Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Microcephaly can occur for other reasons beside a Zika infection during pregnancy. State birth defects tracking systems have estimated that microcephaly ranges from 2 babies per 10,000 live births to about 12 babies per 10,000 live births in the Unites States.

Who pays for these babies now?

You're missing the point. With the current crisis, of mothers infected with Zika microcephaly rates are estimated at 13%. You do realize that Zika sweeps through a population very quickly, right? Mosquito AND sexual transmission. We have the right conditions for an epidemic because no one here has any immunity.

Actually it is not sweeping through the US. There has been one outbreak in July that consists of 14 people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"In the U.S., the March of Dimes recently estimated the cost of care for one American child with microcephaly to be $10 million dollars."

Given local transmission of Zika in the continental US has now been found, what is the Republican plan to pay for these severely brain damaged children after banning abortion? Pence's law in Indiana forbids abortion on grounds of prenatal testing that reveals disability. I would love to hear what his solution is to this incoming public health crisis. Spreading like wildfire in Puerto Rico, now in Florida and soon Texas.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/health/zika-brazil-microcephaly-babies-brains-gupta/

We are testing Zika vaccine in humans. There will be a massive public health campaign to vaccinate all women of childbearing age.

Actually, there are major concerns with the Zika vaccine due to antibody-dependent enhancement. It will need to be tested for several more years before the implications of rolling it out on a wide scale are understood.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2016/07/contrary-dengue-vaccine-response-hints-possible-problems-zika

Well, this is one way to keep the population under control.

Much like abortion.

Most likely Medicaid. I have a child with special needs so I'm somewhat familiar with Medicaid (we don't have it) - a lot of children with costly medical needs are on Medicaid, based on the child's income alone.

Anonymous wrote:Microcephaly can occur for other reasons beside a Zika infection during pregnancy. State birth defects tracking systems have estimated that microcephaly ranges from 2 babies per 10,000 live births to about 12 babies per 10,000 live births in the Unites States.

Who pays for these babies now?

You're missing the point. With the current crisis, of mothers infected with Zika microcephaly rates are estimated at 13%. You do realize that Zika sweeps through a population very quickly, right? Mosquito AND sexual transmission. We have the right conditions for an epidemic because no one here has any immunity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

Um, a lot of the members of Congress who are opposing funding for Zika research also oppose funding for birth control and for education on how to use birth control.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

First the good news, then the bad.

Since President Barack Obama first took office:
The U.S. trade deficit has shrunk by 24 percent; exports have grown faster than imports.
The number of immigrants in the U.S. illegally has gone down — by 3.4 percent according to one independent estimate and by 9 percent according to another.
The economy has added 9.7 million jobs.
The unemployment rate has dropped below the historical norm.
The buying power of the average worker’s weekly paycheck is up 4.2 percent.
Corporate profits are running 144 percent higher and stock prices have soared.
Federal debt has more than doubled, and annual deficits, after shrinking, are again on the rise.
The number of people lacking health insurance has gone down by nearly 15 million.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/obamas-numbers-april-2016-update/

Looks like the economy will do fine under Hillary. I am comfortable with Obama's endorsement. By contrast, let us remember that Trump filed for bankruptcy four times.

Back to the topic... birth control is great. But lots of families are actively trying to conceive. Are you saying we should have a ban on healthy babies during this period, just because Trump/Pence want to outlaw abortions on severely brain damaged children? I don't think that's going to fly very well in America, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare we as a society help provide care for children with special needs? OP you are so right, all our SN kids should be aborted if known in utero and we should just kill those when we discover their SN later on in life. Thanks, good to know you are such caring individual.

Many babies with microencephaly don't live and/or live very short painful lives.

Actually many babies, children and teens do live those kinds of lives, but often they are not kept in public view. So, while they are alive and well, we don't see them often out in public. Who are you to decide if someone else's child has a right to live? How do you know the government will pay for it? We have done everything privately for our SN kid from schools to therapies. When we tried to get into the public school they gave us a huge run and basically refused. It wasn't worth spending the money on attorney fees vs. a private school. So, should my child never have been born because you may not deem his life worthy as your child's?

You're missing the point. The PP is asking about who will pay for the children of families that can't afford the cost of the extra care. No one is going to legislate that you *have* to abort a SN child. But some people are trying to legislate that you cannot abort that child. In that case, who burdens the cost? And even if you leave aside abortion altogether, who burdens the cost? In this country, thanks in large part to HRC, we have the ethic that children should be given healthcare regardless of their parents' financial circumstances. How are we going to provide this care for these children? Who is going to pay? And if a parent can't afford the standard of care, what happens? In general, we take medical neglect very seriously in the US (as, I think, we should). But what if the neglect is due to inability to pay?

Microcephaly can occur for other reasons beside a Zika infection during pregnancy. State birth defects tracking systems have estimated that microcephaly ranges from 2 babies per 10,000 live births to about 12 babies per 10,000 live births in the Unites States.

Who pays for these babies now?

Anonymous wrote:I still don't hear anyone responding to the question of who foots the bill. Just a lot of empty rhetoric about how precious all lives are.

If they're so precious, who is going to pay the price? That's a very practical question. Give me a practical answer.

Ask Hillary how she's going to pay for her goals, too.

debt - $1.2 trillion

$400m to Iran, which we probably borrowed from China

How about a compromise? What if we used more birth control? Being proactive ain't a bad thing, folks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare we as a society help provide care for children with special needs? OP you are so right, all our SN kids should be aborted if known in utero and we should just kill those when we discover their SN later on in life. Thanks, good to know you are such caring individual.

