I agree with the previous post in that I think that the fact that infertility treatments are optional is the most important factor.
For treatments that are optional, the free market should rule. Insurance companies should be allowed to present a number of different plans to consumers. All would cover necessities, but financial terms and coverage of inessential procedures could vary. This would allow people to choose the package of coverages that is right for them. In that way, there would not be a requirement that forces people who only want basic medical insurance to subsidize those people who want extras (even extras like infertility treaments that can be hugely important to the people involved).
I don't think that infertility services should be required for coverage on insurance plans, but I do think people should have options to provide themselves with that coverage for an extra premium. A woman would have to elect the additional premium by a certain age (determined by the insurance company), and so long as those premiums are up to date then infertility treatment could be covered. It might actually be a moneymaker for the insurance companies, and provide a sense of security to people who know that having a family will be a priority they will fight for financially if they have to.
Unfortunately, I agree that insurance should not be forced to cover infertility treatments. I do find that insurance companies discriminate between what they cover for men such as Viagra and what they don't cover for women such as birth control pills. Infertility treatments are so expensive, often not effective, and are truly optional; therefore, I have to side with those who believe that insurance companies should not have to cover infertility treatments. I do think that post 3 has a good idea which could be explored.
I think to some extent, insurance policies should cover infertility treatment, but, there should be a ceiling or cap amount if these treatments are not working after a given amount of time. While it is a medical condition, there is always the option of adopting children who need homes. Although infertility is sad for the couple who cannot conceive, it is not a life threatening situation. Therefore, most insurance companies probably don't feel they need to cover those treatments.
I do not think insurance plans should be required to provide coverage for infertility services because they are not medically required. They are also very expensive. Of course, the disadvantage is that only the wealthy can then afford to go to such great lengths for their own child.
I agree. The more you require of insurance companies, the more insurance is going to cost for everybody. It's already difficult enough for people to afford coverage that only includes the basics, much less expensive optional treatments like infertility.