PDA

View Full Version : “Gay Infertility” is the New Mandatory Health Insurance Frontier



txradioguy
04-10-2013, 06:27 AM
It’s interesting sometimes to read about the last days of past civilizations. It’s hard not to notice during these readings that those last days were filled with completely irrational ideas and behaviors that could not be explained in any way outside of a mass collapse of reason.

In entirely unrelated news, there’s a new proposal to mandate coverage for Gay Infertility. The problem is that Gay Infertility is just biology. Two men and two women are not infertile. They’re just not capable of impregnating each other. This isn’t a medical problem. It’s a mental problem.

Infertility is meant to cover natural couples who would be capable of conceiving a child if not for medical problems. Gay rights activists will predictably argue that couples in which one partner has deeper medical problems may also be covered, but that is only as part of a larger set of natural couples. Unnatural couples cannot ever have children without medical intervention. They’re not infertile. They’re biologically incompatible.

But now that we’ve decided that gay marriage is a real thing, biology be damned. Gay infertility must also be a real thing. And you must also pay for it.

Should health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples? Yes, according to a bill (AB 460) filed in the California legislature by assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). In fact, refusing to do so should be a crime.


Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.

According to the fact sheet supporting AB 460, the trouble is that some insurance companies “are not complying with current law that prohibits discrimination” based on sexual orientation. Instead, they are denying infertility treatment benefits “based on [the policy holder’s] not having an opposite sex married partner in which to have one year of regular sexual relations without conception.” AB 460 would amend the law to add the following language:

“Coverage for the treatment of infertility shall be offered and provided without discrimination on the basis of age, ancestry, color, disability, domestic partner status, gender, gender expression, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”

But why stop there?

Once we’ve determined that 70-year-olds and gay men are equally entitled to infertility treatments, not to mention people paralyzed from the waist down and 3-year-olds… it’s time to extend the civil right of a medical treatment meant to help biologically compatible couples to people trying to impregnate sheep and coffee tables.

If we’re going to treat biology like a bad joke, why stop at the human species line? Why stop at biology at all.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/gay-infertility-is-the-new-mandatory-health-insurance-frontier/

Lanie
04-10-2013, 09:00 AM
Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.


Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.

Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

NJCardFan
04-10-2013, 09:55 AM
Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.


Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.

Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

They can have all the infertility treatments it's still not going to change the fact that 2 men or 2 women cannot impregnate each other. But this piece of news is lost on the left.

Novaheart
04-10-2013, 10:25 AM
Sounds like you are debating the terminology rather than the issue. Who knew you were such a bunch of PC leftists?

I agree with you guys. If you can't have a baby the natural way, you should just do without. Of course, I apply that to heterosexuals as well.

Rockntractor
04-10-2013, 11:01 AM
Damn that digestive tract!http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_4427.gif (http://www.desismileys.com/)

txradioguy
04-10-2013, 11:04 AM
Also worth mentioning is that fertility drugs often produce a surplus of embryos, all of which cannot be implanted into the woman or it would kill her. I don't even like fertility treatments for that reason.

And how exactly does this apply to two gay males that want to collect compensation for their inability to concieve?

noonwitch
04-10-2013, 11:16 AM
Sometimes, when a man and a woman are together, they can't have kids. It's just something in one of their biology preventing it.


Nonetheless, I don't support helping gays have kids through coverage. In fact, I don't support helping anybody have kids through coverage. We have people who need surgery for cancer, need anti-biotics, need preventive drugs to keep them well (and in some cases alive), and people are having trouble getting all of that. Fertility along with breast implants should be the last thing on the list to worry about. It's just not a necessity.


I used to date a guy who was adopted at around age 8 by people who beat the crap out of him daily. The adoptive mom was infertile. He used to say that sometimes, infertility is God's way of making sure people don't have kids.

I think that if there is no coverage for anyone to have fertility treatments, at least it's fair and gay couples can't sue for discrimination.

Novaheart
04-10-2013, 11:46 AM
But seriously....


