Should Provincial Health Care fund In-Vitro - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Northendzone · 07-26-2010, 08:29 PM

So there was an article in the Herald today (sorry I can't attach the article as I don't have an account) discussing the Quebec govenrment's decision to fund IVF's. One Dr is quoted in the article as saying "right now we have in place a system of reproductive discrimination. If you have lots of dough, you can have a treatment and have a family. If you don't you can't".

My thoughts are if you have lots of dough you can have a house in Palliser, or you can get a new SUV, or go on a first class trip to europe. Anyways, to me AHS should be concentrating thier precious funds on taking care of us that are currently alive, and then thier second priority should be ensuring that Mr. duckert and his buddies all get nice bonuses and other perks.....

Anyways I am writing this as a middle aged male with two kids - we did not have to use IVF and I am not sure if we would ahve as it was something we spoke about.

I can appreciate someone's desire to bring a child into the world - but the public system can't afford to deliver this - in my mind there is the alternative of adoption....

I am intereted in hearing others thoughts on this topic.

Zevo · 07-26-2010, 08:41 PM

Heck no. Is it life threatening if you don't have the procedure? Is your quality of life diminished if you don't have the procedure? (and before somebody says it, not being able to have kids does not count as diminishing your quality of life. Adopt)

If the world had a declining population then maybe I could see it, but we don't.

bcb · 07-26-2010, 09:08 PM

Sure, we need more kids. Gotta fix that population pyramid.

holden · 07-26-2010, 09:12 PM

We should be promoting more birth control, and discouraging having anything over 2.0 kids per couple.

If anything vasectomies and tubal ligation should be paid for way before promoting more births.

chemgear · 07-26-2010, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northendzone

One Dr is quoted in the article as saying "right now we have in place a system of cybernetic discrimination. If you have lots of dough, you can have a treatment and be able to crush a car with one hand. If you don't you can't".

fyp

Actually, isn't that life? Have dough, you can avoid crappy car discrimination/poor job discrimination/slow healthcare discrimination. Just saying.

This also brings up the question if being able to have children is a right that every one else should be burdened with paying for.

GoinAllTheWay · 07-26-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holden

We should be promoting more birth control, and discouraging having anything over 2.0 kids per couple.

If anything vasectomies and tubal ligation should be paid for way before promoting more births.

wow, your avatar is raising the bar a tad, eh?

Kjesse · 07-26-2010, 09:48 PM

Since this is a municipal election year and the election actually matters, I've once again been thinking a lot about politics.

My biggest concern is that there seems to be what I call "government creep". I think it has been happening all my life. Step by step, government gets more involved in your life. Its small steps at a time, but it seems to happen consistently.

While I feel very sympathetic to couples who can not conceive normally, this proposal is the kind of thing that takes socialism wayyyy too far. I'm all for public health care (after all, freedom is important, and if you don't have access to basic affordable health care regardless of income, you are not really free)

If you break your arm, I support a society that will treat you out of the public purse. But advanced and expensive treatments ultimately take away funds from the more important things... like cancer research.

ken0042 · 07-26-2010, 10:21 PM

I would say yes; within some limits. Like set some caps so that we aren't funding a futile 15 year attempt to have a child. Perhaps even an age limit; so that we also aren't trying to get 50 year olds pregnant.

I say this for a few reasons. I have a few friends who were in this situation; but I also think the benefit out-weighs the cost. Canada's population is growing only because of immigration; if we didn't allow any new immigrants we would be seeing a population decline. These immigrations policies exist because we need more people in Canada to sustain future generations. So why not "home grow" some extra Canadians?

That child who cost $20-50K to create will end up putting in hundreds of thousands back into the tax system over the course of their lifetime.

Zevo · 07-26-2010, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would say yes; within some limits. Like set some caps so that we aren't funding a futile 15 year attempt to have a child. Perhaps even an age limit; so that we also aren't trying to get 50 year olds pregnant.

I say this for a few reasons. I have a few friends who were in this situation; but I also think the benefit out-weighs the cost. Canada's population is growing only because of immigration; if we didn't allow any new immigrants we would be seeing a population decline. These immigrations policies exist because we need more people in Canada to sustain future generations. So why not "home grow" some extra Canadians?

That child who cost $20-50K to create will end up putting in hundreds of thousands back into the tax system over the course of their lifetime.

If they stay in the country. What's to say they don't take advantage of our education system as well and then go work somewhere else?

Maybe they should be bound by contract to put in at least 15 tax paying years.

Ozy_Flame · 07-26-2010, 10:32 PM

I don't support this at all. AHS has far more issues to deal with than fund in-vitro, which, in alot of ways, is an elective procedure.

simonsays · 07-26-2010, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would say yes; within some limits. Like set some caps so that we aren't funding a futile 15 year attempt to have a child. Perhaps even an age limit; so that we also aren't trying to get 50 year olds pregnant.

I say this for a few reasons. I have a few friends who were in this situation; but I also think the benefit out-weighs the cost. Canada's population is growing only because of immigration; if we didn't allow any new immigrants we would be seeing a population decline. These immigrations policies exist because we need more people in Canada to sustain future generations. So why not "home grow" some extra Canadians?

