SAHD turned SAHW and husband seeking donations for IVF

[Sundaymorning]

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.

Just wondering if maybe that is a reason for their fertility issues? I mean, unfortunately, sometimes it takes even healthy couples quite long to get pregnant, and if he isn't around so much, that could be a reason why she isn't pregnant yet.

[Sundaymorning]

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.

Well, almost. Even in Scandinavia, you have to pay partly yourself. But yes, the costs for the patients are smaller and lots of things are covered. However... Taxes in Scandinavia are really high (sales taxes in Denmark are 25% for example). So people, especially the poorer ones, have to pay a lot. In Sweden, there is trouble cause they have a bit of the same problems as the UK, not as bad, but still. And Norway is really lucky cause they have lots of oil and a low population, so there is plenty of money for everybody and anything.

[Sundaymorning]

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.

I'm trying to say two things all at once (which I think I got mixed up yesterday a bit, I'm sorry, I blame my fewer ;).

1. I you look at my first post on this issue, I wrote "tax money" not "premiums". So what I was implying are the countries where everything is covered by tax money, and people don't pay directly through their premiums. I can somehow live better with the fact if people get treatment they have at least partly paid for with their premiums. The difference you might ask? If you pay premiums, it better traceable who paid what, which helps to keep things transparent for the patients.

2. There is the big questions of what should be covered by insurance and for who. Its a really difficult one. I do realize that many in the US have made really bad experiences with cases like people who got cancer might have gone broke cause they had no insurance and such tragedies. In other countries the health system is ready to implode cause since its paid by tax money, no one has control over it anymore (especially not the patients) and the care is bad but the costs keep on mounting and mounting.

I see this a bit like a small rowboat on a lake. If you go too much to the right side, the boat will capsize. But the same happens, if you go too much to the left side. You somehow have to find a balance.

If you want to pay everything (the wish lists are truly endless, from Viagra to some alternative treatments which aren't even scientifically proven to work) for everybody (yes, around here, even if the rich people go to their doctors, their costs are covered the same way as they are for everybody. Same goes for private hospitals. The only thing the rich have to pay more for are extra wishes like a private room).

Sure, insurance premiums will cover some of the costs of all this treatments people want to have covered. But as the costs will rise and rise, the premiums also rise accordingly. Meds and treatments get rationed and so on. And this becomes a huge problem especially for families and poorer people. So instead of going broke because of some treatment costs, many already have financial problems cause they can't pay their premiums anymore.

That is why I think that people who can, should pay for treatments like infertility problems (at least partly) themselves.

[fun2beme]

I have several thoughts on the issue, and the posters here raised several great points to mull over.

As someone who wants children and probably never will have them, I understand her desire to use all means available to raise money. In terms of her not working, it's hard to comment without knowing her story (perhaps she can't work because of a disability and I'm really not sure about his salary - military pay may not be that great and he is young, I think). She can ask for money and we can agree/disagree with her and donate/not donate as we see fit. This is something I wouldn't give to, but I've seen other causes that I think are more questionable.

[Toothfairy]

Sorry if I sound rude I don't see ivf as something that's a need. It's a want. Children are a want not a need. I know some couples would do anything to have children but I think it's tacky asking for donations from strangers. Infertility might be a medical issue but it's also something that isn't really life threatening like cancer. People can live a healthy life with fertility issues. Other thing is she's fundie right? So how many kids is she seeking? How much donation money is she setting out to get? What if she has 2 or 3 kids and wants more? Where does it end? So what makes this couple so special over the other couples who can't have children? Should they get money too?

[DGayle]

Sorry if I sound rude I don't see ivf as something that's a need. It's a want. Children are a want not a need.

Children are a want if you're infertile, something people will say you should just be willing to go without, like a new car or TV you want but don't need.

Children an absolute right if you're fertile, so much a right that no matter how poor you are, almost every single person on this forum would defend it as a right, even if it means funding the choice by taxes.

Is there anyone willing to say that children should be treated as a want for fertile people, a want that can and should be denied if you can't afford to raise them on your own?

