Trump and IVF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh wait, people thought he was trustworthy from his campaign promises?

Like releasing the Epstein files.....MAGA truly is the party of stupidity. I'm sure they will spin it. I mean good little catholics are against IVF because it is unnatural. so I' sure MAGA is ready with new talking points to defend trump.

Did idiots actually give him a vote thinking he would come through on this? Figure out a way to personally enrich him from pursuing this or you might as well just forget about it.

[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.

MAGa is not capable of critical thinking-really they can't seem to think at all.

[Anonymous]

If you're a Trump voter, you should be upset with this news. He made a campaign promise on it (unless, of course, you knew he lies about everything all along that is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How about:

Why is INFERTILITY skyrocketing??

Does poisoned food supply matter?

Tons of other reasons, as well.

This is statement is misleading and mostly inaccurate. The perceived increase in infertility rates is largely attributable to people waiting to have kids at older ages. Age adjusted infertility rates have not changed much. The most common environmental cause of infertility is an untreated STI. There are also many legitimate reasons why someone without medical infertility would need IVF. Parents who be a have a severe and potentially life-threatening genetic disease can use IVF to prevent their kids from getting it. Some people get cancer and they need to freeze sperm before getting chemo treatment. In these cases it’s also best to use IVF because it has a higher success rate than IUI. It’s too risky to use IUI if you only have 6 frozen vials of sperm and you cannot make additional samples for infertility treatments. If your wife is 37 and you do IUI, the average odds of having at least one pregnancy with 6 vials is only around 50%. With up to six cycles of IVF your odds having at least one kid would be more than 80%.

[Anonymous]

Most of you are missing the point. The point is he promised something and is now backing off it. Whether it should be covered or not and what the causes are, is besides the point.

[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.

You still need other people’s kids to take care of you even if you’re paying them at your nursing home. You need other people’s kids to keep the world running for you when you’re old.

Get pregnant if you choose but don't involve me in it . Stay home and deliver your kid the good old fashioned way and don't involve me in it or in any of the costs you incur. I don't need your c-section kid or your difficult pregnancy or your difficult delivery to help me when I get old. Your C-section can cost more than a round of IVF anyway. We want good old fashioned pregnancies and births or no thank you.

Who is going to take care of you when you are in a nursing home? If people don’t have any kids there will be no one to do this. Even if you have lots of money, the stock market will crash people have very few children and the price of labor will go up dramatically. It doesn’t really matter how rich you are, below replacement level fertility rates will impact everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You still need other people’s kids to take care of you even if you’re paying them at your nursing home. You need other people’s kids to keep the world running for you when you’re old.

Get pregnant if you choose but don't involve me in it . Stay home and deliver your kid the good old fashioned way and don't involve me in it or in any of the costs you incur. I don't need your c-section kid or your difficult pregnancy or your difficult delivery to help me when I get old. Your C-section can cost more than a round of IVF anyway. We want good old fashioned pregnancies and births or no thank you.

Who is going to take care of you when you are in a nursing home? If people don’t have any kids there will be no one to do this. Even if you have lots of money, the stock market will crash people have very few children and the price of labor will go up dramatically. It doesn’t really matter how rich you are, below replacement level fertility rates will impact everyone.

Ha! Have you been to a nursing home lately? We are deporting all the people that are going to take care of everyone in nursing homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You still need other people’s kids to take care of you even if you’re paying them at your nursing home. You need other people’s kids to keep the world running for you when you’re old.

Get pregnant if you choose but don't involve me in it . Stay home and deliver your kid the good old fashioned way and don't involve me in it or in any of the costs you incur. I don't need your c-section kid or your difficult pregnancy or your difficult delivery to help me when I get old. Your C-section can cost more than a round of IVF anyway. We want good old fashioned pregnancies and births or no thank you.

Who is going to take care of you when you are in a nursing home? If people don’t have any kids there will be no one to do this. Even if you have lots of money, the stock market will crash people have very few children and the price of labor will go up dramatically. It doesn’t really matter how rich you are, below replacement level fertility rates will impact everyone.

The only other option here is immigration. Even Japan, one of the most immigrant unfriendly countries on the planet has had to bring in Vietnamese and Filipinos to come take care of the old people because the birth rate is so low.

[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.

DP. Don’t have a dog in this fight but the way that SS works current workers pay for the benefits of current beneficiaries so do need to keep the birth rate at a decent level.

[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.

DP. Don’t have a dog in this fight but the way that SS works current workers pay for the benefits of current beneficiaries so do need to keep the birth rate at a decent level.

Will treating fertility issues is actually aimed at increasing the birth rate.

[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.

You still need other people’s kids to take care of you even if you’re paying them at your nursing home. You need other people’s kids to keep the world running for you when you’re old.

Get pregnant if you choose but don't involve me in it . Stay home and deliver your kid the good old fashioned way and don't involve me in it or in any of the costs you incur. I don't need your c-section kid or your difficult pregnancy or your difficult delivery to help me when I get old. Your C-section can cost more than a round of IVF anyway. We want good old fashioned pregnancies and births or no thank you.

Hee-Haw!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is backing away from mandating insurance companies cover IVF - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/white-house-backs-away-ivf-coverage-mandate-despite-trumps-campaign-pledge-2025-08-03/

Hope all conservatives who need IVF are ready to pay out the nose for it. Congrats.

I’m a Trump voter. My insurance paid for my IVF. Some insurances pay for the procedure. You just have to find the right plan.

The right plan? Most employers do not offer this benefit. It's too expensive. I'm a COO and certainly I don't offer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump is backing away from mandating insurance companies cover IVF - https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/white-house-backs-away-ivf-coverage-mandate-despite-trumps-campaign-pledge-2025-08-03/

Hope all conservatives who need IVF are ready to pay out the nose for it. Congrats.

I’m a Trump voter. My insurance paid for my IVF. Some insurances pay for the procedure. You just have to find the right plan.

The right plan? Most employers do not offer this benefit. It's too expensive. I'm a COO and certainly I don't offer it.

Do your plans cover erectile dysfunction treatment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI, to those that have limited knowledge about this issue, a number of states already mandate that health insurance programs in that state cover IVF. This has been the case for over two decades as I found when I moved from Maryland, which has an IVF found it, to Virginia, which does not.

States mandating IVF coverage for fully insured plans as of 2025:

1. Arkansas
2. Colorado
3. Connecticut
4. Delaware
5. District of Columbia
6. Hawaii
7. Illinois
8. Maine
9. Maryland
10. Massachusetts
11. New Hampshire
12. New Jersey
13. New York
14. Rhode Island

**Notes:**
- California’s mandate starts in 2026.
- Texas requires offering IVF, but employers can opt out.
- Utah mandates fertility preservation, not IVF.
- Coverage varies (e.g., cycle limits, eligibility). Check state laws or resolve.org for details.

Arkansas is the only red state on the list. Trump’s breaking this campaign promise hurts his base even more than it hurts Libs.

[Anonymous]

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.

It’s been mandated coverage in Massachusetts for decades. Not sure about other states.