money in the insurance company till for other more important life saving/sustaining procedures/treatment

5. IVF (and it's related expenses) coverage makes insurance more expensive for everyone

6. it's exponentially far more expensive for the employer to offer than other benefits, thusly, takes away from other offerings that could be made available to the employees which would benefit more people

7. wanting a baby that you cannot have on your own is not a medical condition

I have no opinion on whether insurance companies should offer IVF coverage. I think its largely a business decision on the part of the insurance companies and if it makes business sense they will provide coverage. Larger companies are more likely to offer coverage, smaller ones, not so much.

But I've worked in healthcare, directly and indirectly, for quite some time, and there are some things that most people get wrong.

1. A significant rise in premiums.
--Not likely, in US states where infertility and IVF is required by law to be covered, insurance premiums have not been affected, at least not more than covering ED would raise a premium. This is due in part to the number of people who would actually require the coverage and the agreements between doctors and insurance providers that would lower payments.

2. This will result in a higher number of preemies, thus increasing insurance payouts and premiums due to the need of long term care.
--In areas where fertility coverage is offered or required, the fertility "industry" ends up being more regulated because insurers are driving the treatment, as in what is allowed under a plan to be done in what amount of time and what is the lifetime benefit allowed for such treatment. In states and in countries where treatment is covered and therefore likely to be regulated, the number of premature births and high order multiples goes down dramatically, therefore eliminating the need for long term coverage for a disabled child.

Diseases that result from obesity and smoking cost companies far more in coverage and premium increases.

I lurk around these boards, posting from time to time, and yes, I work for an insurance company.

Blank you said:
the fertility "industry" ends up being more regulated because insurers are driving the treatment, as in what is allowed under a plan to be done in what amount of time and what is the lifetime benefit allowed for such treatment. In states and in countries where treatment is covered and therefore likely to be regulated, the number of premature births and high order multiples goes down dramatically, therefore eliminating the need for long term coverage for a disabled child.

If you are still lurking on this thread, would you be a little more specific about what regulation means? Are you saying that insurers are cutting people off after a certain number of IVF cycles, for instance? Can you give a specific example?

Blank Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have no opinion on whether insurance companies
> should offer IVF coverage. I think its largely a
> business decision on the part of the insurance
> companies and if it makes business sense they will
> provide coverage. Larger companies are more
> likely to offer coverage, smaller ones, not so
> much.
>
> But I've worked in healthcare, directly and
> indirectly, for quite some time, and there are
> some things that most people get wrong.
>
> 1. A significant rise in premiums.
> --Not likely, in US states where infertility
> and IVF is required by law to be covered,
> insurance premiums have not been affected, at
> least not more than covering ED would raise a
> premium. This is due in part to the number of
> people who would actually require the coverage and
> the agreements between doctors and insurance
> providers that would lower payments.
>
> 2. This will result in a higher number of
> preemies, thus increasing insurance payouts and
> premiums due to the need of long term care.
> --In areas where fertility coverage is offered
> or required, the fertility "industry" ends up
> being more regulated because insurers are driving
> the treatment, as in what is allowed under a plan
> to be done in what amount of time and what is the
> lifetime benefit allowed for such treatment. In
> states and in countries where treatment is covered
> and therefore likely to be regulated, the number
> of premature births and high order multiples goes
> down dramatically, therefore eliminating the need
> for long term coverage for a disabled child.
>
> Diseases that result from obesity and smoking cost
> companies far more in coverage and premium
> increases.
>
> I lurk around these boards, posting from time to
> time, and yes, I work for an insurance company.

Aside from the fact that insurance companies would consider covering IVF treatments but not experimental, possibly cancer-curing treatments is fucked up on a whole other level, even with strict regulations for using IVF via health insurance.

And, once again, I see we have yet another anti-fat statement mixed in with smokers in bold! Let's see, what diseases stem from obesity?

Diabetes?
Heart conditions?
High blood pressure?
High cholesterol?
Gout?
Etc., etc., etc.?

