SAHD turned SAHW and husband seeking donations for IVF

[DGayle]

SAHW are lazy asses who can fund their own goddamned reproduction.

I thought the pretend reasoning for quiverful was that god decides* how many babies you have? Are they admitting that's bullshit now?

(since there is no such thing as a god, any reasoning assigned to it is simply a deflection of responsibility for personal choices and judgement of others. God wants me to have all the babies, but you should listen when he tells you you're not getting any)

It's always bullshit. Michelle had her prolapsed uterus restored instead of seeing it as a sign from god.

[snarkykitty]

I don't get why anyone is a SAHW, though. And fundraising for anything while doing nothing is lame, sure. But again, I don't know their circumstances. Visa issues, health issues, who knows?

There could be a thousand different reasons. I hate having to validate why I am a SAHW.

[Mama Mia]

There could be a thousand different reasons. I hate having to validate why I am a SAHW.

That's a good point. I assumed this woman could get a job to help pay based on the info in the op, but I don't really know their situation.

[Sundaymorning]

Well, obviously, they are free to ask people for money to pay for whatever they want. I have to say, at least, people in this case give their money to the cause voluntarily instead of being forced to pay for it with their hard earned tax money, as they would be in some other countries.

But while I like to donate to various causes, I wouldn't give them any money. The wife should get a job (I assume she would be able to work), or they should save up the amount from the husbands salary. Even borrowing some money from, lets say, a relative would be a better option than just wanting other people to pay for their plans.

[Toothfairy]

You want kids afford them yourself. Don't expect a handout.

[nelliebelle1197]

Well, obviously, they are free to ask people for money to pay for whatever they want. I have to say, at least, people in this case give their money to the cause voluntarily instead of being forced to pay for it with their hard earned tax money, as they would be in some other countries.

But while I like to donate to various causes, I wouldn't give them any money. The wife should get a job (I assume she would be able to work), or they should save up the amount from the husbands salary. Even borrowing some money from, lets say, a relative would be a better option than just wanting other people to pay for their plans.

Comments like the bolded make my head explode.

[Sundaymorning]

Comments like the bolded make my head explode.

Why? Cause you think that there should be a list of things that a certain group of people should be able to ask money for, and everything else should be banned?

Or do you think people who (at least that's my impression from the description of this particular case) would be very well and easily able to pay for this themselves should be entitled to force other people to pay for it?

[Mama Mia]

Why? Cause you think that there should be a list of things that a certain group of people should be able to ask money for, and everything else should be banned?

Or do you think people who (at least that's my impression from the description of this particular case) would be very well and easily able to pay for this themselves should be entitled to force other people to pay for it?

I'm going to go with the later. And yes, I do think my tax dollars should go to a comprehensive universal health care system that includes infertility treatment. I also think it should include alternative and traditional therapies as completely as more mainstream approaches.

[nelliebelle1197]

I'm going to go with the later. And yes, I do think my tax dollars should go to a comprehensive universal health care system that includes infertility treatment. I also think it should include alternative and traditional therapies as completely as more mainstream approaches.

Yep. And Sundaymorning, I am assuming by your location you are not in the US? Which means you have never had to live for a long time in a place without universal healthcare? Thinking of it has "your tax dollars" paying for things you don't like is such a narrow, self-center view of the social benefits a decent public healthcare system and it is the exact attitude that prevents the US from having anything that is really helpful to our citizens. If you have never lived without public healthcare then you really don't know what you are talking about when you criticize public healthcare. If you are in the US, then you certainly don't know what you are talking about. I have lived under both and what happens in the US is a tragedy.

I lived in England and had a pregnancy and brutal miscarriage while there; my husband is from New Zealand and holds Irish and NZ passports, as do my children. We spend enough time in NZ each year that my MIL's doc has the family on his rolls as returning residents. If my kids ever got cancer or a serious illness, I sure as hell am not staying in the US- I'd be broke even with "good" insurance. The public benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the annoyance an individual might have at their "hard earned tax dollars" (god, I hate that phrase) going to something they might not like.

[August]

Incidentally, it's cheaper for insurance (whether single payer or private) to pay for IVF and have almost everyone skip IUI than to have them pay for IF treatments themselves and cover the needs of the preemies and multiple births which result from the treatment decisions being made for financial, not medical reasons.

Simply skipping IUI would save thousands of multiple births and thus millions of dollars. But most self-pay infertile people are trying to avoid multiple births that hard. They're just trying to get a baby before they go bankrupt, and they will not have to pay the medical costs of the pregnancy/babies.

So, from both the moral argument and the self-interest argument insurance should be covering IF treatment (and everything else medical, too).

