Keep at it GQP... Please!
Politico reports:
GOP Amendment Would Ban IVF For Military Families
June 26, 2024 Republicans, Trump cultistsPolitico reports:
GOP Amendment Would Ban IVF (funding) For Military Families
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
For all of the border and inflation talk, Rs sure do spend a lot of time trying to control people's bodies and sexuality.
Right. This only the same exact pathway that Rs took with abortion. First yank funding. See if they can get away with that. Then take it all away when that works.
Fine. But at least we can be honest here with our wording.
Democrats shouldn’t be able to bitch about this to much. I think of it being similar to having trans surgery. Why should someone else be paying for it.
Only difference is the amount of people dealing with fertility issues is drastically increasing and now they will struggle to have a family for financial reasons as well.
And yanking funding essentially has the same affect as bans for many families. It ends their ability to access this healthcare.
Can military families get coverage under the ACA? Because I’m pretty sure that covers IVF.
Hmm just think if someone had to find a different job instead that had better insurance and didn’t pay worth a shit. Wouldn’t that seem pretty shitty?
I'm pretty sure the ACA does not cover IVF, unless the insured's home state requires insurance to cover it.
Why do military families have to go through any of this just because Rs have weird hangups with sex?
Rich coming from the party supporting a felon who changes his policy based on whatever he thinks will get him the biggest applause in whatever city he happens to be in at the time.
Speaking of... is Biden closing the border or not? Seems like that got a little side tracked on what votes were going to come from where after 3.5 years.
Define covers. I have a buddy who had insurance that “covered” IVF. 7 years later they finally had a kid and he said it has cost them well over $70k
And in a few years half of America will be paying $70k+ to have a child. That will be fun to watch.
I've got a very good friend who spent almost 40k in a little over a year and a half. It's crazy, and super stressful on the female.
I don't think they can. One of the first questions to enroll in ACA is whether you are eligible for insurance from your employer.
I couldn't find a definitive answer, but I did find this:
If you are on active duty, you can’t use TRICARE with other health insurance – TRICARE is your only source of coverage.
https://www.militarybenefit.org/get...t=Who can use TRICARE for,out-of-pocket costs.
Im sure those making 40k a year having to pay that bill will be thrilled. Not to mention being in debt while raising that child. All the while the rich will be laughing saying they shouldn’t have kids because they are poor.
First of all, the amendment has zero point zero percent chance of actually becoming part of the final defense appropriation bill, so all of this wailing and gnashing of teeth is just histrionics.
Second, why should military families have IVF covered 100% when non-military families with even good insurance evidently have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket?
The bottom line here is the headline and thread title are intentionally misleading.
Idiotic amendment proposed by Rosendale in terms of politics, his fellow Republicans should make him remove it from the Defense Appropriations Act immediately.
ART covers treatments for active duty: DOD determines medical need based on the service member's illness or injury that was received "while on active duty that led to the loss of their ability to procreate without the use of ART," according to the policy. "This includes, but is not limited to, those suffering neurological, physiological, or anatomical injuries." soldiers who become critically.
As badly as when need to maintain troop levels, stopping funding for critically injured troops to have a child is dumb and short-sighted.
ART covers treatments for active duty: DOD determines medical need based on the service member's illness or injury that was received "while on active duty that led to the loss of their ability to procreate without the use of ART," according to the policy. "This includes, but is not limited to, those suffering neurological, physiological, or anatomical injuries." soldiers who become critically.
As badly as when need to maintain troop levels, stopping funding for critically injured troops to have a child is dumb and short-sighted.
Coverage varies greatly, by both state of residence and by plan. Historically it was not covered at all, anywhere. Currently, about a dozen states require coverage for both IVF and "fertility preservation"; a handful (5 or so) require coverage for IVF but not fertility preservation. Federal law does not require coverage of either, so if you're anywhere other than a state that required it, you only have fertility coverage if the insurance company chooses to cover it under your plan.
My oldest kid is a product of IVF. I'd love to sit down with that idiot Congressman and have him explain to me exactly how it was immoral for my wife and I to have decided to go through IVF to have a child.
As for cost, IIRC we spent $10k or so on all of the procedures, 22 years ago. Fortunately (or unfortunately according to the good Congressman), the first time was successful for us.
The bold is the argument that POS Congressman should have used in proposing his amendment. I actually agree with that sentiment. But the POS Congressman didn't go with that argument; instead he went with:
“While I feel for couples that are unable to have children, the practice of IVF is morally wrong, and I refuse to support any legislation that condones its use,” Rosendale said in a statement. “If you are opposed to abortion, you should be opposed to the practice of IVF.”
Fug him, anyone who'd vote for him, and anyone who doesn't have the guts to tell him he's wrong.
Misleading perhaps but no practical difference. The average military family couldn’t afford it without funding.
Funny how willing to accept the gray area some of you are when convenient yet it took a minor miracle to acknowledge "something like that" wasn't "inject bleach".
Must be the glasses.
“There is nothing more important than the family. And we have declining birth rates and need to focus on having more kids. Also our blood is being tainted by immigration.” - GOP
Also GOP - “Not like that.”
FIFY... Not funding is pretty much a ban for much of our military members. I'd be interested if there was funding to help with natural pregnancy. And, make no mistake, this isn't because of the money, its because of the GQP's opposition to IVF.
Wait until someone similar to him pulls a Tubberville. The precedent has been set. Tubberville paid zero consequences and will get reelected.
Rosendale is a dimwit but if anyone in Montana equates abortion/termination with IVF/creation they’re also dimwits.
I had no idea Montanans were that dumb.
In that train of thought, IVF has been banned for thousands if not millions of people for years now.
In an ideal world there would be universal healthcare coverage that would pay for this. We don’t have that. Does Medicaid pay for this? Probably state by state.
IVF is an expensive course of treatment and while the odds of success have improved it’s still something that is open to discussion about cost/benefit.
But thinking that it’s “morally wrong” is just stupidity unless this Congressman is also saying that to be eligible for payment only married couples can be eligible? If he is saying only heterosexual married couples he HAS to be aware that two women can be legally married in the U.S. and thus eligible, right?
He’s still dumber than a rock.
But thinking that it’s “morally wrong” is just stupidity unless this Congressman is also saying that to be eligible for payment only married couples can be eligible? If he is saying only heterosexual married couples he HAS to be aware that two women can be legally married in the U.S. and thus eligible, right?
He’s still dumber than a rock.
It’s a but complicated, but if I’m reading your link correctly then active duty service members have to use TRICARE and cannot use other health care plans. But their spouses can.
As I understand it, their opposition isn’t the child who is successfully born as a result. Their opposition is the fertilized eggs that are eventually deemed useless and then discarded
Which would eliminate the option of IVF coverage for active duty women if this amendment passes.
Similar threads