So, now, these are all things that thin and "average-sized" folks don't get, huh? If they do get them, because they're not fat, they don't cause as much of a drain on their health insurance as a fat person, right? GTFOOHWTBS!

*sigh* This whole anti-fat trend on Bratfee has made me throw up in my mouth more times than I can count. I'm outta here before I get more pissed......

I have a feeling our friend who posted this thread initially is someone from the blog that resulted in a junta of trolls on this site not long ago. No offense intended whatsoever. Just a suspicion.

I've also read that women who have taken fertility drugs have a higher risk for certain types of female cancers.

And as far as the insurance companies claiming "no overall rise in premiums" when IVF is covered, I think it's just a fancy numbers dance and they're lying out their asses.

IVF is ELECTIVE. A boob job, face lift, and nose job are all ELECTIVE also. Does insurance cover that? Um, NO. Ok, yes, split hairs with me and say some do offer it, yes, SOME, A VERY VERY VERY small number. Not NEARLY the number that offer IVF coverage.

i have given up vlm, no matter what you do how you argue when you show study after study, after study, people will always consider fat people to be less than human.

just have a look at this site all those anti fat.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/ and it will open your eyes. or not.

IVF, is an elective procedure, no one ever died from not having a child. Whats the difference between god and an ivf specialist. god doesnt think he is a ivf specialist. All this IVF, is a money making effort for little or real worth.

A lot of people, dont understand what cancer is. Its simple its when your body goes into overdrive in creating replacement cells. thats it very basically, very simplisitically. (its more complicated than that). the 3 ways of getting rid of cells that are out of control, is kill them with chemicals, or radiation, or cut them out. All these extra chemicals that increase production of eggs, change the very structure of the cells, (once again the reality is more complex), which then causes more types of out of control cells.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/3243569.stm

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

NOT having children increases the risk of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. The correlation between fertility drugs and cancer were debunked long ago. Check out the American Cancer Society web site if you'd like.

Even infertility practitioners refer to IVF as an elective procedure, so there's not much dancing around that.

And women who have had many full-term pregnancies have an increased risk of developing cervical cancer.

A history of infertility also increases the chance of endometrial cancer.

Women with a history of poly cystic ovarian disease (fertility drug candidates) have a higher risk of endometrial cancer.

The fertility drug Clomid may increase the risk of ovarian tumors/cancer.

You can check that out on the ACS site if you'd like.

ok guest, give me a figure. it increases a 1 in 10,000 chance to 1 in 9,950?

slightly higher risk. do you know what a risk assessment is. do you know the difference between a 1% chance, and an increase of 30% within that 1%. instead of 1, its 1.3. theres a chemical that does cause cancer in mice, its in bread.. only at massive doses.. effectively it means you would have to eat 14,000 peices of bread a day to get it. so there is a chance.. but its so slight as to be laughable


The complete list of things that give you cancer (according to epidemiologists)

