Note in paragraph 3 - why use an inflation-adjusted price from the 1980s for a procedure that is currently being performed? When I see something like that I assume the actual price is significant;y less than what is being quoted. And sure enough, a quick google search returns a cost estimate of $12-15,000 per cycle, so the cost of her birth (on the second cycle) would have been more like $25k than $60k. So (unsurprisingly for a new procedure generally not covered by insurance) the cost has likely dropped in half in real terms.

And, equally obviously, mandating insurance coverage will pretty much guarantee that the cost will increase in real terms from that moment on.

Let’s just make everything everyone wants covered by insurance. The big greedy insurance companies can simply shake some more money off of the money tree they keep out behind the building. That way everyone gets everything for free.

Furthermore, this is a classic upper middle class subsidy sold as making "x" affordable for everyone. Fertility issues in women are predominantly due to age (not entirely). Why should highly educated women who postponed child-bearing into their late 30s or 40s be subsidized by the broader population who did not (and, on average make less money)?

This crappy idea brought to you by the very same people who want taxpayer funded abortions. So if a woman gets IVF and doesn’t like the genetic outlook of her newly implanted progeny, she can stick us again with the bill for the abortion and start the cycle all over. Lovely.

Directly related: many people, including gays and lesbians, can't achieve a pregnancy without using a surrogate mother. Or "uterus-having person" if you prefer. The cost of paying a surrogate mother to carry a pregnancy to term and delivery is very high. But there's no logical reason to not mandate insurance coverage for surrogacy of IVF embryos.

phwest at September 5, 2021 7:55 AM

Good point. Let's not forget, though, that damaged sperm in young men - all around the world - are far more common than before. Newsweek had a big story on that some years ago.

I'm surprised that the Democrats are (allegedly) the first to suggest insurance coverage for this, in particular. Mainly because conservatives are the ones (such as columnist Ross Douthat) who actually argue that people need to start having more babies than they WANT - or than they think they can afford. Funny. Last I heard, there's no shortage of foster children with abusive parents. Just because you may learn to love a kid under bad circumstances doesn't mean your partner will.

(And why is it that a truly sterile heterosexual couple doesn't get criticized when the two won't adopt even a healthy baby, but if they're fertile and refuse to reproduce, they DO get called selfish, if only behind their backs?)

If your body isn't working properly and needs medical assistance, yeah, insurance should cover it.

Boob jobs destroy the functionality of breasts, it's a bad comparison.

If your body isn't working properly and needs medical assistance, yeah, insurance should cover it.

Boob jobs destroy the functionality of breasts, it's a bad comparison.

NicoleK at September 5, 2021 10:21 AM

So, if I am 45, and can’t get pregnant naturally, my body isn’t working properly?

Should we care whether or not Nusbaum would exist without IVF?

She was the result of the second try. Maybe if IVF was perfected, she still would not have existed, and the first try would be walking this earth. Is that an argument to NOT perfect IVF but keep it a so-so crap shoot?

Does she care whether or not all those aborted babies would exist or not? (My guess is, no.) Or think of all of the infinite number of combinations of events that made some people exist and others not? Maybe the world would be better off without Nusbaum.

None of which has anything to do with who should bear the cost of IVF. If insurance coverage means we end up with more weak-minded politicos like Nusbaum, maybe we're better off letting it be uninsured and expensive.

"Let's not forget, though, that damaged sperm in young men - all around the world - are far more common than before. Newsweek had a big story on that some years ago."

This (the fact, not the article) is why I bought a water-cooler and buy reverse osmosis water every week. I want grandkids some day.

I was just reading last night that infertility treatment cost between $100k and $200k on average depending on the source information and what all was included.

The one couple I know and know they tried fertility treatments uptil about 5 years (when they gave up) figured they had spent $250k out of pocket and more if they counted some of the other things like time off work it was more.

I have mixed feelings about this. First of all, I’m not in favor of it being covered by insurance as we have it now because it is already unaffordable to so many. I don’t want to make it even more out of reach.

I think back to Clinton’s plan with three tiers of insurance. There needs to be a bare bones plan that people can choose to ensure well being without any unnecessary expenses. This type of benefit could be available to people that are willing to pay for more coverage.

