paying for infertility treatment with public monies, yes or no?

[Nathyrra]

I think absolutely it should be available on healthcare, and women shouldn't be made to feel guilty for taking advantage of it if it is.

Infertility is a demon, it's unfair and often strikes the most deserving people that would make excellent parents. The biggest drains on public healthcare coffers are usually self inflicted. Smoking, Eating to excess, Alcohol consumption. Why should something that is completely out of your control not be available too?

 

[Ramen]

I think it'd be great if private insurances were required to cover it, but don't see why medicaid should because it's primary purpose is to treat the disabled and extremely poor among us. I'm disabled. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to come sit next to me and the people I sit next to at disability and rehabilitative services every month waiting for an appointment with the caseworker trying to find me a job and explain to us why you're equally disabled due to infertility and want to add costly fertility treatments to the list of things medicaid pays for when medicaid usually runs out of money anywhere from june to august as it is taking care of people who would be dead by now if not for medicaid paying for their prescriptions.

 

[JASMAK]

I think it'd be great if private insurances were required to cover it, but don't see why medicaid should because it's primary purpose is to treat the disabled and extremely poor among us. I'm disabled. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to come sit next to me and the people I sit next to at disability and rehabilitative services every month waiting for an appointment with the caseworker trying to find me a job and explain to us why you're equally disabled due to infertility and want to add costly fertility treatments to the list of things medicaid pays for when medicaid usually runs out of money anywhere from june to august as it is taking care of people who would be dead by now if not for medicaid paying for their prescriptions.

Medical does not go on income here...we all get the same standard. It's sickening that it is based on income in other countries. But that's a whole other debate! lol

 

[Ramen]

I think it'd be great if private insurances were required to cover it, but don't see why medicaid should because it's primary purpose is to treat the disabled and extremely poor among us. I'm disabled. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to come sit next to me and the people I sit next to at disability and rehabilitative services every month waiting for an appointment with the caseworker trying to find me a job and explain to us why you're equally disabled due to infertility and want to add costly fertility treatments to the list of things medicaid pays for when medicaid usually runs out of money anywhere from june to august as it is taking care of people who would be dead by now if not for medicaid paying for their prescriptions.

Medical does not go on income here...we all get the same standard. It's sickening that it is based on income in other countries. But that's a whole other debate! lol

Agreed. I think it's reasonable to expect that government run health insurance pay for infertility treatments if you're in a country where that's how the medical system is set up, but what government healthcare the US has was not designed to meet those needs and is already under budget and struggling to help the people it was designed to help already without adding otherwise healthy people to it.

 

[deafgal]

I think it'd be great if private insurances were required to cover it, but don't see why medicaid should because it's primary purpose is to treat the disabled and extremely poor among us. I'm disabled. I invite anyone who disagrees with me to come sit next to me and the people I sit next to at disability and rehabilitative services every month waiting for an appointment with the caseworker trying to find me a job and explain to us why you're equally disabled due to infertility and want to add costly fertility treatments to the list of things medicaid pays for when medicaid usually runs out of money anywhere from june to august as it is taking care of people who would be dead by now if not for medicaid paying for their prescriptions.

there are people who lost their ability to have babies due to cancer or other disabilities. infertity alone is not a consider a disability but these people may never have the opportunity to have money for fertility treatment based on their disability (like you wrote, you had trouble finding jobs)

 

[Ramen]

If you're on long term disability and unable to return to work pregnancy would probably be an unneeded strain on your body and you're probably on a drug management program with medications not recommended for pregnancy. I can't see it being feasible for the government to promote high risk pregnancies through fertility treatment, or at all looking at the cost of treatment given how shaky medicaid's finances are already. Becoming a parent through natural conception, infertility treatment, adoption or fostering is a voluntary decision in most cases. Medicaids primary purpose is to help low income persons with mental or physical disabilities that are severely life impairing.

I think more needs to be done to address this issue because infertility treatment is often classed separately from your insurance as something you need to opt into and you can wind up being denied by private insurers when you try to add it on after a diagnosis due to pre existing condition malarky. Only 13 states, mine included, have it mandatory that infertility insurance be put in with regular health care coverage when you're on an employer plan. I have a cousin right now who is trying to find a job transfer to come back to Texas from Colorado for that reason alone. I'd love to see the pre-existing condition b.s. go away completely for everything, by the way, but that's a different discussion.

 

[midori1999]

I think that in the UK, where we have an NHS, that fertility treatment should be available, but that the criteria should be the same throughout different health trusts and should also be more strict.

I don't think fertility treatment should be available to people on benefits if they are not working in full time employment. Equally, I don't think people not working and therefore on benefits, but able to concieve naturally should be trying to have a child anyway.

