Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.

Posted by yurble 
IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 09, 2018
Fertility risks becoming class-based, as IVF treatments can only be afforded by the wealthy. So charities are stepping in to perform one of the least-necessary activities on the planet.

Quote

In 2016, after seven years trying to conceive, New York state assembly member Rodneyse Bichotte was pregnant with twins. At 13 weeks, she lost one in a miscarriage. At five months, she went into preterm labor, and rushed to a New York hospital.

Doctors turned her away, saying they couldn’t give her a bed because of insurance issues and because it was against “hospital policy” to admit pregnant women before 23 weeks. She was driven to another hospital, where her baby, Jonah Bichotte Cowan, died shortly after birth.

Now 45, with nine in vitro fertilization cycles behind her, and close to $200,000 spent on procedures and medications, Bichotte is determined to be pregnant again.

In many ways, she is a typical patient of in vitro fertilization, or IVF. She is highly educated, with an MBA and a master’s degree in electrical engineering; her salary of around $80,000 is 30% above the national median. Bichotte is also one of the lucky few whose insurance covered multiple rounds of fertility treatments.

After she reached her insurance policy’s limit, Bichotte spent $30,000 of her savings for one last cycle. When that failed, her doctor recommended trying donor eggs, a procedure that typically starts at $25,000.

“Even with the insurance coverage, there were a lot of other fees that I had to pay out of pocket,” Bichotte told me. “I just was drained.”

Her savings account emptied, and she turned to charity. In May of this year, she was awarded a $15,000 grant from Baby Quest, one of several dozen not-for-profit organizations that offer financial assistance to couples and individuals seeking fertility treatment in a country where it costs more than anywhere else on earth.

But of course if charities cover it, it's the luck of the draw, which is of course not good enough when it involves BAAABIES. In a country where many people struggle to get basic medical care, this wanna-moo would make states cover the costs of IVF:

Quote

While her private struggle continues, Bichotte is waging two public campaigns to give others a better shot at reproduction. The Jonah Bichotte Cowan Law, a bill she put forward in July requiring hospitals to treat any woman experiencing early labor, will hopefully pass in the new year. Another bill she plans to cosponsor will require insurers operating in New York state to cover infertility treatments.

“I think the solution is getting our states to cover IVF,” she said. “That’s how I can help contribute … to make this law that could change everybody’s lives.”

Okay, the hospital not admitting her when she was having a medical emergency is bullshit and should be addressed. The rest of it is just fucking ridiculous.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 09, 2018
Sounds like she is having a mid life crisis? But why can't she do like men do and buy 2 Corvettes and a Hellcat with the money, even then her carbon score would be much lower than with kids.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 09, 2018
Couldn't have said it better, Neptune. A nice expensive car or a couple of Harley's would be much easier to handle, cleaner, not annoying, quieter and would have resell value, in case the lil crisis is over grinning smiley
But what I don't get, with all the money burnt on all the Frankenstein-y experiements, why didnt that wannamoo just adopt some sprog? I mean who the heck cares if she shat it out herself or not... Would have been cheaper in total, and she would have someone to fawn over while there would be one less abandoned sprog in some orphanage.
Breeders are weird. And highly illogical.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom & Art & Music >>>>>>>>>> human spawn

"Music is immortal. People are not."
-William Anger, "King's Story" - Thief2 FM by Zontik
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 09, 2018
I see IVF treatments as just another waste of money on a cosmetic procedure. Not necessary to help save the life of someone, just giving them something they want, costly, and could cause the patient to end up with cancer or produce a loaf that has multiple health problems. Just another stupid charity that won't be receiving any help from me.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 09, 2018
"After she reached her insurance policy’s limit, Bichotte spent $30,000 of her savings for one last cycle. When that failed, her doctor recommended trying donor eggs, a procedure that typically starts at $25,000.

“Even with the insurance coverage, there were a lot of other fees that I had to pay out of pocket,” Bichotte told me. “I just was drained.”"

For all that money the bitch could have adopted. Not only that, but the fact that she's using "donor eggs" it's the same as adoption. The fuck does she want? It's still not her DNA replica and all she's going to get out of it is pain, misery and risking her life to bring in a baby she could have just adopted. I would think this is a serious mental illness to want to go through all of that and it still isn't yours.

_______________________________________________________________

"It is better not to look like what you are; it is better to look like a bourgeois woman because then all the doors are open for you and then you can just go and make hell." - Marjane Satrapi
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 11, 2018
well, one thing to consider, all the money this stupid, rabid, wanna-moo is spending will end up being spent somewhere else on something.
I just wonder how many husbands would wish the goddam sows would get off the infertile myrtle crap

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children
and I defy anyone to prove me wrong:

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

If I want to hear the pitter-patter of little feet I'll put shoes on my pets.

