• Thu, Nov 29 2012

Unbearable: IVF Isn’t A Medical Treatment, It’s A Luxury Good

ivfHaving a child is usually a happy time in a woman’s life. Unfortunately, as we wait longer to have children, infertility and trouble conceiving can become a part of the family making process. Unbearable addresses these difficulties.

I know this is going to shock everyone. Brace yourselves. It’s a pretty huge story. I just want to make sure everyone knows… IVF is really expensive. Like, the cost of a small car expensive. Two rounds of IVF and we’re talking about the down payment on a pretty nice house. IVF and reproductive medicine are luxury goods in this country.

In a recent article for the Australian women’s website Mama Mia, I talked about how jealous I am at the idea of government-sponsored health insurance that covers reproductive technology. I would never personally call any infertile woman “lucky,” but I have to admit that I have dreams of being able to do as many rounds of IVF as I needed to without losing my life savings or taking on thousands of dollars in debt. (I’ve since learned that IVF can still be expensive over there, though it is a fraction of the cost here in the U.S.)

The more I’ve thought about reproductive technology in the United States, the more I can’t help but be frustrated by the class divide it creates. There are well-to-do families that can afford to treat their infertility. Then, there are less wealthy families, still perfectly capable of raising children, who languish without treatment and pray for the best each month.

Make no mistake, treatment does not guarantee a baby. Plenty of people try several rounds of IUI and IVF and never get the baby they so desire. There is heartache and difficulty in dealing with infertility no matter how much money you have to spare.

At the same time, knowing that there is a possible treatment out there that you just can’t afford is it’s own special form of torture. Trying to prioritize between saving for retirement and possibly having a child is it’s own kind of agony. That struggle really can create an immense amount of resentment that insurance in the United States doesn’t have to help cover any reproductive technology.

We cover Viagra, but not fertility tests. Other illnesses are covered and cured, but infertility is something you have to live with. The surgery to remove my ectopic pregnancy? Paid for. Surgery to help me get a healthy pregnancy? Thousands of dollars out-of-pocket.

We have people right here in the United States who are going into debt just to try to have a family. And even if they decide not to pursue medical intervention, the average cost of adoption in the United States is $30,000. That’s the equivalent of roughly two to three rounds of IVF, depending on your clinic.

No matter what way you look at it, infertility is expensive. Trying to have a family when “the good old-fashioned way” doesn’t work out is an extremely costly journey. It’s a journey that’s only available to a certain class of our population. I’m not quite sure if or how we can change that, but that doesn’t make the situation any less sad.

(Photo: Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock)

What We're Reading:
Share This Post:
  • CW

    I think if there’s a medical reason for the infertility aside from simply waiting too long that a couple of rounds of IVF should be covered. I do not agree with Massachusetts’ mandate of covering IVF no matter what. Age-related infertility is not a legitimate medical reason for insurance to pick up the tab because it’s the body’s natural condition rather than a dysfunction of the reproductive system.

    • VanCan

      Medical insurance covers all sorts of age related natural conditions. Erectile dysfunction is only considered a dysfunction because there’s a profit to be made in treating it and it happens to men. It used to be called “too bad you’ve got an old penis”.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      That’s because society — and by extension, insurance companies and the government — is run by MEN, and we all know that MEN should be able to have sex whenever they want with whomever they want, without consequences. (But if those dirty sluts get pregnant, god forbid they want health care or enough money to feed themselves!)

      (Note that the above is sarcasm. And that I am really, really, REALLY sick and tired of living in a misogynistic society that places the priority women’s needs somewhere below repairing rural roads.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      Not every person with erectile dysfunction is old and simply suffering from the natural progression of age. There are perfectly healthy 20-year-olds who can’t get it up for some reason or another or it can be cause by side effects from other drugs. Again, wide generalizations from both sides.

      Also, Viagra is a lot cheaper than IVF (although like I said, I’m not sure about any kind of government-sponsered insurance paying for that regardless)

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177501011 Aimee Hunter

      I’m inclined to agree….my infertility is caused my a medical reason…it should be covered

    • Kai

      Why should *I* be forced to donate money just so that *you* can feel special because you have a miniature version of yourself to raise?
      I fully support your right to spend your own money on it, but there’s no decent reason you should be able to compel me to spend my money on it. And if government has anything to do with the insurance, that’s what you’re demanding.
      That said, I also would not support any tax money going to ED drugs either.

