SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (103753)2/10/2009 5:19:53 PM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542201
 
<<<you don't make rules around anomalies.>>>

How could you disagree with No procedure for unwed single mothers with 14 kids?



To: Lane3 who wrote (103753)3/19/2010 8:25:04 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 542201
 
Not paying for X, isn't saying "no X", its just "We won't pay for X, pay for it yourself?"

Also fertility treatments (even for a first child, but esp. for people who already have a lot of kids) are not similar to life saving treatments.

Not that I want the government to be making these decisions, but that's one of the reasons I don't generally want the government funding medical care. Maybe something like Medicare (the concept of a program for the poor, more than the structure and execution of the particular program) is ok, where you allow for medical care of the poor. Medicaid seems less justified, and "universal single payer" even less.

And I don't think the program for the poor should generally pay for fertility treatments, at least not if the treatment is not one to restore fertility (fix a medical problem) but to directly cause a pregnancy without changing the underlying medical condition. It should mostly be about life saving treatment, or treatment that repairs serious medical defects, not treatment to cause a pregnancy, not enhancement plastic surgeries (treatment for burned skin is one thing, a boob job, something else).