Should Provincial Health Care fund In-Vitro

[Ryan Coke]

Pretty sure the Calgary Fertility clinic is private. It seems some people are talking like it isn't.

[simonsays]

Preamble, I hate quoting myself.

Originally Posted by simonsays

I'd also like to mention that waiting and watching to see if the Quebecois have it right is ridiculous; it would take almost a full generation to see their fruits ripen. We need to have more decisive on healthcare now, not 20 years from now.

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I don't agree that it would take a full generation. The anticipated health care savings are primarily due to reduced multiple/premature births frequently associated with private IVF (as opposed to the public option that will I believe involve a single implantation). There should be some indication within at most a few years whether this will really save the health care system money.

Actually that part of my post was just backing my previous post about IVF vs immigration/adoption as a method of creating taxable Canadians who weren't created via $20-50k operations funded by taxpayer money. It was an indirect re-referencing of this post.

Originally Posted by ken0042

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.

So I simply mean IVF kids cost $20-50k to produce + education financing before they can show us the upside of subsidizing this program. You are saying that by tackling this issue we would take it head on and effectively streamline the technology behind it, and that's ok. We're arguing different points.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all. But if this is going to get subsidized then we'd better get behind the 8 ball and make this the best place in the world for IVF, because if you can't charge foreigners for services duly rendered then who can you charge?

[tete]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Pretty sure the Calgary Fertility clinic is private. It seems some people are talking like it isn't.

It is and it isn't, right? The doctors are still paid by Alberta Health, but they operate a service that does cost a fee. I don't think it's any different from plastic surgeons - they work under the Alberta Health umbrella but do charge fees for services. We don't pay technically for meetings with RFP here in Calgary, but we do pay for the monitoring. Heck, when I did my IUI's (Inter-Uterine Inseminations), I didn't have to pay until I had the procedure done - all of the monitoring prior was done without charge.

If RFP is indeed considered private, I don't know if there really are any public ones in Canada. Maybe Mount Sinai in Toronto since it's in the hospital?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I am just saying that if it is truly against your religion to provide any kind of facilitation to something, then your freedom of religion is bein infringed upon.

I guess the real point I am getting at, is that it just seems like when party X's rights and freedoms are protected, it always seems to infringe on party Y's.

I agree with you completely that there are trade-offs. But my opinion is that in the heirarchy of rights, religious rights should come last.

Your freedom of religion should not supercede the rights of gay people to marry (and get the associated tax benefits), the right to healthcare (hello, Jehovah's witnesses, especially children), the right to free speech (vs. blasphemy - although the right to free speech and the right to religion would be superceded by the right to security and anti-discrimination in regard to hate speech), the right to a fair trial (Sharia law should never supercede Candian law!) or the responsibility to pay your share of the taxes that enable people to exercise the rights your freedom of religion would infringe upon.

Would you argue that religious rights should have supremacy? Because as you've pointed out, they can't really be equal. Note that this is not to say that you wouldn't have the right to religious freedom, just that you can only practice your religion where doing so does not infringe upon other, more important rights.

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by tete

It is and it isn't, right? The doctors are still paid by Alberta Health, but they operate a service that does cost a fee.

Well it is a privately owned and run facility (Dr. Greene I believe), which while some services may be covered by Alberta Health, it is a private operation. Most of their BMW money comes out of our pockets directly, and has nothing to do with Alberta Health .

At least that is my understanding of it.

They are apparently one of the best in North America, and we are fortunate to have it right here.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

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.

Which, in every way, is an elective procedure.

I'll make you all a deal.....We can add in vitro to the list once wait lists for medically necessary procedures (including cancer treatments, hip/joint replacements, surgeries) fall to an acceptable level for the people we already have.

[tete]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Well it is a privately owned and run facility (Dr. Greene I believe), which while some services may be covered by Alberta Health, it is a private operation. Most of their BMW money comes out of our pockets directly, and has nothing to do with Alberta Health .

At least that is my understanding of it.

They are apparently one of the best in North America, and we are fortunate to have it right here.

Interesting! I guess my knowledge of public vs. private health care is a bit fuzzy and I never thought that RFP would be considered private. Good to know, thanks. Oh man, I'm so happy that I'm here in Calgary and not in some of the other provinces - RFP has such a great reputation and success rate. The stories I've heard coming out of Manitoba and Ontario just make me so sad sometimes. Especially Manitoba where they have nowhere else to go. I haven't made the step to IVF yet, but I sure am happy that if I do decide to do this, I have a great clinic to cycle in.

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Well it is a privately owned and run facility (Dr. Greene I believe), which while some services may be covered by Alberta Health, it is a private operation. Most of their BMW money comes out of our pockets directly, and has nothing to do with Alberta Health .

At least that is my understanding of it.

They are apparently one of the best in North America, and we are fortunate to have it right here.

