Will she live in a shoe?

[Snowgirl]

In my Canadian ignorance , I'm wondering how she paid for the in-vitro procedure? I thought that US people were getting either private medical insurance ($$$), no insurance because denied or not enough $$, and I've also heard about Medicare (public insurance for whom?). However, from the fertility forums I've frequented, it seems that even good private insurance often do not pay for infertility treatment. Most people save of get a loan to afford this. How does a welfare mom pays for that? I would guess she is on Medicare (please enlighten me is wrong on that), and I'm quite surprised it would pay for such treatments ? Even our public health care here does not pay for most fertility treatments!

[cantretire]

Showgirl - I have the same question!

[Cassandra]

To answer your question, Snowgirl:

Octuplet Mom

She has estimated her in vitro fertilization procedures have cost $100,000.

Suleman has said she saved for the treatments by working double shifts and also used money from a disability award exceeding $165,000 that she received after an on-the-job back injury.

The benefits were discontinued last year.

and

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.

(The parts I quoted are towards the end of the article.)

[wincrasher]

It's been reported that she saved for them while working in a mental hospital as well as the disability settlement that she got. She also has student loans for school, but has been spending them on living expenses, and I guess, turkey basters.

[Goldy1]

Fortunately, I never needed any kind of fertility help, but I know one of the insurances I had thru work was called HAP and I remember reading in the plan brochure it would pay for one round of fertility treatment which I thought generous. I don't think any of the other insurances I had would pay and think it would state not covered, and I have heard of people with insurance paying out of pocket so I do not think it is a routinely covered procedure. (which I don't think it should be)
I read somewhere that medicare was spending many millions a year for men to get viagara. I mean, there are citizens who can't afford a health check up or doctor visit, and seniors get some sex enhancement drug! (buy it yourself if you need it)and add to that by the time I retire you will probably need to be 88 to get medicare. Also most of the insurance plans I had wouldn't even cover birth control if I wanted it, which I found ironic b/c if I had a kid it would add to more fees, right? lol. whatever!

[Snowgirl]

Originally Posted by Cassandra

To answer your question, [b]Snowgirl[/b

Thanks a lot Cassandra, it helps clear out things. I must admit I hadn't read into depth, was just appalled by it! (I have friends that spend 10k-20k on fertility procedures and they don't even have a kid yet...)

[zetta]

A dozen states, including California, have laws requiring insurance companies to cover infertility treatment,

CA law just requires "root cause" treatment -- for instance, if a man isn't producing sperm and there is surgery that will fix it, the surgery must be covered. It excludes IVF. At the height of the dotcom boom, some employers would pay the extra bucks to get an infertility rider that would cover IVF, but I'm sure it's pretty rare these days.

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by zetta

CA law just requires "root cause" treatment -- for instance, if a man isn't producing sperm and there is surgery that will fix it, the surgery must be covered. It excludes IVF. At the height of the dotcom boom, some employers would pay the extra bucks to get an infertility rider that would cover IVF, but I'm sure it's pretty rare these days.

And CA wonders why they're broke

[Exile]

This is a case of ova-population.

[neatdesign]

I have to admit, I have been glued to this story ever since word leaked out that she already had 6 kids before having the octuplets. It's truly a fascinating case, considering all the ethical dilemmas it raises -- not to mention how much it's (justifiably, in my opinion) angered the American public.

Here are two questions that I've not seen or heard discussed yet, which I've been curious about:

1) According to various sources (I don't know if the mom has confirmed this, though), all 14 children were created using the same sperm donor. Some of these sources have also said that the sperm donor is a friend of the mother's and that the mother hopes he'll join their lives as their father and a part of their family. Apparently his name is on some of the children's birth certificates but not all of them.

My question is: Do you think this man is in danger for having to pay children support for one or more of these children? I'm honestly not familiar with how things go with babies created using donated sperm, but I would've thought it unusual for the sperm donor's name to appear on the birth certificate. Is he on the hook for these children financially? Will she try to get him to support her in some way??

2) Several people have raised the suggestion in this thread (and elsewhere) that the children should be adopted out among multiple families. This raises another ethical issue: Is it right to split up this woman's octuplets and/or set of twins so that they are raised separately? Some people feel that multiples (twins, triplets, etc) should be kept together at all costs, that it can damage them in some way to be separated at birth or in young childhood from their siblings.

~ Jenney

[GREENBACK]

Originally Posted by neatdesign

1) According to various sources (I don't know if the mom has confirmed this, though), all 14 children were created using the same sperm donor. Some of these sources have also said that the sperm donor is a friend of the mother's and that the mother hopes he'll join their lives as their father and a part of their family. Apparently his name is on some of the children's birth certificates but not all of them.

My question is: Do you think this man is in danger for having to pay children support for one or more of these children? I'm honestly not familiar with how things go with babies created using donated sperm, but I would've thought it unusual for the sperm donor's name to appear on the birth certificate. Is he on the hook for these children financially? Will she try to get him to support her in some way??

This story gets more weird with each passing day. Not sure what's truth or rumor anymore. One thing I'm pretty sure of is that she's mentally unbalanced to say it nicely. What sperm donor would allow his name on the B.C.. If he were going to do that he might as well have just had sex with her or married her. If it's true about him doing these things, I'd say he has a screw loose too.

[Goldy1]

I had the tv on last night while putting cd's up on e bay, and a talk show on cnn was talking about her. I was quite surprised that they were quite harsh on her saying she was unstable and making it all "about her" and not the children. They were saying she may not get a reality show b/c the issue is "toxic" which means people do ont have a favorable opinion of her. Also they said realty tv does not make you rich b/c the whole point of it is getting the "actors" for cheap!
I feel bad for the innocent babies. I know they will be cared for well one way or the other, but a child deserves to feel special and unique, not just a number in a family.

[GREENBACK]

I feel terrible for those children but I don't think Jerry Springer could dream up something this strange.

[sweeps]

TLC is reportedly in talks with the woman for a show. I guess people have flooded TLC's web site saying they will boycott.

[MonkeyMama]

Okay, any *one person* who thinks they can physically, emotionally, financially care for that many kids is certainly insane.

That being said, there are plenty of people IN the "system" in California with as many or more kids. YEah, our tax dollars at work. Don't even get me started - a relative of ours has adopted 2 children so far from a woman in the system with 12+ kids. The kicker is the state PAYS them a stipend, for lord knows how long (until the kids are 18? 23?). Okay, I understand adpoting them out (with stipends) is cheaper than keeping them in the system. But at one point is it enough? 12 isn't enough? 20? It would be cheaper to dole out some birth control.

Anyway, I have no doubt these women's children will end up in the system as well. But nothing will stop her from having 10 more children... She's just one of many.

BTW, TLC has lost their friggin minds. I'd boycott them. Ugh! Shows like Jon and Kate are enough to make you barf. (& yes I USED to like the show when it had any base in reality). But idolizing people with a zillion kids and painting it all sunshine and roses, ugh. I've certainly had enough. Reality? Give me a break!