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

[alaskagrown]

Sorry, but I'd rather see our schools be improved, our road's potholes be fixed, and our senior citizens be taken care of than impregnating a women already living off government assistance...

It's like taking a big old heaping dump on all the hard work I've invested into my savings, college education, and career.

When the government starts giving the non-tax paying poor better benefits than the tax-paying middle class, that's a major problem....at least in the U.S.A.

Maybe if women have legitimate hardship stories, they can post them on some donation website where tax-payers volunteer to pay for their fertility treatments and the cost of raising their children...
But that would never happen because the middle class are already struggling enough as it is, so why burden them with the tax of generating more individuals to live off the system?!

 

[JackiePed]

Wantingbbbump, nobody should feel bad for needing assistance. Assistance is there for those in need. I think it would be a scary place if government assistance were not in place for those who truly need it. Additionally, I fully support donor programs or anything that helps women with fertility struggles. I just don't believe it should be government funded.

 

[Wantingbbbump]

Sorry, but I'd rather see our schools be improved, our road's potholes be fixed, and our senior citizens be taken care of than impregnating a women already living off government assistance...

It's like taking a big old heaping dump on all the hard work I've invested into my savings, college education, and career.

When the government starts giving the non-tax paying poor better benefits than the tax-paying middle class, that's a major problem....at least in the U.S.A.

Maybe if women have legitimate hardship stories, they can post them on some donation website where tax-payers volunteer to pay for their fertility treatments and the cost of raising their children...
But that would never happen because the middle class are already struggling enough as it is, so why burden them with the tax of generating more individuals to live off the system?!

I see your point but what about the women like me. I have had a job most of the time 2 at a time sense I was 16 up until about a year and a half ago. I paid taxes and now I am unable to work. If I had no kids do I not have the right to a child if i had none? IF is a medical condensation, it's not like they had their tubes tied. They do have a right to at least a try or two. There are women everyday that have sex get pregnant and get on welfare so why should they be allowed but not a hard working childless person that is in a bad spot. I feel that everyone in the world should have to pay for IF treatments.

 

[Wantingbbbump]

Wantingbbbump, nobody should feel bad for needing assistance. Assistance is there for those in need. I think it would be a scary place if government assistance were not in place for those who truly need it. Additionally, I fully support donor programs or anything that helps women with fertility struggles. I just don't believe it should be government funded.

I really do see why that would be upsetting to people but it really shouldn't be so costly. Everyone should be entitled to a treatment or 2 no matter how much money they have. One or two tried should be free for all childless people. It makes me sad that it's not and so many hurt over this.

 

[JackiePed]

Unfortunately, it's directly tied to the bizarrely high cost of medical care overall... Which circles back to the fact that hospitals lose so much money every day by treating people who cannot or do not pay for their medical services.... Which is another debate, and another problem... And one that our government would do well to sort out, but they haven't. Suddenly, the process of implanting an egg costs tens of thousands of dollars, when in reality the value of the labor and supplies involved don't even come close to that. But medical costs are insanely inflated here in order to compensate for the insane amount of fiscal loss that medical facilities have to make up for. It's ridiculous.

 

[alaskagrown]

Like I said before, it's not "free." It's going to cost the taxpayers money.

And I really don't like the word entitlements. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

‎"One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence."
-Thomas Sowell

The government's not going to assess what you've contributed by working. Unless they want to hire more employees to analyze the ethics of people on welfare. If they ever do that....well, God save this country.

Government funded healthcare in the U.S. is only for life threatening medical problems. Having a child is not necessary for an individual to survive.

It's nice and dandy in theory, but in reality this would cause a world of issues.

If it were boiled down to a vote in the U.S., it would get shot down in less than an instant.While we're at it, let's have the government get everybody new cars, pay off our mortgages, and paint our nails.. Sorry, I think it's absolutely absurd.

 

[MonstHer]

^Lol, off topic, but the kids protesting wallstreet want their school debt paid for.
geeze everybody wants something for nothing it seems!

 

[robinator]

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?

I'm sure I'll get bashed for saying this, especially considering the nature of this forum, but being able to conceive is a privilege, not a right. Just because our bodies were made to do something, it does not mean they are able to do so.

While I know how heartbreaking the struggle to conceive is, the public should not have to foot the bill for our attempts. If we cannot afford our own treatments, then perhaps we should look into other options. For example, in my homestate, insurance companies are not required to pay for any part of IVF treatment; in other states (Maryland, for example), they pay for an enormous chunk of it. While most people don't want to move in order to up their baby making chances, I personally know people who have done just so and are now undergoing nearly-free treatment.