http://numberwatch.co.uk/cancer%20list.htm

Acetaldehyde, acrylamide, acrylonitril, abortion, agent orange, alar, alcohol, air pollution, aldrin, alfatoxin, arsenic, arsine, asbestos, asphalt fumes, atrazine, AZT, baby food, barbequed meat, benzene, benzidine, benzopyrene, beryllium, beta-carotene, betel nuts, birth control pills, bottled water, bracken, bread, breasts, bus stations, calcium channel blockers, cadmium, captan, carbon black, carbon tetrachloride, careers for women, casual sex, car fumes, celery, charred foods, cooked foods, chewing gum, Chinese food, Chinese herbal supplements, chips, chloramphenicol, chlordane, chlorinated camphene, chlorinated water, chlorodiphenyl, chloroform, cholesterol, low cholesterol, chromium, coal tar, coffee, coke ovens, crackers, creosote, cyclamates, dairy products, deodorants, depleted uranium, depression, dichloryacetylene, DDT, dieldrin, diesel exhaust, diet soda, dimethyl sulphate, dinitrotouluene, dioxin, dioxane, epichlorhydrin, ethyle acrilate, ethylene, ethilene dibromide, ethnic beliefs,ethylene dichloride, Ex-Lax, fat, fluoridation, flying, formaldehyde, free radicals, french fries, fruit, gasoline, genes, gingerbread, global warming, gluteraldehyde, granite, grilled meat, Gulf war, hair dyes, hamburgers, heliobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, hexachlorbutadiene, hexachlorethane, high bone mass, HPMA, HRT, hydrazine, hydrogen peroxide, incense, infertility, jewellery, Kepone, kissing, lack of exercise, laxatives, lead, left handedness, Lindane, Listerine, low fibre diet, magnetic fields, malonaldehyde, mammograms, manganese, marijuana, methyl bromide, methylene chloride, menopause, microwave ovens, milk hormones, mixed spices, mobile phones, MTBE, nickel, night lighting, night shifts, nitrates, not breast feeding, not having a twin, nuclear power plants, Nutrasweet, obesity, oestrogen, olestra, olive oil, orange juice, oxygenated gasoline, oyster sauce, ozone, ozone depletion, passive smoking, PCBs, peanuts, pesticides, pet birds, plastic IV bags, polio vaccine, potato crisps (chips), power lines, proteins, Prozac, PVC, radio masts, radon, railway sleepers, red meat, Roundup, saccharin, salt, sausage, selenium, semiconductor plants, shellfish, sick buildings, soy sauce, stress, strontium, styrene, sulphuric acid, sun beds, sunlight, sunscreen, talc, tetrachloroethylene, testosterone, tight bras, toast, toasters, tobacco, tooth fillings, toothpaste (with fluoride or bleach), train stations, trichloroethylene, under-arm shaving, unvented stoves, uranium, UV radiation, vegetables, vinyl bromide, vinyl chloride, vinyl fluoride, vinyl toys, vitamins, vitreous fibres, wallpaper, weedkiller (2-4 D), welding fumes, well water, weight gain, winter, wood dust, work, x-rays


http://www.tufts.edu/~gdallal/hard.htm

please check out about the lies statistics makes


check out relative risks

Now we are told that one glass of wine a day increases the risk of breast cancer (RR 1.07). Sandy tells about the provenance of this vital "research".

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/04/news-stories-for-bird-cage.html

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

http://numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm

or if thats too hard for you. read this link

http://www.childrens-mercy.org/stats/journal/oddsratio.asp
or this..

thats why they say lies, damn lies and statistics.

even simpler

An example when talking about risks of disease. Say the absolute risk of developing a disease is 4 in 100 in non-smokers. Say the relative risk of the disease is increased by 50% in smokers. The 50% relates to the '4' - so the absolute increase in the risk is 50% of 4, which is 2. So, the absolute risk of smokers developing this disease in smokers is 6 in 100.

An example when talking about treatments. Say men have a 2 in 20 risk of developing a certain disease by the time they reach the age of 60. Then, say research shows that a new treatment reduces the relative risk of getting this disease by 50%. The 50% is the relative risk reduction, and is referring to the effect on the '2'. 50% of 2 is 1. So this means that the absolute risk is reduced from from 2 in 20, to 1 in 20.

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/27000849/

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

Tuh-may-toes / Tuh-mah-toes

Y'all know the deal: One day, 2 c. of coffee a day increases your sex drive and your metabolism. The next day: You may get cancer from drinking more then 6 oz. a day, and become afflicted with erectile dysfunction or ovarian cancer.

You CAN'T WIN.

Just be reasonable. All things in moderation. Some people have shitty metabolism rates, some have thyroid issues, some have genetic predispositions, physical injuries, mental issues (chemical imbalances), traumatic experiences inducing some of the previous issues mentioned, on and on and on.

Generalizing based on someone's weight, height, looks, genetics etc. is so absurd. And if you believe everything you read in the medical journals, you'll never drink another glass of tap water, breath the air or touch a grocery cart. One will ALWAYS be able to find information supporting THEIR cause.

The bottom line is, as already has been mentioned: NOT having a baby never killed anybody. Period. Now, will someone please find and post a study that showed people CAN die from not having a baby?

