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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
How about:

Why is INFERTILITY skyrocketing??

Does poisoned food supply matter?

Tons of other reasons, as well.

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.

Anonymous wrote:
How about:

Why is INFERTILITY skyrocketing??

Does poisoned food supply matter?

Tons of other reasons, as well.