[fundiefun]

I had to deal with infertility at age 25 and my husband and I thankfully were able to go through the ivf process thanks to our insurance and living in a state where there is mandated infertility coverage. We got lucky and conceived twins after one round of ivf I can't imagine having to go through the process again because it was expensive with all of the costs of medications, appointments, monitoring, etc. I'm glad our insurance was able to cover our treatments and we had the means to, but I can't imagine asking my family to foot the bill for our ivf process when we are both able bodied working adults.

[nelliebelle1197]

Children are a want if you're infertile, something people will say you should just be willing to go without, like a new car or TV you want but don't need.

Children an absolute right if you're fertile, so much a right that no matter how poor you are, almost every single person on this forum would defend it as a right, even if it means funding the choice by taxes.

Is there anyone willing to say that children should be treated as a want for fertile people, a want that can and should be denied if you can't afford to raise them on your own?

You are exactly right. And why are kids a want and not a need? There is primal evolutionary impulse connected to reproduction. Why is someone's need to reproduce tied to income?

[fun2beme]

You are exactly right. And why are kids a want and not a need? There is primal evolutionary impulse connected to reproduction. Why is someone's need to reproduce tied to income?

I'm curious as to how many posters here want to have children but were not able to. I'm not referring to those who successfully used IVF, but those who weren't able to successfully have children or adopt.

If you truly want a child (needing one, financial issues aside), not having one is one of the largest heartbreaks in life. It's something that hurts everyday in the most unexpected ways. Unless you've been there, I don't think we can knock anyone's decision as to how they try to go about doing it or financing it. True, by using go-fund-me, she opened herself to public criticism but at the end of the day, how many people really know the unanswered desire for children? I'm there and I can tell you it hurts like hell.

[DGayle]

fun2beme, I'm so sorry you're in the boat. I got lucky and managed to get insurance to cover my injectables, but I can't forget the pain of walking through Target and seeing someone's new baby, and it was like a sucker punch to the gut.

An infertile lesbian friend of mine once said, when she was living in a state where people were being jailed for being gay at the time, that not being able to be a mom was more painful than people denying her the right to be in a same-sex relationship. Being in a relationship is considered a want by some people, not a primal need more people feel, and being denied motherhood of even a single child, she said the loss is more profound because nothing can even compare. You can sneak a same-sex relationship. There's nothing that takes the place of parenthood. Animals aren't the same. Being an auntie isn't the same.

We're not talking abut people with a couple kids wanting more. I personally want more, but can't have more, and this is nowhere near the deep, soul-devastating pain of no kids.

To dismissively tell people who can't have even 1 kids that, well, if you can't afford the fertility treatments, then you just have to go without, is cruel, and only people who either don't want kids or who are fertile could possibly think it's okay to say that. Kids aren't a TV or a dog. Parenthood is a deep biological drive for most people, and there's just nothing that can compare to your body screaming in pain every day that something is wrong, while your heart aches and you have to live in a society where you're going to see babies and kids, and hear about people abusing them and taking them for granted, and it's acid in a wound that never heals. It's literally hell on earth.

If someone is doing what they can to get fertility treatments, I have no problem pitching in a bit since insurance should be taking care of this medical issue anyway. If kids are a right, then they should be a right, not a privilege, and if they're a privilege, then that should go for fertile people too. Different standards based on medical issues is discrimination.

Michelle Duggar trying for #20 again is a right no one would take away. Jill having #12 in the RV when the other kids are already neglected is met with people hoping someone gets some expensive financial resources for those kids, which would last at least 18 years. Not even a whisper about taking the new baby away since children are a privilege, and she's already neglecting the kids she has. It's her right to have more kids to neglect, and our responsibility to pay for her right. fun2beme hoping for #1 is a privilege she should just have to do without because hell no, we can't have insurance funding even a single baby for someone who'd support the baby. Nope, infertility means privilege when parenthood is a right even goddamned child molesters have. How can anyone not see the problem here? Why is the infertile person the one shit on and told tough luck, just skip getting a new TV, I mean, just skip becoming a parent?

[Coco]

DGayle and fun2beme, i can't imagine. It's making me hurt just to read your heart's cries on here.

Children are a want if you're infertile, something people will say you should just be willing to go without, like a new car or TV you want but don't need.