Many babies with microencephaly don't live and/or live very short painful lives.

Actually many babies, children and teens do live those kinds of lives, but often they are not kept in public view. So, while they are alive and well, we don't see them often out in public. Who are you to decide if someone else's child has a right to live? How do you know the government will pay for it? We have done everything privately for our SN kid from schools to therapies. When we tried to get into the public school they gave us a huge run and basically refused. It wasn't worth spending the money on attorney fees vs. a private school. So, should my child never have been born because you may not deem his life worthy as your child's?

Honestly, this isn't about the fact that you made this decision for your family. The issue is whether the government should be able to legislate that all families must give birth to severely brain damaged children and support them with their own resources. Good for you for making that choice, and best of luck with your child... I just hope you can have an open mind to recognize this choice may not make sense for other families in different (medical, financial, personal) situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are you saying my disabled child isn't worth $10 million? What about a child with Down Syndrome? Autism? Should we just kill them all?

No, we're just asking who you think should foot the bill. Is it individual families who get to decide how to apportion their resources? Or does the government decide, and then take on the responsibility for supporting them? Give me a practical solution here, not just this emotional Rah Rah for Life. We all like life. There's also this thing called reality, finite resources, etc. Tell me who's responsible for taking on this financial burden -- the government via increased taxation, or individual families (whose other children will likely suffer)?

As for footing the bill what about births in the USA where the parents are NOT US citizens? Another good point for no birthright citizenship. The zika baby in NJ's mother was from Honduras
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/31/hackensack-new-jersey-baby-zika-defect/85216494/

Are these women citizens? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-pregnant-women-dallas-zika-virus/

Nice attempt to dodge the question. Try to stick to the real issue: who will fund Zika babies in the US? You still haven't answered the basic question.

Either the parents through their income and health insurance or medicaid/medicare. Just like in any other situation.

All right, so basically the government is deciding that families should foot a $10 million bill rather than having the option to terminate. This is going to play very well in Florida/Texas this election...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are you saying my disabled child isn't worth $10 million? What about a child with Down Syndrome? Autism? Should we just kill them all?

No, we're just asking who you think should foot the bill. Is it individual families who get to decide how to apportion their resources? Or does the government decide, and then take on the responsibility for supporting them? Give me a practical solution here, not just this emotional Rah Rah for Life. We all like life. There's also this thing called reality, finite resources, etc. Tell me who's responsible for taking on this financial burden -- the government via increased taxation, or individual families (whose other children will likely suffer)?

As for footing the bill what about births in the USA where the parents are NOT US citizens? Another good point for no birthright citizenship. The zika baby in NJ's mother was from Honduras
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/31/hackensack-new-jersey-baby-zika-defect/85216494/

Are these women citizens? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-pregnant-women-dallas-zika-virus/

Nice attempt to dodge the question. Try to stick to the real issue: who will fund Zika babies in the US? You still haven't answered the basic question.

Either the parents through their income and health insurance or medicaid/medicare. Just like in any other situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How dare we as a society help provide care for children with special needs? OP you are so right, all our SN kids should be aborted if known in utero and we should just kill those when we discover their SN later on in life. Thanks, good to know you are such caring individual.

Many babies with microencephaly don't live and/or live very short painful lives.

Actually many babies, children and teens do live those kinds of lives, but often they are not kept in public view. So, while they are alive and well, we don't see them often out in public. Who are you to decide if someone else's child has a right to live? How do you know the government will pay for it? We have done everything privately for our SN kid from schools to therapies. When we tried to get into the public school they gave us a huge run and basically refused. It wasn't worth spending the money on attorney fees vs. a private school. So, should my child never have been born because you may not deem his life worthy as your child's?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are you saying my disabled child isn't worth $10 million? What about a child with Down Syndrome? Autism? Should we just kill them all?

No, we're just asking who you think should foot the bill. Is it individual families who get to decide how to apportion their resources? Or does the government decide, and then take on the responsibility for supporting them? Give me a practical solution here, not just this emotional Rah Rah for Life. We all like life. There's also this thing called reality, finite resources, etc. Tell me who's responsible for taking on this financial burden -- the government via increased taxation, or individual families (whose other children will likely suffer)?

As for footing the bill what about births in the USA where the parents are NOT US citizens? Another good point for no birthright citizenship. The zika baby in NJ's mother was from Honduras
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/31/hackensack-new-jersey-baby-zika-defect/85216494/

Are these women citizens? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-pregnant-women-dallas-zika-virus/

Nice attempt to dodge the question. Try to stick to the real issue: who will fund Zika babies in the US? You still haven't answered the basic question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So are you saying my disabled child isn't worth $10 million? What about a child with Down Syndrome? Autism? Should we just kill them all?

No, we're just asking who you think should foot the bill. Is it individual families who get to decide how to apportion their resources? Or does the government decide, and then take on the responsibility for supporting them? Give me a practical solution here, not just this emotional Rah Rah for Life. We all like life. There's also this thing called reality, finite resources, etc. Tell me who's responsible for taking on this financial burden -- the government via increased taxation, or individual families (whose other children will likely suffer)?

As for footing the bill what about births in the USA where the parents are NOT US citizens? Another good point for no birthright citizenship. The zika baby in NJ's mother was from Honduras
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/05/31/hackensack-new-jersey-baby-zika-defect/85216494/

Are these women citizens? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-pregnant-women-dallas-zika-virus/