The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

txradioguy
04-10-2013, 11:51 AM
But seriously....


The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

Seriously...

How does the above have anything to do with two lesbians getting undeserved insurance compensation for something they can never hope to achieve?

The whole point of the bill is to punish insurance companies for not providing this compensation to gay couples.

And the reason is that it runs afoul of EO laws in the state.

Really should read the article.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

Novaheart
04-10-2013, 12:43 PM
Seriously...

How does the above have anything to do with two lesbians getting undeserved insurance compensation for something they can never hope to achieve?

The whole point of the bill is to punish insurance companies for not providing this compensation to gay couples.

And the reason is that it runs afoul of EO laws in the state.

Really should read the article.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9800 using Tapatalk

How much do gay people spend on artificial insemination each year?

txradioguy
04-10-2013, 01:49 PM
How much do gay people spend on artificial insemination each year?

Guess the people of California are about to find out.

Rockntractor
04-10-2013, 03:17 PM
How much do gay people spend on artificial insemination each year?

If you didn't have artificial sex you could spend far less.

Lanie
04-10-2013, 03:40 PM
And how exactly does this apply to two gay males that want to collect compensation for their inability to concieve?

Good point. I was thinking of the regular situation, which probably won't apply to most gay couples. My apologies.

Lanie
04-10-2013, 03:42 PM
I used to date a guy who was adopted at around age 8 by people who beat the crap out of him daily. The adoptive mom was infertile. He used to say that sometimes, infertility is God's way of making sure people don't have kids.

I think that if there is no coverage for anyone to have fertility treatments, at least it's fair and gay couples can't sue for discrimination.

I wish "God" would decide that for a lot of other "parents" out there. lol.

And true, they can't claim discrimination if nobody is getting that coverage. My thing isn't about equality so much that we have more important things to get covered.

NJCardFan
04-10-2013, 04:14 PM
Sounds like you are debating the terminology rather than the issue. Who knew you were such a bunch of PC leftists?

I agree with you guys. If you can't have a baby the natural way, you should just do without. Of course, I apply that to heterosexuals as well.

See, there is a huge difference. When a heterosexual couple can't have a child the old fashioned way, you know, the way God intended, they could resort to infertility treatments, artificial insemination, or in rare cases, a surrogate. But in these cases, the treatments are to spur on egg production(the main reason why in these cases multiple births incur). With artificial insemination, sperm from dad and eggs from mom are taken, put together in a dish, and put into mom's womb. The 3rd option is like the 2nd however the fertilized egg is put into a surrogate and that person carries the child to term(think Phoebe on Friends). The whole premise here is that it's still sperm from day and eggs from mom. You put 2 sperm together or 2 eggs together, I don't care who's womb it's going into, you ain't going to make a child.

NJCardFan
04-10-2013, 04:17 PM
I wish "God" would decide that for a lot of other "parents" out there. lol.



Speaking as a foster parent, you just ain't whistling Dixie.

Novaheart
04-10-2013, 10:13 PM
See, there is a huge difference. When a heterosexual couple can't have a child the old fashioned way, you know, the way God intended, they could resort to infertility treatments, artificial insemination, or in rare cases, a surrogate. But in these cases, the treatments are to spur on egg production(the main reason why in these cases multiple births incur). With artificial insemination, sperm from dad and eggs from mom are taken, put together in a dish, and put into mom's womb. The 3rd option is like the 2nd however the fertilized egg is put into a surrogate and that person carries the child to term(think Phoebe on Friends). The whole premise here is that it's still sperm from day and eggs from mom. You put 2 sperm together or 2 eggs together, I don't care who's womb it's going into, you ain't going to make a child.

My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?

Odysseus
04-10-2013, 11:50 PM
But seriously....


The issue is that the insurance company says it will only pay if the couple tries for a year without conception.

This is going to end up in court because there are so many possible scenarios that the insurance company can only be considered to make these decisions in an arbitrary basis.

Let's say that you have a woman who had to have a hysterectomy. Her eggs and husband's sperm need to be united and implanted in a surrogate. Does the insurance company toss a coin? What if the woman never had a uterus or has some other unfixable medical barrier?

