Finally someone with some common sense

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/12/10/news/121008lrinvitro.txt#blogcomments

T wo
H ousehold
I ncome
N o
K ids
E arly
R etirement

Of course there is the breeder comment about "denying parenthood," but the second comment is good. I'll be watching this article because I want to see what kind of comments come in.

HEE HEE HEE YEE HAW HYUK!


Look what I posted!!!!! (under the screen name "skeez"):

I think that reproductive technology is against God's plan. It is just like birth control. People should leave the number of children they have up to God, because He is the only One fit to decide who gets born and who dies.

:yeah

I wonder if it will get deleted?

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

put in my own 'two cents' worth. If you don't care to follow the link, here it is:

"Infertility is not life threatening unless the person involved has become so obsessed and rabid about creating their very own dna clone that they have actually become mentally unstable. In this case, such a person would not make a good parent.
Furthermore, if one wants to make it a 'health' issue, In-vitro is actually breeding FOR infertility. Unless the infertility is due to surgery or promiscuity (infertility is a consequence of multiple std infections), there is a genetic component to it. Whatever defect, whether it is inability to conceive or to carry a child completely to term, is due to some genetic mutation and/or defect. Since eggs/sperm are one half of the genetic material, this defect is included in the egg/sperm. Therefore, a child produced from mom/dads very own sperm and egg will pass on this defect. (Or any other defect for that matter.)
Proof? I think a British Medical Journal stated just that: they expect the infertility problem to go from the current 1 in 8 couples, to 1 in 3 couples in about 20 years due to in-vitro.
The 'children of men' scenario might conceivable become reality, due in part to the myopic selfishness of rabid women (and men) for their very own dna clone. ""

I like the one by "chloe" that says that the representative who is sponsoring this is DENYING people a chance at parenthood. WHAT an idiot. I love poofy's one where she turns God on them, that was a good one. I may sign up later and make my comment, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that it will go undeleted. It would be something like this:

To the lady who said the rep was denying parenthood to people, maybe she needs to look at the truth about herself. It's common knowledge that the 3 most common reasons for female infertility is 1)botched abortions or untreated infections afterwards 2)Sexual promiscuity resulting in untreated std's which caused scar tissue leading to endometriosis, and 3)Women who put their careers first and simply just wait until they are too close to or IN menopause to conceive. Maybe if "Chloe" and women like her wouldn't have chosen to kill their unborn baybees and simply have had them when they had the chance, or MAYBE if they hadn't been such sluts when they were younger, or MAYBE if they hadn't been so selfish and put their career ahead of their own children, then MAYBE they would have children by now and not need IVF.
It's not fair that everyone else is penalized via higher insurance costs because of some selfish women who "want it all". They should have thought about having children of their own LONG before THEY ruined their own chances with their OWN selfishness. Women like this are probably too selfish to love a child anyway. In essence, THEY denied themselves parenthood and the blame is soley on them and no one else.


Reckon that might piss a few of them off? IF it did stay posted , the comebacks would be so predictable that I wouldn't even need to read them. "****I********* am pro-life and would NEVER kill MY baby. I was a VIRGIN when I married too!!!!!! I am ALSO only 27 years old and I DESPARATELY want a baybeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. So there goes your theory about that because not ALL women who are barren caused it,How dare you even say that!!!!!!!!!!" wah wah wah wah wah ..............:bawl

Hahahaha! Kim, you should post it anyways... If they deny it, then no harm done. But if it's approved... Oh boy. Heeheehee.

CherryBlossom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hahahaha! Kim, you should post it anyways... If
> they deny it, then no harm done. But if it's
> approved... Oh boy. Heeheehee.


It's so inflammatory that I am afraid they will backtrack it somehow and start harrassing me in some way, it's happened in the past. However, I wouldn't mind if one of you braver souls copied, pasted, and took credit for it.

Kudos to those eliminating this from insurance coverage. Good heavens, go to the damn Humane Society, already. You can do more good by spending $100 on an otherwise forgotten pup than you ever could with $20,000 on vain, selfish IVF.