Children an absolute right if you're fertile, so much a right that no matter how poor you are, almost every single person on this forum would defend it as a right, even if it means funding the choice by taxes.

Is there anyone willing to say that children should be treated as a want for fertile people, a want that can and should be denied if you can't afford to raise them on your own?

One way to solve that problem would be a health care system with a standard level of health maintenance. Because they're in the system, they're required to keep up the optimal health as well as they're able, and obey doctors' orders. A decent parent would know their limits. Everyone would be forced to be on their best behavior - just like that Facebook post going viral about the terrible, rude Target manager named Stephanie (the person she insulted snapped a cell phone photo of her, and told the story publicly).The harsh health care case managers would be eliminated by their own bad behavior. Indecent parents like the Rodrigueses would limit themselves knowing their children would be taken away if not cared for up to a certain standard that everyone could agree on by consensus. There's no reason for abuse to slip through the cracks, in the digital age where everyone basically knows everyone else's business. A good person has no reason to fear a system based on good health.

ah, utopia. if only...

[Coco]

I'm trying to say two things all at once (which I think I got mixed up yesterday a bit, I'm sorry, I blame my fewer ;).

1. I you look at my first post on this issue, I wrote "tax money" not "premiums". So what I was implying are the countries where everything is covered by tax money, and people don't pay directly through their premiums. I can somehow live better with the fact if people get treatment they have at least partly paid for with their premiums. The difference you might ask? If you pay premiums, it better traceable who paid what, which helps to keep things transparent for the patients.

2. There is the big questions of what should be covered by insurance and for who. Its a really difficult one. I do realize that many in the US have made really bad experiences with cases like people who got cancer might have gone broke cause they had no insurance and such tragedies. In other countries the health system is ready to implode cause since its paid by tax money, no one has control over it anymore (especially not the patients) and the care is bad but the costs keep on mounting and mounting.

I see this a bit like a small rowboat on a lake. If you go too much to the right side, the boat will capsize. But the same happens, if you go too much to the left side. You somehow have to find a balance.

If you want to pay everything (the wish lists are truly endless, from Viagra to some alternative treatments which aren't even scientifically proven to work) for everybody (yes, around here, even if the rich people go to their doctors, their costs are covered the same way as they are for everybody. Same goes for private hospitals. The only thing the rich have to pay more for are extra wishes like a private room).

Sure, insurance premiums will cover some of the costs of all this treatments people want to have covered. But as the costs will rise and rise, the premiums also rise accordingly. Meds and treatments get rationed and so on. And this becomes a huge problem especially for families and poorer people. So instead of going broke because of some treatment costs, many already have financial problems cause they can't pay their premiums anymore.

That is why I think that people who can, should pay for treatments like infertility problems (at least partly) themselves.

If the very rich had to pay full price for healthcare at the going rate i think they'd come up with a way pretty quick to influence the ones setting prices to get services down to a more reasonable, manageable cost. :lol: Of course with our effed up system they're actually making money on shares and stocks and have a vested interest in keeping it expensive. :shock:

I've read about some people in tiny towns who have bartered for healthcare with the local doctors and dentists. Trading car repair skills, eggs, baked goods, etc. People do what works when they get desperate. It becomes a very polite society, when the basic structure is intact and everyone knows they have to depend on each other.

[Toothfairy]

fun2beme, I'm so sorry you're in the boat. I got lucky and managed to get insurance to cover my injectables, but I can't forget the pain of walking through Target and seeing someone's new baby, and it was like a sucker punch to the gut.

An infertile lesbian friend of mine once said, when she was living in a state where people were being jailed for being gay at the time, that not being able to be a mom was more painful than people denying her the right to be in a same-sex relationship. Being in a relationship is considered a want by some people, not a primal need more people feel, and being denied motherhood of even a single child, she said the loss is more profound because nothing can even compare. You can sneak a same-sex relationship. There's nothing that takes the place of parenthood. Animals aren't the same. Being an auntie isn't the same.

We're not talking abut people with a couple kids wanting more. I personally want more, but can't have more, and this is nowhere near the deep, soul-devastating pain of no kids.

