Forum: Liquid Lounge
Despite having maternity care coverage, IVF wasn't covered on our insurance, so this was entirely out of pocket for us. It was obviously totally worth it, but we were fortunate at the time to have the resources and the priorities to manage it. Many clearly could not do the same, then or now.
Aside from its other benefits such as period regulation, birth control pills are politically promoted as being associated with a woman's right to her own health. The same can be said of IVF - in fact, more so because in a large number of cases the problem is with the father, or with both parents (often you don't know which). Now you're talking about the health rights of TWO people. Twice the health rights, yes?
But IVF is expensive. If you think $1000/year (an oft-touted figure) is a lot for BCP's, IVF makes that look absolutely cheap.
On the other hand, having a baby is an option, a choice, not required to stay alive and pay taxes. But all of those things can also be said about having sex without getting pregnant. College frat jokes aside, having sex really is an option, a choice, and not required to stay alive.
There are alternative ways to become a parent (adoption), but there are also alternative ways to avoiding pregnancy (mechanical contraception, or the dreaded keyword abstinance).
So what says the collective wisdom here? If we should subsidize the "medical process" of artificially avoiding pregnancy, should we also subsidize the "medical process" of artificially achieving it?
So if we subsidized the contraceptives (and whatever else) to keep those who are not ready from getting pregnant... RandyH New
and if you want to draw comparisons, it is similar to paying for cancer treatments for smokers.......... Terrell New
I reject the idea that sex is a behavior that is optional. Recreational sex is what makes us human Julio New
Oh, the "why" is to encourage better preventive care, which is cheaper and more effective than post care........... Terrell New