It's going to come down to the insurance company saying, 'This is only available to married heterosexual couples." and that will run afoul of all kinds of nondiscrimination laws.

You're comparing apples and ovaries. A married couple who are having medical issues is not the same as a gay couple which is, by definition, sterile. There is no amount of medical spending which will allow two men or two women to conceive a child together. There has to be a tab A and a slot B, and all of the irrational arguments about discrimination, fairness and equality will not change this basic fact of biology. The correct response to your argument is abject ridicule, and John Cleese did it better than anyone:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Sorry, Loretta, but the facts of life are conservative.


My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?
If she is a single woman who decided to have a child without a father? Yes, I begrudge her all of that, because she made the decision to incur the costs. Why should I have to subsidize your sister's choices?

NJCardFan
04-10-2013, 11:54 PM
My insurance company could pay for all the artificial insemination in America for what it would save if it stopped sending me stupid shit in the mail every month.

BTW, my sister paid for her own donor insemination. DO you begrudge her the prenatal care and my niece the medical care she subsequently got upon birth?

Not if I have to pay for it, no. If they have their own insurance then fine. If your sister was relying on the gubment to take care of her and your niece, as the old saying goes, if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em.

Lanie
04-11-2013, 12:44 AM
You're comparing apples and ovaries. A married couple who are having medical issues is not the same as a gay couple which is, by definition, sterile. There is no amount of medical spending which will allow two men or two women to conceive a child together. There has to be a tab A and a slot B, and all of the irrational arguments about discrimination, fairness and equality will not change this basic fact of biology. The correct response to your argument is abject ridicule, and John Cleese did it better than anyone:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Sorry, Loretta, but the facts of life are conservative.


If she is a single woman who decided to have a child without a father? Yes, I begrudge her all of that, because she made the decision to incur the costs. Why should I have to subsidize your sister's choices?


Homosexuality aside, anybody can ask for coverage to have a baby whether it be through getting sperm donation, using another woman's eggs/womb, etc. Should we cover sperm donation for one woman because she's heterosexual, but not another woman because she's homosexual? Keep in mind that neither one of them can conceive without sperm.

And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.

Anybody remember the 50 year old woman who had her daughter's eggs implanted inside of her to have her husband's baby? I heard about it from a news special years ago. Obviously, she was infertile, and that was totally messed up.

Here's one for messed up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193702/Linda-Sirois-Woman-49-gives-birth-GRANDSON.html

Sirois said she's offered for years to become a surrogate mother for Angel her if a doctor said she shouldn't become pregnant. Hebert, of Presque Isle, said she and husband Brian Hebert got that word last summer.
Angel's egg, fertilized with Brian Hebert's sperm, was successfully implanted.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193702/Linda-Sirois-Woman-49-gives-birth-GRANDSON.html#ixzz2Q8c1FMOL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Can you imagine having your son-in-law's sperm put inside of you to give birth to your daughter's baby? Excuse me, but that's flat out gross.

I haven't even began to talk bizarre yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2205025/Doctors-perform-worlds-uterus-transplant-MOTHER-DAUGHTER.html


Doctors have carried out the world’s first womb transplants between a mother and daughter.
Within the past few days, two women have received organs donated by their mothers in the hope they will be able to have children.
The recipients, whose names have not yet been revealed, are aged between 32 and 37, and are from Sweden.

The operations each lasted seven hours and were carried out at the weekend by a team of ten surgeons from the University of Gothenburg.
One of the women had been born without a womb while the other had recently had the organ removed following surgery for cervical cancer.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2205025/Doctors-perform-worlds-uterus-transplant-MOTHER-DAUGHTER.html#ixzz2Q8ce4sVR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So, just like a man, these women didn't even have a womb. Biologically speaking, they could never ever have a baby with anybody (man, woman, etc). It just wasn't biologically possible.

Oh, and Octomom got help conceiving. There was no call in that at all. This woman already had six kids and was on public assistance.