To dismissively tell people who can't have even 1 kids that, well, if you can't afford the fertility treatments, then you just have to go without, is cruel, and only people who either don't want kids or who are fertile could possibly think it's okay to say that. Kids aren't a TV or a dog. Parenthood is a deep biological drive for most people, and there's just nothing that can compare to your body screaming in pain every day that something is wrong, while your heart aches and you have to live in a society where you're going to see babies and kids, and hear about people abusing them and taking them for granted, and it's acid in a wound that never heals. It's literally hell on earth.

If someone is doing what they can to get fertility treatments, I have no problem pitching in a bit since insurance should be taking care of this medical issue anyway. If kids are a right, then they should be a right, not a privilege, and if they're a privilege, then that should go for fertile people too. Different standards based on medical issues is discrimination.

Michelle Duggar trying for #20 again is a right no one would take away. Jill having #12 in the RV when the other kids are already neglected is met with people hoping someone gets some expensive financial resources for those kids, which would last at least 18 years. Not even a whisper about taking the new baby away since children are a privilege, and she's already neglecting the kids she has. It's her right to have more kids to neglect, and our responsibility to pay for her right. fun2beme hoping for #1 is a privilege she should just have to do without because hell no, we can't have insurance funding even a single baby for someone who'd support the baby. Nope, infertility means privilege when parenthood is a right even goddamned child molesters have. How can anyone not see the problem here? Why is the infertile person the one shit on and told tough luck, just skip getting a new TV, I mean, just skip becoming a parent?

I'm just sick and tired of people asking for handouts instead if first trying to do something themselves. I know plenty of infertile couples who sacrifice a lot to save up enough for ivf, which may or may not work. They go without vacations, work long hours or get second jobs, etc. I know some insurance companies might pay for ivf, while others don't. I know having babies and parenthood is a right in this country, but sometimes we have to make sacrifices to get what we want. I would be more understanding if this couple said they've tried to save up funds but they just need a bit more to cover the costs. But just to set up a fund page while not trying to do anything on your part is just tacky to me. I do feel bad for infertile couples, I would wish that on anyone because it truly is painful but asking for money from strangers should be c the last resort.

[pomegranate82]

The issue isn't that the husband is away so much that they're not getting enough opportunities to try - they have both apparently seen multiple doctors who have told them they won't have kid without IVF. I really don't think there are healthy issues preventing the wife from working. The family believe that women should be wives and mothers and home-school their kids from what I have read. But I have always wondered how that worked when you have no kids and a husband who is away a lot.

[DGayle]

Toothfairy, not a single person here is okay with that wife doing nothing at all to try earning some money to help with this. That's the problems EVERYONE, myself included, has. Yes, it should be covered by insurance, but as long as something isn't, then, as I already said, the people need to do what they can to get the money instead of just asking others. My entire problem with them is the wife stays home while her husband goes to work and on deployment. Why not try to get a job? Sell crafts on etsy for an IVF fund? Something? In addition to asking for help.

My insurance covered a lot of my fertility treatments, but at the highest copays they could get away with. Viagra has lower copays on my plan than fertility treatment medications and even estrogen replacement. Funny how the progesterone, which is also prescribed to men, is covered at the highest rate with a copay of $5. Even with coverage, there are still usually a lot of costs, and that couple doesn't seem to be preparing for anything.

The wife needs to be doing something. That's not even disputable. But fertility treatments need to be covered. Viagra is. Acne medication is. Even laser hair removal is covered under a lot of plans (like on a woman's face). Not vital to staying alive, but covered, and nobody thinks twice. Infertility is a medical issue, but it's the medical issue people are supposed to just not care about since kids aren't necessary to staying alive, though apparently a male orgasm, clear skin, and lasering the hair off your chin are all necessary.

[August]

Well, almost. Even in Scandinavia, you have to pay partly yourself. But yes, the costs for the patients are smaller and lots of things are covered. However... Taxes in Scandinavia are really high (sales taxes in Denmark are 25% for example). So people, especially the poorer ones, have to pay a lot. In Sweden, there is trouble cause they have a bit of the same problems as the UK, not as bad, but still. And Norway is really lucky cause they have lots of oil and a low population, so there is plenty of money for everybody and anything.