By the way, adopting is not a super easy inexpensive choice either. There are not as many healthy infants as there are people who want to adopt. That can cost $30,000. In addition, there are strict criteria. We know of a family that went to China to adopt after being refused here in the United States. The couple was told that the woman was too old, at 32. Actually, 32 was not too old, but there was a 5 year waiting list and they didn’t adopt out to families of the woman was over 35. By the time a child would become available, she would be too old.

We know people that have adopted through fostering. This too can be difficult. Many agencies weed out people fostering to adopt. The goal of child protective services as to rehabilitate and reunite families. People who’s goal is to adopt can consciously or unconsciously thwart this process and interfere with the relationship between the foster child and birth parents. The first consideration of fostering families must be the child and goal of family reunification. Many woukd-be adoptive families find the process unbearably painful.

Most kids available for adoption are older and are dealing with a lot of trauma.

@Jen,

In my experience, whenever someone complains to me that she has trouble conceiving; I could grab her by the p**sy, squeeze her peekachoo several times while shouting "AWOOGA AWOOGA HONK HONK HONK" and she would never, ever, be as offended as me telling her that she should consider adopting a child.

"The goal of child protective services as to rehabilitate and reunite families."

Goal should be but not. I've heard too many stories of CPS doing things such as mother adopts out child, the father wants child (once he finds out child exists), but CPS interferes with this for others they prefer. CPS like any org often gets corrupted by people with a political mission. When people go to other countries and dealing with international laws is easier, the system is broken.

Reminds me of trying to adopt a dog a few years ago, the process was so onerous, and obviously political. "You should go vegan to be considered". now about your savings accounts. It's obvious they don't want the pets to go with anyone. Sorry in most cases they are looking for perfect (as they define it) rather than much better that where they are. And that's pets, if it takes 5 years for a child, the kid will be used to the horrible foster system and have trauma from that.

Sixclaws, I trust you already know that to suggest adoption IS rude and condescending. Why? Because even children are aware that adoption exists, so you would be treating her like an idiot if you implied (if unwittingly) that she never thought of that.

If she isn't considering it, she has her own private reasons for that, and she isn't going to discuss them unless SHE brings them up first. (One possible reason is that her parents really want grandchildren more than she wants children, and she's not about to spend all that money on an adopted child the grandparents might NOT be as fond of - and so she might regret getting the child.)

Adoption may be an acceptable, even preferable approach for some people. For others, not so much.

It's a very personal decision and not something that should be publically subject to someone else's judgmental sneering. Though we all know that there are plenty of judgmental a-holes out there willing to tell other people what they should do. They need to stuff a sock in it.

If anyone is so bold as to be advocating adoption for someone else, in order to solve some perceived social problem as too many foster kids, they ought to shutup unless they are willing to do so themselves. Sacrifice yourself on that alter, not someone else.

@Lenona,

I also trust that when a lady comes to me whining about having problem conceiving and that she's asking me for a a way to deal with it, she wants affirmation. She wants to be coddled and being showered with praise on how brave she is.

And I don't time for Yasss Kween slay!!! BS, so right out of the bat I tell her to adopt a child and to check the internet for adoption agencies nearby.

It's probably the best way to insult an annoying coworker without having to deal with a lecture from HR in the aftermath.

"the very same people who want taxpayer funded abortions. "

Tax the churches to pay for government funded abortion services.

And I don't time for Yasss Kween slay!
___________________________________

Is that some movie reference? I don't get it.

Anyway, if you don't feel like offering a shoulder to cry on (which I certainly understand, assuming you don't ask for similar favors), all you have to do is say, gently: "excuse me, I'm busy." Repeat as needed. There's no need to be rude. Rudeness can get you in trouble with HR as well.

"If your body isn't working properly and needs medical assistance, yeah, insurance should cover it."

Oh, bullshit.

It's not "insurance". That's the big lie you've been told so you'll open your wallet for layers of administrators to determine what is best for you.

Like paying for services you do not get.

Don't be stupid. Do tell us how much of your money a person you do not know should command to be spent on them.

@Lenona,

That's basically the Zoomer version of "You go girl!"

Hmm.. Nah. Lecturing them the benefits of adoption and that they don't need to travel to a distant land for a child works like a charm.

Because at the end of the day, people are all talk but no action.