  • k

    My insurance does cover fertility treatments, on the other hand it does not cover the occupational therapy my son needs because his is a ‘developmental’ issue (and he is too old for the state program). I think its a tough thing to figure out whats covered, what isnt covered, who deserves what. Im not sure how we could afford everything to be covered for everyone. im not agreeing or disagreeing with, just saying insurance is a messed up place to begin with.

    • LindsayCross

      I understand what you’re saying. And I don’t know that it’s fair for every insurance company to be forced to cover infertility treatments. They are obviously expensive. It would make the entire system more expensive.

      Then at the same time…. it still sucks. Ya know?

      And I’m sorry your son’s treatments aren’t covered! That makes me way more sad than IVF being too expensive for most.

    • k

      thanks Lindsay, thats really nice of you to say when the main topic is something near and dear to you :) I do agree, it does still suck! it sucks its so expensive in the first place

  • Misa

    There are only so many options for women who are infertile and want to have the experience of pregnancy and childbirth. Adoption can be expensive, but there are other arrangements that can be made that are just as legal and viable as an adoption through an agency and do not cost as much.

    The link you gave shows a chart that actually doesn’t make sense when you add it up. If you look at the cost of an “Independent Domestic Infant” it says “$20 – $35,000″ but when you add up the numbers in the list, the lowest amount is actually $7,600. And it does state that there are cheaper options. I mean, a person would try to get the best price for something, so I would hope one wouldn’t jump right in and pay $30,000 without exploring other options.

    Ectopic pregnancy has many possibly fatal dangers for the mother and absolutely no benefit for the fetus as the fetus cannot possibly survive. So it makes perfect sense to me that a surgery to remedy a life-threatening condition might be paid for where a costly surgery to increase a woman’s chance of getting pregnant would not, as it is a personal choice to become pregnant and assimilate the associated risks and costs. Not every reproductive surgery is the same.

    It is very sad that it is so costly to obtain IVF treatment, but I don’t necessarily expect that it should be sponsored by the government (although I will say I don’t particularly support paying for someone’s Viagra either).

    It is very costly to have cosmetic surgery, too, but it is a choice you make. You can either pay for it or not. Not every woman who wants plastic surgery just wants big boobs or plump lips. Some are burn victims or cancer survivors or people with birth defects. They might really deserve it for a good reason. But that is absolutely no reason for the government to start paying for people to have plastic surgery. So why should they pay for these sort of reproductive treatments?

    Maybe a woman was born with some issue that makes her infertile and, yes, it is sad and unfortunate. But the government is not here to correct the sad and unfortunate things in life. They’re here to keep people, already existing people, alive and healthy and giving a person an expensive surgery so that they can add to the already expanding energy and food crisis (because they exist and the government DOES have to consider these things) does not fulfill that goal.

    I don’t mean for this post to come across as cold or heartless, but I know it will probably be taken that way by at least a few people. I just hope people can be civil in their replies.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177501011 Aimee Hunter

      I don’t think anyone is asking the government to pay for it. We are asking for insurance companies to include it in plans that WE pay for. The government should never pay to help someone procreate because that just means they are going to have another person to take care of…but responsible people who take care of themselves and their family should be able to get such coverage instead of having to pay completely out of pocket.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      And in the interests of not having yet another mouth to feed, infertile women have the option of ADOPTING a child who is already born. It’s a win-win — Person wanting a child gets a child, child wanting a family gets a family.

      I’m disturbed at your comments. You’re pretty much saying that family, REAL family, is all about genetics and carrying “your own” child to term.

      REAL family is forged out of love.

    • Annoyed person with PCOS

      So will u adopt if u feel so passionately about it?