US taxes are artificially low because the cost of health care is separate. For many people their employer pays as much as their wages for health insurance. Ours is around $25,000 per year (it's on your W2 now, plus you usually get papers which mention employer contribution amounts when you enrol). That's not nearly half our income, but the insurance cost is the same for all employees, so it's more than half for some staff, and they pay the same per month as we do out of pocket, $600. For a $8 an hour employee, that's 41% "tax", plus the amount the employer pays, plus actual tax. Cry me a river about those "high tax" countries with single payer systems. Do they really charge the lowest income tier more than 40% tax like we do?

can I get a U! Gimme an S, gimme an A! USA! USA! USA!

[Childless]

I agree with DGayle on this one. I once had my head bit off on FJ for merely suggesting that our resident fundie, Kristina, and her husband shouldn't be having anymore children since they could not afford the ones they currently have. I was told by several people that it's their right to have children and I was wrong to insist they not have anymore until they can afford to support them. So, why are some of those same people now saying that having children is a privilege and IVF should not be covered by tax dollars? Our tax dollars are going to cover children who are deemed a right for fertile people. Why should our tax dollars not be going to cover fertility treatments for infertile people if children are indeed a right?

[Idolatry]

I wouldn't wish infertility on anyone but PP; it will try even the strongest marriage and the strongest finances. A fundie who needs IVF is a triple whammy. God hasn't blessed them, IVF is expensive as all hell, and with minimal education it's simply out of reach. I would bet most people can't just throw down $15 grand in Beanjamins to get it started, like I did. This is pay to play.

I went to a great college, and have an awesome job, and it was still a huge financial hardship. My clinic, which is slightly on the high side for the US, was $15 grand for a "fresh" cycle and about $5 grand to get one out of the freezer. Even the best clinics in the world with the best possible circumstances IVF is 60% successful. They might easily be 20, 30 grand in with nothing to show for it. Sure, she could go wait tables for three years and explain away crying at baby showers and not being pregnant every single week at church. But it might be less humiliating with fundie indoctrination to just beg for money and take the pity/money.

Also, the begging for money matches a certain martyr fundie type common with women who like to brag about all their hardships. Some people just like attention, and this is a good way to get it.

[Burris]

DGayle and fun2beme, i can't imagine. It's making me hurt just to read your heart's cries on here.

One way to solve that problem would be a health care system with a standard level of health maintenance. Because they're in the system, they're required to keep up the optimal health as well as they're able, and obey doctors' orders. A decent parent would know their limits. Everyone would be forced to be on their best behavior - just like that Facebook post going viral about the terrible, rude Target manager named Stephanie (the person she insulted snapped a cell phone photo of her, and told the story publicly).The harsh health care case managers would be eliminated by their own bad behavior. Indecent parents like the Rodrigueses would limit themselves knowing their children would be taken away if not cared for up to a certain standard that everyone could agree on by consensus. There's no reason for abuse to slip through the cracks, in the digital age where everyone basically knows everyone else's business. A good person has no reason to fear a system based on good health.

ah, utopia. if only...

Everyone deep in everyone else's business - that is your utopia? Wow; it really is wildly different from person to person.

[Idolatry]

Everyone deep in everyone else's business - that is your utopia? Wow; it really is wildly different from person to person.

Yes, you would have really enjoyed my fundie family's Christmas then. They have a lot of opinions about what best behavior is too.

[fundiefan]

Wait, isn't it up to god? Can't use science and technology to prevent pregnancy but you can use it all and then some to create it?

If your god opens and closes the womb...it's pretty fucking clear that this chick's womb is closed. Period. End of story.

[Burris]

Yes, you would have really enjoyed my fundie family's Christmas then. They have a lot of opinions about what best behavior is too.

Yeah: "Good behaviour" by consensus?

