How People Voted
 |
 |
82% For, 18% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
H.R. 2892, The Family Building Act of 2007 (114 comments ↓ | 3 wiki edits)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
H.R. 2892 would amend the Public Health Service Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, and title 10, United States Code, to require coverage for the treatment of infertility.
()
[23 views]
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
charmed
July 13, 2007, 7:21pm (report abuse)Please support this bill and allow those who want children to be given the opportunity to see a specialist who can help with this dream. For many, without this bill, the chance to become a parent is lost. In a country where insurances pay for abortions, why will those same insurances not cover infertility treatment? What if your mother had been infertile? Where would you be right now?
Valicon
July 13, 2007, 7:54pm (report abuse)The passing of this bill will give countless of Americans the basic human need and right to have biological children. It is a right which many of us are unable to fulfill due to the lack of insurance coverage. While infertility is recognized as a disease, insurance companies are not required to provide coverage. This is just wrong. Please support this bill.
Sophia Adamopoulos
July 13, 2007, 9:29pm (report abuse)This issue is very dear to me! I have endured fertility treatments with no success so far and I've incurred financial hardship, as a result. I find it truly unfair that infertility is not recognized as an illness. I also find it unfair that some people have IF insurance and some have none. There is no medium.
PLEASE, PLEASE PASS THIS BILL AND HELP US WOMEN ACHIEVE THE DREAM OF A BIOLOGICAL CHILD!..
Ella
July 14, 2007, 7:21am (report abuse)Infertility does not discriminate and affects millions of couples who are desperate to have their biological child. The lack of insurance coverage leads many to seek extremely agressive treatments that can cause severe medical problems for the mother and the babies. If insurance coverage for IVF was available to all infertility treatments would be better controlled and infertile couples could finally realize their dream. The right to have a family is a basic human right.
Jenna Nadeau
July 14, 2007, 10:25am (report abuse)While there are well over 6 million people diagnosed with infertility, there are millions of friends and family members who are also affected by the helplessness that their loved ones feel when they must end treatment due to financial constraints. Infertility affects entire families, not just individual patients. It's about time a bill came along to help end this heartache.
While having a baby may be a choice, infertility is the lack of choice. It is a disease that must be treated like any other. It should be granted the same respect as other diseases where diagnosis and coverage for treatment are common place.
Without coverage, infertility patients will continue to undergo unnecessarily aggressive treatments and find themselves in inescapable debt. This bill will ensure responsible medical care and help to end the financial devastation which is continually experienced by patients living in states without mandated infertiltiy coverage.
Alicia
July 14, 2007, 12:14pm (report abuse)Please support this bill. My life is complete after being able to have a child through InVitro-Fertilization. It is important for mandatory insurance coverage so all Americans who have infertility problems can have an aooportunity to have a child.
Karen Meagher
July 14, 2007, 12:58pm (report abuse)Infertility is a disease like any other and should be treated as such.
Covering the treatment will not put an undue hardship on insurers. Doctors and their patients will be able to focus on their medical needs instead of treating over agressively. When a couple can only pay for one attempt they may be tempted to use less safe methods such as an IUI (intra uterine insemination) instead of IVF (in vitro fertilization) which, if the overaies are over stimulated results in high order multiple births which cost millions of dollars in medical and social costs.
Michel Yamate
July 14, 2007, 1:05pm (report abuse)Insurable conditions are those that cause a disability of a major life function or threaten the life of an individual. Reproduction is a defining characteristic of all life forms. It is unconscionable that erectile dysfunction is covered by insurance while infertility is not. Reproductive rights are among the most fundamental to every society. Creating criteria that allow only those with the means to pay out of pocket for these extremely high costs favors a very small segment of society to use these extraordinary measures. The result of this social pressure is reminiscent of the eugenic practices of Nazi Germany. Though infertility is not epidemic, the selection pressure is real. I can think of no more un-American, un-democratic treatment of this condition.
Jennifer
July 14, 2007, 10:15pm (report abuse)Please mandate Insurance coverage for infertility treatment. My husband's condition only allows us to possibly conceive through IVF plus surgery for him. His condition can not be corrected therefore our IVF procedure should be considered a medical need. Medical needs should be paid for by our health insurance.