    • Karen Griffin

      You speak from experience then? You’ve went through the heartache of adopting a child? A child with possible emotional trauma that you might not be equipped to deal with? A child you could lose at any moment to the kid’s biological parents? If yes, then good for you, but not everyone is as equipped to deal with these disadvantages as you are. If not, please read #5 from this Cracked article and know I think you’re a hypocritical idiot: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-surprisingly-outdated-problems-infertile-couples-face/

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      The OP mentioned government-sponsored health insurance. Just because you pay for it doesn’t mean it doesn’t come out of the taxpayer’s pocket. You pay for your drivers’ license, but your taxes still fund the DMV, right?

    • http://www.growingfamilybenefits.com/ Kevin Haney

      Most of the insurance plans that do cover infertility and/or IVF are required to do so by law. Fifteen states have mandates. The mandates require many people to pay extra premiums, so that a target group can have lower out of pocket costs.

      Insurance plans would have to cover the treatments, and the resulting pregnancies, which are often high risk because of multiple birth, and older mothers. Couples are more profitable to insurers when infertile.

      Most people want lower insurance costs, and have no desire or need for infertility coverage. Market forces make infertility insurance unworkable.

      If infertility insurance is the goal, then government needs to play a role.

  • Ella

    In Quebec, where I live, IVF is covered by our government healthcare (unless they changed the law). However, it has very strict regulations: number of embryos (ideally 1), number of cycles (I think it was 3), who qualifies, etc. There is also a very long wait, specially if you are on the younger side. Many hospitals are now opening facilities but until then there is a year-long wait. The idea, in part, behind covering IVF was to limit the amount of multiple births (which could end up being costly) and other possible consequences.

    • http://www.facebook.com/houde.veronique Véronique Houde

      It wasn’t actually to limit multiple births, but to combat the class war on fertility and make sure that people had equal access to fertility treatments – rich and less rich. the fact that they limit the number of embryos implanted is meant to reduce multiple births.

    • Li

      Ella, it’s also because IVF success rates are higher with single embryo transfers. Many countries now only allow single transfers.

  • mw

    I’m 28. I started trying to conceive at 25. I didn’t wait too long, I was just unlucky.
    I did get lucky in that my insurance covered 50% of our IVF treatment. The rest my husband and I saved up for. We are not wealthy, but because it was a priority, we managed to save up for it. Now I’m 14 wks pregnant.
    no, nothing about this story is “fair” but it’s life – and life isn’t “fair”.

  • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

    I agree that IVF is a luxury good, and should not be covered by insurance. Partly because breeding isn’t a medical necessity (seriously, it isn’t), and partly because I feel that it is highly selfish and immoral to bring more children into an already-overpopulated world, especially when there are so many waiting to be adopted.

    On that note, I’d like to add that adoption costs SHOULD be covered by insurance or by the government.

    • CW

      Infertility treatment for medically related reasons has more of a claim to medical necessity than contraception and sterilization. A woman’s body is naturally designed to get pregnant if she has sex, but sometimes there is a problem with the functioning of her reproductive system. Fixing that is similar to fixing any other dysfunctional body system and should be covered by health insurance. OTOH, stopping the natural function of the reproductive system via contraception or sterilization should be paid for out-of-pocket like any other voluntary, non-medically necessary treatment/procedure (like LASIK). You want it? Fine, but on your dime.

    • Kai

      The difference is that it is beneficial to our society to prevent the creation of unwanted new humans. It is FAR cheaper for society to pay for Jane or Steve’s contraception or especially sterilization than it is for society to pay for the raising of the unwanted child that could otherwise result.
      As for ‘nature’, a woman who does not naturally get pregnant when she has sex is a woman with something wrong with her. It is natural for nature to prevent the passing on of such poor genes, and completely unnatural for us to circumvent the process and pass on poor fertility to the next generation. So don’t invoke ‘nature’ when you’re trying to get someone pregnant unnaturally.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177501011 Aimee Hunter

      Wow..you think because someone can’t get pregnant it is because she has an unfavorable gene that shouldn’t be passed? Wow…It would be beneficial to society to mandate birth control for women on welfare, but do we do it, no. Instead we let them continue to procreate and pass on their obviously superior genes to their children, while women struggle to get pregnant because of issues like PCOS (which is a medical problem that affects more than fertility).

    • Kai

      Well, then why would you want to pass on a higher likelihood of PCOS to a potential daughter???

      My point is that fertility treatment is unnatural, so its absurd to suggest we need to cover it because it is natural.

      Separately from my thoughts on infertility treatment, I too strongly favour the idea that if the government (ie. other taxpayers) is paying for your and your current children, they should be able to mandate that you don’t create more children you can’t care for.
      Just because I think it’s not my duty to pay for your decision to create a miniature version of yourself doesn’t mean i favour people who can do it randomly having piles of children.

    • Annoyed person with PCOS

      So Kai, its unnatural to wear clothes, drive a car & live in air conditioned buildings. I hope u enjoy living as a caveman?

    • Jaron Martin

      CW most fertility issues are unexplained or doctors just want the easy money way out with IVF. Why would a doctor explain to you what is wrong when IVF is way more profitable? Doctors don’t fix they treat.

    • Choices

      That makes sense if you have a medical condition that causes infertility. If it is caused solely by aging, then it should not be covered. Infertility in advanced age is not dysfunctional, it is natural and should be treated as such.

      BTW, your comment is really strange and leads me to believe you are staunchly pro-life/anti-choice. To think contraception should be paid for but IVF should be free is very odd indeed. Contraception should be free because the government and charities are maxed out and should not take in anymore unwanted children. Aka, those who cannot or do not want to provide for a child are preventing a generation of unstable children.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177501011 Aimee Hunter

      It is incredibly selfish for a woman to want a child of her own? Wow…I am sure this is coming from someone who can have children. The government covers women who refuse to work and keep getting pregnant…but insurance that I pay for won’t cover infertility treatments? Seems backwards to me.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      You clearly didn’t read the whole comment.

      There are hundreds of thousands of ALREADY BORN CHILDREN WAITING FOR A FAMILY.

      It is inherently selfish and cruel to deny even ONE of those children a home, while breeding yet another mouth for this overpopulated world to feed.

      Therefore, the government and insurance companies ought to be subsidising adoption costs, rather than playing god and enabling cruelty to children by funding infertility “treatments”.

    • http://www.facebook.com/houde.veronique Véronique Houde

      I don’t think I agree with that. I don’t think that women who are having a difficult time conceiving should be forced to adopt other children just because there are more out there. Adoption is a choice that you need to make because of personal convictions, because it comes with it’s own repercussions, especially with older children (who are the children that need to be adopted the most). Most of these children have severe attachment problems, and parents need to be equipped to deal with this – and most parents don’t want to get into that, which is 100% ok and understandable.

    • Jaron Martin

      Yep clearly this kitty person dose not have fertility issues or any desire to have children of their own.

    • Dana Smith

      Wmdkitty, this is a gross oversimplification of adoption which betrays your lack of familiarity with the process in today’s day and age. You can’t just go to the catholic convent like the good old days and bring home a baby. It’s ludicrously expensive and has a million strings attached. Also, do some demographic research— fertility rates in industrialized nations are below replacement, the United States included.

      Please, stop living in the 70′s.

    • mike

      Well by your stupid logic, anyone who has a kid of their own is selfish because there is at least one kid who needs a home

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      What do you suggest they do? You can’t force people to get sterilized or use protection. You can’t force people to work and the fact is there aren’t jobs for everyone. Both people in this particular argument are making very 3ide generalizations.

    • Kai

      One’s opinions on infertility do not necessarily declare one’s positions on birth control, welfare, or anything else. Do not conflate the two.

    • Jaron Martin

      Government to pay for an adoption or help fund it hmm. That’s what should be a luxury item have you adopted kids before. I sure wouldn’t want to adopt a child that is not my own blood growing up to resent because you are not the real parents easier said than done. You know there are waiting lines for adoption did you know that? And on average costs 30k.

  • Kim

    I am in the very fortunate situation where I live in Australia where a portion (not full cost, portion) of my IVF costs were covered. I am also fortunate to be pregnant with my first now, after 4 cycles.

