Show of HandsShow of Hands

MrMilkdud August 14th, 2016 3:31am

Should Medicaid cover infertility treatment for unwed women living at or below the poverty line?

15 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

MadCow True GOP
08/14/16 11:47 pm

All life is sacred.
Blessed are the meek....

missmorganmarie ...
08/14/16 6:51 pm

no. get a fucking job

Reply
kywrite augusta, ga
08/15/16 10:26 am

If you need government support to take care of yourself, you're in no fiscal condition to take care of a child.

Carolynn new jersey
08/14/16 3:31 pm

I think Medicaid should cover treatments that are medically necessary and general preventative treatments. Any procedures and treatments that are elective should be paid for out of pocket, or by private insurance. Also, I think there is much need for private charities for some elective procedures and treatments.

Reply
jmw7477 Indiana
08/14/16 2:30 pm

Hell no! If they can't take care of themselves, they sure as hell shouldn't be bringing a child into the world for the taxpayers to pay for.

Reply
thebarr
08/14/16 9:43 am

No gov't insurance should cover infertility treatment.

No private insurance should be forced to.

Reply
rons WOKE is sick
08/14/16 7:14 am

Bet it does now.

Reply
abusara i drink and i know things
08/14/16 7:10 am

I'm leaning no for any unwed woman. Or fertility treatments for any unwed man for that matter.

dominiclandry
08/14/16 5:01 am

Is this an actual suggestion someone has put forth?

Reply
MrMilkdud
08/14/16 6:30 am

IVF used to be covered under Medicaid in about a dozen states back in the 90's, and about half of the states covered fertility pharmaceuticals.
Back then, the people calling for states to stop covering it were called racists and accused of trying to reduce minority populations.
For the most part, states have stopped covering fertility treatment under medicaid, but have enforced mandates on private insurers.

I asked tonight because the push for a single payer system is building. Issues like this will come up as liberals start demanding a "one size fits all" solution and I just wanted to get them on record before they all fall in line with their leaders.

dominiclandry
08/14/16 10:25 am

It's an asinine notion

TomM
08/14/16 1:37 am

Medicaid should cover cases where people need medical attention for their health. Getting pregnant is not a case of needing medical care.

Reply
bluerum29 optimistic idealist
08/13/16 11:47 pm

Health insurance in general should cover more infertility costs.

Reply
swervin Maryland
08/13/16 10:07 pm

Hell no. Having a kid is not medically necessary.

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
08/13/16 9:14 pm

Haha no, of course not. That's the complete opposite of what it's for.

Reply
rlands
08/13/16 8:44 pm

I mean you cover it for any woman, you cover it for every woman. But idk if that many poor, single women are trying get pregnant...

Reply
MrMilkdud
08/13/16 10:10 pm

Most of the kids and young women I worked with in group homes and mentoring programs aspired to get on welfare and have children. Not necessarily in that order.

rlands
08/14/16 2:43 am

Ya know, I don't even believe that. I have never met anyone who "aspired" to get on welfare. Being a single mom isn't easy either...like "lemme juggle three jobs and oh yeah lemme also have a kid even when that's gonna take some expensive medical treatments to even get fertile."

MrMilkdud
08/14/16 6:36 am

Then you don't have much experience working with that population. I used the word "aspire" a bit flippantly, but the fact is thay

MrMilkdud
08/14/16 6:45 am

...that kids grow up seeing their parents and their parents' lifestyles as normal, and that becomes the baseline for what they expect from themselves. It's one of the primary reasons that generational poverty is a huge problem. Children typically make the same broad choices and mistakes their parents did, and (on average) only deviate from those choices incrementally.

rlands
08/14/16 7:42 am

I understand and believe that, and you're right I haven't worked closely with many impoverished single women. But making the same choices as their parents doesn't entail a woman who can't have kids on her own going through IVF just to have kids at this point in her life like her mom did. She might make the same choice to have unprotected sex and have kids that way, but is she really going to go through all this medical stuff to have kids when she knows she can't afford them?

MrMilkdud
08/14/16 7:54 am

Yes, as evidenced by the fact that in the 1990's several states covered IVF for single women on welfare.

MrMilkdud
08/14/16 8:00 am

You also may want to look into psychological studies that examine the mentality that drives women in these circumstances who have multiple children. It certainly isn't a psychological state reasonable, responsible people are able to spontaneously identify with, and so it isn't sufficient for you to imagine yourself in their situation and assume your choices and motivations would be similar to theirs. It's even been compared to Munchausens by proxy because the women who do this often relate to their kids in the same way.

MrMilkdud
08/14/16 8:02 am

Also, when states realized how ludicrous it was to provide fertility treatment for women on welfare and started pulling those benefits, lots of advocacy groups fought very hard to keep them.

rlands
08/14/16 8:09 am

I mean I wouldn't put the differentiation at reasonable and responsible psychology...but I do know that sure I might not understand since that's not my situation. But how much is that used anyway? IVF treatments for single women below the poverty line? I'll try to look for some stats cuz I just don't believe many people would put themselves through that.

EarlyBird Portland
08/13/16 8:34 pm

Absolutely not.

Reply