Tina Facenbaker
July 16, 2007, 5:41pm (report abuse)I have been trying to concieve for the last 3 years. I have a condition called Hydrosalpinx which cuts the egg off from the uterus. The only way for me to concieve is for In-Vitro Fertilization and since it's not covered, we are having to pay completely out of pocket. I have insurance and it only covers IUI. I could 80 IUI's at $3,400 a try, but no IVF, which has a higher chance of working. Doesn't make sense to me. Please make it a requirement to pay something for IVF.
Lisa Frey
July 16, 2007, 5:55pm (report abuse)Please support H.R 2892, The Family Building Act of 2007. I suffer from infertility and am just about start my first IVF cycle. After 7 intrauterine inseminations that were partially covered by insurance, this is our last chance at becoming biological parents. We have exhausted our infertility coverage--a $5000 lifetime maximum--and will be paying out-of-pocket for this last chance at parenthood.
Insurance covers many illnesses that are exacerbated by patients' own actions: lung cancer for those that smoke, liver failure for those who drink. Those of us experiencing infertility did not choose to be infertile--nothing we did created this situation. Please remember I did not choose infertility, it chose my husband and me. Please help us and the millions of couples out there who suffer this tragic state and want desperately the chance to become parents.
S. Brandt
July 18, 2007, 10:13am (report abuse)It is time that this country treats couples suffering from infertility with the respect they deserve. It is a disease that warrants treatment, and the treatment should not only be available to those who are wealthy. Additionally, when infertility treatment is not covered by insurance, it only encourages couples to take greater risk (to reduce their own cost) that is more likely to lead to multiples and premature births which only cost the insurance companies more money in the long run anyway.
Laura
July 18, 2007, 2:44pm (report abuse)Please support this bill. It means millions to the men and women that are suffering from this disease. It is the most painful thing I have went through in my 34 years of life. This is a very painful, isolating, and devestating disease.
Amy
July 20, 2007, 11:15am (report abuse)As an infertile woman, I was fortunate enough to live in Illinois and work for a school district that provided infertility coverage on our group policy. Without that coverage I wouldn't have my happy ending: Emilie, Alexander, Benjamin, and Ethan. I can't imagine my life without them. EVERYONE deserves a family. Please support this bill and give the men and women who desperately want a child a fighting chance.
Sean
July 25, 2007, 3:53pm (report abuse)Thanks to corporations polluting our foodchain with all types of chemicals, our fertility levels have declined. Make corporations who have aggravated this problem help subsidize this program, and let's start to hold companies to account on their use of certain chemicals like steroids, DDT, etc. Also, let's realize that we should have children earlier.
Melissa
July 27, 2007, 10:58am (report abuse)Please support H.R 2892, The Family Building Act of 2007. I suffer from infertility and the only way I will be able to get pregnant is through IVF. I have PCOS on top of not having one tube and IVF is my only hope. At $10,000-$15,000 each try it is a difficult and costly option without insurance help.
Lis
July 27, 2007, 10:03pm (report abuse)I've gone through 5 miscarriages that my doctor attributes to chromosomes that are randomly not dividing properly. If I could afford IVF, or have it covered by insurance, the lab could select genetically normal embryos so that I might not have to endure another painful loss.
Maria DH
August 1, 2007, 3:05pm (report abuse)Please support H.R. 2892. It is not only emotionally devastating to go thru infertility but it is a big financial burden too. It hurts every time we have to pay out of pocket. So far we have paid $20,000 and the savings are almost up. Please support this bill.
Asia
August 3, 2007, 9:11am (report abuse)I'm 28 years old, and have blocked tubes. I am starting my first, and possibly last, IVF treatment in 6 months. I have medical insurance, but it only covers the diagnoses of infertility. At $8000 per treatment, plus $3000 to $5000 for medication we will have to save up for another 5 to 10 years before we can try again. Our chances of having a biological child will be less in 5 years because the quality of my eggs diminish every year. Please help us have the opportunity to have children of our own. If you have children of your own you understand that nothing in this world can replace the natural want/longing to have your own children. Just imagine if you couldn't have them.
Nadia
August 19, 2007, 2:50am (report abuse)We recently discovered that my husband has a slight birth defect that has rendered him unable to naturally initiate a pregnancy. We are both teachers and love children. Adoption is too expensive, and we don't have the means to pay for IVF-our only hope. In a country that pays for gastric bypass and drug rehab, it seems heartless to deny the same advantages to those who have a natural defect/disease and who have not abused their bodies. Infertility is a real issue, and it can be a heartbreaking problem for someone you love.
