I'm not one to judge others without knowing them/all the facts, but this one burned me!!! I watched the announcements of the Octuplets being born, and thought; well it must have happened due to follicle stimulation because no Dr. would do invitro with 8 or more embryos. Yesterday I watched as the experts gave their opinions with the same conclusion I came to. There was no way any of them would have done invitro with that many eggs and they would turn someone away who wanted that, so they also felt it must have been egg stimulation that caused this.

Now this morning I learn that the mother, who is currently living at home with her mother, already has six children (we know nothing about the father)!!!! And here's the kicker...it WAS invitro!!!! Holy Cow!!! I get that there are crazy people out there, so I'm writing the mom off as nuts, but what the heck happened to regulating and having rules about ethics for this for the Drs.??!! What's next...cloning? Know that I have family members and friends that have been helped by fertility specialists, so I know the benefit in using one, but this guy crossed the line. Just MO.

But that's not entirely true. The standard of care is to implant 2 (in rare cases 3) embryos. It's all good for her to say that she only expected 1 child out of all that, but if IVF ratios were that low, all fertility docs would be implanting 6 embryos.

Because from what she's shared of her life, she's never been able to handle anything on her own. Her own parents express doubt. I think they probably know her better than we do.

Wow, that's a pretty liberal view Patty. What if a woman has a child every year and openly confesses that she will never get a job, since the government will help pay. Does she still have the right to do that? Some would say "yes".....but I've never understood that point of view.

She shouldn't do it, but she has a right to, because it's allowed by the law. I don't agree with all the laws, but I am forced to abide by them all.

Ok, I'll tell my kids that the next time they ask for school supplies. Seriously, word it however you like....kids need more than love.

Plain, in most states, you can only recieve welfare for 1 year. Then you must work. Your welfare is cut off. The state helps people to prepare for their exit from assistance. That's how it is here in CT. She, too has a plan to finish school and get a job. I hope she succeeds.

Listen, you can't turn back the clock. I don't feel that she should have done what she did, even though the laws that you agree to in this country says she can. But, she meant to have 7 children, and now she has fourteen. It's done. I think if her getting foodstamps for a year or two until she graduates is such a tragedy to some out there, then work to get rid of the laws that help everyone else out there and shut up about it. How dare someone apply for assistance wen they put themselves into their own situations! Well, EVERYONE who gets assistance in some way, whether it be foodstamps or welfare, or WIC or housing funds, or energy assistance, etc. put themselves in their own situation by either something they chose or something they didn't do that they should have done.

She can use food stamps, and WIC for the next year and a half till she is done with school and then get a job in her field.

Nice. Toss the taxpayers under the bus yet again for people's foolish selfishness. :biggrin:

She can use food stamps, and WIC for the next year and a half till she is done with school and then get a job in her field. I worked out of my home for the last 8 years and averaged an $80,000. paycheck annually. She can do the same until the children are in school full time. She can stay with her parents until she can get a place of her own. If I were her, I would take advantage of the nosiness and buttinskiness of the country and get paid for my interviews. Oh, believe me, more people want to hear from her. She can write a book.(have someone do it for her even) She can sell the rights to a movie on her story. She will have so many opportunities to create funds, you wouldn't believe it!

Pattygreen why will you not admit the wrongness to bring children into this world without the ability to provide for them via your own finances?

Living off of government assistance to support her 6-kids that she has already is a clear sign of her inability to provide for her children. Plus, living in her parents home with reduced rent is another sign.

Your arguments are weak and are based on projections of what might happen in the future. But at this point, this woman does not have the financial means to provide food, shelter, and medical care for her kids.

I am for people having large families, but only when they can take care of their families on their own without government assistance. Why don't you come to California and help me support this selfish woman achieve her dream of a large family. We can take my tax dollars that I work so hard for and combine it with your tax dollars and help her out? How soon can you get to California and help us dole out some tax dollars to Octo-Mom?

Okay, I watched the Date-Line video that I recorded on Octo-Mom, and really all I can say is wow! When she talked about raising her family on student loans, I just cringed.

I worked full time, went to school full-time as a single parent and I did take student loans out, but those loans are not for raising children. I could not raise children on student loans, because you do not receive that much money in student loans.

I used my student loans for tutition, lab fees, books, transportation, supplies, and a lap top to take to school for my classes. But really there was not that much left to raise a family and I only had two children.

So all you got from that interview were the negative points in her situation? Those can be overcome. How about the fact that she didn't murder any of them when she found out there were 8 growing in her? How about the fact that she is almost done with her education? How about the fact that she will love them and give them 100% of herself as their mom?

Um, if you are forcing others to have to come to your rescue INCLUDING the state via money, you do NOT have that right. She is not a Duggar, people who, though I think they're nuts for having so many kids, have made it work without relying on the system. They are there for their kids, seem to have a good working system in their home, and did it the right way.

