If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   35 years ago today, Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby" was born. Since then in-vitro fertilization has become very common. So common that Congress is considering using your taxes to fund IVF for poor, infertile couples   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 276
    More: Followup, Louise Brown, IVF, reproductive medicine, TRICARE, fertility treatments, CEO Barbara Collura, out-of-pocket costs  
•       •       •

3276 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-25 05:23:19 PM
I always thought that it was important for a sixty year old woman to have IVF.  Just think of her feelings!
 
2013-07-25 05:23:57 PM
Farking AUTPLAY DIE IN A FIRE
 
2013-07-25 05:24:52 PM
*autoplay

Seriously though, why are sites more and more inclined to not give you a choice on viewing a video once you click a link?

And why do people still pick links that have them?
 
2013-07-25 05:26:44 PM
Rev.K: medical conditions are what i say they are and their importance changes as i say they do. if you argue with me ill move the goalposts to make my argument make sense.
 
2013-07-25 05:31:12 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: Just because something is a "medical condition" doesn't necessarily make it "harmful" or require that it be fixed.  Yes, we have the technology that allows us to understand how human reproduction works and to figure out why it doesn't work in some people.   Yes, we also have the technology to overcome some of the barriers when it doesn't work.  That still doesn't make it urgent that we fix it in all people who have it.

I see what you're saying. But how about in people who want it and who can provide for a family?


Then they should probably save up enough money to cover the costs of IVF (or whatever method they chose).

You just used an example of a couple "who can provide for a family".  So now we only subsidize fertility treatments for people who can provide for a family?  What criteria do we use to determine that?

Yes, it sucks that a couple who really wants to have kids of their own can't and they don't have the financial resources to try fertility treatments.  But even you are tacitly admitting that you are willing to draw a line economically.  My line is just further up from yours.
 
2013-07-25 05:46:32 PM

ThatDarkFellow: f*ck anyone who wants stuff that costs money. My tax dollars are more important than improving people's lives.

 
2013-07-25 05:50:32 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: f*ck anyone who wants stuff that costs money at someone else's expense. My tax dollars are more important spent on ways to improve society ratherthan improving individual people's lives feelings.

 
2013-07-25 06:08:52 PM

Rev.K: Maggie_Luna: Because it'll hurt their feelings it shouldn't be done?

Why shouldn't it be done?

Because you don't think they should have kids?
Because you can't bear the thought of tax payers subsidizing it?
Because you consider it to be unnecessary?

Infertility is a medical condition. One that can be aided with medical science and technology to give a patient the quality of life they desire.

Now you might bring up a boob job as being similar, but a boob job is not a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. Not quite anyway.


And on the other side of the argument, people's tax dollars support all kinds of sh*t they don't like. But guess what? They don't get to pick and choose and neither do you.


It's more important supporting existing lives, not potential ones, with the resources at. If that means that you or I go without children but people with medical conditions we will never have live and the current foster system improves then yes, it should be. My tax dollars support that fiasco in Texas (yes I live in Texas) and I am not at all happy about that.

I have a benign fatty tumor in my arm that occasionally causes me pain. My life would be greatly improved by its removal but no one is suggesting tax payers pay for it.  It'd be more cosmetic at this point rather than anything else, unless something drastically changed. So I live with it.  The removal of that thing from my arm isn't necessary to the improvement of my health of quality of life.

Children are not necessary for life and I dare you to show me an example of one case where having a child is quite literally a matter of life or death.

My cousin and uncle struggled with fertility. I considered it unfortunate but not a necessity to their continued existence. My cousin has had two children (hers); my uncle has not (at all).  I am unable to imagine the emotional toll it could take, I'm not good at empathy with people but I still don't see this as a 'necessity' not when our health care system and tax system need to be reworked over all.
 
2013-07-25 06:51:27 PM

Pincy: Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.

Yes, that's a fine humanistic idea. Let's deny infertile couples the ability to have children because they might need society to help them out. Just end their dreams, or give them their dreams and cut off everything else.

You sound like a wonderfully compassionate human being.

Who is denying infertile couples from having children?  God?  Mother Nature?  Random chance?  I guess I didn't realize it is a basic human right of every person ever born to be able to procreate.  This is one of those "life isn't fair" sort of things.  Just like it's not fair I'm not a foot taller or better looking or have had this bad back since my teens that has kept me from fulfilling all of my childhood dreams.


I wept, cried, wailed to the Goddess and finally got some therapy (all of which helped to one degree or another) and am fine after fighting that biological clock.

Being infertile sucks little pickles, but it was my fate to be a step mom and nothing more.  I had over a decade to put it into place in my life, and while I'd never say that I am at peace, I am as I should be.  No, the government shouldn't pay for my urgent need to be pregnant and in my postie toasties, have stated how I have mitigated that responsibility at my own expense.  It sucks, but it is a responsible choice.

Now, I want a little baby to cuddle and love, but will have to wait another 10 years or so until the stepson is married and reproduces.

I am working on patience.
 
2013-07-25 07:21:54 PM
7 billion people.

