Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

The right to fertility Options · View
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 2:13:12 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
Just watching a bit of the debate on whether insurance companies should be required to pay for fertility treatments and I think it poses some interesting questions.

1. Is procreation a basic human right that needs to be taken into account by insurance companies?
2. Right now, they are looking at coverage that will exclude single people and couples where the infertility was caused by an STD. Is this discrimination?
3. Since fertility treatments run in the tens of thousands of dollars, and is becoming more and more common, what would this do to insurance premiums?

What do you think? Is having kids a luxury or a right? And for those that want kids, does that right extend to having their own genetic offspring, rather than adoption when they can't afford to pay for fertility treatments on their own?

SweetPenny
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:16:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/15/2010
Posts: 1,274
Location: State of Confusion
I think that fertility treatment should be available as an optional rider that can be purchased by the consumer. This way the coverage is available to those who may need it, but everyone else can keep their insurance premiums as is.

I don't believe it is okay to discriminate against someone who has an STD. How is that different than dental insurance not covering your cavity because you ate too much candy?
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:32:24 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
Firstly, I believe that it has become a luxury that some believe their right to have. Sorry, but Elton John and other individuals that assume their affluence is conducive to child rearing are wrong. Madonna, Branjolena, and other such parents, I believe forget that money can't buy happy kids. Although I do believe that Brad and Angie do give a shit, as they have shown to the New Orleans Community, from what I have read and heard. Maybe Sous Chef might have more insight. Larry King, I loathe you, solely for that. Inheritance does not mean Daddy Grandpa will be a great daddy 'cause he has the cash flow.

As for question #3, insurance companies will put these people through the wringer, unfortunately. There are basics to any insurance coverage. Once they set "guidelines" be sure that the insurance companies will find a way to create loopholes for themselves that will create even more litigation. Which would mean more of a cost to the insurance payer. If you believe religion will never disappear, then try to mess with someones purse. That love, will never ever die.

As for #2, that's too much of my dual empathy and common sense to wrap around at this moment. Just got home from a brutal week.

Personal note: my ex; diabetic. Scary times for someone in their late 30's. I argued for adoption. Either way, once grown up's have made the decision to create a life, then they will usually find a way to do so, despite governmental and other influences and detractors.



Unprotectable
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 4:56:53 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 4/17/2009
Posts: 12
Location: Mobile
SweetPenny wrote:
I think that fertility treatment should be available as an optional rider that can be purchased by the consumer. This way the coverage is available to those who may need it, but everyone else can keep their insurance premiums as is.

I don't believe it is okay to discriminate against someone who has an STD. How is that different than dental insurance not covering your cavity because you ate too much candy?


Cavities wont spread to the rest of the population. STD's will.

There are cures for cavities, there are prayers for STD's.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:02:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
There are cures/treatments for STD's as well. Leave prayer out of functionality.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:14:13 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
If anyone wants to treat women fairly, then there's no possible way that they can deny coverage for STD patients. Penny's example makes the perfect analogy on that.

Actually, I agree with Penny's whole post.

I don't personally see procreation as a human right, exactly, but I also bristle at the idea of exploiting a hopeful-turned-desperate couple or woman by denying her coverage and/or jacking up costs. That said, I think some reasonable parameters for coverage should be set. For instance, a 48 year old obese woman should probably not be afforded the same opportunities under government or insurance coverage as a healthy 26 year old woman. As far as older multi-millionaire celebrities go- I don't think anyone's going to advocate that basic insurance plans cover their costs, nor would they bother with them.

And money may not equal good parenting, but the opposite isn't true by a damn sight- I can personally attest to that. Why anyone would get their shorts in a wad because the kid may grow up knowing somebody other than their biological mom or dad as their primary role model is a little beyond me. How is that any different from any of us raised by a single parent, or by aunts or grandparents? I can't see any, other than money.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:17:41 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
FYI. The STD exclusion was referring to couples where the infertility was caused by STDs.... so basically the premise is, they 'deserved' their infertility issues so they don't deserve the same kind of benefits with insurance.

It's a nice way to bring morality, condemnation and judgment into things, I guess.



Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 5:38:07 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
I believe that the misinterpreted and gross lean on the STD issue, even though explained herein, would not be explained on a vote. To compare STD's to other bacterial infections due to superfluous consumption might be a tad banal for most.

Men and Women, not just women, are discriminated due to their former appetites.
Rembacher
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 6:48:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
I have trouble answering this one. I have a few thoughts on it that admittedly are contradictory to themselves, so I really don't know where I stand on this.