[browncoatslytherin]

Incidentally, it's cheaper for insurance (whether single payer or private) to pay for IVF and have almost everyone skip IUI than to have them pay for IF treatments themselves and cover the needs of the preemies and multiple births which result from the treatment decisions being made for financial, not medical reasons.

Simply skipping IUI would save thousands of multiple births and thus millions of dollars. But most self-pay infertile people are trying to avoid multiple births that hard. They're just trying to get a baby before they go bankrupt, and they will not have to pay the medical costs of the pregnancy/babies.

So, from both the moral argument and the self-interest argument insurance should be covering IF treatment (and everything else medical, too).

yeah, but that would make sense, and heaven knows we can't have that in the insurance industry.

[Burris]

To the bolded: this 100%. I am not even sure we should be discussing this if we don't know what any of the facts really are. I nearly didn't but then started thinking about how socialized medicine paid for my SIL's first few treatments, and there you go. I don't know if it is really all that cool to post info that is not public and not really fair to either the group here or the subject.

I agree. If one chooses not to donate, that's a different matter than chewing on this woman as if she were an old bone when no one really knows why she doesn't work (such as mental illness or some other private reason).

[Sundaymorning]

Yep. And Sundaymorning, I am assuming by your location you are not in the US? Which means you have never had to live for a long time in a place without universal healthcare? Thinking of it has "your tax dollars" paying for things you don't like is such a narrow, self-center view of the social benefits a decent public healthcare system and it is the exact attitude that prevents the US from having anything that is really helpful to our citizens. If you have never lived without public healthcare then you really don't know what you are talking about when you criticize public healthcare. If you are in the US, then you certainly don't know what you are talking about. I have lived under both and what happens in the US is a tragedy.

I lived in England and had a pregnancy and brutal miscarriage while there; my husband is from New Zealand and holds Irish and NZ passports, as do my children. We spend enough time in NZ each year that my MIL's doc has the family on his rolls as returning residents. If my kids ever got cancer or a serious illness, I sure as hell am not staying in the US- I'd be broke even with "good" insurance. The public benefits of universal healthcare outweigh the annoyance an individual might have at their "hard earned tax dollars" (god, I hate that phrase) going to something they might not like.

Look, I do realize that my opinion might seem selfish to some of you. But in fact, I don't think it is, in the long run, it's the much better solution for everybody. Here is how I see it:

If you have some financial situation, there are basically three levels of who could pay for it.

1. you yourself

2. a private insurance, a private charity, organisation, your family and friends

3. a government (=tax money) funded organisation, administration etc.

Now, in this particular situation, I think those people could cover their expenses with level 1 (the wife could get a job, they could save up etc.). Also, it's not a life threatening condition which requires a lot of money immediately.

Of course, thats not always possible. Some situations demand all three levels (like your example with a family member getting cancer), and some people sadly can't rely on lever 1 or 2, and they only have level 3, which means the taxpayers will have to pitch in.

But the mentality that you should just skip level 1 and 2 in all cases and just run straight to level 3 is very dangerous. The sense of personal responsibility will get lost along the way, and everyone will feel entitled that the government should pay for/solve/regulate everything. The system will implode. And guess who will suffer the most? The ones who really depend on level 3, they are the first ones who have huge problems when meds and treatments are rationed, the waiting lists for docs are very long and the care is bad.

(in case you think I'm just making this up, here's an article about the UK health system from a left-wing newspaper: theguardian.com/politics/2001/oct/07/comment.comment)

So yes, while the tax payers should support people who really need it, people who can easily afford to pay for things themselves should do so.

And sorry, but you hate the phrase "hard earned tax dollars"? I think that's really arrogant.

Do you have any idea how hard some people have to work to make ends meet?? And can you imagine how much it hurts their budget that they have to give a quite large part of that to the government? I'm not only talking about income taxes, but sales taxes and such, they hurt poor people the most. Sure if you're rich and can easily afford to pay your taxes (or just move to another country like Monaco, where you pay next to nothing), then it's another situation. But yes, for some people the money they have to spend on taxes is really, really hard earned and sorely missed in their wallets.

[nelliebelle1197]

I think most of us on here pay our taxes and work hard. Talk about arrogant to assume otherwise.

Again, if you have not lived under the kind of system we have in the US where until recently insurance companies earn more in profit than they paid out in benefit and unnecessarily, people die from lack of access to healthcare, then you really cannot understand how many in the US look at what you take for granted and complain about with envy. That is simple truth. People in countries with socialized medicine take for granted that they can go to the doctor and get the medicine they need. It costs $200 over here just to go in for the flu without insurance, $25 or more with. A prescription with insurance can run you $30-50, without into the hundreds or even thousands.