So, think about how important reproducing is to you and look at ALL your options; don't just turn to the government to make it happen for you. It's not their responsibility to fund the creation of even more people.

Do you? Did you have issues conceiving?

Hmmm, I thought you just asked me something personal and intrusive. Must get my eyes checked *rubs eyes*

Yes, I had issues and no, you are not getting any more out of me than that.

 

[Wantingbbbump]

Like I said before, it's not "free." It's going to cost the taxpayers money.

And I really don't like the word entitlements. Here's one of my favorite quotes:

‎"One of the consequences of such notions as "entitlements" is that people who have contributed nothing to society feel that society owes them something, apparently just for being nice enough to grace us with their presence."
-Thomas Sowell

The government's not going to assess what you've contributed by working. Unless they want to hire more employees to analyze the ethics of people on welfare. If they ever do that....well, God save this country.

Government funded healthcare in the U.S. is only for life threatening medical problems. Having a child is not necessary for an individual to survive.

It's nice and dandy in theory, but in reality this would cause a world of issues.

If it were boiled down to a vote in the U.S., it would get shot down in less than an instant.While we're at it, let's have the government get everybody new cars, pay off our mortgages, and paint our nails.. Sorry, I think it's absolutely absurd.

So to me what your saying is that it doesn't matter that I have worked 2 full time jobs from the age of 16 and because a man beat the hell out of me I was told by my DR that working was causing more damage to my knees, I had no choice but to stop working. Should I feel like a drain on tax payers because I have had to turn to SSI for a income, even though I have paid into it for years. NO I don't think that people on welfare that has never worked their butt off should get a free ride and a free baby but for woman like me that didn't ask for this to happen to me, that fought like hell to get away from him or people that were born disabled should get the chance to become a parent. I think that if your getting cash from welfare then heck no, you get paid more money for having kids. You DON"T get more money on disability for having a child or 2. It's 100% up to you to provide for that child/children. I guess if you had a baby you can get about $200 a month from welfare for that child but it's only for 5 years. I don't get money for my kids from the state at all. I get them what they need so if another person could do the same then why not give them a chance to have a child of their own. Just because a person is low income or poor as people have called them doesn't mean that their kids will suffer and go without.

I want everyone to ask their self this, if it was you would you want people to tell you that you had no right to be a mother? I know I wouldn't!!
People that would need help to have a baby were born with a medical reason, it's a illness not something that they choose! Nobody should have to hurt from IF not the rich, middle class or us "poor" people. It's human nature to want to be a mother and the depression from IF is very real!! BTW I don't think of myself as poor. I own my house, paid for while working my butt off, I bought my car, I pay my bills every month on time, my kids have what they need and are well behaved and happy. They get very good grades and know the value of hard work. I even have money to get the extras they want. I am happy so how am I poor? I would rather be "poor" and happy, have kids that don't feel like the world owes them then rich and unhappy with kids that feels like mommy and daddy needs to support them forever and that they can do whatever they want!!! There is other "poor" families out there that feel the same as I do!

I also wanted to add that I have bad mental issues with working also after while I was at work closing down the store, alone with my male boss the SOB raped me!! Now I have a son by this man that because I was a single mom felt he could do with me as he wished. So my not working is because of being beat badly, the mental damage from that and being raped by my BOSS!! It's a ton to deal with!!

 

[alaskagrown]

I've paid into social security since I was 15. Am I entitled to receive social security checks now for the rest of my life since I'm in my 20's?

If the tax system worked like that, our country would collapse.

Have you ever had any formal education on how the economy works, the fact that we're trillions of dollars in debt, and that the middle class is struggling more than ever?

So who would IVF treatment, a $10,000 treatment, benefit? Your family and only your family. Who would it hurt? Every body in the middle class.
Basic needs is one thing, but creating babies is another.

 

[Wantingbbbump]

I've paid into social security since I was 15. Am I entitled to receive social security checks now for the rest of my life since I'm in my 20's?

If the tax system worked like that, our country would collapse.

Have you ever had any formal education on how the economy works, the fact that we're trillions of dollars in debt, and that the middle class is struggling more than ever?

So who would IVF treatment, a $10,000 treatment, benefit? Your family and only your family. Who would it hurt? Every body in the middle class.
Basic needs is one thing, but creating babies is another.