I rest my case.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerandresearch/risk/communicatingrisk/absoluteandrelativerisk/

the uk cancer research. about absolute risk, and relative risk.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

KidFreeLuvnLife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And women who have had many full-term pregnancies
> have an increased risk of developing cervical
> cancer.
>
> A history of infertility also increases the chance
> of endometrial cancer.
>
> Women with a history of poly cystic ovarian
> disease (fertility drug candidates) have a higher
> risk of endometrial cancer.
>
> The fertility drug Clomid may increase the risk of
> ovarian tumors/cancer.
>
> You can check that out on the ACS site if you'd
> like.

Women also further decrease their risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer with each subsequent pregnancy. Seems that the benefit outweighs the risk.

Not really sure where you're going with the middle two statements.

Clomid only increases risk of ovarian tumors/cancer when taken for more than a year (according to the ACS site). It is standard practice to only prescribe it for three months.

Mercurior, I would love to respond but I'm a bit baffled about what exactly you're arguing with the multitude of unrelated links. Can you just put it in your own words?

Insurance covers plenty of things that don't cause death. There are much better arguments out there against IVF coverage.

That groups use, relative risk instead of an absolute risk. and that is the paranoia and the idea that having a child will save you from breastcancer or whatever.

the relative risk is 30% of the original not absolute. The real truth is that its only increases is minutely, in the tested sample, not reality.

so guest you are saying all women should have a child to stop cancer??? please read about relative risk and absolute risk.

"An example when talking about risks of disease. Say the absolute risk of developing a disease is 4 in 100 in non-smokers. Say the relative risk of the disease is increased by 50% in smokers. The 50% relates to the '4' - so the absolute increase in the risk is 50% of 4, which is 2. So, the absolute risk of smokers developing this disease in smokers is 6 in 100.

An example when talking about treatments. Say men have a 2 in 20 risk of developing a certain disease by the time they reach the age of 60. Then, say research shows that a new treatment reduces the relative risk of getting this disease by 50%. The 50% is the relative risk reduction, and is referring to the effect on the '2'. 50% of 2 is 1. So this means that the absolute risk is reduced from from 2 in 20, to 1 in 20. "

yes it sounds great you can save 30% 20%, but if you look deeper, you will see that its statistically tiny, but thats a proof that everyone should have a child?

because in reality, the chances are slightly more, which can be see as chance or genetic difference. And thats the other point, this having a child doesnt take into account, genetic drifts.

so if this was proof, that having a child would give immunity. then why arent they crowing about it. it doesnt cure it. it just decreases the chance from 2 in 20 to 1 in 20.. or less.. in the global picture that can still be explained as a random chance.

*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone

Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii

Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

NEVER said that every woman should have a child to decrease their chance of cancer by a minute percentage. I'm saying that it is an argument against the rote declaration that not having a baby won't kill you. There's scientific research - no matter how small the chance - that conflicts with that statement.

I do not believe in mandatory IVF coverage. I just think there are better arguments against it than, "You won't die if you don't have a baby."

A few things to clear up:

1. I didn't put anything in bold, so making accusations and saying that I am anti-fat is ridiculous. In fact, studies have shown that being "fat" in and of itself is not a health concern and that "fat" people can be just as healthy, and sometimes more so, than people of average weight. But there is no denying that obesity, and specifically morbid obesity, leads to numerous health problems that are inevitably covered by insurance companies, as they should be. That was my point. Certainly, in many situations, obesity is caused by a medical condition (often the same that cause infertilty), but more often, obesity is the result of behavior, which, when changed, can lower many health risk factors. But we cover them anyway, even though the increasing number of people who suffer from morbid obesity rises in the US and this, so does insurance premiums.

2. I didn't say that insurance companies are the ones who are claiming no rise in premiums in states were coverage is mandated. It's both the insurance companies (who have no vested interest in admitting that because the contrary indication would help them) and the states mandating the coverage. Insurance companies, in general, look for reasons not to treat diseases or conditions based on cost analysis, regardless of how it affects premiums. This is why most companies have life time benefit maximums, because they don't want to end up paying forever, they are ALWAYS looking for a reason not to pay. They'd have no reason to admit that this kind of coverage doesn't affect premiums.

