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

[smokey]

I think that if people who drink themself pretty much to death can get a liver transplant and poeple who smoke all their lices knowing the dangers can get cancer treatment and people who are morbidly obese from over eating with no actual medical reason can get bands and bipass (correct me if im wrong about that one)
Then why shouldnt a couple who desperatly want to have and love a human life get some help

 

[MonstHer]

^While I understand your reasoning completely,
Some of the women in the US, (I'm not there right now but I was and worked in healthcare) want to get specifically pregnant while on welfare/section 8/disability, just to stay on the programs, or because they don't care at all to get OFF of the programs. (section 8 is where they pay a portion of the rent)
Unfortunately, it's hard to find out who's lying about secondary infertility.

 

[alaskagrown]

With U.S. Medicaid, there should be no "circumstances," such as they got laid off from work, or that they're genuinely really nice people, that would allow some one who is low income to receive free fertility treatments. I'm sorry, but when neither you or your spouse has a job, should you really try to be conceiving on my tax dollar? Call me selfish, but our country has a LOT more to take care of right now than getting unemployed/low income people pregnant!!!

Also I'll add that it's an expensive **elective** non-life threatening treatment that many middle-income families would have a hard time affording. So why is it fair that middle-income working families be rejected for it over unemployed people living off of government paid housing?
With this, should the government provide free fertility treatment to all? No, it's not "free." Somebody pays for it somewhere along the line. As they say, there's not such thing as a free meal. Since when is it the government's job to ensure we all become pregnant?

 

[deafgal]

just to let you know, here is an example why people with disability have an hard time find jobs (the manager and the people applying for a job are actors, its about people's reaction, especially the human resource): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqI1d4rLWSM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Anyway, I believe a woman can chose to plan a baby or not with whatever money. (btw, just remember some of them pay taxes too, or at least one of them do...or used to. which btw, once the govt send them check, they can spend it however they like) But I am not too concern free infertility treatments as as the world is nearly 7 billions so we need to cut back children anyway. Just hope that no matter who, they have access to family planning so they can have birth control or have access to healthcare so they don't end up on disability.

 

[mummy3]

Deafgal, I totally get that it depends on the disability why they cant work. I'm epileptic so have come across challenges first hand. The problem is that for every 1 genuine person theres 10 playing the system

 

[JASMAK]

Is that really true though, or is that the public perception? Also, isn't that an issue with welfare and why should those who want children be discriminated because of the ones (however many there truly is) who abuse the system that is failing the ones who deserve fairness.

 

[alaskagrown]

It isn't a matter about those who are genuinely good people on welfare or cheating the system.

It's a matter of the government paying people with my working tax dollar who are living off my working tax dollar to produce children who will be living off of my working tax dollar. Of course people on welfare will have children, but should the government be actively funneling them funds to do it? No!

And yes, people do cheat the system. My aunt is a lawyer who was recently promoted from a DA to welfare fraud investigator in the state of Alaska. She tells me some pretty gut-wrenching things people do.
And when I used to live in Hawaii...stand in line the grocery store....see all those plump women with those shiny bling earrings and Coach purses pull out their EBT cards to pay for their frozen shrimp....*HURL*

 

[JASMAK]

what i am saying tho...is it sounds like the system is failing. there is people in genuine need, like dissabilities. of your your money pays for it...that is life! i make 2500 bi weekly and only bring home 1300....because of taxes (and my municipal pension) but i know that for every person that cheats the system, there must be at least 20 that don't!!! what about those people. now iam not from the usa...thank goodness because canadians really value our health care system and are proud of it, to me...basic needs should never be determined by wealth, or lack of. And it sounds like the us needs a welfare overhaul!! i don't know what card you are talking about, sounds crazy!

 

[MonstHer]

An ebt card is a card holding foodstamps.
Basically its money to only buy food.

Right...
Basic needs should never be based on income. Which is why we have a welfare and health aid system in place for those truly in need.

The argument lies with fertility treatment, and the debate is if it even is a basic need.
In my opinion, no.

 

[alaskagrown]

I think it's a little bit difficult for all of us to understand each other's viewpoints coming from different countries. I don't understand how the Canadian system works nor do I understand the U.K., but I know this wouldn't be right in the U.S. with the way Medicaid and welfare is established.

And I'll agree, paying for basic healthcare bites in the U.S. I had a replacement dental filling put in that fell out after 1 month of putting it in...a 10 minute appointment...$500 (AND I HAVE INSURANCE!!)
The nice thing about the U.S. health care vs. Canadian health care is we get in to see doctor's a lot sooner (say, for surgery or transplant). There's a lot of U.S. people who go to Canada for cheap medication, but a lot of Canadians who come to the U.S. for a quick surgery.
And then there's a lot of people who go to India for quality, inexpensive, fast surgery!

 

[deafgal]

From my experience, if you are not recommended by your family doctor to see a specialist, you could be waiting for months for your appointment with the specialist. And any new patient with a family doctor could make you wait forever for them to take you in. You have to go other places in hope they will take you in. it nearly took me 6 months for me to actually get the surgery. They had to rule out other things first. Like medical issues or get supplies, etc. Plus they were busy.

 

[MonstHer]

I've always gotten top-notch health-care in the states. I got what I want when I want, lol.
I had to get a referral for a different specialist, but the first time it took 2 days, the second time it took three days. I was also a jerk though and kept calling and calling until I got it.
But then, I am on private insurance.
I can see how being on medicaid/medicare may take a bit longer when it's not urgent.

