Trump and IVF

[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.

How did Arkansas get on that list.

[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.

Surprised to see Arkansas on this list. There’s no commonality with all the other states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
How about:

Why is INFERTILITY skyrocketing??

Does poisoned food supply matter?

Tons of other reasons, as well.

Poisoned mind supply. Too many men who listen to Andrew Tate and as a result are completely unable to form normal human relationships (see “male loneliness epidemic”)

[Anonymous]

Trump is never held accountable for anything he promises. On June 30 he said he'd found a buyer for TikTok, which he'd announce in two weeks. Those of us who remember that are still waiting.

[Anonymous]

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 didn’t know this until I had infertility, but some treatments that might have been used before IVF just aren’t used anymore because IVF is safer and more effective (and probably cheaper tbh). For example, I had blocked fallopian tubes and my doctors didn’t have an explanation (I’ve never had an STD). In theory, there’s a procedure to unblock tubes, but why subject people to surgery (again, expensive and potentially risky) when IVF is much safer and has a better track record of success? I paid for my IVF out of pocket because none of the insurance plans offered through my employer would cover it, but it makes no sense that other treatment for reproductive conditions would be covered by insurance while the gold standard treatment is not

[Anonymous]

Can someone make the case for why taxpayers should pay for the infertile to have biological children when adoption is available?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone make the case for why taxpayers should pay for the infertile to have biological children when adoption is available?

How much does it cost to adopt an infant? A round of IVF is probably cheaper and will save the taxpayers money.

[Anonymous]

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.

It's much better to subsidize babies whose parents have them before they can afford them, i.e., too young... oh wait, we don't want to do that anymore either.