3. To whoeverasked (sorry I don't feel like going back). Yes, most insurance companies either put a benefit limit on treatment (as in a dollar amount) or a procedural limit on the number of cycles a couple can receive treatment. The company I work for does offer coverage in five states (due to cost effectiveness) and they base treatment on a benefit limit rather than a procedural limit. Meaning you can do as many cycles as you can as long as you don't exceed the pre-determined dollar amount for treatment.

Guest wrote:
I'm saying that it is an argument against the rote declaration that not having a baby won't kill you. There's scientific research - no matter how small the chance - that conflicts with that statement.

I disagree. There is no evidence that not having a baby will kill you. None. Only a miniscle amount that some cancers are decreased with the birth of a baby. Cancer does not equal death. Many cancers are treatable.

VLM,
The diseases you mentioned aren't just for obese people. That's a load of crap put out by the anti- fat establishment. Fuck 'em all.

I'm 109 lbs. I have high cholestrol, 287 to be exact. Everyone I know weighs a hell of a lot more than I do, and their numbers aren't even close to mine. Even skinny people have these problems- cholestrol is 80% genetic, or so my doc says.

Guess what...we're ALL GOING TO DIE!!! No matter what you do, you will DIE. Life, in fact, has a 100% risk of DEATH.
OOOO...here's another news flash...nearly everything you put in your body, willingly or not, will increase your risk of harm. Having children may decrease risks of certain cancers...having children also increases stress levels, which...can increase risks of other illnesses....WOW!

You know why IVF shouldn't be covered? Because it is not required to sustain anyones life. You DO NOT have to have children to keep living. You will NOT DIE as a direct result of not having a child to push out your vagina, or of not being able to donate sperm. If you are sad because you WANT A CHILD, and you go through dozens of IVF procedures that fail, you will only be sadder and poorer as a result. If you are sad because you want a child, and get therapy to help you see that there are other things in life beyond breeding, or >gasp< adopt (which has a 100% success rate in resulting in a child), maybe you will then be happier and healthier.

If you have a child you have no desire for, you will be unhappy and your child will be unhappy as well.

"It truly is the one commonality that every designation of humans you can think of has, there's at least one asshole."
--Me

Egad, I also agree that this thread has the potential into turning into a juggernaut. I smell a set-up, but whatever.

ITA that it shouldn't be covered by insurance. The study that concluded that cancer risk increased in the nullipara was based on bad science. And I agree that even if did slightly elevate one's risk*, it makes no sense to make IVF mandatory.

(*Women whose infertility is "unexplained" are more likely to get breast and uterine cancer, probably because they have some underlying condition or gene pattern that remains undiscovered.)


My reasons for opposing it are:

1. IVF is not medical treatment. It cures nothing other than lack of a baybee.

I'm all for treating conditions that cause infertility, when those conditions affect a woman's health. Endometriosis can cause severe bleeding and pain. PCOS elevates one's risk for diabetes and uterine cancer, among other things.

If a woman is getting treatment for one of those conditions, and she happens to get pregnant because she is healther, fine with me.

2. Forcing insurance companies to cover IVF fucks with the allocation of medical care. Make IVF coverage mandatory, and doctors will skip right to IVF because that's how they get paid. Doctors will follow the dollars because they have to make a living too, and there are only so many medical resources to go around.

Healthcare is fucked up enough now as it is. It's all about The Moo and getting women pregnant.

And yes, as a matter of fact, I have a HUGE chip on my shoulder about these dumb cows who want to pick my pocket and fuck up our healthcare system just so they can have an IVF baybee.

I have the misfortune to have two reproductive diseases, PCOS and severe endometriosis. It's hard to get treated when you don't want to shit out a kid, and that's just wrong.

Many years ago, my primary care doc sent me to an endocrinologist who specialized in "women's issues." Not much was known about PCOS at the time, but my levels were THREE HUNDRED TIMES higher than normal. This asshole and his partner were absolutely perplexed why I was there. I came with my blood work and records. They were completely uninterested---didn't even want to look at it. They both said, come back WHEN you want to get pregnant and we'll treat you. I could have choked both those assholes.