    It’s not that easy. You need the money upfront, public health does not reimburse you until 3 days after full payment is received, so we had to magic up $40,000. We live below the poverty line, but I won’t be able to carry a child in my 30′s due to a medical condition and I am 23 now, so time is a little short. So we had to come up with the money, fortunately I am a member of a community bank who have helped many others in that situation and understand, and gave us the money on the condition that the public health payment went directly into the loan account. We are still in debt and will be for a long time.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      I don’t mean to be rude, I really don’t, but may I ask how you justify bringing a child into the world when you freely admit that you live below the poverty line and will be in debt for a long time? How can you realistically afford the expense of a child?

    • Kai

      And how can you put your own selfish want for a mini-me baby ahead of the welfare of the that child?

    • Kai

      Sorry, that’s agreeing with Miko, directed to Kim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/portia.mount Portia Mount

    Lindsay, I really appreciate your article. As someone experiencing secondary infertility, I’ve explored IVF but have concluded that it’s simply too expensive for the statistical success rate which at my age is 20%. I had my first child at 40 (after two years of trying and miscarriage) and just turned 43. I’ve had two miscarriages in a row this year and five failed IUIs. It’s a journey. My RE says I’m a great candidate for IVF but we won’t go that route for reasons above. Our insurance covered some testing but we paid most of our expenses out of pocket (now almost $12K). I think this country is still ambivalent about how much we want to support reproductive services for women – it shows in our political debate. Unless you are adopting from the foster care system, adoption is an expensive proposition. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Another critical issue is the emotional toll of infertility. It’s a bitch and because so few people can truly relate to it, the public (let alone private) support to help couples overcome it is still very low, IMHO.
    BTW, I disagree with those who say that age related infertility shouldn’t be covered by insurance. Insurance covers all kinds of age-related issues – why not infertility? I got married at 36, would have loved to have gotten married earlier but it didn’t happen. The reality is that women are getting married later and having children later. It’s a fact. Unfortunately we have to deal with the consequences. Not too long ago I blogged about encouraging younger women not to put off having kids too late in life because so few are truly educated about the consequences of infertility and the havoc it can wreak on your life.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      Let me just say, as someone who is unsure (scared to be seen) but is fairly positive they cannot have children at the age of 22, I do understand the emotional toll of infertility, at least to an extent. But being adopted, I also have the joy of realizing that a real family can be built purely from love, not just blood.

      I am 22. My mother is 72 and my dad is 80, and we are an interracial family. Love amd families come in all shapes and sizes. They’re not just confined to your gene pool. It is an intensely personal issue, but I could never imagine not being able to love a child simply because it did not share my DNA.

  • Blueathena623

    When I took a reproductive biology class in college we had a debate on this issue. The overall sentiment was that we thought IVF should be covered, but we couldn’t agree to what extent. Sure, the healthy couple with no kids on their first round or two, not a problem. But what if the couple already has several kids? Or on their 7th round? Or at a highly advanced age (I’m not talking 35, I’m talking much older) or in poor health? No one wants to be the grinch who rations healthcare, but there comes a point when you* have to look at the finite resource available and decide what will have the best outcomes. We as a country are not good at saying “yeah, no, enough is enough” which is why we give hip transplants to 96 year olds and do endless aggressive cancer treatments even if the best possible outcome is only a few more weeks or months of life. So yeah, anyways, finite resources. I do t know the answer, and neither did anyone in my class.

  • Kai

    IVF shouldn’t be covered by anything taxpayer-funded. Individual insurance companies that you pay directly can make their own decisions.

    People do not have a *right* to get pregnant. If your body does it naturally, awesome. If it doesn’t, guess you didn’t luck out. If you care about creating a mini-me so much that you’re willing to spend the money to pass on your poor genes, you can go for it. But there is no reason at all that you should be able to force other people to pay for it (that’s how taxes work – the money doesn’t magically appear in the hands of the government).

    Having taxpayers spend money to save your life (removing ectopic pregnancy) is a completely different from having taxpayers spend their money just so that you can be happy to birth a child who looks like you. One does not follow from the other.

    You may spend as much of your own money to get pregnant as you would like. but you have no damned right to spend my money on it.

    • jace

      Once you pay taxes you have no control over “your” money.

