Should Provincial Health Care fund In-Vitro

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

I doubt people look at it as 'helping each other out'...because I really don't want to help our those people that constantly abuse our system.

People might not look at it that way, but at the end of the day the citizens of this country spread out the cost of health care. Otherwise, you'd be paying up the nose for all this like us poor saps down in the U.S!

And yeah, nobody wants to help pay for those abuse the system of course.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Table 5

If you read my previous posts, you would realize that I agree!

I wasn't saying otherwises. I was just responding to that statement, not something previously said by yourself or others.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

People might not look at it that way, but at the end of the day the citizens of this country spread out the cost of health care. Otherwise, you'd be paying up the nose for all this like us poor saps down in the U.S!

And yeah, nobody wants to help pay for those abuse the system of course.

See, that is the key difference. Just because a system is 'socialist' or government run doesn't mean its 'good.'

Britain is looking at decentralizing their health care system to lower costs and improve efficiency. And they have or had a system that was long trumped as an efficient model that the US should look at to duplicate.

Canada has a decent system, but it is open to LOTS of abuse, and it NEEDS to be constantly adapted to fit the needs of the people in the most cost efficient way possible.

I have no problem helping pay for this system, but I expect a certain level of care. And I don't particularly prefer to pay for elective procedures that aren't life threatening, even if the procedure in question can be emotional.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Taking care of someone is one thing, helping someone with an elective procedure like getting a nose job or getting them pregnant is another story.

Heck, I'll help someone get pregnant

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Azure

Canada has a decent system, but it is open to LOTS of abuse, and it NEEDS to be constantly adapted to fit the needs of the people in the most cost efficient way possible.

I don't disagree and I think the system could use a couple of tweaks, but at the end of the day, you guys are extremely lucky to have what you do. Compared to the shat-show down here, it's a dream.

[Ashartus]

I think we should wait and see how it works out in Quebec before rushing to judgments. The reason they are funding IVF (or at least one of the reasons) is that they expect in the long term it will actually save the health system money. If it does, then it makes sense to fund it; that's the sort of outside-the-box thinking we need to help get our health costs under better control, with the extra benefit of increasing our birth rate a bit to help prevent our working vs. retired population balance from getting too much worse. I'm not totally convinced it will save the system money in the long run if it means a bunch of people who wouldn't otherwise be getting IVF take advantage of the government funding - but no one can say for sure until someone tries it.

If it does turn out to save the health system money, then I'd be all for funding it, but with restrictions (e.g. limit of 2 children, age restrictions, and preferably at least partial payment by the couple to weed out people who financially aren't capable of providing for children).

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Rerun

No.

IVF is an elective procedure. Elective procedure's should be paid for by the recipient.
I'm sorry you want to have a baby and you and your spouse are having difficulty getting pregnant..... but really its not my problem and I shouldn't have to pay for yours. We spend too much as it is in this province on health care.

As someone who went through the ordeal I can tell you that I would happily pay for it. But guess what, there are no private clinics in Alberta. Guess why....all the people that whine about not wanting to pay for other peoples procedures are generally the same ones that whine about private health care. So I did what many are forced to do - go to the US for expensive procedures.

and btw...'paying for other peoples problems' is actually the whole point of public health care isn't it?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

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.

Add abortion to that list. I can see why the majority would think its necessary if the mother's life is at risk or she was raped or something like that, but as a means for birth control it pisses me off that my tax payers pay for some irresponsible people's "mistake".

[Envitro]

I agree with the basic care concept.

If we are trying to encourage people to have kids then we shouldn't punish people by taking away all or most of their income if they go on parental leave. That's the way to encourage people to increase the population, not by paying for IVF.

Right now EI maxes out at $804/week. Try getting a dual-income family to cut the income of one spouse (wife) to that amount for a year so that they can have a kid? EI advertises $804/wk or 70% of income, but it's whichever is lower.

If you give people, say 80% of their pre-child income then it's most likely worth while to take some time off and have a kid.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

As someone who went through the ordeal I can tell you that I would happily pay for it. But guess what, there are no private clinics in Alberta. Guess why....all the people that whine about not wanting to pay for other peoples procedures are generally the same ones that whine about private health care. So I did what many are forced to do - go to the US for expensive procedures.

and btw...'paying for other peoples problems' is actually the whole point of public health care isn't it?

Where do you draw the line? Lets start paying for elective plastic surgery? I could use a nose job and a tummy tuck would be nice. Also, I'm gradually losing my hair... what about a hair transplant?

Frankly, I'm a diabetic and none of my meds are paid for by the provincial government. I need those meds or I could possibly loose a foot or a leg or even go blind.... and then eventually die. Don't you think its more important that my meds be paid for than someone having an IVF procedure? If I don't have my meds.... I will die. Nobody ever died because they didn't have an IVF.

Our tax dollar can only stretch so far. If the government feels that they can't afford to pay for my meds, I sure as hell don't want them paying for some IVF procedure because somebody is having a difficult time getting pregnant.

Lets get real folks.

[ken0042]

I guess I don't get these analogies to cosmetic surgery. Yes, bith are elective but I think they fall under completely different scopes.

Two years ago I had my tonsils removed which was elective. My father had elective knee surgery.

What about women who get breast reduction to prevent later back problems?(Other than how sad it may make some of us.)

I just think people are missing the connection between elective and cosmetic.

