To the 12:03 poster. My post asked a question. Please reread it and answer it if you can. I think are you getting the previous posts mixed up with mine.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it does suck that so many insurers do discriminate. I am a FED and the price that I paid as a single woman for a round of IVF was three times what married FED would pay. I even went as far as contacting OPM about discrimination.

BTW, the Maryland law refers to all fertility coverage and not just IVF. There are many more procedures than just IVF. Is the Catholic Church against just IVF or all infertility treatments such as IUI, ICI, and timed and monitored intercourse?

For all you people blaming your issues with the Maryland mandate on the Catholic Church, would you please provide documentation? I see a lot of heresay floating around here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope, though, that should you ever be in a situation where you have a unique medical need and you have insurance companies making it hard for you -- maybe there's some experimental technique that they've decided not to pay for -- that you run into some people with compassion.

It's not a medical need. Nobody "needs" to have a child. It's not saving anybody's life. You're comparing apples and oranges.

If a part of your body doesn't work properly that is a medical condition. It would be a medical need to receive ART to conceive. It circumvents the medical problem. Just like if a person needs a feeding tube. It's not fixing the problem but circumventing it. The end result is nourishment. The end result of ART is conception.

It's also not saving anyone's life to give implants to a deaf person so they can hear. Or paying for reconstructive surgery on someone who received a disfiguring injury.

Nobody "needs" to hear or walk or speak to live. I don't think your argument is valid.

It's not a medical need. Nobody "needs" to have a child. It's not saving anybody's life. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Granted. I should have said unique medical "situation" -- is that better for you? Because I think we both agree that medical insurance currently pays for certain things that may not directly save someone's life. For example, like we've been discussing -- in Maryland, insurers provide an IVF benefit to married heterosexual couples. But married heterosexual couples don't "need" to have a child either.

Anonymous wrote:I hope, though, that should you ever be in a situation where you have a unique medical need and you have insurance companies making it hard for you -- maybe there's some experimental technique that they've decided not to pay for -- that you run into some people with compassion.

It's not a medical need. Nobody "needs" to have a child. It's not saving anybody's life. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not having a partner is not a medical condition.

This is so misleading and inaccurate and ignorant. Since when is IVF a fun option for single women? Single women exhaust countless ICI's and IUI's first (just as partnered women exhaust regular intercourse and ICI's and IUI's) and go to IVF as a last resort because, wait for it!, there is a fertility problem and it's medically necessary! People get to IVF because all other measures have failed or, if they get there early, the same reasons that got them there early apply to single and partnered women, e.g., they are 35+ and time is a ticking.

You seem to be assuming that single women take on IVF, for tens of thousands of dollars, because they are single alone and that all single women have perfect fertility.

Apparently you think IVF should have an exclusion for unexplained infertility too or someone who is AMA who does not happen to have Fibroids but coverage for the 42-year old who does? Eek. I don't like where you are going.

I'm not ignorant. If a single woman has been diagnosed as medically infertile than she SHOULD have it paid for. But, a single woman shouldn't have IUI & IVF coverage if she has no infertility diagnosis. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to conceive using these techniques I just don't think that insurance companies should pay for it.


Also, I don't believe that unexplained infertility should be excluded. Just because doctors can't figure out what the problem is doesn't mean there obviously isn't a problem.

The source of sperm shouldn't be in the equation here. I do have issues with AMA woman getting coverage in general because delaying conception until it is biologically difficult isn't a medical condition it is naturally what happens as we age.

I'm the PP to whom you are responding. Thanks for clarifying. I understand almost everything you have said here in your latest post actually, but you still seem to hold on to the notion that single women somehow end up at IVF when it is unnecessary whereas married women do not and that is non-sensical.

Your approach still has huge holes. What if there was a very slutty single woman or one with a long-term boyfriend who chooses not to marry, is her long-term intercourse not sufficient to prove infertility or a medical issue? The problem I have with the law is that it preferences spouses and spousal sperm and egg. That is not right. What insurance companies choose to cover or not is moot because this law governs what is covered. And for those AMA, shall we have an inquisition as to whether or not they delayed purposefully? Excuse me, ma'am, were you using the pull out method all these years, did you seek out that vice presidency at your job, were you ever on birth control, out of the last 1000 thoughts in your head how many of those were hoping for a child and how many were glad you weren't getting lucky?

Anonymous wrote:I hope, though, that should you ever be in a situation where you have a unique medical need and you have insurance companies making it hard for you -- maybe there's some experimental technique that they've decided not to pay for -- that you run into some people with compassion.

I actually had to fight like hell to get my procedures covered and I do qualify under the mandate. It took six months for the approval to be granted in writing and then the bastards still refused to pay the bill when it was all said and done.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, arguing this point is not really worth the effort because, you've won. IVF coverage is not available to unmarried women or lesbians, whether they have a diagnosis of medical infertility or not. So, congratulations. Your thinking is right in line with the current practice of insurance companies in Maryland.

