Quote:
|
Having a child, IMO, is an extremely HUGE part of the quality of life. So, in that case, adoption really IS covered (foster care) if you choose that route.... ---Runyan
|
I'm not understanding that last part of your comment, 'that adoption really is covered (foster care), if you choose that route.'
I'm not following. If you're saying that because a couple can adopt through foster care, the expenses are 'covered'....they aren't always. And, having gone through the older child route myself, adopting an older child is
not the same as adopting an infant.
A hip replacement is a matter of walking or not. You're right, it's not a matter of life or death, but it's a matter of the person being mobile at all. I just don't see the comparison of that to IVF.
But, as I said, if we see that as 'quality of life or not'.....the insurance company (for whatever the reason) is paying toward the IVF....then why not pay toward the 'option' of adoption???
So, while you and I might disagree on what constitutes the 'quality of life in regards to procedures'........why does the distinction arise between adoption and birthing? Given that they both bring about parenting a child/baby.........why is one subsidized by insurance premiums, and the other isn't?
Sincerely,
Linny