Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is when the taxpayer is paying for it. It's the ONLY issue when it comes out of taxpayer pockets.
The child should have been allowed to run whatever course it would have taken without medical intervention. Private charity is fine if that's the route the parents take, but it should never, ever be on the taxpayer.
There are a lot of things I don't like paying for in this bloated gov't, but we don't get to pick n choose.
This is not for us to decide. It is a family issue. And a medical issue. Money is not the issue.
Tax payer funded health care for children IS a money issue - there's never enough.
This baby has the most severe form of this defect and her prognosis is death before her first birthday:
Quote:
The prognosis for holoprosencephaly depends on the severity of the lesion. There is a high attrition rate during pregnancy and many cases abort spontaneously. Cases of alobar holoprosencephaly are lethal within the first year of life.Perinatal Institute
Children with this baby's genetic defect have severe to profound developmental delay and mental retardation. (The Fundamentals of Brain Development: Integrating Nature and Nurture - Joan Stiles - Google Books) To me, it is wrong to spend millions on one baby who has no chance of a meaningful life when there are many other children in need of medical assistance - children who can live meaningful, productive lives, if their health issues are addressed.
I have known families who knowingly had children with severe genetic conditions...that cost tax payers millions of dollars....in medical, education, social security benefits, group home and activity center payments...one family had three children with Fragile X syndrome. Easily detected by amniotic fluid testing. And because that is genetic, the Mother knew she was a carrier.
If you have issues with this child...where do you draw the line? Are you the one who should be the "king" and decide which babies should be aborted? Or if born, which ones should have medical treatment and which ones should be placed in a corner? Or should we just do genetic testing on all fertile teens...and decide who should be allowed to breed and who should have surgery to prevent pregnancies which may end up with genetic problems? And where do we draw the line? Down Syndrome children? Live or die?
See...it is nor so simple...which is why we save them all.
The fact is 95 year olds do not get heart transplants, "free" goods must be rationed,this girl should live without anything more than routine medical care or die.
I have known families who knowingly had children with severe genetic conditions...that cost tax payers millions of dollars....in medical, education, social security benefits, group home and activity center payments...one family had three children with Fragile X syndrome. Easily detected by amniotic fluid testing. And because that is genetic, the Mother knew she was a carrier.
If you have issues with this child...where do you draw the line? Are you the one who should be the "king" and decide which babies should be aborted? Or if born, which ones should have medical treatment and which ones should be placed in a corner? Or should we just do genetic testing on all fertile teens...and decide who should be allowed to breed and who should have surgery to prevent pregnancies which may end up with genetic problems? And where do we draw the line? Down Syndrome children? Live or die?
See...it is nor so simple...which is why we save them all.
And I agree with your perception.
But it begs the question, how to pay for it? Conservatives will say the parents and charity should pay for it, but we all understand, that just isn't realistic for long term care. So the burden falls to the tax payer.
You can debate whether the tax payer should pay for it or not, but in the mean time, how should it be paid for?
Illegal aliens spend money they are paid by private employers, in my state. Thats tax revenue. The employer pays a lower wage, which allows their farm to stay open, employing people, and making them more money, which they'll use to expand their business, hire more people, or buy more things that increases more tax revenue.
Don't claim income tax, my state doesn't have one.
There is a reason why most farmers, and most real folks on the streets don't mind illegal aliens. Sure, no one wants to pay for them with state funds, but the small amount of money spent on them and their children is more then outweighed by the increased tax revenue and private employer growth.
They pay them $5.00 an hour and yes they spend that money but then we end up paying others unemployment because these jobs are taken by those getting paid $5.00 an hour.
Your argument in no way provides anything that shows that even this little bit would in any way offset the millions the state pays for the education, medical care, incarceration costs, etc.
They pay them $5.00 an hour and yes they spend that money but then we end up paying others unemployment because these jobs are taken by those getting paid $5.00 an hour.
Your argument in no way provides anything that shows that even this little bit would in any way offset the millions the state pays for the education, medical care, incarceration costs, etc.
Farmers would beg to differ. The unemployment rate in the rural communities around those farms is quite low, its in the cities, where the illegals aren't taking jobs, where unemployment is high.
Again, as I said, the tax dollars they spend more then outweighs any tax payer burden.
And I like paying 25% less on my groceries each week, don't you?
Little children and adults costing millions at hospitals to the tax payer don't create any tax revenue, just uses it. And, like my previous post, I don't think we should suddenly throw them in the street. But the question is, how do you pay for it.
Look at the many factors looked at before an individual is given a heart transplant. Now, ask yourself why the same rational thought processes are not utilized in cases like this. If you do not give a heart transplant to a 75 year old with terminal lung cancer why do you give extraordinary care to this semi-vegetable?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
