GROSS!!!!

[GroobySteven]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/...e_us/octuplets

LOS ANGELES – A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red.

Even before the 33-year-old single, unemployed mother gave birth to octuplets last month, she had been caring for her six other children with the help of $490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family.

Also, the hospital where the octuplets are expected to spend seven to 12 weeks has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for care of the premature babies, according to the Los Angeles Times. The cost has not been disclosed.

Word of the public assistance has stoked the furor over Suleman's decision to have so many children by having embryos implanted in her womb.

"It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments," Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten wrote in Wednesday's paper. He called Suleman's story "grotesque."

On the Internet, bloggers rained insults on Suleman, calling her an "idiot," criticizing her decision to have more children when she couldn't afford the ones she had, and suggesting she be sterilized.

"It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?"

She was also berated on talk radio, where listeners accused her of manipulating the system and being an irresponsible mother.

"From the outside you can tell that this woman was playing the system," host Bryan Suits said on the "Kennedy and Suits" show on KFI-AM. "You're damn right the state should step in and seize the kids and adopt them out."

A call to Suleman's publicist Mike Furtney was not immediately returned.

In her only media interviews, Suleman told NBC's "Today" she doesn't consider the public assistance she receives to be welfare and doesn't intend to remain on it for long.

Also, a Nadya Suleman Family Web Site has been set up to collect donations for the children. It features pictures of the mother and each octuplet and has instructions for making donations by check or credit card.

Suleman, whose six older children range in age from 2 to 7, said three of them receive disability payments. She said one is autistic, but she has not disclosed the other youngsters' disabilities, and refused to say how much they get in payments.

In California, a low-income family can receive Social Security payments of up to $793 a month for each disabled child. Three children would amount to $2,379.

The Suleman octuplets' medical costs have not been disclosed, but in 2006, the average cost for a premature baby's hospital stay in California was $164,273, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The average cost for just one cesarean birth in 2006 was $22,762 in California. Eight times that equals $1.3 million.

For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is struggling to close a $42 billion budget gap by cutting services, declined through a spokesman to comment on the taxpayer costs associated with the octuplets' delivery and care.

Suleman received disability payments for an on-the-job back injury during a riot at a state mental hospital, collecting more than $165,000 over nearly a decade before the benefits were discontinued last year.

Some of the disability money was spent on in vitro fertilizations, which was used for all 14 of her children, Suleman said. Suleman said she also worked double shifts at the mental hospital and saved up for the treatments. She estimated that all her treatments cost $100,000.

A dozen states, including California, have laws requiring insurance companies to cover infertility treatment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But California does not require insurers to cover in vitro procedures. It's not clear what type of coverage Suleman has.

In the NBC interview, Suleman said she will go back to California State University, Fullerton in the fall to complete her master's degree in counseling, and will use student loans to support her children. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers.

[dgs925]

I've always been pretty offended by the combo of already having six kids and having IVF treatments. Maybe China has gone too far, but maybe they haven't.

[tsntx]

its disgusting

but to say that she should be made sterile is just retarded.... why make an example out of her? lots of ppl have kids that shouldnt.... im sure theres a few on this board that have had kids that shouldnt.... whos to say who should be sterile and who shouldnt

the china thing.... eh.... it kinda goes to same thing... who decides when youve had your share or too many?

why should someone that can afford 14 children be limited to 1 just bc the ones that are having 14 kids cant afford them on their own

[baileyandkc]

When you start fooling around with the idea of sterilization, I always think of the Nazis in the 30's..
Maybe the book and movie deals will allow the kids to be fed!

[dgs925]

Sterilization.... no.


But should we be allowed to have as many kids as we want? No, not at all.

Who decides how many we get to have? Maybe we vote on it or something.

I just think it is true that our planet can only support so many people at once. Add more and there won't be enough food and some people will starve - that's how we've done it so far.

In the past the only way to make sure that your genes make it into the next generation was to have as many kids as possible since most of them would die anyway. But that isn't how it works now.

So think what you like, I think anyone who has double-digit children in this age, in the developed world is a big asshole (and most likely a religious nut-job).

[tsntx]

Sterilization.... no.


