Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

No, that's not what I said. I said it might be responsible to abort in case of severe microcephaly. I stand by that; there are many conditions for which MFM will recommend abortion. I think you might be too close to this issue to be reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Curious whether you understand the difference between $400 million and $1.2 trillion?

Curious as to whether you understand what DEBT is? Once you're in debt, giving away money - no matter how small - is no longer an issue for you, I guess.

And common sense is thrown out the window again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Disabled kids are eligible for medicaid regardless of their parents income. I know several extremely wealthy disabled children who are on medicaid. Their parents also get 40 hours a week of "respite care" also paid for by the government. These are families that make $400k+/year.

So, where is the issue? It is about the child's needs, not the parents. Would you prefer they not get the help they need? Respite services, ABA and other therapies even at $400,000 income doesn't always go very far and if they are that severe the kids need life long care. Are you really going to begrudge someone getting medicaid for theire severely disabled child? You do realize that could have been your child, correct? What if that was your grandchild instead?

I think until the child turns 18, there should be an income test. If the kid had cancer instead of a disability, the government is not paying for that. What is the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Curious whether you understand the difference between $400 million and $1.2 trillion?

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Disabled kids are eligible for medicaid regardless of their parents income. I know several extremely wealthy disabled children who are on medicaid. Their parents also get 40 hours a week of "respite care" also paid for by the government. These are families that make $400k+/year.

So, where is the issue? It is about the child's needs, not the parents. Would you prefer they not get the help they need? Respite services, ABA and other therapies even at $400,000 income doesn't always go very far and if they are that severe the kids need life long care. Are you really going to begrudge someone getting medicaid for theire severely disabled child? You do realize that could have been your child, correct? What if that was your grandchild instead?

I think until the child turns 18, there should be an income test. If the kid had cancer instead of a disability, the government is not paying for that. What is the difference?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

No, what is horrific is that you just said it would be the responsible thing to do to abort a wanted pregnancy because the child has disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Disabled kids are eligible for medicaid regardless of their parents income. I know several extremely wealthy disabled children who are on medicaid. Their parents also get 40 hours a week of "respite care" also paid for by the government. These are families that make $400k+/year.

So, where is the issue? It is about the child's needs, not the parents. Would you prefer they not get the help they need? Respite services, ABA and other therapies even at $400,000 income doesn't always go very far and if they are that severe the kids need life long care. Are you really going to begrudge someone getting medicaid for theire severely disabled child? You do realize that could have been your child, correct? What if that was your grandchild instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My child has microcephaly, not due to Zika and not something that could be detected in utero. There is no reason to think he will have a short, painful life. He is a joyful kid and attends a public school. He does have developmental and medical issues and has significantly more medical bills than a typical kid, which are covered through a combination of private insurance and Medicaid.

I am pro-choice, but using inaccurate and fear-mongering information about people with disabilities is not a good tactic for fighting abortion bans.

But if it were detected early and was very severe, shouldn't parents have the choice?

Yes, as I said I am pro choice. Personally I don't think I would abort a child with disabilities unless the condition was going to cause near certain very early death. i fear that the kind of language being used here--conflating all disabilities or special needs with short painful useless life--is inaccurate and denies the humanity of people with disabilities. It might also contribute to people feeling like it is the "responsible" thing to do to abort children with special needs, an idea I find horrific.

It might be in cases of severe microcephaly. That's not horrific, that's reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.

Disabled kids are eligible for medicaid regardless of their parents income. I know several extremely wealthy disabled children who are on medicaid. Their parents also get 40 hours a week of "respite care" also paid for by the government. These are families that make $400k+/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

OK. So $10 million per child, and for example in Brazil we know they have thousands of microcephaly Zika cases. So that would mean increasing the Medicaid budget by $20 billion, give or take? Raise taxes, I guess.