A place where people can allegedly agree on a standard of behaviour and then hold each other to it through the use of modern technology is my idea of a dystopia. Such a thing would require a high level of government control and interference to suppress competing ideologies. I'd sooner pay my entire income in tax than spend any time spying on my neigbours to ensure they meet community behaviour standards: Unless it's super illegal, or/and harmful to non-consenting persons, I just plain don't want to know what people do with their free time: I don't want to know what they eat or drink, or who they sleep with or how many partners (or social diseases) they have. I don't want to know if they exercise or are "couch potatoes." I don't want to know most of the sorts of things a medical doctor would be interested in hearing for the purpose of assessing whether a person has been compliant with medical advice.

[Mama Mia]

DGayle and fun2beme, i can't imagine. It's making me hurt just to read your heart's cries on here.

One way to solve that problem would be a health care system with a standard level of health maintenance. Because they're in the system, they're required to keep up the optimal health as well as they're able, and obey doctors' orders. A decent parent would know their limits. Everyone would be forced to be on their best behavior - just like that Facebook post going viral about the terrible, rude Target manager named Stephanie (the person she insulted snapped a cell phone photo of her, and told the story publicly).The harsh health care case managers would be eliminated by their own bad behavior. Indecent parents like the Rodrigueses would limit themselves knowing their children would be taken away if not cared for up to a certain standard that everyone could agree on by consensus. There's no reason for abuse to slip through the cracks, in the digital age where everyone basically knows everyone else's business. A good person has no reason to fear a system based on good health.

ah, utopia. if only...[/quote/]

But that would only be utopia if the consensus fit your own range of acceptable. What if the group consensus was closer to the Pearls version of acceptable? Or if "following Doctors order" meant you had to be induced to fit his schedule?

[DGayle]

I agree with DGayle on this one. I once had my head bit off on FJ for merely suggesting that our resident fundie, Kristina, and her husband shouldn't be having anymore children since they could not afford the ones they currently have. I was told by several people that it's their right to have children and I was wrong to insist they not have anymore until they can afford to support them. So, why are some of those same people now saying that having children is a privilege and IVF should not be covered by tax dollars? Our tax dollars are going to cover children who are deemed a right for fertile people. Why should our tax dollars not be going to cover fertility treatments for infertile people if children are indeed a right?

I don't think people who already can't provide for the kids they have should have more (there is a point where it becomes abuse of a right, like if you have 8 kids who are already starving and severely neglected, and you just have to have more and don't care that it means the kids who don't have enough have less), but I'm not going to sit here talking about taking away rights, which is exactly what happens when an infertile couple is told having kids aren't a right. Their right, and their choice, is taken away, and demoted to a privilege, and what sucks worse is that it's salt on the wound. Not deserving of parenthood simply because the parts don't all work. While watching people argue for increasing aid to people who keep having kids while living on aid since that's their right.

Shrugging off someone else being deprived of choice in their fertility is another form of being anti-choice that a lot of people never stop to think about. If a fertile woman wanted a baby and had a willing and fertile partner, and they were forced apart so that they couldn't conceive, that would be considered atrocious because they have no choice. Infertile couples have no choice.

If you're pro-choice (from a legal standpoint, as in not supporting laws that limit choice), then you really need to be PRO-CHOICE, and that means supporting infertile people who have had no choice. Sure, you could say save up a few years to try IVF once, but imagine if YOU, as an infertile person, had to pay a fee for EVERY MONTH you wanted to try, even if that fee was $50. Imagine being told you could only try as often as you had the money out of pocket.

Why is is okay, and expected, that we support Jill and David's RIGHT (supporting a right doesn't mean agreeing with someone does with it), legally and financially, but tell infertile people that having a choice is a privilege to those who can afford it? How nice it would be for the cost of exercising a choice to be free.

[DGayle]

Wait, isn't it up to god? Can't use science and technology to prevent pregnancy but you can use it all and then some to create it?

If your god opens and closes the womb...it's pretty fucking clear that this chick's womb is closed. Period. End of story.

Part of what's so hurtful about fundies teaching this is it severely hurts the women who were raised to be nothing but mothers. You can't be a mother if you don't have even a single child. If God blesses people with parenthood, then you were raised for a life you can't have and get to deal with wondering why God didn't bless you.

And the opening/closing the womb bullshit ignores male fertility issues, which are really as common as female fertility issues.