Gop position on IVF on June12th. And Gop position on IVF on June 13th.

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe the Democrats are saying that other people should pay for it.

No they aren't, and you haven't shown where that's a part of the bill.

 

[Pogo]

No they aren't, and you haven't shown where that's a part of the bill.

Part of the bill was that the federal insurance payment for covered employes would cover ivf as it already did to the tune of 25k annually

The federal government will now offer its employees generous fertility benefits​

The nation's largest employer will offer plans that cover a broad menu of fertility services, including up to $25,000 annually for IVF procedures.
This became the situation in April in response to the Alabama court decision, and in fact as it is insurance others are paying for IVF including in this case the federal government.

Senate Republicans Block Bill To Protect IVF Access Nationwide​

Senate Democrats' proposed measure failed Thursday in a 48-47 vote. The bill would have provided federal protections for in vitro fertilization access and required insurance coverage for federal employees.

This appears to be the confusion, the federal government now offers plans that will cover IVF but the second from KFF sort of implies that it is not plan specific when I suspect it only says that it can't be denied to people who do have the coverage.

Yes if you have insurance for it, somebody else is paying for it but that should not justify @Kathryn's objection to the bill in the first place as it already happens without the bill.
That said after Scotus's ruling on bump stocks we will have to parse the actual legislation beyond the apparent intent. I do find it odd that this potential legislative mistake has not made news anywhere else but here.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Part of the bill was that the federal insurance payment for covered employes would cover ivf as it already did to the tune of 25k annually

The federal government will now offer its employees generous fertility benefits​

The nation's largest employer will offer plans that cover a broad menu of fertility services, including up to $25,000 annually for IVF procedures.
This became the situation in April in response to the Alabama court decision, and in fact as it is insurance others are paying for IVF including in this case the federal government.

Senate Republicans Block Bill To Protect IVF Access Nationwide​

Senate Democrats' proposed measure failed Thursday in a 48-47 vote. The bill would have provided federal protections for in vitro fertilization access and required insurance coverage for federal employees.

This appears to be the confusion, the federal government now offers plans that will cover IVF but the second from KFF sort of implies that it is not plan specific when I suspect it only says that it can't be denied to people who do have the coverage.

Yes if you have insurance for it, somebody else is paying for it but that should not justify @Kathryn's objection to the bill in the first place as it already happens without the bill.
That said after Scotus's ruling on bump stocks we will have to parse the actual legislation beyond the apparent intent. I do find it odd that this potential legislative mistake has not made news anywhere else but here.

Yeah, that's different from it being a buffet at the tax payer's expense.

 

[Pogo]

Yeah, that's different from it being a buffet at the tax payer's expense.

With all the kids needing adoption, I'm not sure I'm all that gung-ho on IVF

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With all the kids needing adoption, I'm not sure I'm all that gung-ho on IVF

Yeah, I do think adoption should first be encouraged over IVF as you can't force people or ban the procedure and that is the unfortunate downside of IVF. It's expensive and that money can adopt.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those awful Republicans!

IVF. The top concern of the century !

I find it odd when posters dismiss an issue
because it's not the "top concern".
Many issues are important without being the
most pressing, & should be addressed.

Some things that aren't the most important....
- Bump stocks.
- Free speech about Covid deniers.
- Speciation.
- "Men" competing as women in sports.
- Abortion rights in various states.
- Threats of violence against poll workers.

Should legislators ignore all such issues until
they've solved problems of the larger ones?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I find it odd when posters dismiss an issue
because it's not the "top concern".
Many issues are important without being the
most pressing, & should be addressed.

Some things that aren't the most important....
- Bump stocks.
- Free speech about Covid deniers.
- Speciation.
- "Men" competing as women in sports.
- Abortion rights in various states.
- Threats of violence against poll workers.

Should legislators ignore all such issues until
they've solved problems of the larger ones?

I get told that all the time dismissively. Shopping bags stoves etc... now IVF eh.. low priority, dosent matter... who cares.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get told that all the time dismissively. Shopping bags stoves etc... now IVF eh.. low priority, dosent matter... who cares.