 

[JASMAK]

I agree with midori, to an extent. I don't think they should be working 'full-time' but they should be financially stable, whether that is full-time, part-time, or if they are lucky, well-off without having to work. But, financially stable, to me, doesn't mean rich. Just means they are capable of providing the basics, which is all anyone needs. I also think that people who have children naturally should be the same...but, the difference is, one needs help and is being judged, the other could be a drunk crack-whore who hasn't slept in a bed for 3 years. I think the mother who is WANTING, and BEGGING to have a child is a better mother and are more likely to make better choices and decisions for their children. It's unfair one gets raked over the coals, usually being compared to mothers who are crappy and didn't choose to have theirs, because they need the assistance and society is pissed off with the leaches and dead-beats.

 

[deafgal]

hmm some women are lucky to be finanically stable by their husband so they can be a stay at home mom.

 

[Rhi_Rhi1]

This might sound harsh, but I think IVF should only be free for people with actual medical reasons that make falling pregnant naturally an impossibility.

I don't think it should be free for those that..

- decided to postpone having children, and their fertility is now in decline
- fertility affected by hormonal contraception (the NHS should stop shoving hormones into people, and then paying out to remedy the problems..it makes no financial sense)

The reason for this is that there are, to me, better ways of spending the money. Having said that, I feel my opinion is marred by the fact that I have not experienced infertility or complications and it is easy enough for someone like me to have strong opinions against it, but perhaps if I was in a different position, I'd change..x

Agreed

 

[bumpy_j]

I agree with Lightworker

 

[midori1999]

I agree with midori, to an extent. I don't think they should be working 'full-time' but they should be financially stable, whether that is full-time, part-time, or if they are lucky, well-off without having to work. But, financially stable, to me, doesn't mean rich. Just means they are capable of providing the basics, which is all anyone needs. I also think that people who have children naturally should be the same...but, the difference is, one needs help and is being judged, the other could be a drunk crack-whore who hasn't slept in a bed for 3 years. I think the mother who is WANTING, and BEGGING to have a child is a better mother and are more likely to make better choices and decisions for their children. It's unfair one gets raked over the coals, usually being compared to mothers who are crappy and didn't choose to have theirs, because they need the assistance and society is pissed off with the leaches and dead-beats.

I probably wasn't clear in my post. I have no problem with people working part time and having children, or not working and being financially stable and having children.

I also don't have any problem with people working full time, but recieving benefits to top up their earnings having children as they are on a low wage.

What I do have a problem with is lazy arses like my brother, who only works 16 hours a week is too lazy to get a full time job, having children and then expecting the government to foot the bill, whether they are able to have those children naturally or not.

 

[JASMAK]

I agree with midori, to an extent. I don't think they should be working 'full-time' but they should be financially stable, whether that is full-time, part-time, or if they are lucky, well-off without having to work. But, financially stable, to me, doesn't mean rich. Just means they are capable of providing the basics, which is all anyone needs. I also think that people who have children naturally should be the same...but, the difference is, one needs help and is being judged, the other could be a drunk crack-whore who hasn't slept in a bed for 3 years. I think the mother who is WANTING, and BEGGING to have a child is a better mother and are more likely to make better choices and decisions for their children. It's unfair one gets raked over the coals, usually being compared to mothers who are crappy and didn't choose to have theirs, because they need the assistance and society is pissed off with the leaches and dead-beats.

I probably wasn't clear in my post. I have no problem with people working part time and having children, or not working and being financially stable and having children.

I also don't have any problem with people working full time, but recieving benefits to top up their earnings having children as they are on a low wage.

What I do have a problem with is lazy arses like my brother, who only works 16 hours a week is too lazy to get a full time job, having children and then expecting the government to foot the bill, whether they are able to have those children naturally or not.

yeah, totally, me too. I work hard to support my family... I miss my baby all day long, five days a week. Really burns my butt when people are living off welfare because they are too lazy or don't want to miss their kids by working. I work my ass off, and I honestly can't even think about it, because it makes me super angry.

 

[Nibblenic]

This might sound harsh, but I think IVF should only be free for people with actual medical reasons that make falling pregnant naturally an impossibility.

I don't think it should be free for those that..

- decided to postpone having children, and their fertility is now in decline
- fertility affected by hormonal contraception (the NHS should stop shoving hormones into people, and then paying out to remedy the problems..it makes no financial sense)

The reason for this is that there are, to me, better ways of spending the money. Having said that, I feel my opinion is marred by the fact that I have not experienced infertility or complications and it is easy enough for someone like me to have strong opinions against it, but perhaps if I was in a different position, I'd change..x

Agreed

Agreed!

I have fertility problems. I knew about this from being 18 years old. I have been taking metformin for my PCOS since then. I was told clearly that it may/would be very difficult for me to get pregnant and that as soon as I was even thinking about babies I needed to tell my consultant. That I also needed to be ideally under 30 before this happened.

I always knew that my treatments would be free and that if i needed IVF that would also have been without cost. Had I known i had to pay for it i probably would have started saving at the point i found out. However obviously sometimes you dont know you have these problems until your quite a way down the road of trying.

 

[Eternal]

i think there needs to be criteria, but people should be given help on the NHS to try for a child, second children and so on, not so much, if you have a child then you need to fund any extra treatments yourself.

