“If you can’t have children
you have lost
nothing”
she says.
This “Mother of five.”
“You don’t NEED children”
she adds
“So why should insurance companies
have to cover
infertility treatments?”
“It would cost too much”
“and I can’t afford it”
“really”
“I can’t!”
When I point out
that "women don’t NEED epidurals
to have babies"
but that insurance covers them anyway…
She’s appalled
that I would even suggest
that they
are less worthy of coverage.
The horror…
That I should imply that women suffer
the fleeting pain of childbirth
so that others can experience
the joys of motherhood.
Oh, but they NEED relief
and "I don’t NEED children."
I find myself berated
for daring to suggest
that "my pain
is just as valid as theirs."
It’s not as if women
for eons
haven’t given birth
~in fields and caves and hovels~
all without the benefit of
an epidural.
But now
it’s barbaric
to even insinuate
that anyone
should be “forced” to do so today.
Especially
a Mother of five.
Patricia Gibson-Williams
February 20, 2006
Author notes
I got into an online debate about "infertility coverage” being mandatory. The women who were debating (mostly against) the subject belonged to a group called parent soup. They were adamantly against it, and the statements above are ones that were actually used in the debate. Even when those of suffering from infertility pointed out that in states that had mandated coverage that even included IVF (in vetro fertilization) the insurances premiums rose less then a few dollars a month, and in some cases less then a few dollars a year they were against it. It was during this phase of the debate that I was told “Even if it was only a few dollars, I have to think of my children and I can’t afford it, really I can’t.” Later someone (I believe it was the same woman) told me that if I couldn’t afford to pay for infertility treatments (at over 10,000-$15,000 a try) then I shouldn’t have children because I couldn’t afford them. She couldn’t afford to give up what amounts to a meal at a fast food restruant, because she need the money for her kid, but because I don’t have an extra ten or twenty grand lying around I shouldn’t have kids? Later those of us arguing for infertility coverage were told that we shouldn’t be arguing the subject, because we were too close to it. That we should leave the debating to those who had no emotional stake in it. In other words those who didn’t even care enough to research the subject. Because they didn’t care to look in to the actual numbers the insisted that infertility coverage would raise insurance premiums by a lot more then what has been shown to be true not only in studies, but also in practice in the few states that require insurance companies to cover treatment for this devastating disease. It can be difficult to understand how a treatment that can cost $10,000-$15,000 per try, can be covered for such a small raise in premiums. But most of us know that insurance negotiates the coverage amount and while those of us without may pay that the insurance will most likely pay about half. You also have to keep in mind that when a couple is self pay and knows that they may only be able to try once before having to live with the heartbreak of childlessness, they are more willing to take chances. We know that the chance of conceiving is low and the chances of conceiving triplets or quads is very low even if we push and put in an extra embryo or two… so a lot of women and doctors will push beyond what’s recommended. Most of the time it’s not a problem, but maybe in 1 in 1000 cases you end up with too many babies and that pregnancy and delivery is likely to cost the insurance company millions. Premature babies require time in the NIC unit and often they require long term medical care that is reflected in your insurance premiums. Insurance also ends up paying for medical problems associated with infertility, and often for surgical procedures that are less likely to work and more expensive then the alternative. My insurance will pay for sterilization reversal (so some who choose not to have more children can have more) but not even the most basic infertility treatments. If a woman or man has blocked tubes that prevent them from getting pg they will pay for surgery to unblock them. When they do that in the woman’s case she has a lower chance of getting pg then she does with IVF and a higher chance of having a tubal pregnancy. This may be life threatening and she may require additional emergency surgeries. These are only a few of the many variables that make infertility coverage worth while. It doesn’t even go into the joy that children bring into the lives of their parents and grandparents. I hope that either my poem or my comments have made you think. Thank you Patti
Written February 22nd, 2006
In a list
A contest entry
- What do you feel strongly about? by Hidden Shadows.