How is that different from any other clinic in the province though? In my years of going there, I never had to pay a dime until we got to the actual "trying to get pregnant" procedures. All of the *cough* tests and consultations were covered by AHC.

When I see my family Dr., everything is free as well, but they have a price list for things like crutches and medical exams for insurance.

I am not arguing with you, just curious.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Should the government fund fertility treatments?

NO.

Perhaps money would be better spent finding out the source of fertility problems....like studying the effects that chemicals in our water/food/air have on us.
I have read articles where plastics(BPA) and water chemicals (fluoride for example) are suspected to have a negative effect on fertility.

[Ryan Coke]

I don't claim to be an expert on the definitions on 'private' vs 'public' health care. But I know that this is one of those issues that come up when people talk about being afraid of 'US style private healthcare'....we already have lots of private clinics and things that work nicely as part of our health system. And in many cases our government care is funding whatever it normally would, but at a private clinic instead of a public one.

Is it only considered private if they get absolutely no public funding? I know if I am in the states and get sick, that AHC still pays at leats some of what you would get if you got sick at home. What about private MRI clinics? Does AHC refuse to pay any of it, even the costs that they would otherwise be paying?

I gueess it comes down to the definition, like I said. But the RFP is certainly a privately owned clinic, that is not reliant on the public health system.

[Shazam]

Basically, the only thing you can't do as a doctor is bill twice for the same procedure - in other words, you can only invoice once. Either the patient pays or the government pays.

There may be other legislation in place, but this the only thing I've seen doctors get busted for.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Name_Omitted

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

I trust that members of society with these views, so clearly stated and felt, would, in the event of medically necessary surgery, choose to omit the anesthesia and instead opt for the leather straps and lead bullet option (unless they were willing to pay for anesthetic out of pocket). After all, anesthetic is solely for patient comfort and does not affect survivability. And surely there is no study that demonstrates that physical pain is any more debilitating than emotional pain.

Alternatively, if through their good fortune members with opinions similar to those quoted manage to avoid the need for surgery, they should campaign for the removal of palliative and hospice care as it is punitively expensive and recipients of it are unlikely to be able to repay us through future taxes and economic growth.

Ahem.

Now that we have decided that our system funds more than mere survival, a discussion can be had on what basis our system should use to determine which types of procedures we should collectively fund.

It would seem, from merely a fiscal standpoint, that the net economic benefit of an IVF child far outweighs the cost of the procedure.

"The lifetime discounted value of net taxes from an IVF-conceived child with mother aged 35 is £109 939 compared with £122 127 for a naturally conceived child."

Source

From a US Study:

"Lifetime net taxes paid from a child relative to the child’s initial IVF investment represent a 700% net return to the government in discounted US dollars from fully employed individuals. This suggests that removing barriers to IVF would have positive tax benefits for the government, notwithstanding its beneficial effect on overall economic growth."

Source

Therefore as a strict fiscal conservative, and assuming a tax environment similar to the UK, I cannot help but support the inclusion of this procedure in provincial medical plans.~bug

[mykalberta]

So you are comparing anesthesia to IVF - wow, I guess some are just laughably blinded by self interest.

No one needs kids so much so that a PUBLICLY funded health care plan should cover it. I dont care how good those parents would be or how much their life would improve by having their own kid.

You have small breasts and want larger ones, go the plastic surgeon.
You have a huge nose and want a smaller one, go to the plastic surgeon.
You want your own biological children and cant have them naturally go to a reproductive clinic.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

So you are comparing anesthesia to IVF

Anesthesia is purely a patient comfort issue (and you wont find me arguing against it), not a survivability one. Millions of people around the world receive medically necessary treatment without the benefit of anesthesia and manage to survive.

Therefore if one wants to run solely on the plank of funding only that which is 'medically necessary' anesthesia should be removed from funding.

I am just curious how the pain of an infertile couple is considered less 'real' than the pain of a surgery patient. Is it just because it is a pain someone has not experienced?

Originally Posted by mykalberta

No one needs kids so much so that a PUBLICLY funded health care plan should cover it. I dont care how good those parents would be or how much their life would improve by having their own kid.

You are right.

Fiscally however, there is a large benefit to society from funding IVF. Plus, for some of us, allowing others to experience they joy of raising their own kids might be reward enough.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

You have small breasts and want larger ones, go the plastic surgeon.
You have a huge nose and want a smaller one, go to the plastic surgeon.
You want your own biological children and cant have them naturally go to a reproductive clinic.

Your child has cleft palate, should corrective surgery be funded?
Your retired father needs a hip replaced, should he be funded?
Should an immigrant to the country receive a free polio inoculation?

Our medical system, at the behest of the taxpayers, has long moved away from paying only for urgent medical needs.

Most of us are pretty happy with that.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

- wow, I guess some are just laughably blinded by self interest.

Indeed.