Taxpayer to pay for IVF for those who can't afford it.

[TheBigShort]

I am agreeing with The Big Short, for a change, that the problem of population replacement is fundamental to our future economic well being.

We are breaking some ground here! Last week you were for the workers to control all the wealth, now this!!

Okay, but let's not falsely associate one as a solution for the other, thereby using such as issue as a justification for the State funding IVF.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is the solution for declining family sizes, but rather that it may act as part of the solution.
There is a prevailing viewpoint propagated that 'responsible' people wait until they can 'afford' to have children. That those who require state assistance to raise their children shouldn't have children if they can't 'afford' to provide adequately for them. That they are irresponsible.
But what is emerging is that the people who work hard and build careers for themselves are delaying starting a family, taking longer to get onto the housing ladder, to such extent that fertility rates in that sector of society are falling. They are relying on expensive IVF treatment to assist in human reproduction.
So if the 'irresponsible' people should not have kids because they can't afford them, and the 'responsible ' people are having difficulty having kids, where are all the kids supposed to come from?

 

[gnf_ireland]

So if the 'irresponsible' people should not have kids because they can't afford them, and the 'responsible ' people are having difficulty having kids, where are all the kids supposed to come from?

Can I suggest cloning !

 

[Mark_jmc]

just my 2 cents - my wife & I have gone through 6 unsuccessful IVF cycles. Did we pay for it ourselves- yes. Could we afford it?- yes- but this involved making financial sacrifices elsewhere. Do I feel that we should have gotten one or more of these cycles for free- no but from a selfish point of view we both have paid a large amount of tax over the last 15-20 years. Of course we get the benefit of public services etc. But we have private health insurance- neither of us (thankfully ) have been in the situation where we have had to draw JSA/JSB. Obviously we have never availed of childrens allowance. It just feels like when we could use a 'little' helping hand we were left high & dry. We did claim back 20% through the med 1 each time- if we had been able to claim back at our marginal rate of tax it would have been a great help. (I understand that claiming back at the marginal rate of tax with respect to IVF may not be fair to lower earners). It will be interesting to see the final detail of the proposals

 

[Purple]

just my 2 cents - my wife & I have gone through 6 unsuccessful IVF cycles. Did we pay for it ourselves- yes. Could we afford it?- yes- but this involved making financial sacrifices elsewhere. Do I feel that we should have gotten one or more of these cycles for free- no but from a selfish point of view we both have paid a large amount of tax over the last 15-20 years. Of course we get the benefit of public services etc. But we have private health insurance- neither of us (thankfully ) have been in the situation where we have had to draw JSA/JSB. Obviously we have never availed of childrens allowance. It just feels like when we could use a 'little' helping hand we were left high & dry. We did claim back 20% through the med 1 each time- if we had been able to claim back at our marginal rate of tax it would have been a great help. (I understand that claiming back at the marginal rate of tax with respect to IVF may not be fair to lower earners). It will be interesting to see the final detail of the proposals

Since this seems to be about people like you; hard working, high tax paying people who put off having kids until a little later in life, maybe the fairest thing to do is allow everyone to claim back their medical expenses at the margin tax rates.

 

[TheBigShort]

Or seeing as lower rates of fertility were identified in socio-economic groups such as those who delayed starting families in order to develop and establish careers (in turn generating wealth and paying taxes), and seeing as the trend in irish families is getting smaller and smaller, and acknowledging that the value of all investments, pensions and wealth can only be sustained by the emergence of future generations, then perhaps a bit more than a tax break?

 

[Purple]

Or seeing as lower rates of fertility were identified in socio-economic groups such as those who delayed starting families in order to develop and establish careers (in turn generating wealth and paying taxes), and seeing as the trend in irish families is getting smaller and smaller, and acknowledging that the value of all investments, pensions and wealth can only be sustained by the emergence of future generations, then perhaps a bit more than a tax break?

Ok, a USC break as well. That means 50% funding. Most people would be happy with that.

 

[rob oyle]

The single most important point in this and any other debate on the future of the economy.