300 points, ended March 4, 2006, 13 entries
Gold trophy winner
• next poem in this contest, remove from contest
What did you think
Comments
1 - 10 of 10
-
LOL... your post made me laugh. Greens fees. I loved it. Just to make it clear I am no way advocating that insurance should not cover epidurals, only that the argument that most people use that we don't have to have or NEED children is not a valid reason to deny us coverage. After all so many things that we don't need are covered. That's not the way that insurance is supposed to work. Heck we don't really need to walk for that matter so why fix someone's mangled leg when you could remove it with less cost? The same goes for hands, we only need one and some people get by just fine without even that. Heck there are a lot of body parts I would gladly give up for a child, so maybe we sould take a poll and ask people what they would give up for their children and not cover anything listed. (OK so that's a little out there, but it's my birthday and Ive been trying to conceive for 5 years and this year really hurts, because I know that in a few months I'm going to have to accept that I will never have the children or grandchildren that I've dreamed of having since I was a little girl. It's a bitter pill to swallow, when I know that there's a good chance that IVF would have worked for me if my insurance covered it or I'd had the money to do it when the doctors first told Joe and I that it was our best hope. (Joe had no sperm and it took 2 years for them to get his counts high enought to try the less expenesive treatments.) Today I feel old and beaten, so if I sounded harsh I'm sorry. I'm just venting and I did enjoy your comment. Patti
-
This DID make me think. It's a very good write... I've never been in that situation, but I know women who have and it isn't as simple as the opposing argument makes it out to be. Thanks for entering, and good luck!
<3Mary -
I agree that I won’t die without a child. Unless of course I’m one the unlucky ones who is effected by the fact that women who never have children are more likely to get certain types of cancer. But that’s beside the point. The point is if I suffer from a disease and the result is that it compromises the quality of my life and there is a treatment for that disease then insurance should cover it. If a man can’t get an erection most insurance companies will pay for Viagra. Let’s face it he isn’t going to die if he doesn’t get treated. So who gets to pick and choose what is more worthy of coverage? Why is a man ability to get laid more important my ability to procreate? No I’m not going to die if I don’t have children, but I have lost something, and for a mother to have made a statement that I hadn’t was unconscionable. Just ask any pregnant woman how she would feel if she lost her baby, I am losing not only that child, but the hope of ever having a single one. Long before we ever conceive our children we dream about them and those dreams give them life, so yes we have lost something. Is it fair that many of us never have children simply because insurance refuses to treat us when the treatments are successful in such a high number of cases? Should money be the deciding factor in who is worthy to have children and who is not? I’m sorry if you don’t have children, and I don’t know your story, but if you chose not to have them it’s not the same as being denied them simply because an insurance company can choose not to treat your disease. Even if it’s not a choice, talk to me when you’ve spent 5 years and thousands of dollars on treatments knowing that the one you really need costs so much that if you used it you wouldn’t have the money to raise your child. If there was not a treatment, as was true in the past, then accepting my loss wouldn’t be as galling. However there is a treatment and the greatest sorrow of suffering from infertility is knowing that it all comes down to MONEY.