  • Eileen

    My problem with insisting on coverage for expensive procedures that, as noted, aren’t necessary for saving your life is that it drives up the cost of healthcare. Now, with ACA going into effect this year, they won’t have a choice anymore, but there is a decent-sized group of people in this country that goes without health insurance by choice – men in their twenties, who think of it as an unnecessary expense at this point in their lives since they’re fairly healthy and don’t have the option of not paying for more coverage than they probably need. Health care is expensive. Drugs are expensive. (a recent estimate is that a single drug takes a billion dollars to produce – in labor, in materials, in testing, etc.) Doctors are expensive – partially because being a doctor is expensive. And it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about insurance (which you were in the article) or government programs (which other commenters have brought up): Someone has to eat the cost of medical innovation.

    I have no problem with varying packages, honestly. I think the biggest problem with health insurance in most countries is that we don’t have much choice: You take the plan the government or your employer offers, and that’s that. One thing that was brought up in ’09 that unfortunately didn’t go as far as I would’ve liked was the idea of insurance exchange markets, which might’ve allowed people to choose policies that covered what they needed and not procedures or treatments that they didn’t prioritize.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=177501011 Aimee Hunter

    It should be covered by insurance. Why? Because insurance covers self created illnesses like diabetes and high blood pressure caused by obesity. Infertility is generally not the fault of the person but something they are born with. It is a medical problem just like any other and should be treated.

    • http://www.facebook.com/mikotheawesome Miko Brown

      Excuse me? Some people are born with or predisposed to diabeted or high blood pressure due to choices their parents made and some people are infertile due to drug use, eating disorders, multiple abortions, etc.. Where exactly do you draw the line?

    • Kai

      Except that there is a large difference between others paying to treat something that can save your life, and others paying so that you can create another whole extra life. Not comparable in the slightest.

  • Colleen

    Thank you for this blog. We have been doing IVF for a year now and we are constantly grateful that it is covered in Quebec. It is such a stressful time mentally, physically and emotionally for both my husband and I that I can’t imagine throwing financial stress in there on top of it all. However, there is no perfect system and creating a free and equal system truly is a display of how widespread infertility is. The waiting rooms are standing room only and it may take 6 months to get an appointment. Recently I have been reflecting on which is the more important quantity in this equation: time or money?

    The government here has decided that the cost of providing coverage for controlled IVF, that is no transfers of more than 2 embryos, outweighs the health costs of multiple births. So there is no perfect system as I said and I am sometimes jealous when I hear the stories of women who transferred 5 embryos and one was successful. We are not able to increase our odds that way here.
    I really needed to find your blog today. Thank you.

  • Nica

    I am the mother of two children conceived by IVF and I do NOT believe that it should be a mandated coverage. I was very blessed to have insurance which provided near complete coverage for all my rounds of IVF (I had an OOP cost of about $5K total for four IVF rounds and one FET round), but it was because the company I work for CHOSE to provide that coverage.

    I think there’s a very big difference between treating an ectoptic pregnancy and covering IVF. The first scenario is life-threatening, the second is not. Having a child is a privilege, not a right. I think people sometimes confuse the two…

    As far as the “adoption argument” goes, I think most of the people who proffer that “solution” have their own, non-IVF bio kids. Why didn’t they choose to adopt? After all, there are “thousands and thousands” of kids waiting for homes, and you don’t have to be infertile to provide a great home for a child who needs one. How is their choice to bring their own child into this world any different than mine?

  • Shannon

    I do not think IVF should be covered by insurance… but I don’t think Viagra should be either. No treatment should be covered unless it’s needed to preserve your health or your life. Covering all the “extras” is what drives the cost of insurance way up and out of the reach of people that need life-saving procedures. I saved for 5 years to afford IVF. Thankfully, I ended up not needing it and had quite a good nest egg to start parenthood with.