I'm not sure that women have the right to fertility any more than I, at 5'9, have the right to play in the NBA. If your body doesn't allow it, that sucks, but that's life.

However, since there are treatments available, then I do believe that they should be available to the public. Which with my socialist leanings would tend to mean everyone.

And at the same time, there should be some medical and social restrictions to it. Someone who can't handle their own health, shouldn't be allowed to have the treatment until they get their health issues under control. There should also be an age limit. I would set the age at a 95% inclusion rate. It would be a floating target from year to year, but if you fall into the same age bracket as 95% of the people giving birth in your community/country (excluding only the oldest 5%) then you are young enough to receive the treatment.

As for the STD issue, my liberal bias comes through again. I would rather treat 100 people who don't deserve it, than refuse one person that does. So, using an extreme example, for the one woman who was a faithful wife and contracted an STD because her husband was a dog, and has moved on but has the repercussion of his actions with her for the rest of her life, I say fund the treatment for her.
Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:17:40 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
Then, by that argument, I would not have my daughter to love. It was a work in progress. If the stipulation is that a woman needs to firmly become a fertile ground, and in control of themselves, that is not only sexist, but excludes another loving entity/coupling in this argument.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 7:41:43 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,524
Location: Your dirty fantasy
I agree with Penny's post, but I don't believe in any exclusions such as people who are single or people who are infertile due to STDs not being eligible. Based on this currently proposed exclusionary criteria, I assume that would mean that gay couples would also be passed over in places that don't recognize same-sex marriage as well.

I think it should be insurance "for all" (with no exclusions) with the optional rider to be purchased by the consumer as Penny suggests, or else leave it as something everyone has to pay for and figure out on their own.

If someone doesn't have the cash to pay for creating their own genetic offspring, then they can adopt. A lot of things in life aren't ideal or fair, but we make concessions based on the cards we are dealt. This isn't a life or death situation. I do see having children as a luxury and certainly not an automatic right. Some will procreate, and some will not. Sure, the rich will have an easier time overcoming this, but everyone can still look at adoption in one form or another provided you are a basically functional and upstanding citizen.

If you are infertile but also penniless or have a criminal record and can't adopt, then get a dog or cat. Life isn't perfect.

Guest
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 8:54:52 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
I agree that Penny has some good points.

I don't believe procreation is a basic human right. My wife and I struggled for years and spent thousands of dollars on fertility treatment. Luckily, we had the resources to do this. This was fifteen years ago and nothing was covered by insurance.

While I don't believe insurance companies should be forced to cover these costs, I also feel for those who don't have the ability to pay for the procedures we could afford.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, March 25, 2011 10:36:41 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,189
Location: United States
I don't know if all medical coverage is like this, but here's how it went for us: Our insurance company was more than willing to correct any medical problems or defects that cause Mrs. Nudie Pants or myself to be infertile. not only that, but they ordered and paid for all the appropriate tests to ascertain the cause of our infertility, despite the fact that we knew exactly where that cause lay. (When Mrs. Nudie was in the Army, long before she met Mr. Nudie, she had an ectopic pregnancy. The Army surgeon removed the affected tube, and cut and tied off the other, knowing full well that America's Army damn well didn't need any pregnant sergeants around the motor pool. This was his right, as when you enlist you basically cede all rights over your body to the Army.)

When the insurance company discovered that no amount of treatment would bring her fertility back, they said "Sorry", and closed our case. We paid out of pocket for in-vitro fertilization (which even back then was over ten grand), and now are the proud parents of a daughter of our own. This is as it should be. If someone has a medical condition that prevents a pregnancy, then the insurance company should be required to treat it. If the person's condition cannot be treated, say if a man had a vasectomy that needed to be reversed, then the insurance company shouldn't be required to foot the bill. Anyone that can't afford the extreme measures like in-vitro would be just out of luck - that's why there are adoption agencies.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:41:27 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,421
Location: Alabama, United States
eviotis wrote:
Then, by that argument, I would not have my daughter to love. It was a work in progress. If the stipulation is that a woman needs to firmly become a fertile ground, and in control of themselves, that is not only sexist, but excludes another loving entity/coupling in this argument.


No, the argument isn't that you wouldn't have been able to not have children by any means necessary. Be it in vitro, adoption, kidnapping, whatever... congrats that you have your daughter. The argument is whether or not it is an insurable condition. I believe that's what he was saying.

