Oh, Primaflora, you’d be amazed at the shit insurance companies won’t cover. I’m epileptic, and some companies don’t want to pay for my medication or visits to a neurologist. Pre-existing condition, dontcha know. When I was in school, the insurance we bought through the university refused to cover anything related to congenital defects. If you have a heart murmur and get an echocardiogram to see what type of murmur it is, and the thing turns out to be a congenital defect, this company won’t even pay for the flippin’ echo.
To echo what artemis in response to Resolve’s statement
[quote]
Supporters believe that infertile couples pay premiums for health benefits they are unable to use, such as maternity services
[quote]
Two things: First of all, this may be a nitpick, but the result of successful infertility treatments involves using maternity services. They might want to pick a different example. Second, I don’t have any intention of using either. Where does that leave me?
I’m sorry. My bottom line remains that while infertility may be tragic, it is not life-threatening. Several years ago, a friend of mine and I both decided independently not to purchase health insurance because the cheapest plan we could find would cost $1,000 per year for a plan with a $1,000 deductible and we were both making about $9.00 per hour (all figures USD). My friend was working as a contract archaeologist, and I was working as a temp. In the United States, basic health insurance is already too expensive for a lot of people. Why should we make it even more so? Or, to put it more bluntly, does your desire to have a child outweigh my desire to be able to afford coverage for a broken leg?
Again, to those of you who’ve had or continue to suffer from infertility, I give you my sincere sympathies.
Respectfully,
CJ
CJ in the case of the vast majority of Americans, they do not pay their health insurance premiums on their own, they receive coverage through their employers, or through another qualifying group. For those who do, it would seem highly likely that there are different levels of coverage available, and there’s no reason why the addition of a requirement for some level of coverage for infertility services should make insurance costs any more prohibitive than the recent mandate for the coverage of mental illness treatments.
This same argument was raised, btw, when that mandate came down, but what ended up happening is simply that benefits for mental health treatments are capped. Unfortunately, those caps are often at levels which aren’t enough to help those with a lifelong, often incapacitating illness such as schizophrenia. But they are more than enough to help those who have problems which doesn’t necessitate (lengthy) hospitalization and can be managed with outpatient therapy and/or medication. They’ve found a middle ground which offers more protection than was previously offered, without the outrageous jumps in premiums that were predicted by the insurance industry lobbyists who blasted Congress for even dreaming of requiring mental health coverage.
True - but that just means that “average Americans” are paying those premium costs INDIRECTLY, because the money an employer spends on health insurance premiums could othewise have gone into salaries. Health insurance isn’t “free” just because you’re getting it through work - your take-home pay is lower than it otherwise would be, even if your employer is paying 100% of the premiums and you DON’T have a deduction from your salary to cover part of the cost of the coverage (which is rare these days).
There are always going to be some things health insurance isn’t going to cover, and those people unfortunate enough to suffer from those conditions are going to complain - but that doen’t mean they are necessarily being treated unfairly. The resources any society can spend on health care are limited, and that means tough choices have to be made. We can’t provide everything for everybody, and I would favor trying to expand the number of people receiving at least basic coverage for serious illnesses before adding additional benefits to the insurance of those already lucky enough to be covered.
Tracey, with all due respect, right now, I’m facing the reality of having to tap into a 401k plan long before retirement because I was laid off a month ago, and I’m going to need to pay for my own health insurance to continue treatment for severe clinical depression. Regretfully, in my case, under the current circumstances, depression is a life-threatening condition. I realize this sounds selfish, but I don’t see how someone’s desire to have a child should over rule my desire to survive.
A lot of the people in this country who do not have health insurance are the working poor – people who are working 2 or more part-time jobs which do not provide health insurance. In my case, if I wind up becoming a contract programmer (not my preferred route, but it is an option), it will be up to me to provide my own health insurance. Archaeology also tends to use contractors, rather than full-time employees. These are the people who suffer most when the cost of health insurance which is not provided by employers rises. Each form of treatment which the US government requires insurers to provide put the cost of even basic health insurance out of reach of more people. Because of that, I’m not necessarily in favour of requiring coverage for mental illnesses.
I’m all for providing a smorgasbord of options for health insurance so that one person could choose infertility coverage, another could choose mental health coverage, and another could choose coverage for annual prostate exams starting at age 20.
I realize people’s definitions of luxury and necessity vary. Again, I don’t have children, nor have I any particular desire to do so, but, regretfully, to me having children is a luxury in that it is not life-threatening. To echo what I said to a friend who called me at 1:30 am this morning, “It will be difficult, but you will survive this.”
Respectfully,
CJ
No way – employers provide health insurance coverage because a) it is competitive for them to do so, but more importantly b) because they get a tax break for doing so. If they paid out the equivalent in salary, they would have to pay the payroll taxes on it as well. Tax away the tax benefits to employers for providing health care, and you can kiss it goodbye, and your salary wouldn’t go up one cent.
As a simple though experiment, ask yourself what happens when both members of a married couple are employed, but only use the health coverage of one member because of a lower deductible or lower co-pay. The other cannot tell their employer, “I’m opting out of the company’s coverage, and I’ll just take the equivalent in salary, thanks!”
pldennison,
I did ask my employer to cut my health coverage for a larger salary…b/c we use my husbands plan…it’s part of negotiating. Yes, I did get a larger salary because of that.
CJ,
Yes depression is life-threatening. I suffer from depression BECAUSE of our inablility to conceive a child. It’s all linked together. It can really impact the way you view life…(infertility), therefore, causing depression.
Just my opinion.
pldennison
It certainly might not on an individual basis, but think of the reverse.If a company is willing to spend $50,000 combined on my salary and benefits, as the cost of the benefits goes up, the salary goes down. I don’t know of any companies that lower salaries when insurance rates go up, but I’m certain the cost of benefits impact how much or whether raises are given
Maybe not, but in a cafeteria plan the spouse might be able to say “I’m trading that in for extra vacation days” or dental coverage,life insurance or sometimes cash. Or plans like mine, which covers state and some local government employees. If a husband and wife both work for covered agencies, they don’t exactly get a salary increase for opting out of one coverage- but they don’t pay the employee’s share which has the same effect, more money.
Siemsi,
I’m not going to presume which type you suffer from, but you do realize that there is a big difference between situational depression and severe clinical depression, right? If you really are in a life-threatening depression becasue of infertility, it’s the depression that’s life-threatening, not the infertility. And if it’s that severe, there’s no reason to believe that giving birth will magically cause the cloud to lift.
Also Siemsi, if your depression is clinical, you may want to know some more about pregnancy. People who suffer from depression are significantly more likely to experience severe post natal depression.
I’ve done the clinical depressions thing. It really sucks. I’ve done the infertility thing. I’ve done the pregnancy and post natal depression thing. God, I hope no one ever goes through that…but people do all the time.
The farmer in Montana thingie was called an “analogy.”
And the thought is that you believed in something until it benefited you to believe the opposite. You’re surely allowed to change your mind for that reason, but don’t pretend that it’s a matter of principle, or that your opponents are callous. For you, it’s a matter of self-interest, not “this is what’s best for humanity.”
Sua