It's just another example of what governments do best; bribing people with their own money.
Taxpayer to pay for IVF for those who can't afford it.
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
I agree Purple that people aren't automatically entitled to something for free just because they can't afford it. With the state of our health service at the moment I think IVF is a luxury budget item. On the other hand though, we do need a future generation to fund our pensions!
I don't think it's unrealistic to say 5-10k a year. For lots of couples this would be the cost. I won't go further in replying to Purple's rubbishing of the suggestion that round 1 is often diagnostic, because we would be breaching AAM guidelines. A full discussion of the funding needs around IVF would have to involve the need for more than one cycle in a lot of cases. Lots of people have success with changed protocols. That's not rubbish, it's fact.
I don't think it's unrealistic to say 5-10k a year. For lots of couples this would be the cost. I won't go further in replying to Purple's rubbishing of the suggestion that round 1 is often diagnostic, because we would be breaching AAM guidelines. A full discussion of the funding needs around IVF would have to involve the need for more than one cycle in a lot of cases. Lots of people have success with changed protocols. That's not rubbish, it's fact.
Proper diagnostics would greatly reduce the need for a "sure we'll try it and see what happens" first round but that involves a serious investment in equipment and sure why bother when you get paid more the less successful you are. Sure the only down side is the cost and heartache for the customers (would-be parents) and the physical toll on the woman.
Purple, is it possible that your own bad experience is colouring your judgement of what is very often different outcomes for others? To say something is 'rubbish' is very absolute. For many people a tweaked second protocol works, diagnostics won't necessarily predict an individual response to a protocol. You could know exactly what the problem is and still respond differently to another with the same issue. I know many people whose diagnosis never changed, but a changed protocol worked for them - the very one that didn't work for another with the same issue. People respond differently. No doubt there are people who would benefit from lengthier and more costly investigations in advance of a first attempt, but the usual suite of tests can be sufficient for many.
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
I was waiting for someone to bring that topic up !
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
To be fair, I imagine the post is poorly worded more than anything else. I think the concern for a lot of people in general is how things like this could be abused, both by the provider of the service and recipient of it.
Some have relayed personal experience of some of these providers acting like user car salesmen, selling the dream of the 'textbook' life, and likely to ratchet up the prices if it is approved. Others have concerns that it will encourage those of the 'welfare train' to have more kids for a bigger free house or jump the housing list queue. Both groups are well able to play the system to their advantage
If this is introduced, it does need a level of controls around it at least initially. However it is a very emotive topic and one where some's dream of having children could be shattered by the decision of a medical professional...
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
and there was me thinking they had another budget overrun this year. Maybe there is more money down the back of the sofa !
People are people and they act in their own self interest. If they are rewarded more for doing something one way then that's the way they will do it. At the moment they get paid more the less successful they are. That's my point. It extends to many areas in the medical industry; a lack of capital investment means that doctors get additional sales for the same issue. My chiropractor has a x-ray machine in his clinic. My GP has bugger all.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
Would someone like to analyse this in financial terms?
How much does IVF actually cost?
How much does rearing a child actually cost?
I fully appreciate that it might be more difficult to come up with the €15k (?) for a round of IVF than to pay €10k(?) a year to raise a child.
But is it not much more expensive to have a child than to have IVF?
Brendan
I disagree with this.
The cost of IVF is huge - €10k per go.
Many of those trying to have kids this way are those who left it late (so have jobs, worked hard etc).
Sometimes it can take 4 or 5 goes, sometimes more with no guarantee of success. €30k to €50k to have a kid is too much - remove this cost and they can still pay their house deposit, pay their mortgage etc and raise a kid. We cover all sorts of other illnesses so why not this?
Many people with children love telling other people without children that they really don't need children. Most of us cannot afford anything let alone afford children. We must pay for houses, cars, food, clothes, entertainment, income taxes, property taxes etc etc.
Very few can really afford any children. But, we want children and no matter what you might want to think, we need children. Great if genuinely you don't want children - problem solved - don't have children. But for those of us who want children and cannot afford IVF treatment it would be a godsend for the HSE to provide finance for any treatment necessary. I have no problem with this being done properly and at the expense of the taxpayer. The taxpayer finances the unemployed, 3rd Level Grants, medical cards, free travel, Social Welfare Pensions, Public Service wages, etc. Therefore, why not allow couples the benefit of free IVF? These couples pay their taxes too. Isn't it about time we started to look after those who foot the tax bills and not just the chosen few? Let's stop playing God for a change.
Very few can really afford any children. But, we want children and no matter what you might want to think, we need children. Great if genuinely you don't want children - problem solved - don't have children. But for those of us who want children and cannot afford IVF treatment it would be a godsend for the HSE to provide finance for any treatment necessary. I have no problem with this being done properly and at the expense of the taxpayer. The taxpayer finances the unemployed, 3rd Level Grants, medical cards, free travel, Social Welfare Pensions, Public Service wages, etc. Therefore, why not allow couples the benefit of free IVF? These couples pay their taxes too. Isn't it about time we started to look after those who foot the tax bills and not just the chosen few? Let's stop playing God for a change.