So, either everybody should qualify for fertility treatments or nobody should. I personally think we have more important things to cover. I also think it's wrong that people won't give adoption a chance (although the gays have an excuse in a lot of states, which is more than I can say for hetersexual married couples being picky about how to have a child).

Whether something is biologically impossible because the couple is gay, because the woman has no womb, because the guy is shooting planks, the woman's too old to be having kids (selfish, sorry, but it is) or whatever; biologically impossible is biologically impossible is biologically impossible. Period.

Lanie
04-11-2013, 12:49 AM
Not if I have to pay for it, no. If they have their own insurance then fine. If your sister was relying on the gubment to take care of her and your niece, as the old saying goes, if you can't feed 'em don't breed 'em.

What are your thoughts on heterosexuals like Octomom?

NJCardFan
04-11-2013, 01:17 AM
What are your thoughts on heterosexuals like Octomom?

She's an idiot. And her children don't have a chance in hell.

Odysseus
04-11-2013, 11:21 AM
Homosexuality aside, anybody can ask for coverage to have a baby whether it be through getting sperm donation, using another woman's eggs/womb, etc. Should we cover sperm donation for one woman because she's heterosexual, but not another woman because she's homosexual? Keep in mind that neither one of them can conceive without sperm.

Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it. If their insurance company is willing to underwrite the treatments, and they are covered (in which case the premiums will reflect the cost of the coverage), then that's a private transaction between the company and the individuals, but it becomes a public issue when the government mandates coverage for individuals, at which point the insurers have to either raise their premiums to cover the actual costs of coverage, or they have to ration care. This is the result of socializing medicine. We not only have to pay for increased coverage, but we have to subsidize choices that we find disagreeable, immoral or otherwise idiotic. A straight couple that can't conceive is not my concern, unless they demand that I pay for their conception.



And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.

Anybody remember the 50 year old woman who had her daughter's eggs implanted inside of her to have her husband's baby? I heard about it from a news special years ago. Obviously, she was infertile, and that was totally messed up.

Here's one for messed up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193702/Linda-Sirois-Woman-49-gives-birth-GRANDSON.html

Sirois said she's offered for years to become a surrogate mother for Angel her if a doctor said she shouldn't become pregnant. Hebert, of Presque Isle, said she and husband Brian Hebert got that word last summer.
Angel's egg, fertilized with Brian Hebert's sperm, was successfully implanted.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193702/Linda-Sirois-Woman-49-gives-birth-GRANDSON.html#ixzz2Q8c1FMOL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Can you imagine having your son-in-law's sperm put inside of you to give birth to your daughter's baby? Excuse me, but that's flat out gross.

I haven't even began to talk bizarre yet.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2205025/Doctors-perform-worlds-uterus-transplant-MOTHER-DAUGHTER.html





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2205025/Doctors-perform-worlds-uterus-transplant-MOTHER-DAUGHTER.html#ixzz2Q8ce4sVR
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So, just like a man, these women didn't even have a womb. Biologically speaking, they could never ever have a baby with anybody (man, woman, etc). It just wasn't biologically possible.

Oh, and Octomom got help conceiving. There was no call in that at all. This woman already had six kids and was on public assistance.


So, either everybody should qualify for fertility treatments or nobody should. I personally think we have more important things to cover. I also think it's wrong that people won't give adoption a chance (although the gays have an excuse in a lot of states, which is more than I can say for hetersexual married couples being picky about how to have a child).

Whether something is biologically impossible because the couple is gay, because the woman has no womb, because the guy is shooting planks, the woman's too old to be having kids (selfish, sorry, but it is) or whatever; biologically impossible is biologically impossible is biologically impossible. Period.

The problem with adoption is that the states have a vested interest in the status quo, as they get money for fostering kids, pay out a pittance and put all manner of obstacles in the was of parents who want to adopt. Talk to NJCardFan about the problems that he's gone through trying to adopt kids that he and his family have fostered.