-
I don't believe that insurance companies should be able to pick and choose what diseases they cover and what ones they don't. I think it's awful that they don't cover so many things that are important. I am however thankful for what they do cover. Joe has had 8 surgeries in the last 3 years (including 2 hip replacements in the last year) and he stays in constant pain from a back problem that resulted in a staph infection that got to the bone. He applied for social security disability after his company forced him to medically retire, but almost 2 years later he still hasn’t been approved. That’s another rant of mine. They say that about 80% of people who appeal and have a hearing get approved in the end, so it’s rather ridiculous that they don’t approve at least some of them more easily. I totally agree that there are many things that should be covered that aren’t (of course there are many things that the insurance companies deny, but if you fight them they are actually covered it’s just that they take the chance that most people won’t question their initial decision and it saves them millions.) I want to make it clear that I was not advocating that insurance not cover something else (including epidurals) so that infertility coverage could be provided. I believe that pain management should be covered. It’s just that the women I was debating were adamant that since I didn’t NEED or (as Linda put it) I wouldn’t die without a child that treatment of my disease shouldn’t be covered. My argument was that insurance covered many things that weren’t life threatening and what made that problem more worthy then mine? Or yours for that matter? I’m sure you could come up with hundreds of things that insurance covers that are less important to you then others. Viagra? (OK so after the back infection Joe kinda needs that sometimes, but frankly I’d rather have the infertility treatments covered since Joe has very low counts and we aren’t going to get pregnant that way anyway.) Acne cream? (Except in rare life threatening cases) Breast implants? (OK so most insurance only covers this for reconstructive purposes after breast cancer, but according to her argument you don’t need breasts so why is it covered?) I want to say again that I made it clear that I was not saying that insurance should not cover any of these or many other things that are or are not covered, only that the arguments made for why they should not be covered were not valid. Insurance does not cover other things based upon the criteria set aside in the arguments that those women were using, so what gave them the right to decide what was more important? And even worse to tell me that pain relief for something as natural as childbirth was necessary, but having a child was not? I want to thank for taking the time to reply. It was a very good comment. Patti
-
Angelseeker, this is an interesting and emotional topic and it is hard to take a definitative stance against it, because there are issues that should be considered. Insurance is a touchy issue for me, I have several extensive medical issues that drain about 350 dollars a month from my bank account. I can not recieved medical disiablity, though I do have a couple of medical insurance that help with bills, along with medical pretax saving account. Even though I emphasis with your problem it is difficult for me to think, that brain tumors and related problems are not fully covered and elective practices may be. sorry, for sounding so harsh. image and visions
-
Wow! This is a very strong piece! I like this one so much! That really set this whole thing up and then I read your words. They just seemed so wise. Like you have learned much in your lifetime. I feel very enlightened by this piece, and enjoyed it's message. So thank you very much for sharing your words with us!
-
A very good rant, and it is continued in your explanations as author comments. I can see that this really ticked you off. And it should. Of course insurance companies should cover these things. Should one woman be deprived of child bearing, because of the lack of ability to conceive? I say, if you cannot correct the problem naturally, having your spouse do what he needs ot do; assuming you are married of course. Even single women conceive! Duhhh! A child and a mother are the most beautiful thing. Epidurals! I'm all for them; as the doctor sees the need. I watched my wife bear two of our children, the third was so fast we almost got charged green fees! (He was almost born on the hospital lawn!) Multiparas should have less need for epidurals than first timers. My daughter-in-law had terrible pain and agony during delivery. I could go on forever with examples, but no need. YOu are right. They are wrong. End of story. Walt. (One man's opinion after having impregnated half the world's women population!! Or so it seems. LOL)
-
I really respect you for the effort you have put up there, it is hard how people think that what they need is more important than what others need ...and that is called selfishness, we have to sacrifice alot and to put up with so much twisted thinking in this world, I am really moved by your strong belief in this case and I hope that you will get the support you need.
Thank you so much for sharing this with us,
best of luck.
~Hana~ -
This is a most powerful and insightful write, I had problems having My second child and ended up having a Son first then came My Daughter 14 years later because of it, and I know how hard it is to want to conceive and You can't, I so feel for these Women, and think they should get the help They deserve as it kills You inside to want a Child so bad and not be able to have One, what really makes Me angry is the fact that so many do have Children only to treat Them badly, abuse Them or give Them up, how One can do this after carrying that Child for 9 months than going through having it is beyond Me, as I had both by C-section and nearly died in the second from blood loss, but will NEVER regret having Both of Them. What makes Me angrier still is that some Governments pay for Drug addicts to have shooting up houses to inject thmselves in yet something as important as helping families conceive They overlook, now where's the justice in that? ... Josephine.
-
X cellente
Great write to such a inverted issue... While some struggle to procreate, some on the other end of the spectrum struggle to deal with ending it. Life in this system must be very confusing to the supreme being...
Adding your comment:
1 - 10 of 10
2 old applause