 

[deafgal]

I have private insurance too and I had medicaid before. they were no difference how clinics treat you except some doctors can be so anti-medicaid/medicare that they won't take you in. I had an ob/gyn clinics who flat out rejects patients any medicare/medicaid,even for birth control or pap smear.Yet, Some doctors would not be listed under our insurance but they still take you in if you wanted that doctor.

 

[MonstHer]

^ Well that just sucks then. I would have made complaints to the insurance company and my family doctor's office, over and over again until somebody did something! How very stupid of them.

 

[alaskagrown]

Some clinics are anti-Medicaid because they don't make nearly as much, if any money when they see a patient with this type of insurance. This is especially true for smaller, privately operated clinics as opposed to large state-run hospitals or community public health centers. In their eyes, why bother when they could fit another patient who they will get actual money out of it. It's sad for the patient, but doctor's can't just work for free! Doctor's have to cover their malpractice insurance...(something I think we need to reform because it could easily drive down health care costs!)

Last week, I made an appointment at the doctor's office run by the main hospital for the world's worst ear infection (no joke!) and because they accept Medicaid/Medicare and private insurance, they couldn't see me till the end of the week!!! Instead, I called my family's doctor (they accept private only) and they said, "Well, could you come in right now?"

So, in the U.S. there are definitely perks to buying quality insurance plans. They're costly for a family, and most don't cover elective treatments such as Lasik eye surgery or IVF fertility treatments. Most middle class+ working families have private insurance of some sort in the U.S.

But if you start giving out these elective treatments such as IVF to the poorest of the poor who are receiving insurance, housing, and food funded by these middle/upper class families...it's just not right. It's just actively propelling the problem.

Ooh! And something totally new to my town (which I think is a Godsend for many folks!) is a health clinic that treats you with a sliding scale based off your income, even if you have private insurance. I'm not quite sure how they can afford to see patients like that though, especially when that type of facility would obviously attract low-income families. But hey.. it's not a bad start.

 

[MonstHer]

^agreed!

 

[JASMAK]

I have never had to wait for emergency surgery (appendix)...it was that day, 20 mins after I got there. My sister had her gall bladder out immediately. It's elective surgery where there is waits...such as my investigations for infertility (which was covered). I waited 3 mths. If I need to see a doctor, I choose who I go to, not who my insurance company says I can see...and I see them THAT DAY if need be. If it can wait, I usually tell them, and then it is a day or two..or often that same day is offered. I have had care in the USA when I was in a major accident herniated 3 lumbar discs and fracturing my back. I was in the hospital for days. It reminded me of McDonalds. Yes, McDonalds. It was ALL about money. They even tried to 'up-sale' me with a pap smear when I was discharged. It was sick. But I don't think they even realized how bad it seemed from an outsiders point of view. Anyways, this is ANOTHER debate, and it is going off topic. Someone on here said that the basics should be covered without question of income. Life is about creating life, scientifically. Recreating our own. So, I do believe having a child is a basic right, and should be covered, regardless of income. That being said...those who are sexual preditors or drug addicts, or those who abuse children (proven) should NOT be allowed to have a child/keep a child in care...regardless of their fertility.

 

[alaskagrown]

Okay, let's give people on welfare fertility treatment. AS LONG AS the mother receives NO financial assistance from the government to carry and raise that child. Hmm..THAT will get people thinking twice about having kids!

(This is a sarcasm post..)



I think it's immoral to bring a child into this world and expect your neighbors to foot the bill.

 

[lisaf]

I had some fertility issues and had limited options of what I could afford and knew I had to hang all my hopes on minor treatments (which thankfully worked). I have private insurance but it didn't cover fertility treatments. I could have possibly scraped the money together eventually for a try at IVF, but by the time I had the money, I'd be over 35 (less chance of success) and would not be able to afford much for my child.

Even with my experiences, I don't support fertility treatment for those who choose not to contribute. If it was offered on medicare, then that means that I would have been punished (not qualifying for medicare) for actually working and not getting fertility treatments through my insurance.

I know someone who can't get on disability, but cannot get a job that meets the physical restrictions her doctor placed her under (finally found one place willing to hire her, then they saw her doctor's restrictions and said they couldn't take the risk). So it pisses me off when people do abuse the system because it deprives others who have a real need for support.

(there was a comment about making women lose weight for fertility treatments... thats based on the assumption that overweight people have health problems and that losing weight is 'easy'... and again, if it takes them too long to lose the weight, then they end up in that advanced age category which some people think should disqualify them from benefits too)

It does bother me that a woman, by being with a man who has a child from a previous relationship is excluded from the free IVF offered by the NHS. That almost incentivises divorce so she can go find a man who doesn't have any children of his own and get fertility treatment.

 

[deafgal]

Okay, let's give people on welfare fertility treatment. AS LONG AS the mother receives NO financial assistance from the government to carry and raise that child. Hmm..THAT will get people thinking twice about having kids!

(This is a sarcasm post..)



I think it's immoral to bring a child into this world and expect your neighbors to foot the bill.

I know some people milking off their wealthy parents money. should they have kids? Maybe fertility treatments should turn them down too since they don't work (too irresponsible. All they do is sit around living off of money they didn't earn) And some people they just play with numbers to make them really wealthy but poor people who need govt help work just as hard as they do (sometimes they have two or three jobs )