Letter to me from Politican re IVF mandate repeal

UPDATE ON JAN 2
I have removed the letter from the politician. The gist of it was that I was taking the wrong side and that if IVF mandate were repealed, all insurance premiums would be decreased 3-5%.

I have saved some of the better comments left by the powerful women of the infertility blogging world. I hope that they can be used again, by others in need.



Comment -
I don't understand this logic...so because one medical problem adds x amount to everyone's policy it should be cut to reduce the cost for everyone? Don't all insured services (ywzq) add to the cost for everyone? But certainly not everyone uses ywzq either. Heck I bet those who don't need z would love to have z cut from the mandate so -they- can have lower insurance rates. Why cut X over another condition/tretament? Seems to me like trying to dismiss infertilty as a supposed "voluntary" condition and discriminate against those dealing with it. We are an easy target as usual.

Comment -
If he wants to cut insurance costs, why not slash mental health care (oh, wait, isn't that illegal?) or prescription drug coverage? Those represent a much larger percentage of the expenditures than IVF. Clearly, this is a value judgment about which medical issues are worth treating. Shame on you, XXXXXXX , father of XXXX children, for trying to take away care for real medical issues that prevent others from having the family you take for granted.

In addition, when IVF is not available, women must resort to ovulation induction alone, which more often results in higher order multiples, often born prematurely, whose NICU care increases the cost of health care for everyone. I don't see that being taken into consideration.


Comment -
I have just read a few statements by XXXXXXXX. He seems to be one of those people who simply does not acknowledge that infertility is as valid a medical problem as any other, and deserves coverage for effective treatment just as any other condition does. In one quote he states: “In my opinion, the reason people need health insurance is to be able to have a reasonably pain-free, productive existence,”. he said. "That's possible ... without having access to an array of reproduction technologies," XXXXXX said. The sheer ignorance of that statement astounds me. Clearly he has no concept of the reality of infertility and how it affects people’s lives (and their health for that matter). To have the audacity to suggest that those dealing with infertility do not need “health insurance” to be able to have a “reasonably pain-free, productive existence,” stuns me (and clearly shows he has no idea whatsoever of what he is talking about with regards to infertility and access to treatment). Having children is a fundamental human experience, and to have a medical problem that prevents ones reproductive system from working properly thus denying people the ability to have a child is far from benign as he suggests it is by his comments. I find it endless fascinating how easy it often seems for those with children, whom they often claim are the most important thing in the world to them (“my most important constituent” comments XXXXXXX about his own child-and has ‘cute’ baby photos of his children - on his website), to dismiss infertility coverage that would allow others to have a family as they does. Can he not imagine what it would be like to not have his precious children, or to know that the reason he didn’t have his children was simply because he could not afford the medical treatment needed to have one. It is one thing to be against coverage for something, quite another to dismiss and deny the reality of what that something really is as the excuse for doing it is quite another.


Comment -
Ahem. He chides you for not doing your research and claims that A) The mandates to cover IVF do not exist, and B) He is not trying to do away with IVF coverage, and C) "Powerful special interests" are trying to price poor people in the state out of affordable health care coverage".

As far as A) and B) go, I read that bill, and it specifically addresses doing away with IVF coverage.

As far as C) goes, perhaps Mr XXXXXXX didn't do his research, because the Council For Affordable Health Insurance is on Sourcewatch.org's list of front groups- for the insurance industry.

Isn't the insurance industry a much larger, much wealthier "special interest" than an individual clinic, or a small group of infertility patients?

Look how much this wonderful nonpartisan council who decided IVF coverage needed the chopping block spent on lobbying yearly: http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?lname=Council+for+Affordable+Health+Insurance&year=2008

By the way, if you look at both the above link and the so-called accurate report, you will see that Victoria Bunce, the Director of Research and Policy, is also listed as one of their main lobbyists.

Whose corner is your state rep in? I'd love to see who contributed to his campaign. Has any wining and dining been going on?

I see he also lists himself on his website as pro-life. How much of this anti-IVF campaign is about money, and how much of it is it about when the beginning of life is defined, and chipping away at abortion laws?