[Ice_Weasel]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Where do you draw the line? Lets start paying for elective plastic surgery? I could use a nose job and a tummy tuck would be nice. Also, I'm gradually losing my hair... what about a hair transplant?

Frankly, I'm a diabetic and none of my meds are paid for by the provincial government. I need those meds or I could possibly loose a foot or a leg or even go blind.... and then eventually die. Don't you think its more important that my meds be paid for than someone having an IVF procedure? If I don't have my meds.... I will die. Nobody ever died because they didn't have an IVF.

Our tax dollar can only stretch so far. If the government feels that they can't afford to pay for my meds, I sure as hell don't want them paying for some IVF procedure because somebody is having a difficult time getting pregnant.

Lets get real folks.

My point was, regardless of what the problem is, public health care only works if there is a net flow of funds from those with fewer problems to those with more problems. Period. So by definition, it is a system of people funding other peoples problems...and i don't care what your problem is there is probably someone else with something worse that is even more upset that their problem isn't covered.

Problem with you example is that there are private clinics for that stuff. The trouble with IVF is the government does not want to pay for it, but they refuse to give up control of it. The only IVF clinic in Alberta is run by the public system. My point is that the government should just privatize IVF, then people that want it CAN pay for it, and not only that, probably get better treatment than they would at the joke of the public clinic.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I guess I don't get these analogies to cosmetic surgery. Yes, bith are elective but I think they fall under completely different scopes.

Two years ago I had my tonsils removed which was elective. My father had elective knee surgery.

What about women who get breast reduction to prevent later back problems?(Other than how sad it may make some of us.)

I just think people are missing the connection between elective and cosmetic.

Yes... you are correct. Not all elective surgery is frivolous. Some surgeries are performed to improve the person's health. .... which is fine.
IVF is not performed to improve the person's health. It may improve their life but not there health. There are a lot of things that can be done to improve a person's life... and those are fine too, but the John Q Public shouldn't have to pay for them.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Ice_Weasel

My point was, regardless of what the problem is, public health care only works if there is a net flow of funds from those with fewer problems to those with more problems. Period. So by definition, it is a system of people funding other peoples problems...and i don't care what your problem is there is probably someone else with something worse that is even more upset that their problem isn't covered.

Problem with you example is that there are private clinics for that stuff. The trouble with IVF is the government does not want to pay for it, but they refuse to give up control of it. The only IVF clinic in Alberta is run by the public system. My point is that the government should just privatize IVF, then people that want it CAN pay for it, and not only that, probably get better treatment than they would at the joke of the public clinic.

I'm all for privatization for elective procedures, therapy, and treatments. Frankly I don't understand why the government would want to be involved in IVF clinics and if they are they should get the hell out.

[mykalberta]

Most surgeries I would call elective are done to either save money later on or are done for quality of life (knee, hip, etc). Its one of the reasons I am ok with long wait lists for elective surgeries.

No one needs a kid so much that the rest of us should have to pay for someone to get pregnant.

[psicodude]

Let me start off by saying that my wife and I are unable to conceive a child. We went through the entire 2+ year long process at the clinic here in Calgary and stopped just before going through IVF as we were lucky enough to be able to adopt.

The whole argument that it should not be funded because a life in not in danger is bunk.

Will your 7 year old child die if he doesn't get those 2 stitches in his head? No.

Will your buddy die if he doesn't get a cast on his wrist after falling from his alcohol induced table dancing session? Nope.

Does the medical system pay the bill for the drunk driver that causes an accident that kills 4 people? Sure does.

But somehow many of the posters in this board feel it is fair to punish 2 people that merely want to improve their quality of life by raising another contributing member of society.

Honestly, I am too angry to type up a decent response right now. I just ask people to realize that the citizens of this country cherish our quality of life and our health care system reflects that.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Envitro

Right now EI maxes out at $804/week.

I thought it was $804/two weeks (pay period)?

Because that would mean people are making $40k+ for not working...if that's the case I'm getting laid off tomorrow!

[Shazam]

Yeah, it's every two weeks.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by alltherage

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.

That's a very loose definition of discrimination... and even if it is discrimination, it's the kind of descrimination I support. Democracy means you can't just opt out of the things you don't believe in.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by psicodude

Let me start off by saying that my wife and I are unable to conceive a child. We went through the entire 2+ year long process at the clinic here in Calgary and stopped just before going through IVF as we were lucky enough to be able to adopt.

The whole argument that it should not be funded because a life in not in danger is bunk.

Will your 7 year old child die if he doesn't get those 2 stitches in his head? No.

Will your buddy die if he doesn't get a cast on his wrist after falling from his alcohol induced table dancing session? Nope.

Does the medical system pay the bill for the drunk driver that causes an accident that kills 4 people? Sure does.

But somehow many of the posters in this board feel it is fair to punish 2 people that merely want to improve their quality of life by raising another contributing member of society.

Honestly, I am too angry to type up a decent response right now. I just ask people to realize that the citizens of this country cherish our quality of life and our health care system reflects that.

I don't have any kids, yet all my life I have paid taxes that in part went to help support other peoples kids.... whether it be towards a child tax credit, school taxes, etc.

My wife and I can't have children. We are going to adopt.... a dog. It will cost us $1000. The dog will improve the quality of our life immensely and hopefully the dog will become a contributing member of society... but then again who can say for sure how the dog will turn out?

I think society should pay for my dog. Its only fair. Its my turn now.