I have a friend on clomid and she had to fight to get it and lose weight, i did think it unfair at the time, plenty of overweight people get pregnant, but now i have changed my mind, i figure if you want a child then you need to be doing everything in your power to do so, when i was trying for this pregnant i ate healthy, organic food, i would have happily lost weight if id been advised to.

As for being on benefits, its difficult, personally i beleive every parent should be able to provide for their children, finicially, emotionally, physically etc, i dont think its far for people to TTC when they dont and have no intention of working.

I have no issue with benefit top ups or people who find themselves on benefits for no fault of their own, (i.e. marriage breakdown, redundancy etc) and i think most on these circumstances see it as a temp mesaure to get them out of a mess and then they will get another job etc. but some poeple are on benefits and have never worked, and have no inetntion of ever working and i dont see why i should pay to raise their kids.

Saying all that, i dont think its possible to decide who gets fertility treatment based on that, i mean you cant say, im sorry you cant see your GP or have surgery or whatever because you have never contributed to the NHS, if that were the case we might as well get rid of the NHS now and go private (which for middle and higher earners would prob be cheaper).

I think if you need fertility treatment you should be given it, it should be treated like any other condition, but there needs to be a criteria, although im sure any poor people that have had to use it would say its not easy already.

 

[Quackquack99]

I could possibly be shot down, but I think the ivf criteria should be 3 goes for first child and one of the parents should be in employment and actually paying into the system. I could have potential fertility problems as I have a unicornuate uterus which is half the size of a normal uterus and I more than likely have only one functioning ovary. But I have my daughter if I struggle to have any more children I've had the joy of atleast having one. I think its heartbreaking to see women declined the chance of having one try for their first. Its horrible to think that there are hard working men and women being declined fertility teatment. I'll get off my soapbox

 

[alaskagrown]

In the U.S., no way. This seems like an idea nice in theory, but not possible in reality.

First of all, Medicaid is only used for medically necessary procedures for very low income and disabled individuals. Although lots of people want children and can't have them, it's not a necessity.

Also, the government (i.e., the 53% of U.S. citizens who work and pay their taxes) would basically be paying for people to live off the system for the next 18+years. I'm sorry, but this does not make sense fiscally, especially at a time like this when our country is in deep in debt as it is.

Our country needs to definitely cut back on our entitlement programs in order to save ourselves.

It would be just great and dandy if everyone who wanted kids could just have them, but this would never work financially for the U.S.

In other news, a lawmaker in the U.S. is proposing we pay for diapers for low-income families....Oh...my...lord......

 

[mummy3]

This is a tough one. In an ideal world sure everyone who wanted a child could have one and healthcare would be free. But it doesnt work like that and the economy is on its knees.

I'm 100% behind no fertility treatment on medicaid, just as I'm 100% against ttc on it. Its meant as a stopgap for very poor people until they get themselves on their feet, if you need to be on it then you're not in a position to provide. Disability is a toughie, got to question though, if you're that disabled you're unable to work, how can you take care of a child? Of course there are exceptions to this, this is a general consideration.

In a way if the NHS did provide these services they may be considered hypocritical. Benefits and help are already being cut for families in poverty, adding to this, using the already limited funds makes no financial sense.

at having to pay for low income families diapers

 

[DanielleM]

I'm not sure, this is definatley a tough one. I am not sure whether I am the best person to comment on this as I have children, but if I didn't have children and had fertility problems I am sure I would be all for it. At the minute I am not a fan of the NHS as I am waiting for them to order a wheelchair for Evan but they do not have the funds, but Evan has had this current wheelchair since he was 3 and is now 7. But I would rather they cut other parts of the spending such as boob jobs before they cut IVF funding. Sorry this is a bit rambled still a bit early

 

[deafgal]

This is a tough one. In an ideal world sure everyone who wanted a child could have one and healthcare would be free. But it doesnt work like that and the economy is on its knees.

I'm 100% behind no fertility treatment on medicaid, just as I'm 100% against ttc on it. Its meant as a stopgap for very poor people until they get themselves on their feet, if you need to be on it then you're not in a position to provide. Disability is a toughie, got to question though, if you're that disabled you're unable to work, how can you take care of a child? Of course there are exceptions to this, this is a general consideration.

In a way if the NHS did provide these services they may be considered hypocritical. Benefits and help are already being cut for families in poverty, adding to this, using the already limited funds makes no financial sense.

at having to pay for low income families diapers

It depends on why they can't work. sometimes it have to do with discrimination (companies are not too fond of accommodating and think the person will slow them down) and they have a perfectly healthy body, and are very capable of having and caring for healthy children. Not everyone who are on disability have to be on medication that put them in a high risk pregnancy or anything like that. Also, when they do work, they are offered minimum wage and jobs don't always promote them to a higher level. it could be people without a leg, or arm, or deaf or blind (yes they can handle kids. they have babies all the time)

You could lost your ability to have kids and your hearing due to cancer treatment (it happened many times), sacrifice everything to survive and in full remission. Some cancer survivors saved their eggs for this.