Social security and IF treatments

As you can tell from my recent post, I've been thinking about IF and medical coverage and how much we should require insurance to cover.

Today I thought of a great reason why the rest of the country should care about our fertility: social security. For those of reading from other countries or those just unsure of how social security is funded, this is it works. Current workers (usually those age 18-65) pay taxes that then pay for benefits for current retirees (those 65 and older, but for us young'uns, we won't be eligible until age 67). One big problem with this method of funding social security is that life expectancy is increasing and birth rates are going down. This means the ratio of current workers to current retirees is going down. In just 8 years, the ratio is expected to be low enough that we will begin paying more out in benefits than it receives in benefits. In 2041 (conveniently just as I hit retirement age), the social security trust fund will run out of money and will only be able to pay 78 cents on the dollar for benefits we are expecting.

(By the way, I know this b/c today I received my yearly social security statement, so it's not like I have this info at the top of my head).

So, wouldn't an investment of $15,000 to pay for IF treatments help offset this declining ratio of current workers to retirees? If part of the problem is low birth rates, shouldn't we try to increase the birth rate? I mean, if the feds paid for us to have a baby, in 20 years or so that's one more worker who will surely pay more than $15K over the course of his/her working life in social security taxes to help fund social security.

To be honest, I'm not really sure if I'm half joking with this or not. When I first had this thought, I meant it as a joke. But now it's beginning to make sense.