|
I mean no offense to anyone who felt the need (feels the need) to go the IVF route; but here's my rational:
The inability to conceive, isn't life threatening. Surgeries done specifically to promote conception are done because the couple chooses to follow that path of trying the odds and having a baby.
If an insurance company will pay for these 'tries'....that are not life-threatening, are not medically necessary for life, then why wouldn't 'adoption' be considered 'another option and alternative' to birthing?
An insurance company pays 'boo-coo' bucks toward these procedures, and our premiums pay for these 'tries'; so what's to stop them from paying X amount of monies toward adoption fees?
Might this seem excessive? Yes, I agree with HappyTwins mom on this one; but.........no one seems to think that IVF treatments-- that are risky at best-- are too excessive. Which, in this light, companies seem to say that 'adoption is second best'. (Before anyone has a hissy fit, let me state that I DO NOT believe that adoption is second best in any way. )
But, I think that paying for 'one option', but not paying anything to a couple who have chosen 'this option' seems a bit unfair. Excessive? Yes. But IMO, so is paying for IVF treatments.
Sincerely,
Linny
|