Michigan Votes Forum

I don't want to pay for infertility coverage.  If someone wants to have a baby that otherwise cannot then

let them pay for it.  We don't need an octomom in Michigan.  How do you plan to pay for this one?

 Oh yeah, let's raise everyone's insurance premiums because a few people want expensive OPTIONAL coverage! How about promoting adoption instead!

People should know the facts before making judgement on this topic.  Infertility coverage should be mandatory under any insurance that provides OB/GYN care.  Many OPTIONAL procedures are covered already why should infertility be excluded?  What about *** reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy? Many insurance policies cover sterilization procedures and even abortions.  Why is infertility discriminated against?  Also, people who are well educated on the topic know that infertility coverage does NOT raise premiums.  Insurance companies already pay indirectly for infertility procedures by covering surgeries such as surgery for blocked fallopian tubes, surgery for endometriosis, or surgery for varicoceles in men with infertility.  Couples with infertility will often have these "covered" surgeries in hope to increase their chances for conceiving but often have to go on to other "noncovered" procedures.  These are "hidden" costs and covering infertility will eliminate these type of surgeries by skipping these and allowing couples to choose more successful procedures such as IVF.  In response to the Octomom comment, In states where there is mandated fertility coverage, the rate of multiple births are much lower.  Why? Because when the financial burden is lifted off couples, they choose procedures that are less risky for multiples, such as IVF with implanting only one or two embryos.  Couples without coverage will opt for IUI (intrauterine insemination....this is the procedure used by "john and kate plus 8") becuase it is much cheaper but much higher risk of multiples or they will implant more embryos with IVF becuase they can only afford one try.  Therefore, states with mandated coverage also experience lower health care costs due to less complication from multiple pregnancy.   Mandated fertility coverage is the right way to go.  It will NOT raise premiums and most studies show actually decrease costs due to eliminating "hidden" procedures and decreasing multiple births.  Not to mention insurance covers triple bypass surgery in an obese man who has made poor lifestyle choices or chemo and radiation in a 30 year smoker who has lung cancer.  Infertility is not a choice!  

 The point is that the government should not be mandating coverages of any kind.  We should be able to buy whatever kind of insurance we want, from whatever state we want or wherever else we want.  If someone wants insurance that covers infertility they should be able to pay for if it is offered but certainly a postmenopausal woman does not need it and should not have to pay for it. 

 That would be wonderful if people could choose what services they wanted and leave the ones they didn't.  One CANNOT buy private insurance coverage that offers infertility coverage even if they wanted it unless a state is mandated to offer coverage or unless an employer chooses it (which most won't unless it is mandated).  My benefits are chosen by my employer as are most people who are group insured through their employer.  I have coverage for sterility procedures and alcohol and substance abuse treatment programs.....things I will never need.  I pay for maternity coverage that I also may never need and so do postmenopausal women. The mandates for infertility coverage in the states that have enacted such a bill state that coverage has to be offered.  Most people with infertility would gladly pay a higher premium just to have coverage. I agree that everyone should not have to pay for it but if it doesn't raise cost and actually may reduce costs then that is a benefit for everyone.  A bill would ensure that this would as least be an option.  Most people suffering from infertility don't even have that option to pay a higher premium to get infertility coverage.  And once again, studies have shown that infertility coverage does NOT raise premiums anyway (see prior post).  So a postmenopausal woman would not be paying for it.  A bill such as this benefits everyone by decreasing multiple births which in turn decrease health care costs.

 Goverenment intervention in the insurance system has caused the problems you refer to.  More intervention of the same type won't fix the problem.

 I agree that government should essentially "butt out" of the insurance system but unfortunately that is not going to happen.  Actually, it is going to continue to get worse. If there is a public option for government run insurance, no private insurance system will be able to make it financially.  All of us will eventually be under government run health care, unfortunately, and all with higher taxes to boot. At least if the government is going to control insurance companies then they should at least be fair and not descriminate against those who need treatment for a medically diagnosed condition. 

 Thank you. You said it people should be more informed.

It is a fallacy to think that government "interference" has caused the problems in our dysfunctional healthcare system. In fact, just the opposite is true. In 1945 insurance companies were basically turned loose on the public, free to set their own rules and not worry about anti-trust regulation like other corporations.

As stated in an earlier post, for the people that are covered through employer provided insurance, they have very limited choice in their coverage. The employer buys insurance that covers the most for the least amount of money. Fertility is certainly a part of ob/gyn medicine, and should be included in insurance that provides that kind of coverage.

A government run public option would give people the "choice" to buy a universal plan. They would also have a choice to buy private plans. The more choices, the better, and the cheaper, for the consumer. As the public option is proposed now, only those not covered by their employer, or those unable to find affordable insurance in the private sector would be eligible to buy the public option insurance.

On 9/9/09 there was an "adverse roll call".  Can someone explain what that means for this bill?  Thanks so much!