And the pup will love you till the end, unlike sprog

Kudos to those eliminating this from insurance coverage. Good heavens, go to the damn Humane Society, already. You can do more good by spending $100 on an otherwise forgotten pup than you ever could with $20,000 on vain, selfish IVF.

And the pup will love you till the end, unlike the sprog.

They disabled our ability to link it from here. LOL. I guess they don't think we are smart enough to copy/paste.

Hey, ts there another link? Doesn't work on my computer.
or What is the headline?

It's 12/11/08 and I just cut and paste from here and did a search on the article - no luck, then again, I'm no computer genius. Can anyone else find this article?

The removed the article from the site.
I am betting too many posts they do not agree with.

T wo
H ousehold
I ncome
N o
K ids
E arly
R etirement

Here you go...

http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/12/09/news/121008lrinvitro.txt

Thanks, J6126. i went over and posted as well. These people really need to get over themselves.

If health insurance companies can deny coverage for BIRTH CONTROL or MENTAL HEALTH...then they certainly shouldn't be providing coverage to something as INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE and FUTILE as IVF.
WTF?

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

i remember hearing somewhere that another reason for infertility is simply because that particular woman's egg isn't compatible with that particular man's sperm (meaning neither of them are technically infertile/sterile)... so i suppose one could tell all of the IVF supporters that they fucked up when choosing their life partner and they must go back to square one and try to find someone else their genes can mesh with... i'd love to see the replies to that one :yeah

After this article came out I looked up some basic info about state mandated IVF and other fertility treatments being offered by group health insurance plans and I was APPALLED. The benefits vary somewhat and there are some exclusions such as the self insured or under 25 employees, I think. However, there are currently FIFTEEN states that require insurance companies to cover this nonsense for up to 15k. They cover the subscriber and the spouse between the ages of 21-44(in most cases) who have actively tried to conceive for 12 months without success, REGARDLESS of their current kyd status. So technically, Michelle Duggar could qualify. They will pay to unblock fallopian tubes and a bunch of other procedures/treatments/fertility drugs are covered IN ADDITION to the 15k IVF. About the only thing they won't pay to fix/reverse is voluntary sterilization.

So, if they try all of these other fertility treatments first, which seems to be par for the course, and then the actual IVF, it could easily be a 30-40k tab. Then, IF it works, of course they will pay for the entire pregnancy, any complications which may arise, the birth, and will be liable to pay for the kyd for 18 years who COULD be one of those two headed kinds, a no face, bubble head, or a pig-face kyd requiring MILLIONS in pay outs. I think it's only fair that the employees who don't cause these types of burdens, like singles and childfree, should get SOMETHING tangible and monetary in return, to offset this BLATANT unfairness. It's reproductive discrimination, plainly and simply put and I HIGHLY resent it.

kidlesskim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, if they try all of these other fertility
> treatments first, which seems to be par for the
> course, and then the actual IVF, it could easily
> be a 30-40k tab. Then, IF it works, of course they
> will pay for the entire pregnancy, any
> complications which may arise, the birth, and will
> be liable to pay for the kyd for 18 years who
> COULD be one of those two headed kinds, a no face,
> bubble head, or a pig-face kyd requiring MILLIONS
> in pay outs. I think it's only fair that the
> employees who don't cause these types of burdens,
> like singles and childfree, should get SOMETHING
> tangible and monetary in return, to offset this
> BLATANT unfairness. It's reproductive
> discrimination, plainly and simply put and I
> HIGHLY resent it.

Don't know if this is true where others live, but employer health insurance policies in New York state have a lifetime cap of about $2 million per person. While the insurance company is not saddled with the huge long-term financial burden that will obviously occur with one of the really messed up kids Kim describes, it does pony up until the cap is reached, causing everyone's rates to ultimately increase. But, here's the kicker--once that cap is reached, the kid's family then applies (and pretty much automatically receives) Medicaid, and now the payout is endless, as far as I know. Since that money comes from a different pocket--our state and federal coffers, we all get to subsidize these miracles through both higher taxes AND higher insurance premiums. Truly the gift that keeps on giving.