Mankind and its needs (wants) are like unto a black hole. It devours all available resources and it never is full: it merely grows larger and demands more.

Definition of 'wealthy': Anyone who makes more/has more than you do.

Someone pointed out that I'm a realist. And all along I thought I was just a pessimist crossed with a cynic.

Entitlement, thy name is mooooooooooooooo

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.
Add to this that, many of those who refuse or are unable to prove they are
citizens, will receive free insurance paid for by those who are.""

I am confused enough already. I do not need outside help.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 11, 2018
I forgot to add that I don't mind paying taxes. As long as that taxes covers things that are important to everyone. Access to good medical care, public transportation, sanitation, etc. etc. Those are things I don't mind contributing to. Everyone benefits from these things.

I would be fucking LIVID if I ever found out that one red penny of our tax money went for IVF treatments. I am fully AGAINST them and I would be writing my government telling them that. I don't care if I raise some bushy eyebrows, they would certainly get the message.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
I will never ever feel sorry for anyone who can't afford fertility treatments. Nobody ever has or ever will die from not breeding. Contrary to what whiny wanna-breeders and infertiles may say, having kids is not an essential life function. I can't say they should just go adopt because that shit is hard to do, especially domestically, not to mention insanely expensive and agencies seem to be pretty keen on finding reasons to reject perfectly good applicants.

Insurance should never fucking cover fertility treatments because it's not a necessary medical procedure. It's fully elective and it's not even like some cosmetic surgeries that are actually based in something resembling a legitimate need, like a woman getting implants after a double mastectomy or someone who lost a ton of weight getting skin removal surgery on their stomach.

If you can't afford IVF, you probably can't afford a kid either. It's not even like it's a worthwhile endeavor where you sink 30 large into it and are guaranteed a loaf. IVF has something like a 20-25% success rate, I think? I don't care how much I wanted something, I would never gamble with those odds with that kind of money. Bottom line is you can't have everything you want in life and it shouldn't be someone else's job to pay for it when you refuse to accept reality. I'd fucking love to go to London and have a fancy car - are there non-profits who will buy me a vacation and a Lambo? Why does some cow deserve a loaf more than I deserve a trip?

Let these assholes foster kids if they need to mommy someone that badly. I think the requirements are less strict than those for adoption and they give you money to foster a child. And I think if you do foster-to-adoption, it's cheaper than normal adoption too. But oh, these desperate wanna-Moos would never dream of raising someone else's unwanted kid that they threw out like trash. They can only love a biological baybee. More goes into being a parent than being related to a child by blood, and someone for whom that's a major priority will probably be a shitty parent anyway. The ones who use donor eggs are basically doing a more roundabout form of adoption, only they get to sluice the kid instead of just buying it. I think they tell themselves that since they grew the kid in their body, it's still biologically theirs when it's really not.

If someone's desperate enough to sell their house and go into debt for IVF, they should be referred to a shrink. Nobody should be willing to literally throw their life away all to try to (and possibly fail at) getting pregnant.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
Quote
mumofsixbirds
I would be fucking LIVID if I ever found out that one red penny of our tax money went for IVF treatments. I am fully AGAINST them and I would be writing my government telling them that. I don't care if I raise some bushy eyebrows, they would certainly get the message.

Well, most European countries pay for it, and I expect the Canadian, Australian and NZ health systems pay for a few rounds as well.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
My province(Manitoba) provides a 40% tax credit up to a maximum of 8K per year. sad smiley
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
What the hell kind of charity gives money to a 45 year old woman with nine failed pregnancies? Mother Nature us trying extra super hard to get her point across here.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
Quote
yurble
Quote
mumofsixbirds
I would be fucking LIVID if I ever found out that one red penny of our tax money went for IVF treatments. I am fully AGAINST them and I would be writing my government telling them that. I don't care if I raise some bushy eyebrows, they would certainly get the message.

Well, most European countries pay for it, and I expect the Canadian, Australian and NZ health systems pay for a few rounds as well.

That is an absolute travesty that people's hard-earned money is being frittered away to pay for some cow to sluice a loaf. I can only hope and pray that it doesn't come to Canada.

With all of the poor, homeless kids in the system, I am SHOCKED that any country would do this. Just to satisfy some stupid bitches so they can have their nine months of udder-rubs.