What is this problem with population replacement? Ireland's family sizes stopped shrinking in the 1980s, have ticked up since then (according to the World Bank) and our population, before migration, has increased by 995,000 since 1985 (according to the CSO). We're on track to exceed 6.7m by 2046 (also from the CSO projections). The natural increase each year is more now (41.6k) than it was in the 1980s (32.8k) or 1990s (19.5k). Seems to me we are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We're among the fastest-growing populations in the developed world and we're suggesting this will help address this 'problem'?

 

[TheBigShort]

What is this problem with population replacement? Ireland's family sizes stopped shrinking in the 1980s, have ticked up since then (according to the World Bank) and our population, before migration, has increased by 995,000 since 1985 (according to the CSO). We're on track to exceed 6.7m by 2046 (also from the CSO projections). The natural increase each year is more now (41.6k) than it was in the 1980s (32.8k) or 1990s (19.5k). Seems to me we are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We're among the fastest-growing populations in the developed world and we're suggesting this will help address this 'problem'?

It's a fair point if figures are correct, and in truth, it was my understanding that the population was increasing. But it was also my understanding that families sizes were also reducing?
I, perhaps wrongly assumed, our population growth was down primarily to immigration.

On the other hand, applicants for IVF, facing huge costs should still, in my opinion be offered assistance where time is not on their side, and they have a proven track record of a reasonable healthy lifestyle.

The plot thickens...

 

[Sanparom]

The insensitivity of some people here astounds me.

Let's clear up some facts - IVF (unless donor) in Ireland costs anywhere from €4000-8000. The costs are dependant on what actual procedure you have (ivf v icsi for example and the cultivation process, all the extras...). Given the fact that a lot of couples cannot even afford the €4000 it could cost at the cheaper end of the scale, if the government funded this, more couples would be able to undertake ivf, thus lowering the cost by the clinic. So, the govt would not be forking out anywhere next nor near 15k per cycle, more like 2-3k, if even.

Unless you have walked this road, you don't have a clue.

And for what it's worth, it is much cheaper and sometimes more advantageous (better lab conditions, doctors etc) to head to the likes of the Czech Republic for treatment. We did 4 cycles there and have 2 beautiful children from 2 of those cycles.

We are not loaded. Not anywhere near, but we paid for ivf and we adjust our budget to be able to raise our kids. It would be nice if people were less patronising about this topic.

 

[TheBigShort]

Well I apologize if my ignorance on this matter has shown through. But my view is that people, who through no fault of their own, have ended in a situation where they cannot conceive a child naturally, should be given as much assistance as practically and reasonabley possible by whoever is willing to do so.
As a taxpayer, I welcome the cabinet approval to bring forward the Assisted Human Reproduction Bill. I await the proposals later this year.

 

[rob oyle]

It's a fair point if figures are correct, and in truth, it was my understanding that the population was increasing. But it was also my understanding that families sizes were also reducing?
I, perhaps wrongly assumed, our population growth was down primarily to immigration.

On the other hand, applicants for IVF, facing huge costs should still, in my opinion be offered assistance where time is not on their side, and they have a proven track record of a reasonable healthy lifestyle.

The plot thickens...

Hi BS, the fertility rate in Ireland is here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IE

I have to revise what I said... the lowest fertility rate was in 1995, not 1985. Hasn't been over the supposed 'replacement rate' since 1990 but the native population has been rising since CSO records began: [broken link removed]

 

[torblednam]

Hi BS, the fertility rate in Ireland is here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IE

I have to revise what I said... the lowest fertility rate was in 1995, not 1985. Hasn't been over the supposed 'replacement rate' since 1990 but the native population has been rising since CSO records began: [broken link removed]

You seem delighted with yourself gleefully throwing out stats about fertility rates, replacement rates and blah blah blah.

I don't really see the relevance of those things to this issue though, which is about what we as a society choose to say and do for couples who find themselves in a particular situation. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the rate of reproduction across the country as a whole never crossed my mind or my wife's when we were at our lowest.

