Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Hybrid View

  1. #1 “Gay Infertility” is the New Mandatory Health Insurance Frontier 
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,814
    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/dgreenf...ance-frontier/
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,632
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    42,125
    Damn that digestive tract!
    The difference between pigs and people is that when they tell you you're cured it isn't a good thing.
    http://i.imgur.com/FHvkMSE.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Novaheart View Post
    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.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Fabulous Poster
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,161
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    7,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Politically tired. Lanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,632
    Quote Originally Posted by txradioguy View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •