So... this is an old discussion and seems to have devolved into something else...

But OP, or others, if you are out there and have suggestions as to how we can change this, please let me know.

I live in VA, am straight, medically infertile (is that a term?) and in an IVF cycle right now. It pisses me off that insurance doesn't pay anything, but it pisses me off even more that it doesn't pay anything specifically for gay people in MD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want a flat stomach and bigger boobs, I may get depressed clinically if I don't have them. Doesn't mean that my insurance should cover my needs/wants. I agree, I don't think IVF or any infertility treatments should be covered. I'm really sorry for those that need these options, but it is an option not a life need.

Let me guess. You're not infertile, just fat and stupid.

I'm not the poster, but I was once like her....until I had my own fertility issues. Turns out the feeling deep inside you about not being able to have children is way different than the feeling inside you wanting bigger boobs. I got both--boobs and children through science. Glad that insurance paid for the IVF, and also glad that insurance DIDN'T pay for the boobs.

Life happens. Circumstances are often beyond our control. At age 39 I had not met Mr. Right and began fertility treatments.

Anonymous wrote:I want a flat stomach and bigger boobs, I may get depressed clinically if I don't have them. Doesn't mean that my insurance should cover my needs/wants. I agree, I don't think IVF or any infertility treatments should be covered. I'm really sorry for those that need these options, but it is an option not a life need.

Your comparison between having kids and cosmetic surgery is inane. Society has an interest in people having children. Especially middle-class people with higher education, who are the ones who tend to delay child birth and then get fertility treatments. There is a benefit to society in those people producing future tax payers, and that may be one reason why states mandate the coverage. Those kids are going to pay for your retirement, too (unless, of course, Republicans eliminate whatever little bit of social solidarity exists in this country).

Anonymous wrote:I want a flat stomach and bigger boobs, I may get depressed clinically if I don't have them. Doesn't mean that my insurance should cover my needs/wants. I agree, I don't think IVF or any infertility treatments should be covered. I'm really sorry for those that need these options, but it is an option not a life need.

Let me guess. You're not infertile, just fat and stupid.

So if you are married (hetero) but have male factor infertility, then would IVF be covered with donor sperm?

No. Nor would donor eggs be covered. Wife's eggs, husband's sperm.

http://www.fertilitylifelines.com/payingfortreatment/state-mandatedinsurancelist.jsp#Maryland

"The patient’s eggs must be fertilized with her spouse’s sperm"

So if you are married (hetero) but have male factor infertility, then would IVF be covered with donor sperm?

I want a flat stomach and bigger boobs, I may get depressed clinically if I don't have them. Doesn't mean that my insurance should cover my needs/wants. I agree, I don't think IVF or any infertility treatments should be covered. I'm really sorry for those that need these options, but it is an option not a life need.

Hoping that things change for the new open season. As far as feds are concerned, OPM is signing the FEHB contracts now. I hope OPM offers an option in addition to Coventry. The price difference between Coventry and MDIPA is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:OP, why aren't you mad at your employer, as well?

They are always welcome to go above and beyond state mandates.

You may have solid reasons behind your statements, but you come across as just another tiresome DCUM poster who has an ax to grind against the Catholic Church.

This, my father (when he owned is company) paid for IVF for one of his employees in MD.

If a man wants to have a uterus transplant and then use donor eggs and his own preserved sperm to conceive a child then the government should pay because having a child in any way you want to is a fundamental human right.

Infertility cures should not be available only to the rich. We need to follow Belgium (where I live) and guarantee IVF access for everyone. And if we cover it for everyone then we can't exclude anyone.

Wow, I was part of this conversation a YEAR ago. How time flies. Why the bump? Nothing has changed.

bump.

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.

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.

I totally agree with this. I really feel for those who struggle with infertility. However, I do not think insurance companies should cover the cost.