 

[gnf_ireland]

At the moment, anyone who can afford to pay for IVF today is in the high tax bracket. There is no way someone on the lower tax bracket could afford this treatment unless they were gifted the money. These people, by enlarge, have contributed their share and more to the cost of running the country. When the time comes for them to get support from the government on this issue, it is currently lacking. It must be hard enough to be in this situation, without trying to consider major financial impacts on this also.

Personally, I would see way more merit in supporting couples in this journey than funding first holy communion grants for example.

The question is - if/when the government decide to implement this policy, will it be means tested so these people are still excluded from the support and only helps those who cannot afford it today, or will it be inclusive to all persons requiring the support. What will the entry criteria be, and what will be parameters of the support be (how many cycles etc). Will they support the service in Ireland only, or also support it across the EU ? Will it be private clinics (for profit) or public clinics (not for profit) running the service

My view is those who pay into the system sometimes need a helping hand, and the government should be there to support them. The available funding should not only be for those who pay nothing/minimum into the system.

Population growth means little in this discussion. If you want to take that macro view, you need to look the amount of workers to non-workers in the future not what the population will be. What are the expected changes to this in the event the 'repeal the 8th' passes ?

 

[rob oyle]

You seem delighted with yourself gleefully throwing out stats about fertility rates, replacement rates and blah blah blah.

I don't really see the relevance of those things to this issue though, which is about what we as a society choose to say and do for couples who find themselves in a particular situation. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the rate of reproduction across the country as a whole never crossed my mind or my wife's when we were at our lowest.

I'm sorry that providing statistics and correcting preconceptions about our population decline upsets you. Do you believe the State should be funding an increase in our fertility rates, given the evidence I've shared?

Population growth means little in this discussion. If you want to take that macro view, you need to look the amount of workers to non-workers in the future not what the population will be. What are the expected changes to this in the event the 'repeal the 8th' passes ?

If we repeal the 8th amendment, I would expect that women that currently have to travel to the UK for an abortion will be able to get them at home, under advice from the doctor they know and trust.

 

[Purple]

if the government funded this, more couples would be able to undertake ivf, thus lowering the cost by the clinic. So, the govt would not be forking out anywhere next nor near 15k per cycle, more like 2-3k, if even.

You're having a laugh, right? There is no way doctors will ever reduce their costs. There's no way IVF will ever cost 2-3k a cycle unless there is a significant change in technology and a more open market. This will be a licence to print money for the medical industry.

Unless you have walked this road, you don't have a clue.

I did walk the road, for a lot longer than you did.

If we repeal the 8th amendment, I would expect that women that currently have to travel to the UK for an abortion will be able to get them at home, under advice from the doctor they know and trust.

They will indeed. Many other women will also have abortions.

 

[torblednam]

I'm sorry that providing statistics and correcting preconceptions about our population decline upsets you. Do you believe the State should be funding an increase in our fertility rates, given the evidence I've shared?

I've already said I believe the evidence you've shared is irrelevant to this discussion. This is not about the State "funding an increase in our fertility rates", as the overall effect of what's proposed would most likely have a RELATIVELY small effect on those macro figures.

 

[torblednam]

You're having a laugh, right? There is no way doctors will ever reduce their costs. There's no way IVF will ever cost 2-3k a cycle unless there is a significant change in technology and a more open market. This will be a licence to print money for the medical industry.

So if the government were to announce a policy of subsidised fertility treatment and invite tenders for what would inevitably become the majority market share of the industry, no-one, not even new entrants from U.K./EU would make competitive bids?

 

[Purple]

So if the government were to announce a policy of subsidised fertility treatment and invite tenders for what would inevitably become the majority market share of the industry, no-one, not even new entrants from U.K./EU would make competitive bids?

They would need to tackle the closed shop that is the Irish Medical Industry. GP's refer their customers to the specialists they were in college with, specialists refer their customers to other specialists they were in college with.

 

[michaelm]

If the State is to fund IVF one of the qualifying conditions must be an age limit . . probably 35.

 

[torblednam]

If the State is to fund IVF one of the qualifying conditions must be an age limit . . probably 35.

Why 35?

A large proportion of the people in difficulty conceiving are in their mid-30's, and find themselves in that situation specifically because they've done everything "right" - been responsible citizens.