NYTimes is Funny

The site www.alittlepregnant.com alerted me to recently published articles in The New York Times.
Click below to see a short commentary that ran in today's paper:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/opinion/l14babies.html?_r=1&sq=IVF&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1255550628-05NgEdo1S+4Zr8yvvm2NAg

This was my favorite part of the first comment:
"Your front-page article is a good place to start increasing the awareness of the very real risks parents face in the choices made around assisted reproduction. Insurers, too, could play a key role by offering full coverage for single-embryo transfer, with marked reduction or even elimination of coverage for multi-egg implantation."


HA! Those who have done IVF--or any type of fertility treatment--will find the humor in that statement.  Insurers pay???  Money???  To help with infertility???  Certainly it's not their responsibility to cover a medical condition that affects 10-20% of the population!  (Insert sarcasm here).  I realize that some states (15, I believe) do cover (or partially cover) infertility treatments, but that means 35 DO NOT.  In fact, I just did a search on Texas, and technically, it's considered a "covered state."  However, the exact statement under "Coverage" says "No coverage required.  Insurers are only required to offer IVF."  It's like dangling a piece of chocolate in front of this pregnant woman and snatching it away as soon as I reach out my hand.  


I would be happy with any type of infertility insurance coverage--single-embryo transfer, double, triple, fifty-zillion, whatever.  I'm sure most infertiles would appreciate the same.