Post # 1
Just curious how people feel about this. Most states dont cover IF treatments, I think only 6 or so “require” it, and even then there are apparently loopholes insurnace companys find that allow them not to cover it even in a state that “requires” it. So do you think IF treatments should be universally covered for everyone? Yes? No? Somewhere in between? Why? And of course more coverage, especially such expensive coverage would likely increase premiums. Does that effect how you feel about it?
Post # 2
I voted yes, but I’d be okay with an in between solution. We have several health plans at work. We’ve opted for one that doesn’t include infertility at the moment so that we don’t have to pay the higher premiums. I do like knowing that there’s an option to upgrade our policy in the future if we did need treatments though.
Post # 3
I think it should, but I think there can be an in between solution as well. Health insurance should cover health issues – infertility is a health issue.
Post # 4
I voted yes. I think that all insurance companies should be mandated to offer a policy that covers infertility but just like other insurance, the policy holder has the choice whether or not to opt for that policy. Higher coverage, higher premiums makes sense to me. Insurance is supposed to help with unforseen circumstances. Infertility is just as unforseen as a vroken leg, burglary or fire.
Post # 5
I’m on the fence.
I think that private insurance should offer a policy that covers it.
In Canada we have public healthcare, I don’t know if I fully support it being covered under provincial healthcare – if it is, I think that there would need to be some very clear rules and guidelines in place.
Post # 6
I don’t know. there are some women are on here who’ve complained that breast reductions aren’t covered by insurance or that breast pumps aren’t. To me, those are just as important because they affect the well being of a person. I know that adoption isn’t for many, but it’s not like there’s an alternative for being unable to have children. I’m not wording this right at all, but what I’m trying to say is there should be more things covered by insurance than just infertility treatments.
Post # 7
I’m not opposed to IF treatment being covered. Our current policy does cover it but thankfully we have not had to go down that route. I think there are a lot more absurd things out there that are covered, so why not IF treatment?
Post # 8
If Viagra is covered by insurance, why the hell would infertility not be covered? Boggles my mind.
Post # 9
I had no idea breast reductions were not. I had thought that typically it’d be needed for medical reasons (back problems and the like) and would be. The breast pump coverage was the thread that sparked my curiosity on this matter as well. I’m sure there are a lot of things not covered for people who need it, but at the same time, it’s impossible to cover everything
. Lines have to be drawn somewhere adn someone somewhere has to foot the bill for something they need. I’m just kind of curious on how where one thinks that line should be and why.
Post # 10
I’m conflicted. My current opinion would be to partially cover them, and limit the number of times you can use the insurance (ie up to 2 kids) before paying out of pocket.
Post # 11
No. Our health care system costs too much already. It’s insustainable as it is and it’s just a matter of time until the whole system collapses (in the US). We don’t need to add more unnecessary expenses. Having children is a choice and an expensive one even if you don’t need IF. If someone wants children THAT bad then IF is just one more cost they should be able to afford. Not my job to pay for it
Post # 12
I agree with PP, I think that there should be some optional coverage… but that it should be clear guidelines.
I also think Dental care should be covered within provincial heath care though, Canadian Bee here, as dental health is heavily impacting on general health.
Post # 13
This is why I believe in an open market place across state boarders for insurance. If you want to buy a policy that covers infertility than you should have to pay an actuated price for a plan that covers it. No, I don’t believe it should be mandated as it is elective.
Post # 14
I think it should be available as a package coverage but I can see why insurance companies won’t cover it. It is hugely expensive, there is NO guarantee of the outcomes and is 100% elective. Living/dying is not determined by ones ability to have biological children. Heck, in the states some insurance won’t cover specific types of antibiotics or chemotherapy as they are too expensive which can be the difference in life/death. I think that is a way bigger travesty than not paying for IVF.
Post # 15
2monthweddingplanner: Not my job to pay for it
I agree, the health care system shouldn’t cover health issues related to obesity either unless the obesity is caused by a medical condition to start with. I manage to eat decent meals instead of shove fast food, frozen food, and other garbage down my throat, take care of my body, and be in good health. Why am I paying for the millions of people who don’t and cause completely preventative problems due to poor lifestyle choices.