‘We are expected to be OK with not having children’: how gay parenthood through surrogacy became a battleground

[Beyond.Celsus]

They want these costs covered:

Not these:


The first part is covered for any other couple.
The second part is not covered for any couple.

It's simple. Why does no one get it...

insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing and implantation of the resulting embryos)

Where does the implantation happen?
A surrogate?

A man and women couple does not need one if the woman can carry the embryo
A lesbian couple does not need one if one of them can carry an ebryo

Two men will have to get a surrogate, so why must the insurance company pay for all that when the embryo will have to be implanted into a surrogate? A surrogate who is not a paying memeber of the policy

 

[WizardOfAges]

insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing and implantation of the resulting embryos)

Where does the implantation happen?
A surrogate?

A man and women couple does not need one if the woman can carry the embryo
A lesbian couple does not need one if one of them can carry an ebryo

Two men will have to get a surrogate, so why must the insurance company pay for all that when the embryo will have to be implanted into a surrogate? A surrogate who is not a paying memeber of the policy

I'll spare your time. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[SlinkyMike]

It actually is. They effectively want to add the surrogate mother to the medical aid without paying for it.

I did not read that in the article.

In South Africa at least, there is a 12 month waiting period before the medical aid will cover births, specifically because they are so expensive. I imagine in the US there is a similar set of situation. Why should gay men get a free ride out of this?

Did these sneaky gays also want the waiting period waived? Again, not sure we read the same article??

You're basically saying that the medical aid should catch up by covering something which they can't legally cover. The medical aid isn't at fault here. This isn't about the medical aid. They're being dishonest here because they're really just using "discriminatory" medical coverage as a weapon in their battle to legalise surrogacy.

This is the City of New Yorks definition of infertility which is a bit different from the definition posted in the article slanted in their favour.

Fair. Both should catch up then Thanks for the correction.

Absolutely.

Yes, the article and the reaction on Reddit I posted seem to be missing the point. They're not asking for women to do what they want them to, they merely want the same coverage that women get as part of their benefits.

...that they pay for.

I cannot understand why anyone who fetishises capitalism would be against this but we have them here in this very thread.

 

[Beyond.Celsus]

I'll spare your time. Thank you for the discussion.

Great.
Tell them to take out a proper policy - pre determined to include IVF, even for a surrogate and their premiums more expensive like any other couple who managed to find a insurance company willing to pay for it, which is the exception, not the rule and we will never have to discuss this non issue again.

 

[WizardOfAges]

Great.
Tell them to take out a proper policy - pre determined to include IVF, even for a surrogate and their premiums more expensive like any other couple who managed to find a insurance company willing to pay for it, which is the exception, not the rule and we will never have to discuss this non issue again.

No point in even answering that.

 

[konfab]

They want these costs covered:

Not these:


The first part is covered for any other couple.
The second part is not covered for any couple.

It's simple. Why does no one get it...

Ok, lets run with this:

Maggipinto reels off the price list in a way that only someone who has pored over every item could. There’s compensation for the egg donor: no less than $8,000 (£6,600). The egg-donor agency fee: $8,000-10,000. The fertility clinic’s bill (including genetic testing, blood tests, STD screening and a psychiatric evaluation for all parties, sperm testing, egg extraction, insemination, the growing, selecting, freezing and implantation of the resulting embryos): up to $70,000. And that’s if it all goes well: if no embryos are created during a cycle, or if the embryos that are don’t lead to a successful pregnancy, they would have to start again.

That step right over there is where the issue comes in. It involves paying for healthcare for a person who isn't a part of the plan.

Which means that the person having the medical procedure done on them is not a part of their medical aid. This isn't an issue for a straight or lesbian couple, but it is a problem for a gay couple.

 

[Beyond.Celsus]

Moral of the story:
If your car is only covered for fire, theft and personal damage, don't be surprised when your insurance refuses to pay for damage you caused to someone else's car.

 

[WizardOfAges]

Ok, lets run with this:

That step right over there is where the issue comes in. It involves paying for healthcare for a person who isn't a part of the plan.

Which means that the person having the medical procedure done on them is not a part of their medical aid. This isn't an issue for a straight or lesbian couple, but it is a problem for a gay couple.

Not replying to you either. Thank you.

 

[konfab]

I did not read that in the article.

They want the medical aid to spend money on a person who is not a part of the medical aid. Is that clear enough?

 

[SlinkyMike]

They want the medical aid to spend money on a person who is not a part of the medical aid. Is that clear enough?

They want the medical aid to include cover for the surrogate, yes. That is the whole point. Are you really this simple?