Octomom was an outrage. She should have been kicked off of public assistance. If her treatments were paid for by the taxpayer, then the approving authority should have been fired.

The problem that you don't understand is that when the state becomes the arbiter of who gets what, allocation of resources becomes embroiled in legal equality, rather than supply and demand. In a private medical system, the state doesn't force insurers to cover gay couples that want to have children, and it doesn't ban them from doing so. The insurers determine the costs and the benefits, build the actuarial tables and charge premiums that will cover the potential costs. The sexual behavior of the insured doesn't matter, unless it increases the risks associated with coverage, in which case, the premiums rise. However, in a public system, where the state is the only authority, the determination of who gets coverage is based on political pressure, with the noisiest activists getting what they want, and those who aren't politically active or connected (i.e., people who are focused on businesses, families or anything that doesn't get put up to a vote) get shorted. Politics becomes pervasive, and so does the corruption that politics brings.

NJCardFan
04-11-2013, 12:18 PM
And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument. If it's all about conceiving, then rights should be denied to all people who are infertile including the elderly.


You either don't understand biology or are being purposely intellectually dishonest. There is a vast difference between a medical condition that causes infertility and being unable to conceive because it's biologically impossible.

txradioguy
04-11-2013, 01:28 PM
You either don't understand biology or are being purposely intellectually dishonest. There is a vast difference between a medical condition that causes infertility and being unable to conceive because it's biologically impossible.

She's obviously not making the connection on why this is such a stupid piece of legislation.

Lanie
04-15-2013, 12:25 AM
Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it.

I would agree with that. I personally don't think we should cover fertility treatments for anybody. People are sick, and we need to put that first. I just object to these ideas that it should be covered for others, but not gays. If these treatments are going to be covered for some, then it should be covered for others. If it's going to be denied for some, then it should be denied for others. I would think the only people who should be denied coverage for fertility treatments (if we're going to have coverage) are people with a history of violence. Maybe also people who don't show financial stability. We shouldn't cover somebody who can't support their kids either. But blocking somebody because they're gay? No. Oh heck, gays have been getting this stuff covered. It's not like there's a check box at the fertility clinics for gay and straight.

But once again, let me state again that I really don't care to cover fertility treatments in general. I had a friend last year who went without his heart medication some after losing his job. He did have difficulty. His mother was sick for a long time (no insurance) until she finally ended up in the hospital and they signed her up for medicaid. I have another friend with MS and Diabetes who couldn't have her medicine for a long time and couldn't work either. Her doctor said he didn't know why she was still alive (a miracle). These are just people I know. We've got thousands of people in this country who are struggling to get their medication, who have a terminal illness and don't know how to get their surgery paid for. There are people who have dental pain, but no insurance or money to get it fixed.

But we're worried about fertility treatments? Really? Let's figure out how to help the people who are already here before making new people.

Elspeth
04-22-2013, 03:13 PM
Why should "we" be covering any of this? Any woman, gay, straight, bi or Underground Panther, has a right to try to give birth, but that doesn't mean that somebody else has to pay for it. If their insurance company is willing to underwrite the treatments, and they are covered (in which case the premiums will reflect the cost of the coverage), then that's a private transaction between the company and the individuals, but it becomes a public issue when the government mandates coverage for individuals, at which point the insurers have to either raise their premiums to cover the actual costs of coverage, or they have to ration care. This is the result of socializing medicine. We not only have to pay for increased coverage, but we have to subsidize choices that we find disagreeable, immoral or otherwise idiotic. A straight couple that can't conceive is not my concern, unless they demand that I pay for their conception.



Precisely. That is what is so evil about Obamacare. As long as a private company is willing to insure anything, and as long as a customer of that company is willing to pay for such insurance, it's not ultimately our concern nor any cost to us. The only reason we are even having this discussion now is that Obamacare has taken over private health insurance and gets to dictate the terms. If the government wants more coverage--even if we fundamentally disagree with it, logically or morally--we still have to pay for it.

