Trump and IVF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn’t be covered by insurance. It’s voluntary. Elective plastic surgery shouldn’t either. No one should have to socialize this cost.

I don't want to pay for your Viagra. I don't want to pay for your pregnancy. I don't want to pay for your diabetes. I don't want to pay for your cancer. I don't want to pay for any treatment for your measles or your mumps or your rubella or your polio. Etc.

Good news. I don’t have any of those. IVF is very very expensive and creates a lot of perverse incentives if insufficient copays. It’s elective. Sorry not sorry — if you want to pursue it, then you need to finance it yourself. Having kids isn’t a right

I sure as heck don't want to pay for your pregnancy coverage or your delivery or your C-section or anything that goes wrong with the baby or the mom. Having kids isn't a right and if you want to pursue it, you need to finance it yourself.

+1. Pursue your own fertility journey and pay for it yourself.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Please, won’t someone please help the poor 39 year old lawyer who didn’t think basic biology applied to her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, won’t someone please help the poor 39 year old lawyer who didn’t think basic biology applied to her!

Someone needs to help you understand fertility issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

Oh sweetie but you do. You do need future kids because our entire capital system requires it. Even the ones that you’re not having. That’s why general OB care is covered and IVF isn’t because one is an issue the affects the vast majority of people and the other isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember seeing in the news a probationary Fed who voted for Trump and got fired. She voted mainly for the promise of mandated IVF coverage.

Yup, I think she was from Michigan and was widely covered as Exhibit A of FAFO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember seeing in the news a probationary Fed who voted for Trump and got fired. She voted mainly for the promise of mandated IVF coverage.

Yup, I think she was from Michigan and was widely covered as Exhibit A of FAFO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/27/fired-federal-worker-trump-voter/

Ryleigh Cooper exhaled as she slid onto the couch after nine hours of work for the U.S. Forest Service, still covered in the blue paint she used to mark trees for local loggers. Then she got the text.

“I hate to be the bearer of bad news,” her union leader wrote.

It was the second Thursday in February, and a historic White House purge aimed at federal workers like Cooper was sweeping the country. But the headlines felt far away from her life in rural Michigan. She figured her job, with paychecks totaling about $40,000 a year, would be safe from the cost-cutting campaign led by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.

Besides, motherhood was her most pressing concern. Cooper, 24, and her husband were trying to get pregnant, but the doctor said that IVF might be their best chance. Trump had promised to make it free. That is what she thought about in the voting booth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

Oh sweetie but you do. You do need future kids because our entire capital system requires it. Even the ones that you’re not having. That’s why general OB care is covered and IVF isn’t because one is an issue the affects the vast majority of people and the other isn’t.

You were actually right the first time. IVF isn't covered because having children is not a right. So cover your own fertility issues including your pregnancy.

Lots of diseases more rare than infertility are covered by insurance and the vast majority of people do not suffer from these conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why should I subsidize people who can't manage to get their lives in order early enough to have a baby naturally? Insurance is too much already.

There are many different reasons for infertility and age is only one of them. As the previous poster pointed out fully 1/3 of cases are male factor and another fully 1/3 are unexplained.

Why should any of us subsidize people that have medical needs that aren't their own medical needs? That is the basic concept of insurance. So you basically want to get rid of the whole thing.

No, insurance is you create a pool to spread risks within the pool. Infertility is often a problem for women who wait too long to try to have kids. That's a risk stemming from personal choice and should not be subsidized.

Risks of things like cancer, over which you have less control, should be included.

So no coverage for lung cancer caused by smoking or liver failure caused by a fatty diet or alcohol? Or obesity? Those are all personal choices, too.

I'm fine with most of that, too. The obesity one is a little more complicated because there really is something wrong with the food supply. Even lab rats have gained weight over the past 50 years.

DP. My cousin who is very crunchy sent me some article that they’re developing food to counteract the ways GLPs work. I assumed it was BS but looked it up and it was in fact real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember seeing in the news a probationary Fed who voted for Trump and got fired. She voted mainly for the promise of mandated IVF coverage.

Yup, I think she was from Michigan and was widely covered as Exhibit A of FAFO.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/27/fired-federal-worker-trump-voter/

Ryleigh Cooper exhaled as she slid onto the couch after nine hours of work for the U.S. Forest Service, still covered in the blue paint she used to mark trees for local loggers. Then she got the text.

“I hate to be the bearer of bad news,” her union leader wrote.

It was the second Thursday in February, and a historic White House purge aimed at federal workers like Cooper was sweeping the country. But the headlines felt far away from her life in rural Michigan. She figured her job, with paychecks totaling about $40,000 a year, would be safe from the cost-cutting campaign led by President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.

Besides, motherhood was her most pressing concern. Cooper, 24, and her husband were trying to get pregnant, but the doctor said that IVF might be their best chance. Trump had promised to make it free. That is what she thought about in the voting booth.

This poor woman. She didn't think the leopard would eat her face, just other people's faces. Totally unfair! #empathy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, won’t someone please help the poor 39 year old lawyer who didn’t think basic biology applied to her!

Someone needs to help you understand fertility issues.

Someone needs to help you understand how a clock works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, a number of women I know who used ivf were in their late 20s and were found to have medical reasons they couldn't get pregnant. It's not just women in their late 30s and 40s.

In fact, since I couldn't get pregnant, dh and I decided not to spend money on ivf and just remain childless. I'm a member of a support group and have been shocked by the numbers of late 20s early 30s women and men who are just giving up after multiple failed IVF attempts. I held out hope that a miracle might occur until I went through menopause.

+1 My sister married at 26 and they started trying a couple years later, they ended up needing a lot of help - IUI the first time and IVF the second - to have just two kids. They would have had more if it didn’t cost so much each time. The Fed cited in the article is 24 and was already told that her best chance was IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

Oh sweetie but you do. You do need future kids because our entire capital system requires it. Even the ones that you’re not having. That’s why general OB care is covered and IVF isn’t because one is an issue the affects the vast majority of people and the other isn’t.

You were actually right the first time. IVF isn't covered because having children is not a right. So cover your own fertility issues including your pregnancy.

Lots of diseases more rare than infertility are covered by insurance and the vast majority of people do not suffer from these conditions.

And yet pregnancy has been covered by insurance for decades. IVF hasn’t and shouldn’t be. But continue with your magical thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, won’t someone please help the poor 39 year old lawyer who didn’t think basic biology applied to her!

Someone needs to help you understand fertility issues.

Someone needs to help you understand how a clock works.

Just Google fertility issues and read it for starters And you can stop your ignorant yammering about clocks.