It's just another example of what governments do best; bribing people with their own money.Exactly. I can't believe a Health Department that staggers from one crisis to the next would even think of losing focus and spending time\resources\budget on something like this. Suggests a disconnect from reality.
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.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 was waiting for someone to bring that topic up !Knock-on costs you envisage will be more than offset by the savings made when 8th amendment is weakened and the State ramps up abortion funding.
Wow! Is Brendan's second post here possibly the most insensitive ever?
and there was me thinking they had another budget overrun this year. Maybe there is more money down the back of the sofa !Exactly. I can't believe a Health Department that staggers from one crisis to the next would even think of losing focus and spending time\resources\budget on something like this. Suggests a disconnect from reality.
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.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.
If they can't afford IVF, then they can't afford to have children.
I fee sorry for couples who can't have kids or who can't afford to have kids, but...
If they can't afford IVF, then they can't afford to have children.
The taxpayer will not just be paying for the IVF, we will be paying for providing for them throughout their childhood because the parents presumably wont' be able to afford that either. And they won't be able to continue living in their one bed apartment, so we will have to provide them with "decent housing" as well. And it won't pay them to work and pay for childcare, so we will have to provide social welfare to the parents as well.
Brendan
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?
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?
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?
€30k to €50k to have a kid is too much
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.
For the parents, but you seem to think its not too much for the state.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?