But should we be allowed to have as many kids as we want? No, not at all.

Who decides how many we get to have? Maybe we vote on it or something.

I just think it is true that our planet can only support so many people at once. Add more and there won't be enough food and some people will starve - that's how we've done it so far.

In the past the only way to make sure that your genes make it into the next generation was to have as many kids as possible since most of them would die anyway. But that isn't how it works now.

So think what you like, I think anyone who has double-digit children in this age, in the developed world is a big asshole (and most likely a religious nut-job).

i agree double digits is rediculous but lets say we cap it at 3 per $100k a year household.... the couple of 13yrs decides to make a 3rd child and bc the woman needs fertility drugs she ends up becoming pregnant w/ 6 children.... then what?

what if on their 3rd child they have twins naturally?

do we kill one in the womb? do we force her to carry the child only to have one taken away at birth?

i mean thats just playing god and i dont think its our place to do that

limits are one thing but bc of the details.... it couldnt be fair no matter what

[dgs925]

Life isn't fair, so that's no problem.

I think the important thing is not to tie it in with income. Just because you are rich doesn't mean you should have more kids.

Second, fuck fertility treatments. Twenty thousand children starve to death every year in other parts of the world, while here we spend $20k+ just to get pregnant.

I'm not saying it's the most well thought out plan, I'm not going to introduce it to congress just yet.

[Oli]

Why does no one question the fertility doctor who implanted EIGHT eggs in this woman?

That has to be against all ethical standards.

[Helvis2012]

F****D Up!

[SarahG]

Sterilization.... no.


But should we be allowed to have as many kids as we want? No, not at all.

Who decides how many we get to have? Maybe we vote on it or something.

I just think it is true that our planet can only support so many people at once. Add more and there won't be enough food and some people will starve - that's how we've done it so far.

In the past the only way to make sure that your genes make it into the next generation was to have as many kids as possible since most of them would die anyway. But that isn't how it works now.

So think what you like, I think anyone who has double-digit children in this age, in the developed world is a big asshole (and most likely a religious nut-job).

i agree double digits is rediculous but lets say we cap it at 3 per $100k a year household.... the couple of 13yrs decides to make a 3rd child and bc the woman needs fertility drugs she ends up becoming pregnant w/ 6 children.... then what?

what if on their 3rd child they have twins naturally?

do we kill one in the womb? do we force her to carry the child only to have one taken away at birth?

i mean thats just playing god and i dont think its our place to do that

limits are one thing but bc of the details.... it couldnt be fair no matter what

You're spot on.

Its a dangerous game once we start playing "lets cap how many kids people can have" especially since that cap will be an arbitrary one. And what would happen if a parent accidentally went over the cap? It would probably be cheaper for the tax payers, even if we're talking a parent on welfare, to just leave the kids where they are... versus trying to put them into the disaster known as foster care.

There would be no way to base a cap on simple math. Sure, kids are expensive but even if we based it on say, income- there would be no way of knowing how much money a given parent is actually spending on the child... and on top of that there is going to be an overlap (like single moms who use child support to buy a new car- both are getting use out of said car, and then once the kid becomes an adult the car is likely to still be under the mom's name... even if the dad paid for it using child support, for the kid).

As to 14 kids.. I can't even begin to think of the simple logistics of that. Just think of the work involved in trying to transport 14 kids. They don't make vans that can hold 15 people, she's going to need a bus JUST to move them around. Then think of the cooking, or even having a kitchen with the capacity needed to make food for 15(+) people at once, housing... oy, what a nightmare. Throw in some of them being disabled? I don't know how she's going to be begin to do it, and I am not sure I want to know.

This isn't china, setting a cap in the US would be finding a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. We have a low birth rate (like most industrial nations). Most couples don't have much in the way of kids (IF any). Its actually cheaper for the system to leave things as they are, since its rare for a parent in the US to have 14 kids. Suppose we had a cap of 2 kids, the money it would cost to enforce that, and then the money it would cost if everyone then went out and had more kids to reach that cap, the system would end up having most cost than it does now (or at least that would be my guess).

Some how I can't help but think of this motivational poster...