Tricia Cox
August 25, 2007, 12:12pm (report abuse)I'm one of the lucky people to live in a state with mandated infertility coverage. I count my blessings every single day. Please support this bill. Infertility is a real medical condition. People in this country are guaranteed the right NOT to have children. We hear the sound bites about family values. Allow those of us without a choice to have a family to value.
Nicole
September 13, 2007, 4:25pm (report abuse)Please, please pass seriously consider and pass this bill. As someone suffering from infertility, why does my financial situation dictate weather I can have a child or not? Infertility is a disease and we deserve coverage just like someone suffering from cancer or heart disease. We did not choose to be infertile like so many did not choose to be affected by other diseases. We deserve a fair chance at having a child without paying 15-20K per IVF cycle. Pass this bill!
Here's why . . .
September 13, 2007, 5:05pm (report abuse)Hey Nicole, why does my financial situation require me to pay for your infertility treatments?
I sympathize with you, but I don't owe you money, which is what you're asking for under the name "mandated coverage."
To here's why:
September 17, 2007, 11:54am (report abuse)I can only assume, you have not experienced infertilty. Come talk to those facing infertility when you have felt the burden of this. When your dream of having a child is crushed, you will do everythin in your power to have a child. And we are a family that wants a child desperately and will do anything in our power to do this. It isn't fair that we have to pay this money to have a child, but people like you with your heartless attitudes, say who gives a sh*t, that's not my problem. Have a heart and big deal if your premium is raised 10 dollars. Try thinking of someone else besides your selfish self.
Katie
September 17, 2007, 12:12pm (report abuse)To Here's Why:
I need for you to explain to me what infertility (a disease as recognized by Congress via bill HR 322) has in common with the other exclusions in my insurance policy: cosmetic surgery, air purifiers, Weight Watchers (doctor managed weight loss is covered, just not a third party like WW), exercise equipment, and "Life Style Programs" which includes imagery programs. Where are the other diseases excluded? Why is infertility singled out?
Do you use all of the services offered by your insurance company? Every single one? I don't. But I don't have a problem "paying" for cancer treatment even though I thankfully don't need it. I do have a problem paying for your Viagra if my infertility isn't covered...if we're going to speak on terms of medical necessity.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 12:14pm (report abuse)Although I sympathize with the plight of infertile couples, I don't understand why infertility should be something that should be mandatorily covered by insurance and paid for with my premium. Although infertility is tragic, it certainly doesn't seem to be life threatening like cancer or AIDS or any other lethal diseases. Treating infertility is VERY expensive-- and I can't understand why the American public should be obligated to treat something that boils down to a want-- not a need. No one need to procreate to have a fulfilling, healthy and happy life.
I'm not against the right of infertile couples to seek treatment-- just not on my dime.
Katie
September 17, 2007, 12:26pm (report abuse)Elizabeth - Is everything under your insurance policy for only life threatening illnesses? If you get a cold, and go to the doctor, is that covered? Is that life threatening? Migraines are miserable, but are they life threatening? Should the treatment and medications for migraines be on your dime even if you don't suffer from them?
In terms of cost, if this were to pass the average cost per person nationally would be $2-3 annually.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 12:33pm (report abuse)Sorry Katie, but I assume the reason for treating other such illnesses is that they make life physically miserable. Infertility makes people emotionally miserable--because they have determined for themselves that they MUST conceive and carry biological children in order to be happy.
That conclusion is fine for them to reach, but not fine for me to pay for.
My father is an RE, so we lived quite well off people's vain desire to have children 'like them' instead of someone's 'leftovers' to adopt. But I don't think it's my job to pay for the strictly optional and voluntary choice to have children.
M
September 17, 2007, 12:39pm (report abuse)Isn't it amazing the number of people who want others to pay for their procreation but are unwilling to help cover health expenses for everyone, including those with life-threatening illnesses. The day everyone is covered by health insurance for illnesses I think most people would be willing to consider paying for not medically necessary treatments, such as fertility treatments.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 12:40pm (report abuse)Dear M:
Amen.
Nicole
September 17, 2007, 1:00pm (report abuse)Why is it that I have to pay for cancer treatments for those that *choose* to smoke and drink their lives away? Why is this okay? They are creating their own graves, but I have to pay for their health care. How is this different from infertility treatment. It is our *choice* to conceive a biological child, just like it is an idiot's choice to smoke and danger their life. There is no difference.