We need widespread infertility, as in 85% over 100 years to fix overpopulation.  No other solution is as humane as infertility.  It needs to be natural and widespread.  All people who are alive deserve to stay that way, but we should not go out of our way to keep making more people when we know we have too many.  Selfish bastards.
 
2013-07-25 07:26:32 PM
Nothing wrong with being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree
 
2013-07-25 07:34:31 PM
Hmmm...
More desperate hookers = Good.
More homeless bums = Bad.

I'm torn. Maybe we could use the bums and used up hookers to make soylent green?
 
2013-07-25 07:37:48 PM
I was never able to have children and it depressed me not one bit.  There are people who are meant to and those that aren't.  Back in the day, when people really wanted kids but never had any worked to build things for children.  See: Hershey.  Now they just want us to pay so they can have them.  Sigh.
 
2013-07-25 07:54:57 PM

Donnchadha: delsydsoftware: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

You should look up the cost of adoption sometime. IVF can be cheap in comparison, and you don't have some outside group reviewing your finances,housing,pets, etc to determine if you're a "fit" parent. Some friends of mine were looking into adoption versus IVF, and it was $10k cheaper to get IVF than to adopt ($15k vs $25k). Adoption is only cheaper if you are adopting from the 3rd world, and not everyone is into super-high-risk adoptions like that, where the child could have multiple issues or the adoption agency could be very sketchy.

I know that adoption isn't cheap and I didn't try to imply that it was cheaper than IVF, however what about costs to keep the kid in the foster system?

Furthermore, IVF is not a sure thing. What if it doesn't take on the first $15k attempt? Do it again? That's another $15k -- maybe slightly cheaper but not by a lot. I'd bet they would run all those screening tests again, since they just knocked your bodily hormones all out of whack once -- you're not the same person you were when you started.


There are financing deals in IVF clinics now that will charge one fee for several tries, and if the couple doesn't get a baby by the end of it, they get a significant part of their payment as a refund. Still doesn't cover other costs like meds etc.
 
2013-07-25 08:16:41 PM
I'm all for it, but(it's a big but) there needs to be regulations in place first! If having a child would put you into welfare bracket, no go. And if it would, you could fight it. If you fight the decision based and prove why you should be able to have ivf you have to have to use a government issued debit card that can be used only for food and necessities.

seriously though. How about we fix our healthcare system so that procedures aren't so ridiculously expensive? I know, I know, the politicians wouldn't be getting such shiny new things? Procedures like this are a fraction of the costs in other first world countries, and their doctors are still wealthy. What the fark?
 
2013-07-25 08:28:26 PM
The ability to have children is not a quality of life issue.  Having a non-cancerous benign mole on your face is.  Insurance won't pay for the latter and it shouldn't pay for the former.
 
2013-07-25 08:39:02 PM
 
2013-07-25 09:36:58 PM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


Who?
 
2013-07-25 10:11:58 PM

mjbok: The ability to have children is not a quality of life issue.  Having a non-cancerous benign mole on your face is.  Insurance won't pay for the latter and it shouldn't pay for the former.


^Sarcastic irony, well played
 
2013-07-25 10:19:00 PM

Mawson of the Antarctic: If the argument that poor couples are too poor to adopt and care for a child, then why would we trust them with their own if we can't trust them with another's? Also, reading a recent article on how it is pretty much impossible to rise above the class you were born into, wouldn't this doom future generations to poverty?

/not serious, but points have been raised


yes. which is precisely the point.
 
2013-07-25 11:10:34 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.


Maybe total fark should not be one of your monthly bills?
 
2013-07-25 11:13:06 PM

great_tigers: The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.

Maybe total fark should not be one of your monthly bills?


www.ct.gov

/its a double entendre
 
2013-07-26 04:07:29 AM

Nurglitch: Something I've occasionally wondered is why infertile people would rather undergo medical treatment rather than adopting a child.


ego
 
2013-07-26 08:46:02 AM

flondrix: king_nacho: There was also talk of a tax credit for out of pocket expenses

Does that mean letting people subtract (part of) the cost of IVF from their taxes, or from their pre-tax income?  The former is more extreme; I guess I was thinking they ment the latter.


I would assume the former, but i'm sure it will have a limit
 
2013-07-26 01:21:59 PM
How is a tax credit "funding IVF for the poor"?  You'd still have to have 5-6 figures you can just pay out for a treatment that may or may not work.  Really, it's more likely to be a tax credit for the rich.

The possibility of it being included in VA care is a little different, but the VA and Tricare do have to make some sort of lines in what they cover, and not everything they cover is strictly necessary for life.  It's reasonable for Congress to decide they want that to be part of those benefits, or that they don't.

Most of the thread would be more relevant if the article were talking about medicaid or something.
 
2013-07-26 07:49:22 PM

ErinPac: How is a tax credit "funding IVF for the poor"? You'd still have to have 5-6 figures you can just pay out for a treatment that may or may not work. Really, it's more likely to be a tax credit for the rich.


That's a good point.  You have to have the money in the first place to spend on IVF before you can get a tax credit for it.
 
Displayed 26 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report