"Square wheels don't roll, we should round them off."
"No. The wheel is square."
"Uhhh...?"

 

[konfab]

They want the medical aid to include cover for the surrogate, yes. That is the whole point. Are you really this simple?

So assuming you are not being sarcastic. We can now move onto the problem with that.

Medical aids cannot and do not provide healthcare benefits for people who are not a part of their scheme. The math does not work. They set premiums based on each individual person's risk and contribution. In the US they make quite a big deal about charging extra for pre-existing conditions. They cannot do this pricing if they can allow the scheme to pay for a medical procedure for someone outside the scheme who they cannot do that risk assessment on.

And just as a side note, medical aids should not be paying for IVF for most people. It is a luxury.

 

[Lucas Buck]

They want these costs covered:

Not these:


The first part is covered for any other couple.
The second part is not covered for any couple.

It's simple. Why does no one get it...

1.) Neither of the people on the insurance plan is infertile. The coverage is for members and their spouse or partner on the plan with fertility issues.
2.) The first part covers them as a couple too, unfortunately for them, neither of them is infertile or female.
3.) No surrogate is involved.

The plan doesn't cover ivf benefits for non beneficiaries of perfectly healthy women regardless of their sexual orientation either.

South African medical aid schemes don't allow you to add non family members other than life partners as beneficiaries. I suppose that it works the same way in the USA. This is not the discrimination that they are claiming.

A compromise could be that the medical aid only covers the costs of the ivf treatment after a successful birth to mitigate any losses.

 

[konfab]

1.) Neither of the people on the insurance plan is infertile. The coverage is for members and their spouse or partner on the plan with fertility issues.
2.) The first part covers them as a couple too, unfortunately for them, neither of them is a female.
3.) No surrogate is involved.

The plan doesn't cover ivf benefits for non beneficiaries of perfectly healthy women regardless of their sexual orientation either.

South African medical aid schemes don't allow you to add non family members other than life partners as beneficiaries. I suppose that it works the same way in the USA. This is not the discrimination that they are claiming.

No amount of reason can ever get an entitled progressive to change their mind. It would never occur to them that creating a loophole to allow gay men to use their IVF for a third party would then allow anyone to use that benefit for any third party. Your friend wants a baby and doesn't have good cover? No problem as long as you are homosexual, your IVF benefit can be given to anyone on the planet.

 

[SlinkyMike]

So assuming you are not being sarcastic. We can now move onto the problem with that.

Medical aids cannot and do not provide healthcare benefits for people who are not a part of their scheme. The math does not work. They set premiums based on each individual person's risk and contribution. In the US they make quite a big deal about charging extra for pre-existing conditions. They cannot do this pricing if they can allow the scheme to pay for a medical procedure for someone outside the scheme who they cannot do that risk assessment on.

And just as a side note, medical aids should not be paying for IVF for most people. It is a luxury.

Are children paying members of a medical aid plan or are "dependants" another class of member? Could "surrogate" be such a member? I say yes. If the 'models don't work' then adapt them. Capitalism harder.

1.) Neither of the people on the insurance plan is infertile. The coverage is for members and their spouse or partner on the plan with fertility issues.
2.) The first part covers them as a couple too, unfortunately for them, neither of them is infertile or female.
3.) No surrogate is involved.

The plan doesn't cover ivf benefits for non beneficiaries of perfectly healthy women regardless of their sexual orientation either.

South African medical aid schemes don't allow you to add non family members other than life partners as beneficiaries. I suppose that it works the same way in the USA. This is not the discrimination that they are claiming.

A same-sex couple is infertile by definition.

Moral of the story:
If your car is only covered for fire, theft and personal damage, don't be surprised when your insurance refuses to pay for damage you caused to someone else's car.

Third Party insurance is a thing. In fact it is mandatory for drivers in many countries. What rock are you people living under?

 

[Markd]

I'm pretty sure that whatever insurance plan they are on would be clear on what is covered and what is not covered. There are plenty of plans here in South Africa that wouldn't cover, for example, surgical repair of bunions.

So the issue as I see it is that there isn't a plan that covers this circumstance. The answer if for a plan to be created with the associated costs and benefits IF the insurance company decides that it makes financial sense.

 

[dualmeister]

 

[RiaX]

Whats the problem ? Pay cash like everyone e else for things your insurance doesn't cover

 

[DreamKing]

Whats the problem ? Pay cash like everyone e else for things your insurance doesn't cover

exactly, if you have no money, you should not have a baby.

 

[Gyre]

exactly, if you have no money, you should not have a baby.

ANC supporters do it fine?

 

[TheMightyQuinn]

ANC supporters do it fine?

You do know the difference between "cannot" and "should not" ?