The costs are astromical even with insurance. I am paying $6000 for a health care plan and I have to spend $3000 on top of that to get anything other than regular doctor visits covered. Then it only kicks it at 80% of costs. If my daughter had not qualified for public insurance, her NICU of three months could have cost us $50,000-$100,000 with this insurance on top of the monthly payment. And she only qualified because her birth weight was below 2 pounds. A couple more ounces and I would have gone bankrupt. Come over here and deal with what we have to pay if you are worried about tax dollars. What, is it still 10% flat and most everything is covered right?

And why would IVF not be a medical issue?

[pomegranate82]

To answer some questions.

The husband is quite high up in the army, given his age. Hence being away a lot and earning a decent salary. They are looking for $25,000. Not an unsubstantial amount by any means but if you can afford to cover all your outgoings with one partner's salary and 100% of the second salary could therefore go towards this target you could get there in under two years even on a pretty low wage. They are both relatively young I think - the wife is in her mid twenties so they aren't battling against the clock. They say they have yet to embark on IVF so this isn't a 2nd or 3rd cycle as far as I know but I get that they may want money for future cycles.

I didn't want to name them primarily because I can't be 100% sure the wife is definitely not working but the family have been discussed on here before and they do seem to follow the SAHD becoming SAHW model. I suppose one of the things that interests me in this case, is that even if the wife did go out and get a job (or has already done so), the couple might actually end up with fewer children as a direct result of the wife not having worked prior to marriage or earlier in the marriage. Had she worked after finishing school, they might well have all this money already and could have had a small brood by now. Even if they raise the money needed for IVF in time to have multiple kids there will likely be children that don't exist as a direct result of the SAHD/SAHM wife thing. And I'm pretty sure there were no major health problems on her side that would have prevented work when she was younger, although I know less about her situation now.

So I suppose I posted this mainly because I'm interested in the consequences of the woman's choice not to work for the couple's ultimate goal of raising a family. I am a little surprised that they are asking others for money given what I know about their background but I don't know all the facts so am trying to go light on the judgement, although I'm still interested to know what others think.

[Sundaymorning]

I think most of us on here pay our taxes and work hard. Talk about arrogant to assume otherwise.

Again, if you have not lived under the kind of system we have in the US where until recently insurance companies earn more in profit than they paid out in benefit and unnecessarily, people die from lack of access to healthcare, then you really cannot understand how many in the US look at what you take for granted and complain about with envy. That is simple truth. People in countries with socialized medicine take for granted that they can go to the doctor and get the medicine they need. It costs $200 over here just to go in for the flu without insurance, $25 or more with. A prescription with insurance can run you $30-50, without into the hundreds or even thousands.

The costs are astromical even with insurance. I am paying $6000 for a health care plan and I have to spend $3000 on top of that to get anything other than regular doctor visits covered. Then it only kicks it at 80% of costs. If my daughter had not qualified for public insurance, her NICU of three months could have cost us $50,000-$100,000 with this insurance on top of the monthly payment. And she only qualified because her birth weight was below 2 pounds. A couple more ounces and I would have gone bankrupt. Come over here and deal with what we have to pay if you are worried about tax dollars. What, is it still 10% flat and most everything is covered right?

And why would IVF not be a medical issue?

Ok, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

First of all, I still think it's arrogant to say that you hate the term hard-earned tax money, that's what I was implying.

IVF is a medical issue. But not one that you need to treat immediately right now, so that those people we are talking about in this thread would have to pay thousands of dollars right now on the spot. They could easily save the money up or find some other solution. That's why I think its strange why some people snark on the fact that they ask for donations on the internet, if there are people who are willing to pay for it, then that's perfectly fine.

And sorry, but while you claim that I don't understand how the system in the US works, I don't think you quite understand how it works in most European countries (which is understandable, as each country has a different one and so on).

I have good insurance (even for European standarts), but as I'm sitting at home sick with my partner (the reason why I'm at fj while she is sleeping and not out partying), I can tell you that we both will have to pay for the doctors visit and also for the meds party ourselves.

In most countries, even with socialized medicine, you still have to pay for a lot of things (at least partly) yourself. That is why some people also have private insurance, or extra insurance to cover some of the things they would otherwise have to pay for themselves, and in countries where the medicine is really socialized (most countries have kind of a mixed system) the poor ones are often screwed if they really need medical help.

That's why I think that the ones who can afford it should pay for stuff themselves, and the ones who can't or have problems to pay for it (no one should fear to go broke because of a medical condition) should get financial help. Not because I'm mean or selfish, but because otherwise the system will simply implode, there are enough examples for that.