I'm not sure that insurance is the way to go with this. Especially if we get nationalized healthcare. I think there would be a exponential increase in childbirth if this were to become part of that plan. Even in privatized insurance, economically it may not be very smart either. If a person gets a private policy, usually that policy does not include pre-natal or delivery insurance for the first year. This prevents someone without insurance, getting pregnant then hurriedly getting coverage. Not saying its right, but that's what happens.

Presumably, this would be the same thing with fertility treatments. The premium for this coverage would be very high. And if you have to have coverage for several months to a year before the ins. company will cover the expenses... that's a lot of premiums. Then take into acct that sometimes it takes months, even years to conceive via modern medicine. Would it be cheaper to pay a high monthly premium for year after year, or to just pay for the procedure?

Let's not forget, insurance is a business, a multi-billion dollar business. Insurance companies are not in the habit of losing money, they make money. Off of all of us. Just assume this scenario.... Man/woman, woman/woman, man/man/surrogate.. decide they would like a child. They do not have a great deal of money but get by. Like millions of Americans, they have no insurance. They decide to get insurance to cover in vitro and prenatal care and child birth. Pay their $500 premium and get lucky on the first try a few weeks later. Within a year they've conceived and had a child born. Cost....what, $20k-$30? For paying a yearly premium of $6000? Then drop the coverage for fertilization. No insurace company is going to do this.

Scenario #2. As NudiePants stated..."which even back then was over ten grand". What if it doesn't work the first two or three or four times? What kind of premium would someone have to pay for an insurance company to justify taking on this cost?

STD's has no place in the argument. It is irrelevant. If we denied insurance to anyone based on habits in their past or the present most of the diabetics in our society, who are diabetic because of poor nutrition and diet, overeating... would be denied coverage. As would smokers. As would most everyone for some reason or another.

Everyone does have a right to try to make babies. Someone else paying for fertilization is unlikely to happen. Where there's a will there's a way....





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Saturday, March 26, 2011 7:42:06 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,426
Location: Cakeland, United States
Insurance is a racket.

Their primary function and goal is to scare the shit out of everyone and oversell you 'coverage' for stuff you will never need, then deny your claims every time you try to file one. If they can exclude you, brother...they will. Failing that, they will p'wn you down the road.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 27, 2011 3:47:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
WellMadeMale wrote:
Insurance is a racket.

Their primary function and goal is to scare the shit out of everyone and oversell you 'coverage' for stuff you will never need, then deny your claims every time you try to file one. If they can exclude you, brother...they will. Failing that, they will p'wn you down the road.



And then cancel your policy.

My mom swore there wouldn't be a cure for cancer for years to come because of things like that. Big Pharm makes too much on the meds, hospitals make too much on the facility and supplies. Docs on the "knowledge" they're giving you in trying to treat it. She said they'd give little nibbles or dangling carrots just to justify all of the above along with research grants to keep citizens hopeful that a cure was "right around the corner".
I've know people with cancer that has medical bills over a million dollars and they're still alive so it will go higher. Same with a friend that had a liver transplant. Over a million and he will always be taking meds and be watched by the docs and hospitals and ins. companies.

This is just another way to gain more premiums. You can also buy suicide insurance on your life ins as well. Costs a butt load more. Flood ins. when you're nowhere near a body of water or in what's practical as a flood zone.
MinaMiranda
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:39:45 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/29/2011
Posts: 71
I have always felt that procreation is not a right: it's a responsibility.

Stock answer to most forum questions:
Some do, Some don't

Love blindsides us all.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2011 5:55:19 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
lafayettemister wrote:
eviotis wrote:
Then, by that argument, I would not have my daughter to love. It was a work in progress. If the stipulation is that a woman needs to firmly become a fertile ground, and in control of themselves, that is not only sexist, but excludes another loving entity/coupling in this argument.


No, the argument isn't that you wouldn't have been able to not have children by any means necessary. Be it in vitro, adoption, kidnapping, whatever... congrats that you have your daughter. The argument is whether or not it is an insurable condition. I believe that's what he was saying.

I'm not sure that insurance is the way to go with this. Especially if we get nationalized healthcare. I think there would be a exponential increase in childbirth if this were to become part of that plan. Even in privatized insurance, economically it may not be very smart either. If a person gets a private policy, usually that policy does not include pre-natal or delivery insurance for the first year. This prevents someone without insurance, getting pregnant then hurriedly getting coverage. Not saying its right, but that's what happens.

