Most of these problems are STD related. It is because of liberals, who on this very site equate the health problems of prostitution with simply being overweight (really, they do), that we have the situation we have. Most of our health care costs are caused by liberal inspired diseases. Cure liberalism, get it off the air and out of songs, and we can make some headway in controlling health care costs.

I don't have any problem with this, generally, but I must say that I do have a problem if this is covered and abortions are not.

So why stop there? Cover plastic surgery too.

I've asked the why don't you adopt question before and had my head bitten off because it was assumed that I was being judgmental instead of plain curious.

IVF sounds so horrific, if you've never been through anything like it, the reasons to go through such an expensive and invasive procedure are not exactly obvious.

but i see no need for it to be covered by insurance. just as any other elective procedure is not covered. while it might be emotionally painful to not be able to have your own children, it is not a health issue that must be "cured".

I hate this topic because it always makes me feel like a bad guy. First of all - to the creep who says all health problems are liberal problems... we have two freaking Republican politicians in two weeks admitting to affairs. Both put their wives and families at risk for disease and mental anguish. If these stalwart, Christian men can't control their impulses, getting "libruls off the TV" won't help.

Now for the part that gets me in trouble.

In other words, if IVF were covered and regulated appropriately, it would be nearly impossible for IVF to lead to high-order multiples with their attendant risks."

You can regulate IVF without asking someone else to pay for it. "Covered" and "Regulated" are two different things. There are consequences to breaking laws - Jail, loss of license, fines.

I see IVF as fully elective, in a way that a liver transplant is not. Because no one needs to give birth to an infant to survive or to improve their quality of life**, it is like a nose job or liposuction for cosmetic reasons. In fact, I see it as even more elective than that, because there are other ways to add children to your family, and there are not other ways to reshape your nose.

I am all for regulating medical procedures that are applied irresponsibly. That's done all the time - otherwise we wouldn't have malpractice suits. Those suits can be brought whether coverage is in play or not.

I'm sorry to all those who long to give birth from their own bodies and can't. I feel for you, and am sure it's devastating. However, I really don't want the premiums that other people have to pay to cover life-or-death issues escalated beyond their reach because you would like a very expensive, elective, unnecessary procedure.

**one could argue that - in some instances - it decreases quality of life: see the studies on how childless and single women rate higher happiness scores than mothers http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSL0810277020070508

"However, I really don't want the premiums that other people have to pay to cover life-or-death issues escalated beyond their reach because you would like a very expensive, elective, unnecessary procedure."

You mean like a knee replacement surgery for some dude in his 60s who still wants to run marathons? Or reconstructive breast surgery for a woman who has had a mastectomy? Or plastic surgery on your face if you go through the windshield after a car accident? None are medically "necessary", but all are quality-of-life issues that many of us would like the option of having covered should we desire them.

Something that's been bothering me for a while is the idea that it's seemingly ALWAYS a good idea for anyone who wants children to be able to have them, and damn the expense. Why isn't "Accept that children aren't going to happen in this case" a viable choice? The world is, as may have been mentioned, severely overpopulated, and the resource cost of raising a kid in the western manner is truly staggering, even without the expense of IVF treatments.

I guess it's the idea that people are entitled to have children and that it's desirable, as a societal value, that there be lots of people having kids, bothers me.

My opinion is that infertility (male or female) isn't a public health problem, it's a private health problem, and the public shouldn't be subsidizing and incentivizing population growth. If anything, we should be doing the opposite. Subsidize birth control and comprehensive sex ed, subsidize voluntary vasectomies and tubals for people who want them (regardless of age), and spend real money on effective, comprehensive sex ed. Those are things that will treat the real public health concern. I know I'm going wide of the original topic, but I think it's germane.

We need to have some ethical guidelines on IVF before we even consider covering them by insurance. And your going to cover IVF then you need to also cover abortions and contraception.

I think the guidelines in Europe and Asia should be adopted here.

Limit the coverage to one attempt. I know of more than one couple who had multiple births from IVF and one of those children has learning disabilities. It not only costs us in terms of hospital care, but impacts the cots of education.

I would like to see more couples encouraged to adopt when they cannot have conceive, and upgrade our adoption system to make it a smother process.

I am adamantly opposed to any insurance coverage for infertility. I have two friends who went through the treatment. The first had to abort her baby mid-trimester due to serious, debilitating birth defects. The second ended the treatment and was planning to adopt a child from Russia before she got pregnant...naturally. In both cases, these women spent thousands of dollars for nothing! In most states, ferility clinics have little legal oversight and the potential effect of hundreds of multiple births is dangerous and has the potential for an economic diaster.

This is NOT a health issue, and our insurance premiums are already way too high to support what is essentially a lifestyle decision. I'm truly sorry for women who have fertility issues as well, and as far as the adoption question–why is it so negative? What is wrong with taking in children who already exist instead of expecting financial support so you can "have your own?" Nice try, Lynn, but I can't agree with you on this issue.