[nelliebelle1197]

Ok, I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

First of all, I still think it's arrogant to say that you hate the term hard-earned tax money, that's what I was implying.

IVF is a medical issue. But not one that you need to treat immediately right now, so that those people we are talking about in this thread would have to pay thousands of dollars right now on the spot. They could easily save the money up or find some other solution. That's why I think its strange why some people snark on the fact that they ask for donations on the internet, if there are people who are willing to pay for it, then that's perfectly fine.

And sorry, but while you claim that I don't understand how the system in the US works, I don't think you quite understand how it works in most European countries (which is understandable, as each country has a different one and so on).

I have good insurance (even for European standarts), but as I'm sitting at home sick with my partner (the reason why I'm at fj while she is sleeping and not out partying), I can tell you that we both will have to pay for the doctors visit and also for the meds party ourselves.

In most countries, even with socialized medicine, you still have to pay for a lot of things (at least partly) yourself. That is why some people also have private insurance, or extra insurance to cover some of the things they would otherwise have to pay for themselves, and in countries where the medicine is really socialized (most countries have kind of a mixed system) the poor ones are often screwed if they really need medical help.

That's why I think that the ones who can afford it should pay for stuff themselves, and the ones who can't or have problems to pay for it (no one should fear to go broke because of a medical condition) should get financial help. Not because I'm mean or selfish, but because otherwise the system will simply implode, there are enough examples for that.

I think the issue with the hard earned tax dollar phrase is probably more cultural. People over use it here as an excuse for anything and most of them don't even understand why we have taxes, so I have a reaction to that that is likely not fair to you.

I know there is payment. I lived in England for quite a while and spend a lot of time in NZ, where my kids and I usually have several dr visits. It's the amount we have to pay here and the lack of access and affordable care.

[Sundaymorning]

I think the issue with the hard earned tax dollar phrase is probably more cultural. People over use it here as an excuse for anything and most of them don't even understand why we have taxes, so I have a reaction to that that is likely not fair to you.

I know there is payment. I lived in England for quite a while and spend a lot of time in NZ, where my kids and I usually have several dr visits. It's the amount we have to pay here and the lack of access and affordable care.

Here's how it usually works around here: since, as you said, a lot of things are (at least partly) covered in the insurance (even for the wealthy), insurance rates (even for basic care) are quite high. Up to the point where even middle class families will have trouble to pay for them.

But there is an option: if you agree that you will (additionally to the part that you have to pay for anyway) pay a certain amount of medical costs yourself, you have to pay lower insurance rates per month. Many people who don't have much money take that option and just hope that they will never need to visit a doctor.

I've had the situation in college where a good friend of mine was seriously ill. Up to the point where we thought that she should go to the hospital (not the doctor, the hospital, she was really sick). She stubbornly refused, even though I begged her to go. Why? Cause she would have had to pay so much of the medical costs herself, that she simply couldn't afford it. I spent a night by her bedside hoping that she would get better and I was really close to calling emergency services myself. I had already texted friends in order to organize that we would all pitch in for her medical costs. Thankfully, she was better the next day. And this is not an unusual situation. Often, people won't go to the doctor cause they fear the costs.

On the other hand, people with enough money and those who are poor enough to receive welfare can go to the doctor as much as they like. The ones with enough money must pay some of the costs, sure. But for the other parts, they are covered by everybody else. Very neat for them.

The ones with welfare are covered too. But a lot of people who are between really poor and wealthy fall through the cracks in this current system.

This leads to the situation where people who would need a doctor don't go, and people who don't really need one go regularly for some petty things they could treat themselves. Even hospital officials often complain that people visit the emergency room for really stupid things they could have treated themselves.

In other countries, where medical expenses are fully covered by tax money for everyone you will have the situation where the medical service is simply bad. People have to wait for ages for urgent doctor appointments, care is bad, meds get rationed and so on. Of course, only for the poor people. The rich ones will always be able to afford private doctors and hospitals.

That's why I think that the ones who really can afford it, shouldn't be able to charge other people with their medical costs. That way, the people who really need help would have much more money to their disposal.

[DGayle]

IVF is a medical issue. But not one that you need to treat immediately right now, so that those people we are talking about in this thread would have to pay thousands of dollars right now on the spot. They could easily save the money up or find some other solution. That's why I think its strange why some people snark on the fact that they ask for donations on the internet, if there are people who are willing to pay for it, then that's perfectly fine.

Let me clarify my stance: I think infertility treatment should be a covered expense, but as long as it's not, people wanting it need to do what they can to cover it. I haven't read anything where she's even trying to get coverage changed.

