168
169

RANTDislike IVF (self.childfree)

Dsxm41780CF dude in the USA が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]SqueaksBCOD 27ポイント28ポイント  (21子コメント)

I have no issue with people spending money out of pocket on IVF because I don't really care what others do with their money. I do not however agree with it being covered by insurance. Frankly I see it the same as cosmetic surgery... it is elective, there for you should pay for it yourself. Heck you could likely convince me that cosmetic surgery should be covered (at least in some case) much sooner than that IVF should. Really they should be treated the same, as an elective procedure you pay for out of pocket.

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] -4ポイント-3ポイント  (18子コメント)

Then abortions and sterilizations shouldn't be covered by insurance either. One could argue that those are also elective procedures. I don't feel that one can complain about the insurance companies not paying for sterilization, and then say that ivf treatments shouldn't be payed for by insurance. Either both are payed for or neither.

[–]hephepheptothejive 14ポイント15ポイント  (12子コメント)

Abortions and sterilizations prevent a huge number of health problems caused by pregnancy and birth. If you think they shouldn't be covered, you shouldn't support other preventative healthcare, like vaccines or screening, either.

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (11子コメント)

I didn't say I didn't support them being covered. I said that you can't argue for one thing that you want to be covered and not something that someone else wants. I'm off the opinion that both should be covered to a certain extent.

[–]hephepheptothejive 7ポイント8ポイント  (10子コメント)

But they're not equivalent. Abortion and sterilization are healthcare because they improve people's health by preventing pregnancy complications. IVF damages people's health and therefore is not healthcare. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that health insurance should cover healthcare.

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] -3ポイント-2ポイント  (9子コメント)

Sterilization improves a person's life? That's an opinion. Using a condom or birth control has the same effect. And I know this is going to sound bad but for some people children do improve their quality of life. Healthcare should cover medical treatments you do to your body. How does ivf damage a person? In that case we should outlaw driving, smoking, drinking... those can all have negative side effects and may require extensive surgery or medical treatments to correct.

You can't play god and cherry pick what you want healthcare for everyone to cover just based on your personal lifestyle.

[–]hephepheptothejive 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not life. Health. Pregnancy damages health, that's pretty clear cut. Sterilization prevents pregnancy. IVF causes it.

We should not necessarily ban smoking or drinking, but nor should we consider them healthcare. Health insurance covers the effects of smoking, but you can't use it to buy cigarettes.

[–]SqueaksBCOD 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Using a condom or birth control has the same effect.

No it does not!

Condoms suck... anyone who says otherwise is likely lying to themselves out of desperation... a loving committed long term relationship should have other options.

Really I think that sterlization and abortions should fall under treatment for chronic conditions like cystic fibrosis, or diabetes. I.e an on going expense that has to be bad due to an unfortunate medical reality. Fertility should be covered as a preexisting condition that needs ongoing treatment.

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Hell I wouldn't know.

Fine, you can let it; I just don't think that you can then say, when reaping the rewards of having sterilization payed for, that other people can't use a different treatment to get what they want. They probably won't be charging a sterilization treatment so let them charge their IVF. Everyone has the right to do to their body what they want. Do you have to agree, no.

[–]SqueaksBCOD 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, women always end up sterile... so sterilization is just doing something sooner.... it is not a choice, women all end infertile.

Honestly 90% of why i would support sterilization is for financial logical reason. I agree it is elective. But it is an elective procedure that saves money, hurts no one and helps everyone out. It is a good thing in so many ways. I can see wanting to be "fair" about it, but really not covering sterilization is pretty much cutting off your nose to spite your face. Long term sterilization is cheaper than BC... so why would I not support something that can save money and lower premiums for everyone? Why would anyone be against lower costs?

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

If its going to happen anyway, why pay for it? (don't answer that).

It helps everyone, again a strange blanket statement that doesn't seem to be rooted in logic... but opinion. Because those lower costs don't help the company. The company is there to make money, not pay for your treatments. And not to mention, if everyone got sterilized, that wouldn't be a good thing for humanity's future so I am very much against that. Do I want to have kids, no idea, I consider myself not ready to make that decision. But do I want humanity to thrive and expand, yes. We have a solar system, lets use it.

[–]SqueaksBCOD 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I think the argument can be made, but anyone with half a brain can figure out that it is in the insurance companies financial interest to pay for them. An abortion is hell of a lot cheaper than a pregnancy. Also I think preventative would be a better word then elective in this case.

Still i think giving up sterilization would be worth not funding fucking IVF

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Personally I'm conflicted on the issue of IVF, however, as long as it isn't illegal, it should be covered by insurance companies if they also cover sterilization. Furthermore, adopting, which has been presented quite a bit as an alternative to IVF, needs to be made less expensive (from what I've heard, it can be ridiculously expensive).

Otherwise you run into the issue of yes, adopting is cheaper, however, it isn't payed for by the insurance company at which point IVF is cheaper (for the individual, not overall).

[–]SqueaksBCOD 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But IVF costs money long term and sterilization saves money long term... so they really are not the same thing. A person who seeks sterilization will save the insurance company money long term, thus is saving everyone's money... IVF just costs money and does no good.

[–]L_D_Machiavelli[🍰] 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

No they aren't. If people don't have kids, there are going to be fewer people who will be paying for insurance in the future. Its in the company's interest to ensure future customers because they don't make money off not having people purchasing their goods.

How exactly do they save the company money? IVF ensures future customers whereas sterilization ensures that the company will not have any future customers from that person(s)...

[–]jynnsomethingI have scale babies. 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Abortions are on the same line as pregnancies (ones that occur without fertility treatments), and sterilization is a method of birth control. Pregnancies are elective, as is all birth control, but I don't think anyone is saying that those two things shouldn't be covered.

[–]runaway_child -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think the solution to this problem is simple. People who don't have a child and people who only have adopted children should definitely not pay for insurance premiums. Once childless people have a child, they can start paying those premiums. Of course I assume a considerable percentage of the work force consists of people who don't have children and that would make people who want IVF treatment wait much longer for the treatment, etc. And that would be good for the society as well. Some of those couples would probably adopt children instead. As for cosmetic procedures, maybe I can convince you that some of them should be covered :) I had to pay a fortune for varicose treatment for example. Sure, it was just cosmetic, but it was unsightly and it was making me unhappy. When I heard that it wasn't covered by insurance, I honestly wished people who made this decision would have big, throbbing, green veins all over their bodies, 10 times larger than mine. It's just cosmetic, isn't it? How do you feel now?

[–]SqueaksBCOD 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

As for cosmetic procedures, maybe I can convince you that some of them should be covered :) I had to pay a fortune for varicose treatment for example. Sure, it was just cosmetic, but it was unsightly and it was making me unhappy.

Yep, you are right... i certainly think this is more logical to cover than fucking IVF.