And Elizabeth, as a daughter of an RE, you of all people should support this bill. Glad, your family made so much money off of us infertiles. Would $2-3 a year, really make you go broke? And it is very disheartening to know that you will never have a biological child. If you have biological children, can you imagine your life without them?
To Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 1:05pm (report abuse)I cannot you just callously used the term "leftovers" to describe a child. I think that shows your level of (or lack there of) intelligence and shows the fact that you don't deserve to have a vote in this. If you truly understood what it was like to be infertile there would be no way that you would oppose it, especially for $2-$3 per year.
Why do I have to pay a premium on Weight Watchers programs when I weigh 130 lbs and will never benefit from such program? Why do countless amounts of single people have to pay the premium for maternity coverage when they will never have a child of their own? There are COUNTLESS premiums that each of us pays for that we will never receive the benefit.
Do us all a favor, educate yourself before posting such garbage.
Jan
September 17, 2007, 1:11pm (report abuse)How is appropriate to pay for the glutton who needs a gastric bypass but not to help a healthy family having trouble conceiving?
Why is ok to pay for an abortion for an inconvenient pregnancy but not ok to help me have a child I really want and will adore?
I could spend $30k on an adoption and experience YEARS of yearning for a baby to come to my life - or I can spend $12k on IVF and a chance at my own. Of course, without insurance, I am stuck with the choice between saving for adoption and experiencing that special yearning and heartbreak or getting treatment. I shouldn't have to make the choice between treating my medical condition or saving for the chance someone will want to give me her child.
I gladly pay premiums to pay for the treatment of others' medical issues that they helped create because of their poor lifestyle choices. I did NOTHING to cause my medical condition, yet some people believe I don't deserve the same consideration.
JDAY
September 17, 2007, 1:11pm (report abuse)Yes, infertility is tragic. And, no, it isn't life threatening. So you believe that only life threatening illnesses should be covered by insurance? So when your kid (born "naturally" of course), get pink eye at nursery school - it's not life threatening, so maybe you just let him lose an eye?! Of course not. Not being able to have a child is worse than losing an eye. Not having a child, or suffering the continued loss of children through miscarriage is losing a piece of your heart. It's not vanity - it's humanity.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 1:16pm (report abuse)I used the term 'leftovers' to describe the way many infertiles who INSIST on having biological children seem to see children who are eligible for adoption.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 1:19pm (report abuse)P.S.
Whether spending an extra two or three dollars would make me go broke is definitely not the issue here. At this point it's still MY 2 or 3 dollars to decide what to do with-- not anyone else's.
Monica
September 17, 2007, 1:24pm (report abuse)So should infertile couples be denied the opportunity to conceive biological children when they can't control how their body works reproductively? Most couples aren't faced with this lack of opportunity.
Sorry Elizabeth but I don't think most people think they *must* conceive in order to be happy. I think most people would be happy just to have the chance to try to conceive a child. Being unable to conceive a child due to significant financial costs that would be incurred is where the problem lies. I paid what would be considered a years worth of college tuition to conceive my child but I would have gladly adopted *leftovers* (as you put it) had I not been successful.
I guess if I was born without a limb, I shouldn't have health insurance to cover a prosthetic piece because I don't really *need* a limb to function, right?
Jan
September 17, 2007, 1:31pm (report abuse)Elizabeth, clearly you don't know much about adoption.
I would love an adopted child with all my heart. It will cost us $30,000 for a domestic adoption. Combined with the FACT that it can take YEARS to be matched.
Adoption is not easy, inexpensive, and comes with it's own set of emotional and financial issues. And no guarantees.
A short round of fertility meds and some help with insemination can cost about $2k - and could produce a child in 9 months.
A round of IVF can cost $12k and produce a child in 9 months.
So you see, "just adopt" is not an easy solution. And I still have to deal with the fact that my MEDICAL CONDITION is not covered by my medical insurance.
Heidi
September 17, 2007, 1:34pm (report abuse)Wow, it's so obvious who has been personally touched by infertility.
Let's look at it another way. If insurance covers infertility treatment, they'll also regulate the procedures. It'll save all of you concerned citezens a lot of money b/c it'll keep few premies in the NICU longer which trust me, in the long run, is a LOT more savings than IVF.
Wanttobeamommy
September 17, 2007, 1:42pm (report abuse)Infertility is one of the most painful things anyone can ever go through. For most of us, it is just as bad as having a terrible illness. And it does not only effect people emotionally, it is physical as well. Why should cancer caused by smoking be covered and not infertility?
For Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 1:52pm (report abuse)In response to your comment "I assume the reason for treating other such illnesses is that they make life physically miserable. Infertility makes people emotionally miserable--because they have determined for themselves that they MUST conceive and carry biological children in order to be happy."
As an RE's daughter, your ignorance astounds me. Not only is infertility emotionally painful but the myriad of diseases and underlying hormonal problems (PCOS, Endometriosis, etc.) that cause infertility also make it very physically painful as well. Please do not form such strong opinions from your clear lack of information and understanding of infertility and its causes.
M
September 17, 2007, 1:53pm (report abuse)Another side of infertility coverage regualting procedures... Less higher order multiples. Couples would not have to make desicions based on the financial sspect of the situation. When they are paying out of pocket for procedures they are more likely to procede with a cycle with too many follicles instead of just cancelling the cycle and starting over next month. It would incourage maore responsible decisions and less financial ones, that end up impaciting everyone.
Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 1:56pm (report abuse)So if fertility medication and IVF is so cheaply had in comparison to adoption, why not just pay for it and stop whining?
e
September 17, 2007, 1:57pm (report abuse)The reason that you should have to pay for infertility is the same reason I pay for childbirth for the countless others who have babies. That is how insurance works. It is about sharing risk and sharing costs. Is it fair that I have to pay for scheduled C-sections when I might not ever deliver a baby? Yes, it is - that's the entire point of insurance. I may not like paying for bypass surgeries for those who choose to make poor lifestyle decisions, or the elbow surgeries for retirees so they can continue to play golf. But I don't have the luxury of making that choice because my insurance premium does not include a MENU of options of what I *feel* like covering.
Monica
September 17, 2007, 2:06pm (report abuse)I think if meds for IVF and IVF were so cheap, this bill would probably not be here. it is cheapER than adoption. I don't think a lot of people have $12K to throw around. I think a lot of people would *whine* at having to pay $12K for something that others do for free, don't you think?
Jan
September 17, 2007, 2:09pm (report abuse)Now Elizabeth, youare just being dumb and cruel. $12k is not a small amount of money and to say we are whining is plain ignorant.
You just don't get it. I think your RE parent should be ashamed at your attitude. And if they aren't, then that is sad, sad, sad.
Insurance premiums that infertile people pay into pay for all kinds of procedures for other people. Infertility is a medical condition and you haven't come up with a good reason why it shouldn't be covered - except your claim we want to conceive out of vanity (ridiculous) and adoption should be our solution (naive at best).
You clearly don't and won't get it.
to Elizabeth
September 17, 2007, 2:18pm (report abuse)what is your dads name? or at least where does he work?
just curious, i would hate to see a person who thinks like this to be an RE. to raise you with this mindset your dads heart is definately not in his job
anne
September 17, 2007, 2:30pm (report abuse)i am very fortunate to be in a state that already mandates IF coverage. to be completely honest, two and a half years ago when my husband and i first started trying for a family i couldn't understand IF. No one really, truely can, unless they walk in our shoes. I honestly don't know what we would do if we had to pay out of pocket and i applaud the couples that have so far. They not only have the stress of infertility but the stress of making financial decisions so they can eventually become a family. I just dont think it is right.
pfw
September 17, 2007, 3:07pm (report abuse)infertility is indeed a disease. a disease of the mind, body and spirit. it needs to be addressed and treated like any other illness that people suffer with.
Lisa
September 17, 2007, 3:15pm (report abuse)Infertility is a disease just like all others. Those in the world who are infertile shouldn't be forced to adopt Elizabeth's "leftovers." If those fertile people are so upset about the children left for adoption, they can be Madonna and Angelina and adopt them.
This is coverage that should be mandated. Those suffering from IF often have a medical condition causing/contributing to IF and this is coverage that should be treated. As someone else said, gastric bypass is covered and the person getting the surgery made choices that caused them to get to the point where they were morbidly obese. No man needs to have sex, but viagra is covered. Abortion is often covered. There's no need to have one in most instances, but it's still covered. Infertility treatment should be as well.
Kristy
September 17, 2007, 3:24pm (report abuse)Actually, a lot of IF is caused by real medical conditions. In my case, I have a blood clotting disorder that requires shots during pregnancy to carry a child to term and deliver a healthy baby.
If not for my IF coverage, I would have had multiple miscarriages and, eventually, been told to use birth control to prevent conception.
