Reply to Did you know MD's IVF coverage statute excludes single women, women using donor sperm, and lesbians?

Forum Index » Infertility Support and Discussion

Reply to "Did you know MD's IVF coverage statute excludes single women, women using donor sperm, and lesbians?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]That's all well and good to agree with such a statement, but I just wonder, does your feeling about insurance denial and what "should" be covered stop solely at infertility? For example: my mother had insurance-covered reconstructive surgery after she lost a breast to cancer. Should insurance companies cover that cost? She did not need such surgery to live.

I have an acquaintance who lost his legs in Afghanistan, and now who has the most amazing leg prosthetics courtesy of Walter Reed. Should insurance companies cover the cost? If not, should they cover a wheelchair? Or maybe not any of those things, because mobility is not necessary to life? After all, he can crawl...

I see people all the time with some unidentified disability trundling around Wal-Mart on one of those "Rascal" scooters. Anyone who watches daytime television knows that Medicare will help pay for those scooters for certain people. They constantly say that in the commercials. Should reimbursement for such products be eliminated, because it's also not necessary to life?

Some people are trying to have therapies for autism covered by insurance, and the insurance companies are fighting this tooth and nail. Should those therapies also go uncovered, because they're not necessary to life?

I do understand the point that resources are not infinite, and that at some point, lines have to be drawn. I just wonder why infertility treatments would be that line, but not the many, many other medical situations covered by insurers.Those seldom get a peep of protest.

People who are infertile need a larger, louder lobby. Perhaps if the world at large understood how many people are affected by infertility and that it's not just a matter of career women waiting until they're too old or people not "relaxing" enough and "letting it happen," there'd be a change in the laws.

As it is now, though, Maryland HAS a law, but the state is picking and choosing who can benefit. That seems unequivocally wrong. Either give it to everyone who qualifies by medical "necessity" (however Maryland defines that) or give it to no one.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics