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:Oh wait, people thought he was trustworthy from his campaign promises?

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

You still need other people’s kids to take care of you even if you’re paying them at your nursing home. You need other people’s kids to keep the world running for you when you’re old.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 sure as heck don't want to pay for your pregnancy coverage or your delivery or your C-section or anything that goes wrong with the baby or the mom. Having kids isn't a right and if you want to pursue it, you need to finance it yourself.

+1. Pursue your own fertility journey and pay for it yourself.

Is that the policy that Trump ran on? (i.e., the point of this thread)

Yes, he lied for votes. His lies got him into office.

And for everyone who goes on about not wanting to pay for maternity care, etc., it's as though the babies don't have fathers. Meanwhile, Viagra....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 sure as heck don't want to pay for your pregnancy coverage or your delivery or your C-section or anything that goes wrong with the baby or the mom. Having kids isn't a right and if you want to pursue it, you need to finance it yourself.

+1. Pursue your own fertility journey and pay for it yourself.

Is that the policy that Trump ran on? (i.e., the point of this thread)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, won’t someone please help the poor 39 year old lawyer who didn’t think basic biology applied to her!

Someone needs to help you understand fertility issues.

Someone needs to help you understand how a clock works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 sure as heck don't want to pay for your pregnancy coverage or your delivery or your C-section or anything that goes wrong with the baby or the mom. Having kids isn't a right and if you want to pursue it, you need to finance it yourself.

+1. Pursue your own fertility journey and pay for it yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm fine with most of that, too. The obesity one is a little more complicated because there really is something wrong with the food supply. Even lab rats have gained weight over the past 50 years.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here’s the thing. You need a next generation to buy your assets and care for you when you’re old. That doesn’t require subsidizing IVF. Insurance covers unanticipated risks like a c section and general OB care which would apply to the vast majority of patients and every future child. That’s actually good policy for supporting the next generation. IVF isn’t - it’s expensive and uncertain and creates perverse incentives to pursue when it may not be successful if you have no financial commitment to the process.

If you didn't plan ahead and you need some kid to take care of you when you're old, that's on you. I don't want to pay for it.

Oh sweetie but you do. You do need future kids because our entire capital system requires it. Even the ones that you’re not having. That’s why general OB care is covered and IVF isn’t because one is an issue the affects the vast majority of people and the other isn’t.

You were actually right the first time. IVF isn't covered because having children is not a right. So cover your own fertility issues including your pregnancy.

Lots of diseases more rare than infertility are covered by insurance and the vast majority of people do not suffer from these conditions.

And yet pregnancy has been covered by insurance for decades. IVF hasn’t and shouldn’t be. But continue with your magical thinking.