Thankfully, my employer isn't closed minded. Thankfully, we found my condition because of my IF benefits because I need to be treated forever to prevent deadly blood clots. Thankfully, my insurance paid for my injections during pregnancy so I could carry and deliver my beautiful baby girl.
Some people won't get it until they find out they'll never have a grandchild because their son or daughter can't afford IVF.
SP
September 17, 2007, 5:18pm (report abuse)I believe every woman should have the right to conceive a child. Without this bill you are taking away a woman's right to be a mother.
I choose to wait until I was 32 years old to try to conceive because I wanted my baby to have a father and a mother that loved him/her. I wonder all of the time if I was younger maybe I wouldn't have had all of the problems that I do now with infertility, but don't I deserve to have the family that I've dreamed of my entire life? I think so. Why should the fertile women be able to have pregnancy after pregnancy covered by their insurance and I can't even get help with infertility to at least conceive one child. But I guess I still have to pay for you fertile gals to have baby after baby with some families having a dozen kids and then getting all of the tax benefits too. To me that is just not right.
Libby
September 17, 2007, 5:46pm (report abuse)Most insurance companies cover a persons emotional well-being just an FYI for Elizabeth. Also for many of us we did nothing to end up struggling with infertilty however many other covered problems can be traced back to lifestyle choices. Also just an FYI as a woman that had a few medical conditions that lead to IVF and is now adopting...its simply not that easy...
Everyone else...you know she is full of it right?!?
Bunny
September 17, 2007, 6:43pm (report abuse)I'm sure Elizabth has led a very charmed life after her RE father has made quite a pretty penny off of us infertiles. Did it pay for a fancy college? New car? Lots of pretty clothes when you were younger? You disgust me.
Heidi
September 17, 2007, 6:55pm (report abuse)Elizabeth has probably been influenced by her family. Most RE's would argue against the coverage b/c the prices would go down drastically and so would their bottom line. I love my RE and clinic but it's a HUGE business.
Elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 11:19am (report abuse)My dad did pay for a good college, law school, and a new car-- and for our wedding, he gave us the down payment on a house.
Hey...to visit an RE is a choice--most women who come to see him are women who've waited until their reproductive system is coming to a screeching halt and want him to resurrect their child-bearing capabilities after they've spent their prime years doing everything but having children. Some of them are suffering the ill-effects of complications from the STDs they contracted in college and after.
Regardless, every one who comes to him has decided that this is the path that they need to take before going to adoption.
Not complaining, as I mentioned before, people's vain and desperate pursuit of biological children has helped his biological children off to a handsomely good start.
for elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 12:29pm (report abuse)why are you so bitter? and you seem very inaccurate.. it is a HUGE misconception that people with IF are only those that older and what is with your statement on STDs that people got in college??!!! do you know what IF is? We aren't all old and grey and honestly i am still laughing on ths STD thing. Maybe you should ask your dad to explain what infertility means. i am seriously shocked at how much you do not know
Elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 1:18pm (report abuse)Many of MY FATHER's (not all infertility patients) clients are older women whose fertility is on the decline. And, in case you didn't know, many STDs left unchecked can lead to complications that cause infertility. Chlamydia, anyone?
I know plenty about infertility and the people who suffer from it--it was dinner conversation for 18 years of my life.
Rachel
September 18, 2007, 1:52pm (report abuse)Should people be denied the right to attempt to conceive a child due to their fertility problems (most of which are completely out of their control)? I guess a vast majority of Americans are "vain" because they choose to conceive biological children on their own rather than adopt. That would include my/your parents and probably you in the future as well. Don't people suffering from IF deserve the same chances as those not suffering from IF? Should we start charging everyone who gets pregnant? That is essentially what you would prefer IF people do.
For the record, I am young and never have a STD...my body simply does not work the way it should.
And I find it hard to believe with your previous posts that you are fully aware of IF issues (IF vs. adoption costs, medical issues associated with IF). Truly unless you have walked in IF people's shoes, you have no idea of the financial/emotional/physical hardships.
For Elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 2:46pm (report abuse)Does you father not have any ethics? What about patient/docotr confidentiality? I would really like to know where he practices so that, I don't make the mistake of going there. His poor patients actually trusted him..SAD!
for elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 8:11pm (report abuse)IF coverage for insurance companies could very likely not cost more that what you pay now for insurance. in fact, i live in MA where infertity coverage is mandated and the only one that may not benefit would be your father because he would more than likely have contracts with certain insurance companies. Look at all other things that is included in your current insurance, look at drug rehab, these are people that made a choice to start taking drugs, look at people that go to shrinks and that is covered by insurance. do me a favor elizabeth, do your research.. better yet, have your dad read all the inaccurate statements you made and have him come on here and actually back you up. you are inaccurate on adoption costs, causes of infertilty (common causes, not the rare STD case which is so out of norm) and you have a misconception of the demographic of people that suffer from infertility
also
September 18, 2007, 8:18pm (report abuse)you probably have no idea what i meant when i say your dad would probably have contracts with insurance companies... you may need to ask your dad and have him explain it to you... i just don't want you to embaress yourself anymore by trying to respond to that, i kinda feel bad for you because you are really looking stupid here... and did you ever think that your dads "stories" at the dinner table, which he shouldn't even discuss with you, were more than likely the cases that were different from the norm for him... i doubt he went through every typical person he saw everyday.. he probaby only mentioned the stories that in his eyes were different enought to be worth talking about
hey elizabeth
September 18, 2007, 8:22pm (report abuse)when you say it is your $2-$3... did you mean its your dads $2-$3? lol
Christina
September 18, 2007, 8:41pm (report abuse)Elizabeth, oh I don't know where to even begin with you. I really don't understand how someone can be this naive and have such a lack of compassion for others. Although I don't suffer from infertility, I have two friends who are dealing with this. I have seen first hand the grief, dispair, and financial hardships this can cause. I think now you are just trying to elicit attention, and I feel sorry that this is the only way you can get it. I hope one day you don't have to face a situation/illness and have to deal with the same heartless attitude that you have shown to these women. You are a disgrace to women and you should be ashamed. All I can say is that Karma is a b*tch!!
ruth
September 19, 2007, 10:56pm (report abuse)Elizabeth, you need to F**k off! You stupid ignorant B**ch! Rot in hell!
webmaster
September 20, 2007, 6:44am (report abuse)A reminder: Comments that are impolite, off-topic, violations of others' rights, or advertisements are likely to be removed. Please refrain from personal attacks and foul language, which do not help site visitors form opinions of this legislation.
Elizabeth
September 20, 2007, 9:06am (report abuse)Thanks, webmaster. Let reason and logic prevail-- not emotional, hormonal ranting.
Shawn
September 20, 2007, 11:07pm (report abuse)I do not want to pay for some old folks to get preggo. This bill would obligate my insurer to pay for an 80 year old person to have a child. It would also obligate them pay for people to get reversals of sterilization operations. It would also pay for people to have fertility treatments for an unlimited number of children. Does she really need to have that 12th child? Its not illegal to go and get the treatments yourself save your money and go get it or adopt. Vote no if you want premiums you can afford! This is a bad bill with disaster written all over it.
Lucy
September 21, 2007, 6:22am (report abuse)Elizabeth, when you present reason and logic, please post.
Shawn, I suggest you read the bill. There is a limit the amount of times a person could use IVF. It seems like you are using a lot of sterotypes and generalizations of people who require assistance. Please research the facts before posting nonsense.
Nicole
September 23, 2007, 9:37am (report abuse)Shawn, for God's sake, did you read the bill? There is a lifetime cap as far as how many IVF treatments one can undergo. So, someone is not going to have 12 children using IVF. And I doubt an 80 yr old would be using this bill. What about those in our 20's and 30's that can't have children. We deserve adequate health insurance like everyone else. Infertility is a disease and not one that we chose to have. Why does insurance pay for gastric bypass when someone eats themselves into oblivion? That was their choice and insurance covers that. Adoption is a LONG process and more expensive than IVF by the way. And your premiums would only go about $2-3 dollars in a YEAR. Can you handle paying $3 towards something for a good cause?
Ali
September 24, 2007, 9:22am (report abuse)This is not about $2, this is not about age, this is not about anything other than women wanting fair health coverage. I am 28 and STD free Elizabeth, I have a good job and a husband who loves me. I do not know why my body is turning on me and not working correctly. But I desreve the chance and the opportunity to figure it out- I deserve as a woman to try my hardest to have a baby of my own. Adoption is a way to have a family-I know this and I am not ruling it out. But with 1 in 10 couples having trouble concieving on their own I feel that this issues is something we ALL need to be concerned with-did you see Children of Men? what if that happnes (I know that it is far fetched) and we are all standing around saying "couldn't we have done something"-well we can-if this bill passes.