You didn't understand what I wrote. I don't agree with the law as it's written. I think any woman should qualify for IUI or IVF with an infertility diagnosis. I don't think the origin of the sperm should be considered at all. It shouldn't matter if your husband made a deposit into a cup or you purchased your specimen or got it donated. If you are medically infertile you should get treatment covered.

I hope, though, that should you ever be in a situation where you have a unique medical need and you have insurance companies making it hard for you -- maybe there's some experimental technique that they've decided not to pay for -- that you run into some people with compassion.

Honestly, arguing this point is not really worth the effort because, you've won. IVF coverage is not available to unmarried women or lesbians, whether they have a diagnosis of medical infertility or not. So, congratulations. Your thinking is right in line with the current practice of insurance companies in Maryland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not having a partner is not a medical condition.

This is so misleading and inaccurate and ignorant. Since when is IVF a fun option for single women? Single women exhaust countless ICI's and IUI's first (just as partnered women exhaust regular intercourse and ICI's and IUI's) and go to IVF as a last resort because, wait for it!, there is a fertility problem and it's medically necessary! People get to IVF because all other measures have failed or, if they get there early, the same reasons that got them there early apply to single and partnered women, e.g., they are 35+ and time is a ticking.

You seem to be assuming that single women take on IVF, for tens of thousands of dollars, because they are single alone and that all single women have perfect fertility.

Apparently you think IVF should have an exclusion for unexplained infertility too or someone who is AMA who does not happen to have Fibroids but coverage for the 42-year old who does? Eek. I don't like where you are going.

I'm not ignorant. If a single woman has been diagnosed as medically infertile than she SHOULD have it paid for. But, a single woman shouldn't have IUI & IVF coverage if she has no infertility diagnosis. I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed to conceive using these techniques I just don't think that insurance companies should pay for it.


Also, I don't believe that unexplained infertility should be excluded. Just because doctors can't figure out what the problem is doesn't mean there obviously isn't a problem.

The source of sperm shouldn't be in the equation here. I do have issues with AMA woman getting coverage in general because delaying conception until it is biologically difficult isn't a medical condition it is naturally what happens as we age.

insurance companies shouldn't have to cover any infertility treatments for anyone. The should provide basics like birth control, prenatal care and labor and delivery, that's it.

At least you are intellectually consistent. Unlike the poster who is speaking about "medical necessity." Not to bash that poster specifically; I just don't think he or she has thought through what they are saying. As has been explained, single women or lesbians don't get up one day and decide that IVF is just a fun thing they want to try that month. Much like with married women, they try other, less expensive options first. IVF is presented as an option when there is a medical diagnosis of infertility.

And if you want to say that older women should not get the benefits of insurance coverage for fertility treatments, are you willing to deny those treatments to older married women, too? Or is it just single women who are out of luck. And what age is too old for you?

Anonymous wrote:Not having a partner is not a medical condition.

This is so misleading and inaccurate and ignorant. Since when is IVF a fun option for single women? Single women exhaust countless ICI's and IUI's first (just as partnered women exhaust regular intercourse and ICI's and IUI's) and go to IVF as a last resort because, wait for it!, there is a fertility problem and it's medically necessary! People get to IVF because all other measures have failed or, if they get there early, the same reasons that got them there early apply to single and partnered women, e.g., they are 35+ and time is a ticking.

You seem to be assuming that single women take on IVF, for tens of thousands of dollars, because they are single alone and that all single women have perfect fertility.

Apparently you think IVF should have an exclusion for unexplained infertility too or someone who is AMA who does not happen to have Fibroids but coverage for the 42-year old who does? Eek. I don't like where you are going.

Yes, it does suck that so many insurers do discriminate. I am a FED and the price that I paid as a single woman for a round of IVF was three times what married FED would pay. I even went as far as contacting OPM about discrimination.

BTW, the Maryland law refers to all fertility coverage and not just IVF. There are many more procedures than just IVF. Is the Catholic Church against just IVF or all infertility treatments such as IUI, ICI, and timed and monitored intercourse?

I personally think that IVF should be a covered procedure when it is medically necessary. While I strongly support every individual's right to use these advances to grow their own families I don't agree that insurance should pay for it if the reason isn't infertility due to a medical condition. Not having a partner is not a medical condition.

I think that donor eggs should be covered if the reason is due to a medical condition like prior chemo or premature ovarian failure. I don't agree that donor eggs should be covered in older woman who delayed child bearing. Again, I have no problem with any person using these technologies to expand their family but I don't think it should be covered unless there is a medical basis. Unfortunate circumstance (not finding Mr. Right until late in life, etc.) is not a medically valid reason for insurance coverage.