My primary doc was a mother and a fine physician. She called them and reamed them out for their unprofessional behavior. She told them it was bordering on fraud for them to charge my insurance company for an office visit when they wouldn't treat me. I sure miss her. Georgia Jones, you rock!

bell_flower: I had the same thing happen to me when I was 22 and went to the GYN for severe pain in my abdominal area during sex (I was married). He said I had endometriosis and that AFTER I HAD A KID, it would aaaaaaaall go away. The stupid bastard missed the softball-sized tumor I had growing in me and after an emergency room visit showed the tumor, I had emergency surgery before it exploded and killed me. After telling him I wasn't having kids, he just looked at me over his glasses and said: "You will, eventually"...fucker.

It did not render me unable to have children however, much to my dismay, and I had to wait an excruciating 18 more years before I could find a good doc to rid me of my daily birth control pill ball-and-chain. You know the FIRST thing the nurse said to me when I was coming out of general anesthesia??? "Don't worry, you'll still be able to have children"...I started crying lol!!!

For those of you that don't think fert treatments increase insurance or costs to us childfree, think fucking again!

My welfare breeder ass sister GOT FERTILITY TREATMENTS WHILE ON THE MEDICAID INSURANCE PROGRAM SO SHE COULD GET PREGGO WHILE ON WELFARE WITH ONE KID ALREADY. Who the fuck paid for that? YOU DID!






lowkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a lurker who stumbled across a message board
> discussion of IVF coverage that I thought might be
> of interest to this group. The issue is being
> argued in a fairly objective and (so far) largely
> non-confrontational way.
>
> I'm not sure how to link on this board, so the
> website is the best I can do:
>
> www.abovethelaw.com.
>
> The discussion of IVF is the first article on the
> page, at least at the moment.
>
> In the interest of full disclosure, I'll note that
> I'm a moo/parent with two little dumplings of my
> own at home, but I'm a full-time lawyer, an active
> contributor to my community, involved in local
> politics, and not likely to whip out pictures of
> my little crotchdragons at the first opportunity.
> We are self-insured, my children attend school and
> are cared for by family while I'm at work, I don't
> impose them on the unsuspecting public at movie
> theaters, art galleries, or fine restaurants (we
> generally confine ourselves to places where
> children are, I assume, expected to be present,
> like the park, the zoo, and the library story
> hour). I hope I haven't crossed any lines by
> posting, and I do promise not to intrude again.
> As a career woman of a certain (ahem) age, I have
> plenty of close friends and colleagues, and even a
> family member, who have chosen to remain
> childfree, and although that wasn't the choice I
> made, I respect and understand many of the issues
> that would lead thinking folks to make that
> choice.
>
> Bowing out now.
>
> Lowkey

> For those of you that don't think fert treatments
> increase insurance or costs to us childfree, think
> fucking again!
>
> My welfare breeder ass sister GOT FERTILITY
> TREATMENTS WHILE ON THE MEDICAID INSURANCE PROGRAM
> SO SHE COULD GET PREGGO WHILE ON WELFARE WITH ONE
> KID ALREADY. Who the fuck paid for that? YOU DID!

Yep, WE DID!!!

And keep your wallets open because we'll be paying for the resulting kid probably for the rest of it's life, too. The gubbermint and powers that be aren't stupid. They'll do anything to keep the dependent and/or lazy-assed masses in breeding bliss since it's ultimately to their benefit.

Medicaid or public insurance works differently in different states. In MA, for instance, infertility coverage, including IVF, is mandated. Medicaid coverage also allows for treatment, but only one successful cycle. As in, once you carry a pregnancy to term, resulting in a live baby, you're done.

The state that I live in has some coverage that is mandated by law for certain insurance carriers, but Medicaid doesn't cover anything, and it's likely that way in most states, although I don't know.

It's all based on cost, what the insurance carrier stands to pay towards a treatment vs. what they get in return.