L
October 8, 2007, 1:26pm (report abuse)For all of you people who are against the bill, perhaps you should start paying for your birth control pills. It works both ways "you don't have to have the pills." There are other methods to prevent from getting pregnant. Use other methods that are not on my dime! You people need to read what the bill encompasses.
Tracy
October 11, 2007, 11:30am (report abuse)If ins not only covers but does not limit # abortions, refills of Viagra, bcps, erectile dx txs than it should cover IF treatment, not limiting how often one can treat their IF through ART.
Also, IVF cvg is believed by many non-IF to be very expensive. Know that there are 2 diff’t IVF costs - retail: ~$12k/cycle + $1k-8k/drugs. Then there's ins negot’d cost: I've been fortunate enough to have 2 cycles cvr’d & due to the negot’d discount, my ins plan pd only $5,200 for exact same cycle one would pay $12k w/o ins. Ins co's negotiate big discnts w/ docs/hosp based on the potential membership they can bring them. In fact, if cvr’d, actual cost to group ins would likely grow to greater discnt than represented here b/c the member base is greater w/fed mandated IF cvg. If cvr’d through ins, ART will not cost nearly what the retail cost is to all those who have no cvg at all. RE's make a killing on those patients w/o cvg to make up for loss ins patients.
Tracy
October 11, 2007, 11:31am (report abuse)For Elizabeth:
Elizabeth - I'm sorry your rich RE daddy was too busy collecting his killing from us infertiles and in doing so clearly did not spend enough time being an adequate father to you. Unfortunately you clearly resent infertiles b/c in your small, albeit priveleged world, daddy warbucks spent most of his time with them and not you. I pity you...but of course, as luck would have it, you will go on to spawn as many offspring as you'd like without requiring ART...even if you did, you clearly have plenty of dough to finance tx or adopt, as you so callously termed, "some one's leftovers"...
karenw729
October 17, 2007, 5:43pm (report abuse)My husband and I have spent $25,000 in less than one year trying to conceive a child. Our insurance will pay for procedures to make sure we don't conceive, i.e. tubal ligation and vasectomy, but they won't pay to help us conceive. They're even now paying for lasik surgery and weight-loss surgeries, but not for procedures to help us have a child. I think that is un-American, discriminatory, and detrimental to our society.
Lynn B
October 21, 2007, 7:31pm (report abuse)my sister and her husband are going thru invitro. They have been trying for 6 years to have a baby. It breaks my heart to see what she is going thru
Amy
October 28, 2007, 8:21pm (report abuse)I have PCOS and for those who are fertile and have no problem conceiving COMPLETELY do not understand what if feels like to be infertile. I spent around 2-3K (out of pocket) for my first daughter and now my husband and I are embarking on the same journey again...only this time my insurance might not pay for anything becuase I may be considered in the treatment phase since 3 years ago I was going through the diagnosis phase. As for passing the bill, I'm all for it! I mean if infertility is considered a disability under ADA then insurance companies should cover treatment!
julia
November 4, 2007, 9:29pm (report abuse)It's too bad most of this comment board is filled with Elizabeths rants. If for sure she is what she says she is. Too many times I have been on support boards and a troll will come along and stir the pot. Lets not forget why we are here ladies. To have our voice heard. To have a bill such as this pass will allow most of us to keep the house.
I hope elizabeth doesnt have kids. It sound like she is a very bitter, unhappy woman. Maybe your 2-3 bucks saved should be spent seeing a shrink to deal with your "daddy" issues.
Emily
November 9, 2007, 10:16pm (report abuse)Men get Viagra. Why can't women have comparable treatments? Infertility is a medical condition, it is not a punishment. I should be able to have insurance coverage that will pay for both diagnosis and treatment of a real and debilitating medical problem. I am just a woman who wants a child. Why should I be punished and forced to pay thousands of dollars, while a man who wants a erection can pay fifteen dollars for the honor, and gets the added benefit of getting a woman pregnant.
Please Support
November 26, 2007, 3:15pm (report abuse)Mental conditions (depression, multiple personalities, etc. etc.) are treated and covered by insurance companies; so to say that infertility is a state of mind and therefore should not be covered is rediculous. Insurance will pay for Viagra, all forms of birth control, sterrilization procedures, and abortions. Insurance companies also need to help loving, caring families expand. This is a no-brainer. This needs to pass.