Presumably, this would be the same thing with fertility treatments. The premium for this coverage would be very high. And if you have to have coverage for several months to a year before the ins. company will cover the expenses... that's a lot of premiums. Then take into acct that sometimes it takes months, even years to conceive via modern medicine. Would it be cheaper to pay a high monthly premium for year after year, or to just pay for the procedure?

Let's not forget, insurance is a business, a multi-billion dollar business. Insurance companies are not in the habit of losing money, they make money. Off of all of us. Just assume this scenario.... Man/woman, woman/woman, man/man/surrogate.. decide they would like a child. They do not have a great deal of money but get by. Like millions of Americans, they have no insurance. They decide to get insurance to cover in vitro and prenatal care and child birth. Pay their $500 premium and get lucky on the first try a few weeks later. Within a year they've conceived and had a child born. Cost....what, $20k-$30? For paying a yearly premium of $6000? Then drop the coverage for fertilization. No insurace company is going to do this.

Scenario #2. As NudiePants stated..."which even back then was over ten grand". What if it doesn't work the first two or three or four times? What kind of premium would someone have to pay for an insurance company to justify taking on this cost?

STD's has no place in the argument. It is irrelevant. If we denied insurance to anyone based on habits in their past or the present most of the diabetics in our society, who are diabetic because of poor nutrition and diet, overeating... would be denied coverage. As would sers. As would most everyone for some reason or another.

Everyone does have a right to try to make babies. Someone else paying for fertilization is unlikely to happen. Where there's a will there's a way....



If insurance companies had it their way, which they do, then a later 30 year woman with diabetes would not be covered. That was my point in my non-explicative response. "Someone who can't handle their own health", is a slippery slope. No aspersions toward Jebru, just a commentary on insurance companies. They are all fucking assholes. To them it's a mathematical equation, and nothing more. However, STD's have a little place in this argument. If you are HIV+, and wish to procreate, then, sorry, but giving a home to a child/infant that already exists is much more healthy, than trying it while actually having the disease. Unless of course, a gay couple wants to have a child, and the donor is HIV-, and the baby is guaranteed no future complications.

As for Senior Nudie, I understand, but cannot fathom what he and his wife went through. However, I can sympathize. We went the same route, and at one point, we started collecting for a trip/legal counselors and so forth, for a non ending sojourn to China. We just wanted a child to love, help grow, and become an asset to life. Yes, as the last response notes, it's a responsibility. And anyone seeking that responsibility should be treated with dignity, and not a hasty glance at the mathematics/actuary leanings on the subject.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, March 31, 2011 7:19:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,421
Location: Alabama, United States
There is a huge difference between diabetes and fertility. Untreated diabetes can cost a person his/her life. Not being fertile, while tragic and horrible, is not going to cause a woman to not wake up one morning. I'm not being "hasty" in my response. I'm adopted and spent a lifetime wondering where I came from and who I was. Issues relating to birth, adoption, abortion, parenthood all hit close to home for me. Please do not think I am discounting your pain and suffering. And I'm very happy you have your daughter and no doubt you're a great guy and dad. By the way, I completely agree that insurance companies are assholes. But yes, it is a mathematical equation. That is the point of business. All business must factor in the gains and losses of any venture it may take. In essesnce what this kind of policy would mean for a customer/ins. company is this.... Customer pays premium, lets say $8k a year... Business pays out for multiple in-vitro session totalling approximately $40k-$50k. As awful and shitty as it is, no company of any kind would take on that burden. Especially considering that once the child is conceived and/or born the customer can drop the policy thereby insuring that the company cannot recoup anymore of it's expense. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that this is how I'd imagine the insurance companies would look at it. Like it or not, they aren't here to pay for or buy our happiness.

When saying STDs have no place in the discussion I was not talking about HIV or aids. That is a whole different scenario.

Again, I wish you and your family well. I'm just discussing the issue, trying to remain objective. We all deserve our dignity, but in matters of business and money we may not always get it.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Sunday, April 03, 2011 12:45:51 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 652,391
Whether I am a good guy or not, debatable. Good dad, yes. In the end, the issue of insurance companies and their actuaries are beyond my comprehension. As for insurance coverage alone, 8k a year is modest at best. I have "great" insurance, and it cost around 24k a year. That is with basic annuals, flu season, and minor inconveniences on the insurer.

Why then, the basic happiness of doctor's visits, and basic needs, can't it be supplanted by the evermore prominent need of us, a basic animal, to procreate? A well thought out direction by two human beings, who have spent well over the amount to be spent on such "fertilization" to be able to give something more to the world? The human condition, a non variable in the equation.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.