That child who cost $20-50K to create will end up putting in hundreds of thousands back into the tax system over the course of their lifetime.

But an equally industrious immigrant will put up the same hundreds of thousands into the tax system for far less than the $20-50K it would cost to spawn him/her. Heck, some of them don't even need the education subsidies as they've been educated elsewhere.

And what kind of investments are you making where it makes practical sense to make an initial payment of $20-50K, wait 5 years and then subsidize the next 12-16 years for a few potential 'hundreds of thousands'. You need a new financial adviser.

Finances aside the question comes down to rights, and I don't feel that having a biological child is a right. I know that many people dream of being the biological parent to their child, but being male I often dream of being able to frequently ogle fantastic sweater puppies. Do I think that large breasts are a right? No. If they aren't something that you can produce on your own then you have to pay.

Live without, adapt, adopt or pay. Because not all of us think that immigration or adoptions are bad things and we don't all think that big fake breasts are awesome.

Shazam · 07-26-2010, 11:32 PM

MOD EDIT: Come on, you know better than that.

Table 5 · 07-26-2010, 11:46 PM

I would only support this if there was an age limit, say 35. Most of the people attempting IVF have put off baby making in order to fulfill career dreams and make money, a sacrifice they willingly made. I know people want to have everything these days, but if you are willing to go out and ignore the timelines of nature, don't expect the baby making process to go smoothly when you're 40. If you decided to hold off to make some money and have a career, you should have enough saved up for IVF.

Remember, chances of things like Autism go up quite a lot during older pregnancies.... things that the health care system will have to deal with and pay for anyway. Not sure we should be in the business of making it normal to have kids at a late age, when in the long run it doesnt produce healthy babies. There's a reason why it's so easy to get pregnant when you're young, that's when the optimal time is to have a baby....whether that fits your lifestyle or not.

Rathji · 07-27-2010, 06:06 AM

I wouldn't be opposed to a limited attempt IVF program with strict guidelines as far as age, basic health etc. Probably would feel better about it if AHC didn't pick up the whole tab, but just a large portion of it (like 90%) just to make sure the people are serious. If you can't come up with a few grand when you don't have kids you probably are not in a financial position to have kids.

ken0042 · 07-27-2010, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by simonsays

And what kind of investments are you making where it makes practical sense to make an initial payment of $20-50K, wait 5 years and then subsidize the next 12-16 years for a few potential 'hundreds of thousands'. You need a new financial adviser.

Do I now? According the government's education site, it costs about $6000-7300 per year for school. It doesn't list high school, so I'm going to assume those are the same as the most expensive years listed; giving a total cost of $80298. For most adults that represents 4-6 years of taxes paid.

And before you judge me too quickly I have no problem with immigration or adoption. My fiancee is in the process of getting her permanant residence, and I will be adopting her son and I pray he accepts me as his dad.

One other thing that has come up in this thread; people say Invitro is often needed because people wait to have children. To those people I ask the question- is it better to have parents in their 30s who have stable careers; or parents in their late teens hoping to get the better shift at McDonalds?

Edit- forgot to link where I got my education numbers:
http://education.alberta.ca/department/budget.aspx

You Need a Thneed · 07-27-2010, 08:15 AM

fund adoption instead.

alltherage · 07-27-2010, 08:27 AM

I think this could be viable when all our foster homes and orphanages are empty. Until then, there is no reason for tax payers to have to pay for this.

Not to mention there are religious groups who are staunchly against unnatural methods of producing life. This is discriminatory against them because their tax money goes directly to something against their religion.

It seems when the gov't forces issues based on the grounds of anti-discrimination, they inevitably propel other forms of discrimination. Its lose-lose and instead they should be working towards the best possible mediums.

Thats my 2 cents anyways.

FlameFanStuckinEDM · 07-27-2010, 08:35 AM

I think that there should at least be a portion of the procedure covered by AHS. I also think that some should be able to be covered by a benefits package from your provider. An option that would be required to be payed for of course, but the option should be there.

They can put an age limit and/or a multiple use limit on there if they wish, but there should be some coverage available to families. Not being able to have children is something that is very stressful and any help available would be welcome to those who need it. Not everyone requiring IVF or other fertility treatments are 40 year old women who are finally realizing that their biological clock is on it's last tick.

For those of you who are saying adopt instead, adoption costs just as much if not more than IVF.

Do you believe that smokers and fatties should get all of their health care covered by AHS? These people chose to smoke and eat at McD's all of their life, why should my tax dollars pay for their health care costs? Why can't they pay for all of their procedures out of their own pocket? They elected to smoke and pig out, so they elect to have the necessary treatments. Therefore, their health care should also be considered elective procedures.

mykalberta · 07-27-2010, 08:49 AM

No, neither should alot of procedures. If its not medically necessary to save your life then no.

Sex change, cosmetic surgery, In-Vitro should not be funded with other peoples tax dollars.

Mccree · 07-27-2010, 09:00 AM

There are a lot of problems (and cost) with having low birth weight babies. Since IVF is very expensive many couples get multiple eggs implanted and often time have twins or more. Many times these kids are born early and have health issues that cost the system way more than funding IVF.

If you fund IVF, you can perhaps lower the number of eggs implanted and thus save the health care system dollars down the road because you have less low birth weight babies.