I apologize if I come off as upset, but IVF is one practice that I believe should be stopped. I would have thought with the environmental damage that overpopulation is causing the world, that European countries would be a bit more progressive thinking about this.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 12, 2018
In Finland IVF is supported through taxes but on the other hand so is sterilization.

I'm paying my endometriosis medication (BC pill plus painkillers) from my own pocket although i didn't cause this to myself.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 13, 2018
Really I believe IVF should be considered nothing more than a cosmetic procedure. Millions of people in the US still don't have health insurance yet someone can get taxpayers to fund their voluntary choice to breed. No one dies from not breeding. Then again I never considered infertility to be a problem (unless it causes other health issues) and should not be up for "treatment".
Theres nothing wrong with remaining childless/childfree.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 13, 2018
here is a 2013 article that lists what is covered for infertility treatments in Canada (by province)

https://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/does-your-province-cover-the-cost-of-infertility-treatments
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 15, 2018
Thanks for posting that, Cassia. I'm in BC, and it seems that some fertility treatments are covered by MSP.

I got into a bit of an argument with a family member last night about IVF being a form of cosmetic surgery. I only mentioned it, because they were going on about how sex change operations and the subsequent hormones, etc. are covered by government, they were upset about it being paid for through taxes and MSP. I asked her what the difference between paying for a sex change and paying for IVF and fertility treatments?

Of course, she's a parent and didn't understand that they're basically the same things. Not necessary for life. I resent any of our hard-earned tax money going out for something like this. Shoot people up full of dangerous hormones, making money off of creating frankenbabies, etc.

I told her that IMO, IVF is the same as having boob implants or a facelift. Nobody needs it, and nobody's died from not having it.

To her, it was different, because the end result is a baby. I told her that the end result could be NO baby, a baby with serious health problems, or the woman ending up with cancer.

Oh well, at least I think I made a valid argument.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 15, 2018
Recent studies show that children born using IVF are broadly sicker and have more serious health issues. Several dozen taxpayer-funded IVF conceptions—that is, funded by everyone else at great expense—are aborted each year in the UK because the fetus is determined to have Down's syndrome or other genetic or health problems.

The reason for this outcome is obvious when you think about it. In natural conception the tendency is for the fertilizing sperm to be one of the most robust, broadly meaning one of the highest quality. That usually will mean better odds for healthier offspring. IVF essentially takes any old random sperm from the donor and injects it into the egg, so the odds are higher of bad results. Also, by contrast, an egg that cannot accept any sperm, or is not viable after conception, probably has quality issues, so a woman producing such eggs would also be more prone to unhealthy offspring using IVF.

This is all common sense. The process fools with nature. Nature is a bitch. Couples find this out the hard way.

You would think for these reasons alone insurance companies and government health services would refuse to fund IVF. Doesn't work that way, though, does it? My mind boggles.
Re: IVF excludes the poor. Solution: taxes.
December 15, 2018
It certainly boggles mine. I have a chronically painful condition in my legs. It started in puberty, and it's gotten worse over my life. Last summer, my legs hurt so badly, I could barely walk. Both my legs were badly swelled, and one was swelled so much more, I was treated for a DVT blood clot that I didn't have. In the winter it's still painful, because of wear and tear on the joints, but they're not as bad because they aren't swelled from the heat.

There is a permanent, reversible treatment for my leg condition, HOWEVER...the Canadian Government has decided that it is a form of cosmetic surgery (it's a form of liposuction) that shouldn't be covered by medical.

This form of liposuction was created in Germany. It is not a traditional type, and I couldn't even have the traditional lipo due to the illness.

So, I have to suffer a lower quality of life because of this. Yet...people making artificial babies and getting sex change operations are covered, because of their 'feelings'. It is more of a want than a need. There are some cases where I do believe sex change is fair (such as in the case where parents and doctors decided upon the sex of the baby, and when the baby was apparently the wrong sex, they had the kid surgically altered - in those cases, I think they deserve to have the corrective surgery fully paid for). I also think that in some cases, like burn victims, car accident victims, etc., that have their faces crushed or body parts burned, should have their medical coverage for surgeries.

I just CAN'T wrap my head around people who think that the hard-earned money of other people is there for non-priority issues.

I also brought up adoption, and I was told that the lineups are too long, it's too expensive, and parents want to have their 'own' baby, not some defective throwaway kid that someone else didn't want. I pointed out that babies don't stay that way forever...however, it was an argument that I decided not to pursue, because the person I was speaking to has a kid, and they aren't going to see my side of it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login