That's like saying I have a right to live in a five-bedroom home and force the taxpayer to pay for it.

What kind of insanity are you espousing, Patty???

Oh, and by the way, did YOU at least pay back the money the state paid to you for your irresponsibility? I doubt it... :biggrin:

THIS last paragraph is where I consider you NASTY. (aside from all your namecalling)

I am for people having large families, but only when they can take care of their families on their own without government assistance. Why don't you come to California and help me support this selfish woman achieve her dream of a large family. We can take my tax dollars that I work so hard for and combine it with your tax dollars and help her out? How soon can you get to California and help us dole out some tax dollars to Octo-Mom?

Um, didn't I just read yesterday that California is in a financial freefall? I mean, not that that's surprising, but they are sinking fast.

So all you got from that interview were the negative points in her situation? Those can be overcome. How about the fact that she didn't murder any of them when she found out there were 8 growing in her? How about the fact that she is almost done with her education? How about the fact that she will love them and give them 100% of herself as their mom?

Oh, puh-LEASE!!! :biggrin:

THIS last paragraph is where I consider you NASTY. (aside from all your namecalling)

Wow... THAT was what was nasty??? :biggrin:

Pattygreen why will you not admit the wrongness to bring children into this world without the ability to provide for them via your own finances?

Oh, I never said it wasn't wrong. I even believe it is wrong to bring children into the world without being married, which many don't agree with me on. What I feel is wrong is that people over exagerate the expence of having children. I had 10 children, and I know how much it cost. Those quotes of millions of dollars is bogus. My husband and I in the early years of having our family lived very well on a small annual income, and none of our children went without. It all depends on what you consider a need is. We didn't 'need' a brand new anything.

Living off of government assistance to support her 6-kids that she has already is a clear sign of her inability to provide for her children. Plus, living in her parents home with reduced rent is another sign. This is true. But it was foodstamps only, Not any cash. I was glad to hear that she has a plan to work when she has finished school. She can do this from her home, to avoid daycare expenses.

Your arguments are weak and are based on projections of what might happen in the future. But at this point, this woman does not have the financial means to provide food, shelter, and medical care for her kids. There was a time in my life about 28 years ago when I needed public assistance for a year and a half until I could finish school and get my own place. I also was on the WIC program for a few years when I was younger. So I can not begrudge her some help until she can do it on her own. Has anyone out there accepted help from an agency at one time in their life besides me? I'm not ashamed to admit it. I'm thankful it was there for me at that time.

I am for people having large families, but only when they can take care of their families on their own without government assistance. Why don't you come to California and help me support this selfish woman achieve her dream of a large family. We can take my tax dollars that I work so hard for and combine it with your tax dollars and help her out? How soon can you get to California and help us dole out some tax dollars to Octo-Mom?

I can't come to CA for I have my own family to care for in CT, but I will help her out. I feel that even though she made bad choices, her children didn't.

I feel that even though she made bad choices, her children didn't.

True. Then her children should be adopted out to people who are not insane and using money they don't have for plastic surgery on their faces rather than having a job and taking care of their kids and making MORE babies when she can't even afford the first SIX. :biggrin:

Wow... THAT was what was nasty??? :biggrin:

You think you would apologize for your nasty remark to me about doubting that I would pay back any assistance I recieved. But I'm getting to know you through your posts, and I should never have expected you to. Stupid me.

You think you would apologize for your nasty remark to me about doubting that I would pay back any assistance I recieved. But I'm getting to know you through your posts, and I should never have expected you to. Stupid me.

Yeah, you would think. Hmmm.

I don't know that you actually DID. No apologies as I still doubt that you did.

MAY???

Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs

LOS ANGELES (AP) - 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.

Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs

Edited February 12, 200917 yr by BethFromVA
spacing

Well.....not really. Not if you're getting food stamps or other government help. Yes, really. We made 38,000. a year and before that, lived on 26,000. a year, and had 10 children and were not getting foodstamps or any other assistance. We lived very comfortably and even had a mortgage to pay.

See, I think people ought to be allowed to have 50 kids (or more), as long as they don't need any tax money to support them. That's where I draw the line between personal choice and draining much needed resources from others. So do I. But it's not always that way.

I think you're allowing your background of coming from a large family to color your judgement on the issue, Patty. And I think that because you don't know how it really is to have a large family, you judge her and think she will be stressed.

Let's say there exists an obese person in Texarkana, Texas. All this person wants to do is eat. He eats so much that his grocery bill is $2000 / month. Is it fair that the government actually give him $2000 / month? Or is his insistance on taking government assistance greedy?

It is greedy. I never said that she wasn't irresponsible. I just feel that the world is casting the first stone at her before taking a look at the boulder they should throw at themselves.

We all have sooo much to say about the wrongs of others, but we can't even see our own wrongs at times.