XtinaStyles wrote:

---

I am wondering where she got the approval for fertility treatments.. aren't they 30K a round? and insurances only cover 1-2 rounds mostly...

---

From what I understand, she got the money for IVF from some lawsuit that she won.

relrel wrote:

---

Without getting into a angry argument about this woman, I just want to say something that has consistently bothered me about the media/public outcry on this woman. I'm not pointing these things at anybody in particular, but it's just something that I keep hearing being brought up.

Mentioning that she is a single parent and that she would be better able to raise her children if she had a husband/boyfriend is no different than saying that any woman would be better able to raise her children if she wasn't single. Yes, she has more children than the average woman, but doubting the ability of this woman to be a good single parent is a slippery slope and opens up the argument to any woman of any number of children. I believe strongly in the idea that it's the person who counts, not the gender of the parent or the number of parents or even the actual genetic relationship of parent. None of us know this woman and how she truly is as a mother and person, despite all the family members that have come out for or against her. It's like any gossip story, news outlets often pay these family members and so some will be willing to say anything.

Yes, I do think that she is mentally ill and has an addiction to the babies- she said so herself that she wanted to make sure that her children weren't lonely like her, growing up as an only child. That's besides the point, really. The Angelina Jolie crap that's being brought up in several different places? It's pure, useless, gossip crap designed to sell newspapers and magazines.

What I find disgusting about this whole situation is the public's reaction to everything. This is not something for public discussion. Because she is or will be accepting public funding (welfare, food stamps, etc) does not make her private decisions up for public debate. There hundreds of thousands of women who receive food stamps or even those who use student loans to pay for their childrens' needs. By saying that she's different because she has 8 babies is to me, what's disgusting, because then that makes me wonder if there's some arbitrary number that's okay for poorer women to have. And honestly? What if she was wealthy and white? Would it be as "disgusting" and "wrong" to have had these children?

---

I agree with you Relrel, suddenly all these divisions on what type/class of woman has reproductive rights? 

And speaking of the Jon & Kate flock, does anyone know what they did before they had all the kids?

According to Wikipedia, their "doctor suggested selective reduction, but the couple was absolutely against doing so." 

So they went into their situation both times knowing they could/would have multiple births. I'm curious to know what their life would be like without all of the book deals, tv show, nanny and handouts from companies.

I tried to watch that show to see what all the hype was about and the Kate lady drove me nuts so I couldn't watch it. But I guess a lot are buying into the hype because their situation is deemed okay?

if this Angelina wannabe lady can make book/advertising deals and pay for the welfare of her children she isn't any different than anyone else that has capitalized on their ability to spit out large number of kids. 

As for her being crazy, I've seen women with only one child and still can't support them because they are so wacked out. I mean, Anglina herself wasn't the text book mom when she started adopting and adopting adopting and having 6 children(4 within a 2 year time period).

Not that it makes it right, but there are women on here that have suffered from psychological issues, and I don't think we would ever shun each other. I hope she gets the helps she needs. It seems she craves someone to love her, and that makes me the most sad. 

  

 

Taxpayers may have to cover octuplet mom's costs

This image made from a 2006 video provided by KTLA shows Nadya Suleman speaking at a ferti...

Thu Feb 12, 12:33 AM EST

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."

Suleman's spokesman, Mike Furtney, urged understanding.

"I would just ask people to consider her situation and she has been under a tremendous amount of pressure that no one could be prepared for," Furtney said.

Furtney said he, Suleman and her family had received death threats and had been getting messages that were "disgusting things that would never be proper to put in any story."

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 told NBC one is autistic, another has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, known as ADHD, and a third experienced a mild speech delay with "tiny characteristics of autism." She 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. 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.

State Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, an oral surgeon who sits on the Health Committee, said that once a state Medical Board investigation is complete, lawmakers could review issues from government oversight to standards in fertility treatment.

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. She 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.

Fourteen states, including California, require insurance companies to offer or provide coverage for infertility treatment, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But California has a law specifically excluding in vitro coverage. 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 already owes $50,000 in student loans, she told NBC. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers.

___

On the Net:

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/