Posted on 08/29/2024 2:23:42 PM PDT by mooncoin
Former President Trump tells NBC News that if he’s re-elected, his administration would not only protect access to IVF, but would have either the government or insurance companies cover the cost of it.
The fake vaxes have been found to have reduced fertility. Many people are starting to have trouble getting pregnant.
Some hospitals don’t even deliver babies anymore because so many people aren’t having babies.
We are making ourselves extinct.
If the government sponsors free IVF, the birth rate will go DOWN, especially among white families.
Excuse me. You really need to read the comments not just emote. I have an unbroken stream of voting R for 55 years.
I do not want the Government to pay for IVF. I do not want the Government in healthcare AT ALL.
16 states require insurance companies selling in their state that offer policies covering pregnancy care to cover IVF. I think it would be possible to encourage the other states to do the same. The states have the right to dictate what coverage can be sold in their state.
I gave the figures in earlier posts that show that the cost for a family policy would rise minimally if IVF was included. The cost of the 2.5% of pregnancies that are due to IVF yearly would be spread among all of the family policies. Estimating 20-30K/IVF the cost woulld be <$30/policy. The insurance companies could negotiate large discounts as they do for every medical expense. That would drop the cost per policy even lower.
I think you are mixing apples & oranges. Fed Gvt covers medicare. Those folks are not having IVF. Medicaid folks are unlikely candidates for IVF as well. So the coverage would be through private insurance.
Think about the cost of a cardiac cath/bypass, an ICU stay, dialysis. IVF is nothing compared to those costs. The charges billed by hospitals to individuals are many times the charges negotiated by insurances, often less than 10% of sticker price. IVF is not different. When it is covered by insurance the amount paid is much lower than the sticker price paid by couples. Perhaps covering IVF by insurance seems a big deal at first but after analyzing what it would entail it is not.
Where are you getting this stuff?
The Government is not involved.
Churches that want to opt out of abortion or any other coverage can form a group and self insure.
Many do just that Insurance companies that want to sell policies in the state must follow state guidelines.
I’m sorry. I have no wish to disagree with you. I do not believe you have understood my position. Perhaps another day we will better agree.
I am pro-life and pro-family, and out extended family has a wonderful, treasured child of IVF.
But damn, despite us needing to win these elections, and I understand and acknowledge that — it’s so democrat-esque for conservatives to go out of the way for that kind of crap, like Federally mandated IVF.
What it takes to win our current war is not appropriate if we ever get back to political peace, but in the same way that Obamacare persisted, so many things never go away once they start.
Mandating all insurance pay for IVF, especially at a FEDERAL level, is wrong.
IVF will not solve the under-population problem if anyone thinks that — but that is not the issue.
There is no enumeration in our Constitution for the Feds to make “healthcare” and medical mandates. That is left to the states! And I advocate that it is an unalienable right all of us have not to have government at ANY level telling us how we FUND our own health issues. We also have the unalienable right to freely associate with others to pay for our health, and if we want, that of those we associate with.
Under a fed mandate, it will become FEDERALLY ILLEGAL for anyone to have cheaper medical insurance that does not pay for things such as “IVF” (so called “test tube babies”).
Do you want to ONLY be able to buy medical insurance that ALSO pays for medical insurance that also pays for super expensive drugs for homosexual guys so they can have all the unprotected recreational sex they want without as much HIV risk? Well you are already doing that right now with your private and public dollars. If you have health insurance in these USA, it’s illegal not to. That’s the situation now with “PREP” anti-HIV meds.
If you are at no risk on HIV requiring “prophylaxis”, why should you, by FEDERAL FIAT, have to buy “PREP” for other people, and so the drug companies can charge even more for it?
If you believe in how Rowe v Wade was overturned (ie, it is now left to the states and not the Feds, the best we could get for now), then why is it suddenly OK to force EVERYONE to pay for IVF for a condition (not really even an illness in most cases) relatively few couples need?
What if you are a single male, age 25, and want the cheapest insurance? NOPE, you MUST pay for other people to get PREP and IVF, have babies, get “front hole smears” (formerly the evil term “cervical Pap smears” which implied that only women may have a cervix) etc. Illegal not to. The Feds say so.
If you are an athletic 7 foot tall man, you can use your advantages (your athleticism and your height) to be a basketball billionaire...
...but if you are a simple 5’8” 26 year old unmarried male, where good health is literally your ONLY advantage in life, it is FEDERALLY ILLEGAL for you to use your one and only advantage in life to your own benefit by buying cheaper insurance! How dare you!
And apparently it’s fine for auto insurance companies to jack up your prices for being male, jack up your prices for past history, spy on our modern cars by hook and by crook and charge more if they see you drive zippy, etc, etc, all JUST FINE. But get in an accident and all the safe drivers have to pay for your bills.
And for medical insurance, one size by law fits all, even for the irresponsible. Socialized medicine that you think is private, communofascism.
Federal politicians who just shoot from the hip and say “sounds good” (basically all of them) are half the reason for the rapid march toward communofascism in these USA.
“From each and everyone according to ‘their’ good health, to everyone else according to their worse health.” Wow.
Ignoring the 9th and 10th Amendments is one of the biggest issues we face in fighting today’s political battles. Sounds good? Not.
See https://freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/4261601/posts?page=125#125
It took so long of me to write that, I missed a lot of the other responses above, including Nick and Jay, but those were the closest to the bottom. This was not written after reading any of your comments. Maybe this relates, maybe not.
I doubt I will reply back tonight to anyone. Mostly cathartic.
W
Depends on how you define abortion. If you have a fertilized embryo in a lab and the doctor tells you it has the wrong number of chromosomes and would never survive in the womb and you dispose of the embryo, is that an “abortion” to you?
On what are you basing your assertion?
You are right, it is not.
But cutting off your nose to spite your face gets you nowhere.
We got where we are be incrementalism.
There are two ways out of it.
Incrementalism or the other becomes really bloody.
Often. And permanently frozen embryos. Not sure if those can be sold like Planned Parenthood was selling embryo and more developed fetal bodyparts, though.
No shortage of babies at my sister’s hospital....
Of course, they are often from illegal mothers. And they aren’t paying for the healthcare themselves.
And the exotic 3rd world STDs that are showing up are downright scary compared with the past.
No argument it’s expensive. But insurance companies are already covering these costs in 15 states (btw, California isn’t one of them)...and those insurers spread their costs across states they operate in whether they declare it to their policyholders or no. Also to be considered is the cost to the taxpayer of women who have no one to take care of them in their old age and end up on the dole, warehoused in state-funded care homes.
From what I learned in 5 minutes, about 1/4 million IVF attempts resulted in about 85,000 live births in 2020 or about 28% success rate after an average of 2.5 attempts. This is about the same survival rate of natural pregnancies. What I might suggest, is IVF be limited by age and marital status, say married under age 30. A woman would certainly know by that age whether she has physical or biological impediments to getting pregnant naturally that can’t be resolved any other way. Also, fertilizing and implanting one egg at a time would prevent the ethical issue of multiple fertilized eggs as well as the ethical issue of a fertilized egg, that is, life, languishing in cryo and slowly degrading over time which seems pretty morbid to me.
Why do you want the government to inject itself into our private life?
That wasn’t what I was referring to, but it’s still unethical. What I was talking about is they plant multiple eggs into the “mother,” and then, when they are far enough along the abort all but one.
That’s what IVF. Research it. There has even been celebrity lawsuits about just that. Or post-divorce lawsuits.
It will make it worse. It's not against the problem, it's doubling down.
Not accurate, Good night. Freegards.
You said in an earlier post that the federal government should require insurance to cover IVF.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.