I never said that I was entitled to anything!! I personally don't need IVF but if I did then why shouldn't I get it. Everyone should be entitled to 1 child if they want one. I know for a fact that it doesn't cost the RE's 10,000 to do the treatment, they charge that much to get rich!! Have you ever been on state medical? I have and they won't even cover the dr to take a lump out of my breast to see if it's cancer!! They will never pay for IF treatments and we all know that. The fact is that ALL insurance should cover IF treatments! Not all people on state medical are on welfare or disability. You can get it while working too so it really should be done on a case by case basis. Like I said if it was you how would you feel if you were told that you could never be a mother because your low income or poor?

 

[alaskagrown]

Why do you feel all people are entitled to eat least one child?

If I was low income and could not conceive, I honestly would accept it as God's fate for me. I might even use that as an excuse to finally get that dog I always wanted.

I don't have the highest of incomes, I was born with smallish boobs, and don't have the money to get breast implants (not like I ever would!). But I accept it as my fate!

If it's not life threatening, sometimes these are just crappy things that life throws at you sometimes.

I think that I'd grieve some, but I'd definitely find the ability to cope by giving my love to other things (like animals, nieces, nephews, etc.)

 

[Wantingbbbump]

I feel that way because I myself was told that I would never have children and for as long as i can remember the only thing I have ever wanted to be was a wife and a mom. It took me 6 years to get this baby and I know the depression of watching others have a 1 night stand and bam pregnant. Now I was lucky and have had kids but this baby I had to use a donor to get. I was in a 9 year relationship but as of halloween we have split, after 9 years! That's another issue though. As a mom I know how great it is to have a child and so it hurts me to think of women out there who would give anything to have a child having to deal with that pain and loss everyday. There is great leaders in our world that were born to single low income moms, If they couldn't of had that child then we wouldn't have the great people in this world today. I don't think that if a person has a child that they should get treatments for free. Only people that don't have 1 child and can provide for the child without getting cash from the state to support that child. I can't stand people that feel that because they had a child then they are owed money to support their kids, my sister is like that. She gets 2,300 a month for having kids and only works 1 day a week. It's crazy!!

 

[JackiePed]

I feel like we're discussing two different issues here. We are mixing up 'denying someone rights' with 'being entitled'. Of course nobody should be told they 'don't have the right to have a child because they're low income'. I can't imagine what we would turn into if the government tried to take away those rights.
But the government should not be obligated to shoulder IVF treatments...for anybody... regardless of income. It sounds like an easy solution...but it's not. Who gets it? Where is the cutoff? Is there an age limit? What consitutes an acceptable 'medical issue'? How do we prove that? Who pays for THAT? What about the woman who believed in providing a stable marriage for her child first, and it took her until she was in her 40s to find the man she trusted enough to marry and raise kids with?
My SIL is not considered 'low income'...but truthfully, to have the money to pay for IVF, you need to be more than middle-class...or be willing to go bankrupt for it. She is niether. So she waits, and cries, and continues to try.
Under our typical government system, there's no way she'd qualify for government help. But that doesn't mean she can afford private IVF.
So... it would still end up unfair, and heartbreaking.

There is much about our lives that we question, and wonder why it is the way it is... that is much that isn't fair, and that hurts...so, so much. But it is not up to the government to fix it all. Government intervention is SO stretched, and SO far from perfect... just to meet what we continue to label as people's "needs". We cannot continue to dilute the meaning of a 'need' that qualifies for government help, or the effectiveness of our tax dollars and of our government intervention becomes more and more diluted, as well.

 

[JackiePed]

I was born with smallish boobs, and don't have the money to get breast implants (not like I ever would!).

Oh man... if I had the money, after I was done having children, you can bet I would!

 

[alaskagrown]

I feel like we're discussing two different issues here. We are mixing up 'denying someone rights' with 'being entitled'. Of course nobody should be told they 'don't have the right to have a child because they're low income'. I can't imagine what we would turn into if the government tried to take away those rights.
But the government should not be obligated to shoulder IVF treatments...for anybody... regardless of income. It sounds like an easy solution...but it's not. Who gets it? Where is the cutoff? Is there an age limit? What consitutes an acceptable 'medical issue'? How do we prove that? Who pays for THAT? What about the woman who believed in providing a stable marriage for her child first, and it took her until she was in her 40s to find the man she trusted enough to marry and raise kids with?
My SIL is not considered 'low income'...but truthfully, to have the money to pay for IVF, you need to be more than middle-class...or be willing to go bankrupt for it. She is niether. So she waits, and cries, and continues to try.
Under our typical government system, there's no way she'd qualify for government help. But that doesn't mean she can afford private IVF.
So... it would still end up unfair, and heartbreaking.