I don't want to pay for fertility treatments for gay men to get a surrogate or for a gay woman to be artificially inseminated. I don't want to pay for that cost for anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage. But my moral standards be damned--I still have to pay for it. For those of us who believe that contributing financially to sin makes us also culpable, it is a moral outrage to have to do so.

Odysseus
04-23-2013, 09:31 AM
I would agree with that. I personally don't think we should cover fertility treatments for anybody. People are sick, and we need to put that first. I just object to these ideas that it should be covered for others, but not gays. If these treatments are going to be covered for some, then it should be covered for others. If it's going to be denied for some, then it should be denied for others. I would think the only people who should be denied coverage for fertility treatments (if we're going to have coverage) are people with a history of violence. Maybe also people who don't show financial stability. We shouldn't cover somebody who can't support their kids either. But blocking somebody because they're gay? No. Oh heck, gays have been getting this stuff covered. It's not like there's a check box at the fertility clinics for gay and straight.

But once again, let me state again that I really don't care to cover fertility treatments in general. I had a friend last year who went without his heart medication some after losing his job. He did have difficulty. His mother was sick for a long time (no insurance) until she finally ended up in the hospital and they signed her up for medicaid. I have another friend with MS and Diabetes who couldn't have her medicine for a long time and couldn't work either. Her doctor said he didn't know why she was still alive (a miracle). These are just people I know. We've got thousands of people in this country who are struggling to get their medication, who have a terminal illness and don't know how to get their surgery paid for. There are people who have dental pain, but no insurance or money to get it fixed.

But we're worried about fertility treatments? Really? Let's figure out how to help the people who are already here before making new people.

Okay, you're getting closer, but you're still not quite getting it. We shouldn't cover anyone for anything. It's not my job (or yours) to pay for somebody else's healthcare. Healthcare isn't a right, it's a service, which is a commodity, and like any commodity, when you distort the market by screwing with the price, you get disconnects between the supply and the demand. We've been lowering the price for decades by making healthcare part of everyone's employment, with the consequence that the consumers of medical services don't pay for what they consume. The third parties who pay for healthcare, the government and insurance companies, cannot restrict the demand, and they cannot expand the supply, so they ration services, either by denying coverage or through restrictions on services. If you want to reduce the cost of medical care in the aggregate, eliminate the middlemen and have people pay for their own insurance.


Precisely. That is what is so evil about Obamacare. As long as a private company is willing to insure anything, and as long as a customer of that company is willing to pay for such insurance, it's not ultimately our concern nor any cost to us. The only reason we are even having this discussion now is that Obamacare has taken over private health insurance and gets to dictate the terms. If the government wants more coverage--even if we fundamentally disagree with it, logically or morally--we still have to pay for it.

I don't want to pay for fertility treatments for gay men to get a surrogate or for a gay woman to be artificially inseminated. I don't want to pay for that cost for anyone outside of a heterosexual marriage. But my moral standards be damned--I still have to pay for it. For those of us who believe that contributing financially to sin makes us also culpable, it is a moral outrage to have to do so.

Again, it's not simply the sexual morality of fertility treatments, it's the broader moral issue of people expecting someone to provide a service for free. Doctors, nurses and other medical practicioners are not slaves. They have a right to charge market prices for their services, and if the government has a problem with that, then it can propose a Constitutional amendment to give it control over the economic transactions that people engage in (the Interstate Commerce Clause was meant to give the federal government the authority to settle disputes between the states in their commerce, not to give the feds the power to control all transactions that cross state lines). The true evil of Obamacare isn't that it imposes immorality on some people, it's that it imposes tyranny on all people and shreds the Constitution in the process. It turns us from a free people who can make their own health care choices into a population of serfs, dependent upon the largess of our ruling class for our medical needs. That's the evil.

Rebel Yell
04-23-2013, 11:14 AM
And I'm sorry, but there are heterosexual couples who have the exact same problem as homosexual couples. They can't conceive. That's why the entire argument about "Homosexuality is wrong because it can't create kids" doesn't even begin to fly as a valid argument.

It DOES support the argument that homosexuality is a birth defect.