yes, I live in a dystopia

[ironymaiden]

Some Starbucks workers forgo paychecks to access IVF treatments

I respect the people I know who have gone on that journey - it's hard and heartbreaking and expensive. they have the most wanted and planned for children in the world, and that included a plan for the future.

this article has been living rent-free in my head all day. it has a weird-ass POV that really rubs me the wrong way. yes, the US healthcare system is bullshit and regressive. but i can't wave my wand and disappear it.

• she got a job to pay for IVF. that's what she did. her entire paycheck and more going to subsidized insurance is not functionally different from manually saving her entire paycheck to pay for the IVF and borrowing extra except that she would have to work more and come up with even more money because health insurance payment is pre-tax and there's no interest charged. (she also chose the most expensive health plan because they couldn't front a $1000 deductible. Vimes' boots theory in action.)


• they couldn't get a loan to pay for IVF because they're not creditworthy and they need to pay down existing debt. (see above, re: no interest.)


• it doesn't sound like she left a better job for the IVF benefits. and based on the timeline in the article she quit as soon as she knew it took.

so what I'm getting from this story is that a couple desperate to have a biological child did what they had to do...but where the fuck are they going to get money to cover the costs of actually raising that child? and they say they want more. i think i'm kind of mad at Starbucks for enabling them.

the article makes note that her state doesn't require fertility treatment be part of health insurance. I think I'm supposed to be upset about the injustice of that - AITA if I think society does not owe anyone a biological child?

Comments

[yourlibrarian]

I'm afraid I rather agree with your points.

[varina8]

It's complicated for me. I wish they had had a different couple to profile, although it looks like their debt load is medical debt and that makes me more sympathetic.

I've heard from my family that the difficulty in getting employer insurance coverage for IVF is a huge LGBTQ issue. Someone in my family changed jobs in their field specifically to provide their spouse with treatment to start their family.

My sense is that conservatives would be fine with covering IVF if they could limit its use to straight couples (probably straight, white, Christian, married couples). For that reason alone, I tend to believe it should be included under the umbrella of mandatory ob/gyn coverage.

I'm just an asshole here

[ironymaiden]

I hear you, but I don't believe my tax dollars should pay for it for anyone.

If the day comes when it's a bargaining chip in planning for universal healthcare or more coverage mandates I will joyfully trade it in for hearing aids, or insulin, or gender-affirmation, or psych therapy, or marry it to abortion and say we'll pay for both or pay for none. And in the seemingly inevitable post-Roe world we need to gear up for making adoption easy, inexpensive, and socially desirable.

Re: I'm just an asshole here

[varina8]

The trade-offs in health care are brutal. I would easily support bundling IVF with birth control and abortion, pay for all or none.

[mimerki]

The thing I keep stumbling over is that they had two previous failed attempts at IVF. I am comfortable with more rational health care costs in the US (as I sit here waiting to see what my very good insurance is actually going to cover) and I don't necessarily object to insurance having to cover some level of fertility treatment (seems reasonable but I haven't thought it through).

But something in the fact that they hatched a complicated scheme around Starbucks' benefits package (and the article somehow casts Starbucks as villainous for giving good benefits) to try again after two previous failures just feels like that should be the thing raising eyebrows? Like that feels like it's the scam here despite the US insurance system being a literal scam.

And yeah, she says she wants to go back to Starbucks as a manager, and I feel like this set of decisions is contrary to hiring her for a managerial position: "So, why should we assume you will not leave this job the minute you are pregnant again? Or, really, have stocked up on discount frappuccinos?"

[flexagon]

I read this earlier in the week and had the same thought -- does society owe anyone a biological child, and is not having one really a physical health issue? I have benefitted from the notion of fertility being a health issue myself, in that insurance paid for my sterilization (and, many years later, endometrial ablation). But I kind of think those weren't health issues, either.

That said, I don't necessarily share your concern about being able to support the child. It seems very plausible that there are jobs out there with higher salary but different/lower-tier health insurance.

[ironymaiden]

she says in the article that she plans to go back to Starbucks after she has the kiddo. so...i dunno about fixing the work situation. hopefully they have a source of free childcare.