That said, there are a lot of medical problems that don't need to be taken care of on the spot. Does that mean that they should be ignored until the money is saved? My back got fucked up in an accident a year ago. I could still work and do everything, but with a lot of pain. Since it didn't need to be taken care of for me to live, should I have just waited until I had the money myself? Thank goodness for my insurance.

What people are snarking on is that she's not willing to do anything more than ask other people to give her the money they earned. She's not willing to chip in her own labor for this. It should be covered by insurance. But since it's not, she needs to what she can, but she won't.

[DGayle]

In other countries, where medical expenses are fully covered by tax money for everyone you will have the situation where the medical service is simply bad. People have to wait for ages for urgent doctor appointments, care is bad, meds get rationed and so on. Of course, only for the poor people. The rich ones will always be able to afford private doctors and hospitals.

That's how it's been here for years and years. I've always been surprised to get in faster than a month. But just because it can take a while to be seen doesn't mean that it should be a privilege for some. How about, instead of bitching about the wait, advocating for the government to foot some of the student loan bills for doctors?

Don't you get how you're really advocating to be a "for those who can afford it" deal?

And our rich people have always had private doctors and nurses for their nose-jobs.

That's why I think that the ones who really can afford it, shouldn't be able to charge other people with their medical costs. That way, the people who really need help would have much more money to their disposal.

Those who can afford it pay out of pocket for private hospitals and private care.

[Sundaymorning]

Let me clarify my stance: I think infertility treatment should be a covered expense, but as long as it's not, people wanting it need to do what they can to cover it. I haven't read anything where she's even trying to get coverage changed.

That said, there are a lot of medical problems that don't need to be taken care of on the spot. Does that mean that they should be ignored until the money is saved? My back got fucked up in an accident a year ago. I could still work and do everything, but with a lot of pain. Since it didn't need to be taken care of for me to live, should I have just waited until I had the money myself? Thank goodness for my insurance.

What people are snarking on is that she's not willing to do anything more than ask other people to give her the money they earned. She's not willing to chip in her own labor for this. It should be covered by insurance. But since it's not, she needs to what she can, but she won't.

Which medical problems should be treated immediately and which not is a very big question which I don't think we can answer in this thread. If someone is in serious pain, then yes, I think it should get treated as soon as possible. And in addition to your insurance, you can also be thankful that you don't live in the UK or countries with similar health systems, cause chances are that you would be on some long waiting list and still wouldn't have received any treatment... Even though medical care is "free".

What I honestly don't get:

You say that "Let me clarify my stance: I think infertility treatment should be a covered expense, but as long as it's not, people wanting it need to do what they can to cover it. ".

So let's look at the two possibilities:

1. infertility treatment is a covered expense. This women and her husband don't do anything to cover it. Other people are forced to cover it for them. = good solution

2. infertility treatment isn't a covered expense. This women and her husband don't do anything to cover it. Instead they ask other people to voluntarily donate money. = bad solution.

I just don't get why forcing people to pay for your stuff should be more noble and social than asking people.

Sure, you could say that with the insurance solution, they have to cover stuff for other people too with their insurance rates, and maybe one day, with their insurance rates, they will have covered the expense of the infertility treatment. This might work in theory, but not so much in reality, as you can see very well in a lot of countries in Europe where the health system is in serious trouble.

[nelliebelle1197]

Isn't it all free and tax funded in Scandinavia? It sounds like UK has changed a lot since I lived there. I know my brother in law in Wales (native kiwi) has been unhappy with the healthcare but he is on Anglesley and pretty rural.

[DGayle]

Regarding your scenarios:

1) If it's covered by insurance, and they are "doing nothing," they won't get coverage. If they're paying premiums, the they're doing something.

2) That's what's being snarked on. He works, but she isn't, and won't, work to try taking care of what they need in the meantime.

Fertility issues aren't handled immediately. Usually you have to have a year of trying with no luck before you can even get an appointment scheduled. I'm sure though that you'd think going in on the day of your appointment counts are getting it treated immediately.

[August]

I'm not going to engag the Republican, but fertility declines with age, so if you're 30 and it takes you five years to save (not that this couple is attempting to do so, she wants me to go and work and give her mney so she can laze about and do nothing), then you've just sliced off a decent chance of it working, and probably guaranteed you'll need another cycle or two, and increased the amount of drugs you'll have to pay for in each cycle.

[JMarie]

If the wife is in the States alone, and the husband is deployed for much of the year, and they don't have kids yet, what does the wife do all day? She won't work. I doubt she's cleaning all day long. And there's only so much fellowship one can engage in.

I wonder if they'd consider a private adoption if they don't raise enough for the IVF.