Who cares about abortion rights? I don't need one.
Who cares about religious freedom? I don't believe in their stupid myths.
Who cares about health care? I got mine.
Who cares about immigration? That's a southern problem.
Who cares about the price of food & gas? I afford them easily.

 

[Left Coast]

Rules Of Construction.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this title, a State law, or the administration, implementation, or enforcement of a State law, constitutes a prohibition, limitation, interference, or impediment on a health care provider providing, an individual receiving, a health insurance issuer covering, or a manufacturer marketing drugs or devices for fertility treatment, provided in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based medical standards of care, as described in subsection 104, if the administration, implementation, interpretation, or enforcement of such law has an effect that—

And:

3) HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUER RIGHTS.—A health insurance issuer has a statutory right under this title, without prohibition, limitation, interference, or impediment, to the extent that such prohibition, limitation, interference, or impediment in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction, to cover the provision of fertility treatment provided in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based medical standards of care.

Yes, this means the government can't prohibit a health insurer from covering the procedure.

For instance, even though I have had a complete hysterectomy and also show no signs of mental health issues and I am 62, I am still paying in part for the coverage of other people for their pregnancies and mental health issues. Yay, me!

Yeah, that's what insurance...is. Are you against the concept of all insurance?

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, this means the government can't prohibit a health insurer from covering the procedure.



Yeah, that's what insurance...is. Are you against the concept of all insurance?

No, I just remember when we could opt out of some forms of coverage and now apparently we can't.

And the government in no way has ever prohibited a health insurance company from covering any procedures that I know of. I tried googling the question but got no clear answers in any direction.

 

[Left Coast]

No, I just remember when we could opt out of some forms of coverage and now apparently we can't.

And the government in no way has ever prohibited a health insurance company from covering any procedures that I know of. I tried googling the question but got no clear answers in any direction.

If a procedure is illegal, insurers can't cover it. See: abortion.

 

[Kathryn]

And yet tax payers are on the hook for about 24 percent of all abortion costs.

 

[Kathryn]

It's like a giant shell game, I swear!

 

[fantome profane]

And yet tax payers are on the hook for about 24 percent of all abortion costs via Medicaid.

source?

 

[Kathryn]

Are American Taxpayers Paying For Abortion?

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions, it is as if taxpayers pay the full cost of 250,000...

www.forbes.com

 

[Pogo]

No, I just remember when we could opt out of some forms of coverage and now apparently we can't.

And the government in no way has ever prohibited a health insurance company from covering any procedures that I know of. I tried googling the question but got no clear answers in any direction.

I think you misremember. health care has never been cafeteria style where you pick the options you wish to pay for. The system is tiered such that the insurance companies can amalgamate options for a group large enough that the risk of any one procedure is spread across a sufficiently large population to make it feasible and profitable.
These days they are Bronze, Silver Gold and even Platinum going up in price and included options.

Assuming your hysterectomy was not out of pocket, the male half of the payees for that insurance never had the option of hysterectomy coverage.

 

[Kathryn]

Interesting info by the way:

What the data says about abortion in the U.S.

The U.S. abortion rate has generally declined since the 1980s, but there have been slight upticks in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Kathryn]

I think you misremember. health care has never been cafeteria style where you pick the options you wish to pay for. The system is tiered such that the insurance companies can amalgamate options for a group large enough that the risk of any one procedure is spread across a sufficiently large population to make it feasible and profitable.
These days they are Bronze, Silver Gold and even Platinum going up in price and included options.

Assuming your hysterectomy was not out of pocket, the male half of the payees for that insurance never had the option of hysterectomy coverage.

No, I am not misremembering anything. I clearly remember being able to choose whether or not to have some things covered such as pregnancy. It wasn't cafeteria style so to speak but you could opt out of several things and lower your deductible and payments.

 

[Left Coast]

And yet tax payers are on the hook for about 24 percent of all abortion costs.

Because abortion isn't illegal everywhere (yet). Where it is, insurers can't cover it.

 

[Kathryn]

No but one can get a tax deduction or tax credit or use an HSA for the expenses, including travel expenses.