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11360819/Average-cost-of-raising-a-child-in-UK-230000.html
According to this article, the average cost of raising a child in the UK until the age of 21 is roughly £230,000 - so lets say 250,000 euro. Over the 21 years, this works out at say 12k a year. The government contributes 1700 roughly a year towards that in children's allowance.
[broken link removed]
According to the NICE site above, "the [broken link removed] increases the chances of a successful pregnancy to 45-53%."
It is highly likely those 3 cycles would be done within a 6 month period, probably in sequence depending on the initial assessment and earlier results.
https://merrionfertility.ie/patient-information/how-much-does-fertility-treatment-and-ivf-cost/
I am not familiar enough with IVF to understand what is involved in a single cycle, but there is nothing cheap on that list. And they are a not for profit organisation. Based on a number of people I know who went down the route, there would be little change (if any) out of 40k for 3 cycles.
So yes, rearing a child costs more over the life of the child than IVF. However, IVF is a very high upfront cost, and normally when couples are starting out and are saving for or have just purchased a house. There is also only a 45-53% success rate after that cost. This also does not include the emotional cost and strain on the family, relationship, potentially work etc.
What I personally found is that once I had my children, our lifestyle adjusted accordingly. The nice meals went out the door, the adventurous holidays disappeared, and a reliable family car became the priority. We just spent differently, and probably saved less than we would have if they had not arrived.
Am I financially poorer as a result - most definitely; but I do try and tell myself I am emotionally richer ;-)
Last edited:
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
@Leper so are you assuming only those that pay taxes should be able to avail of the state funded IVF ? Or should it be open to all...
I think most people are in favour of this in principle, as long as reason controls and restrictions are in place. I put a few comments on my thoughts on this in a much earlier post. I think there should be limits, pre-conditions, medical assessment, age restrictions, PRSI stamp minimums etc. I also believe it should only be funded for couples who already do not have a child - something that was also referenced by someone who has gone through IVF. The devil will be in the detail here, and how it is implemented
A genuine concern was raised about the risk/likelihood of IVF shooting up in price as a result - this is something that needs to be taken into account. There is also a genuine concern raised around doctors [in particular private practices] encouraging IVF when medically it would not be the most advisable, as they would benefit from a higher failure rate. I suggested the assessment and the procedure should be separately run and one not benefit from the other.
This is an emotive topic for those effected by it. I agree that we should support our tax payers and those who try and act responsibly.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
Thanks GNF for those numbers. Let's take them as a reasonable estimate of the costs involved.
So people who choose to have a child can expect to pay €12k a year for 20 or so years.
Let me put it another way...
If they can afford to have children, they can afford to pay for their own IVF.
If they can afford to pay €12k a year, they can afford to pay €40k on a once-off basis.
Of course, they might not be able to afford both the IVF and raising the child.
I presume that IVF qualifies for the 20% tax relief which applies to medical treatments?
I have argued elsewhere that those who pay for their own medical treatment and who take pressure of the public health service should get tax relief at the marginal rate.
But IVF is different. It is not like treating cancer or a broken leg or diabetes.
So people who choose to have a child can expect to pay €12k a year for 20 or so years.
Let me put it another way...
If they can afford to have children, they can afford to pay for their own IVF.
If they can afford to pay €12k a year, they can afford to pay €40k on a once-off basis.
Of course, they might not be able to afford both the IVF and raising the child.
I presume that IVF qualifies for the 20% tax relief which applies to medical treatments?
I have argued elsewhere that those who pay for their own medical treatment and who take pressure of the public health service should get tax relief at the marginal rate.
But IVF is different. It is not like treating cancer or a broken leg or diabetes.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,048
But based on that argument, why not provide everything free of charge to those who pay tax?
I would like to see a lot less government spending on almost everything. Not more government spending.
There might be an argument for tax relief.
I don't know what is proposed, but if it's made available at all, it will probably be made available to people on medical cards only, even if they already have children.
Brendan
For the parents, but you seem to think its not too much for the state.
JoeRoberts
Registered User
- Messages
- 545
Ironic in light of the current big push to repeal the 8th. I guess they will fund abortions at the same time as IVF.
torblednam
Registered User
- Messages
- 734
This is nonsense Brendan and you're just digging yourself a deeper hole as you go.
When you actually have a child or children, it affects every facet of your life as their needs take priority, so social life, hobbies etc may have to take a back seat. So even if 12k is an accurate figure, which seems a tad high in the early years anyway, it's not obviously an incremental 12k.
I don't have hard stats but from personal experience, and from seeing the other anxious faces in the waiting rooms, it's pretty obvious that the age related aspects and time sensitivity of fertility problems means that there's no scope to go away and save, or necessarily to borrow from the normal sources, the cost of what is an uncertain number of IVF cycles. A lot of people finding they need to go down that road have mortgaged themselves to the hilt buying the home they intend to rear their children in.
Your attempt at fudging some numbers to justify your frankly inhumane attitude is derisory TBH. And that's a far more polite response to your contributions than you were getting until I counted to ten a few times.
Last edited:
Brendan's point was "if they can't afford IVF then how can they afford to raise children" - people can afford one or two rounds of IVF but they can't afford 5 or 6.
And yes, Orkambi is going to cost the state €150k per patient so why shouldn't those with fertility issues get help.