There is much about our lives that we question, and wonder why it is the way it is... that is much that isn't fair, and that hurts...so, so much. But it is not up to the government to fix it all. Government intervention is SO stretched, and SO far from perfect... just to meet what we continue to label as people's "needs". We cannot continue to dilute the meaning of a 'need' that qualifies for government help, or the effectiveness of our tax dollars and of our government intervention becomes more and more diluted, as well.

I completely agree with this.

I also think that if someone were to argue this in front of Congress with their unfortunate life story, it would be a weak argument guaranteed to be shot down. It is a demand based upon emotional, personal wants rather than practicality.

 

[JackiePed]

Come to think of it, why wouldn't we, instead, be arguing for the de-privatization of adoption?
And on the 'only if you don't have any children' stipulation... what about the couple who did have a child, but that child died? What about the couple who had a child, but that child was born with such a severe handicap that they can't even respond or interact with them? How do we handle their situation? What about the couple in which one person has already had one child, but one person hasn't?

It just isn't as smooth as we think it is when we first discuss it.

 

[JASMAK]

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?

I'm sure I'll get bashed for saying this, especially considering the nature of this forum, but being able to conceive is a privilege, not a right. Just because our bodies were made to do something, it does not mean they are able to do so.

While I know how heartbreaking the struggle to conceive is, the public should not have to foot the bill for our attempts. If we cannot afford our own treatments, then perhaps we should look into other options. For example, in my homestate, insurance companies are not required to pay for any part of IVF treatment; in other states (Maryland, for example), they pay for an enormous chunk of it. While most people don't want to move in order to up their baby making chances, I personally know people who have done just so and are now undergoing nearly-free treatment.

So, think about how important reproducing is to you and look at ALL your options; don't just turn to the government to make it happen for you. It's not their responsibility to fund the creation of even more people.

Do you? Did you have issues conceiving?

Hmmm, I thought you just asked me something personal and intrusive. Must get my eyes checked *rubs eyes*

Yes, I had issues and no, you are not getting any more out of me than that.

I wasn't looking for details...but I did find them myself.

If someone hasn't struggled, I am just not sure they should have that much of a say. I just don't see how they can get it.

 

[Wobbles]

Why do you feel all people are entitled to eat least one child?

If I was low income and could not conceive, I honestly would accept it as God's fate for me. I might even use that as an excuse to finally get that dog I always wanted.

I don't have the highest of incomes, I was born with smallish boobs, and don't have the money to get breast implants (not like I ever would!). But I accept it as my fate!

If it's not life threatening, sometimes these are just crappy things that life throws at you sometimes.

I think that I'd grieve some, but I'd definitely find the ability to cope by giving my love to other things (like animals, nieces, nephews, etc.)

I'm curious if you have ever personally faced infertility and researched it's cost? You do appear to have a very vague idea (minus consultation fee's, follow up appointments & drug costs for some).

I can assure you if below or above the poverty line the cost of assisted conception is day light robbery.

Your own family ... a dog
Your own family ... a pair of boobs

Accepting what nature throws at you isn't always so easy to just say "oh well" to, if it not be the want for your own little family it will be another situation. I'd just say your lucky you haven't been dished that part of nature to make you second think how you would 'really' deal with that situation, again lucky you

Some really cold statements

In answer to the question YES infertility treatment should be given free or at least the testing done free and the cost of assisted conception greatly reduced (although I'd like to see at least 1 shot at the chance/dream first). It's heartbreaking enough without money being the only thing that stands in your way. Fact is MOST couples who want to start their families CAN afford to bring a child into the world but who has 10,000+ gbp just laying around spare instantly.

 

[JackiePed]

If someone hasn't struggled, I am just not sure they should have that much of a say. I just don't see how they can get it.

I'm not really sure that's a fair thing to say... I mean, I understand that if you haven't experienced difficulties conceiving, then you won't know the heartbreak. But if you HAVE had troubles conceiving, then aren't you emotionally invested in what should be a non-biased decision based on tax dollars and government spending? I think it still makes sense the both those who HAVE struggled and those who haven't all get a say in a discussion like this... in order to keep in balanced.

Again, I feel like we keep losing sight of the question. The question was whether infertility treatments should be government funded....
Some are making the argument that it shouldn't be so expensive.. I agree. Some are making the argument that everyone should have the right to have chilren, regardless of their income.... I agree. Some are making the argument that there should be a way for people to get help with conception without breaking the bank.... I agree.

Others are saying the government shouldn't be responsible for funding that...as government funding should be reserved for actual needs....as there are enough of those already not being met in our countries.

I agree with that, too.