    • jef3r

      No, that’s NOT what’s driving the cost of insurance up. Insurance costs are rising because insurance companies are for profit and because everything covered by insurance is jacked up to outrageous costs in order to bilk as much as they can out of the system. Ever look at an itemized hospital bill? You ask for Tylenol? It costs $8. There’s a box of tissues in your room? Costs $15. That bill gets paid by your insurance (if you have it). Your insurance company has to charge you as much as they can to re-coup the costs of the over priced shit that hospitals and such are charging you for. Pay that hospital bill out of pocket and in cash? The hospital will usually slash it in half. They know that shit doesn’t cost that much. They’re just trying to get what they can out of the insurance companies. The whole system is a mess as everyone keeps rising their prices to try to get the most cash in hand. It’s NOT because of all the “extras” as insurance companies would lead you to believe.

  • Pingback: Couple Wins Free IVF Through Raffle, Now Expecting Triplets

  • jef3r

    “And in the interests of not having yet another mouth to feed, infertile women have the option of ADOPTING a child who is already born. ” I don’t understand the argument that adoption should be chosen over fertility treatments. For one, as someone else mentioned, if you are THAT concerned with the children who are waiting to be adopted, why haven’t you adopted? Or have you? Are you infertile and that’s what’s driving your hostility that is evident throughout all your comments? If you’re THAT concerned about having another mouth to feed, then really you should be advocating that ALL parents, not just the infertile ones, should adopt instead of having biological children (which, now that I think about it, might actually be your preference). This leads me to my next point…why, just because someone else could have a baby and not take care of it, is it now MY responsibility to take it in? So, because I’m infertile, my obligation to society now is to feed, clothe and shelter someone else’s child rather than make an attempt to have my own? The desire to reproduce is pretty solidly rooted in our biology. Every species’ survival is dependent on reproduction. So I don’t find it all that unusual that a man or woman would prefer to at least ATTEMPT to produce a biological child prior to going the adoption route. Infertile couples are not the saviors of an over populated world. You want a solution to over population, let’s work on preventing those pregnancies in the first place rather than hoisting the unwanted children on everyone else.

    My infertility treatments were covered by insurance. Insurance that I pay for. That same insurance I pay for pays for a lot of shit for other people that I don’t necessarily agree with. Do I bitch and moan about it like those of you who claim you shouldn’t be paying for infertility treatments? No. I accept the fact that you give some you get some. The cost of one infertility treatment for a couple is a drop in the bucket money wise to what it costs to pay for the treatment and care of, for example, a cancer patient over the course of several years. So money isn’t really your driving factor here for those of you whining about how much covering infertility treatments for others might cost YOU. Cause if it was, you’d worry less about infertility treatments and more about the cost of care for the sick.
    For the record, I am still undecided about whether or not I feel infertility should be covered. I’m only responding because I’m disgusted at some of these responses that tout adoption as the answer and complain about the cost when they’re already paying for a ton of stuff through insurance that they probably don’t agree with.

  • Pingback: Relax, The United States Isn’t Actually Having A Fertility Crisis | Omaha Free Press

  • Pingback: Relax, The United States Isn’t Actually Having A Fertility Crisis » Angry Monks

  • kiwiorangepeach

    Lindsay – your previous article on Australians being “lucky” is completely inaccurate, absurd and downright offensive. You don’t know what you are talking about.

    wmdkitty – neither do you! I used to say that I wouldn’t wish infertility on anyone, but these days I don’t believe that anymore. It’s people exactly like you that should go through the hell of infertility! I was born with bung ovaries and I am seeking treatment – that is not selfish.

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      It’s selfish when you’re explicitly choosing to deny an already-born child a home and family because your DNA is so much more important.

  • jace

    Fuck all of you. I was born ivf and so was my autistic twin brother after years of my parents trying and even adopting my older sister. It was a last resort that they had to save up for over years. If you all really think there are so many needy children in the world today then you should adopt them yourselves. Just because your reproductive systems are working the natural way doesn’t give you any more right to bring a new child into this world. In fact I consider the parents who use ivf to be a little ahead of the game due to the planning involved with it. There are no ivf kids born by “accident” and they are less likely to be brought up in a household that is not ready for them. Most of the people who you consider rich have the money they do because they had a plan in life and worked hard to bring it to fruition. Maybe not everybody did but most of theb white collar workers who have a degree did. Try to improve your own situation before bashing others with a different one.