English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If you can't afford to properly medically insure yourself and your kids should you be banned from having children?

Should having children be decided by your economic portfolio?

2007-09-02 04:05:57 · 35 answers · asked by Kelly B 4 in Politics & Government Politics

Should this be decided on by some governmental board?

2007-09-02 04:06:53 · update #1

35 answers

Sounds pretty fascist to me, darlin.

Should Republicans be banned also? They've made a pretty good mess of things lately, and the party seems rife with sex scandals.

Many famous people who've made huge contributions to society came from poor beginnings.

2007-09-02 05:13:20 · answer #1 · answered by John Doe 1st 4 · 2 1

Oh no.

Please don't lay all of this on a woman's doorstep, that lets men off the hook.

It takes two to tango here.

Why aren't the men being held more responsible for contributing to this?

Why is it so difficult to use some common sense here?

In some cases, being on welfare pays better than a minimum wage job.

Why can't we increase that so people could actually support themselves on that?

Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

As for medical insurance, example of the problem.


I can give you an example of my situation. I have 2 jobs.

I can get health insurance for $300 a month. I would have a $5,000 deductible a year before coverage sets in.

I would then be responsible for $100 emergency room visits, $50 if admitted.

No maternity benefits, not that I need that.

I would then be responsible for 30% of everything after that. I woud have to get pre-approval for almost everything.

There are 47 million people uninsured. You can get life threatening emergency care, but that's it unless you can get Medicaid (welfare). I make too much to qualify for it.

When I did have medical insurance under my mom's policy (COBRA) it was $324 a month. After several back surgeries, 2 the insurance refused to cover, I had to file bankruptcy. This was 16 years ago.

I am required by law to have car insurance, the premiums are not that much. $1,600 a year. Medical insurance would be a minimum of $8,600.

If you are going to decided base on economics now, what will be the next deciding factor?

There are solutions to this, but banning children is not one of them.

Education is also key.

2007-09-02 05:26:20 · answer #2 · answered by angelpuppyeyes 3 · 1 0

No I don't think so. Where would it stop? If a RICH family suddenly found that daddy had risked the family fortune on pork belly futures and lost it and the mansion, would the government then come in and take the children away because they were now below the income threshold for allowing children?

What would the penalty be? A fine that the poor couldn't pay so they end up in jail and the child taken away?



If government were to get involved in something like deciding who can and can't reproduce, there should be a test to decide 1) are the prospective parents smart/wise/intelligent enough to be allowed to procreate?
2) are they actually willing to raise the child?

I have seen many poor families who do a better job of raising their children from the standpoint of having values, getting an education, and respect for others than many rich families who just throw money and servants at the kids and let them try to raise themselves.

Paris Hilton came from a rich family and look how she's turning out.

Financial ability to provide for a child should not be overlooked but a parent CAN get a better job or another job if there is some way to provide for child gare while the parent(s) are at work.

I am by no means a proponent of unlimmited welfare programs.

I would like to see the welfare program changed to allow for child care while a parent is working rather than just saying here's a check each month as long as you aren't working. If you start working though you will stop getting this check and will have to deal with your own child care expenses.

Either that or some sort of job skills training for parents that would allow for them to get a job that would allow them to get a job that pays well enough that they can afford to work and pay child care.

2007-09-02 04:26:15 · answer #3 · answered by Will Y 3 · 2 2

I think what we need to ask is should anyone rich or poor be allowed to have any children if they cant offer love, discepline,value in life and others, good morals, knowledge of right or wrong. So many parents both rich and poor just have babies because they get pregnant, and dont think about what a comitment a child is, or the responsibility they hold, hense those kids grow up to be right so and so's, and so it goes on and on. I have chosen not to have kids as I don't feel I would have the required skills (ones that cant be learned), and I thought long and hard over many years before I reached that decision.

2007-09-02 04:24:13 · answer #4 · answered by Sue R 2 · 3 0

If you were not born simply because someone decided that your poor parents weren't worthy of making children, how would you feel about that? Think about it.

Many famous people today came from very poor families. Look at Abraham Lincoln as one example.

The short answer to your question is absolutely NOT. What is someone told you that you couldn't have kids because your hair was the wrong color or you weren't tall enough? What is you were told you couldn't have children because you were right-handed? Where would it stop and who would be left?

2007-09-02 04:19:39 · answer #5 · answered by Tellin' U Da Truth! 7 · 6 0

No.
But some sort of limit should be set.
I had a neighbor,she had 6 kids by 6 different men,all the kids had different last names.
The kids seldom went to school and were a problem in the area,very poorly behaved,rude,direspectfull,starting fights and stealing things.

Do we really need to continue encouraging and supporting this kind of parenting?

2007-09-02 04:24:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Poor people have every right to have children. They really need to think twice about their financial status before planning to have children, as this may bring later burden upon them. Having many kids,don't work, and relying on childs benefit claim is not the answer!

2007-09-02 04:13:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 10 1

No. However education around sexual education is beneficial to reducing birth rates for people with lower income.

Also, a good friend of mine is a self-employed lawyer with 2 kids. He has to buy insurance for his kids, which costs him $600 a month and so he can't insure himself or wife.

2007-09-02 04:11:55 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

The goverment shouldn't have to make this a law, it's something responsible adults should be doing!! How can these women who are not making ends meet, have no insurance, living off welfare or living off a guy make the decsion to bring a baby into this kind of poverty?? Don't they want better for their child? And I don't believe one minute that these are unplanned pg with all the different kinds of birth control out there! It is so totally irresponsible!

2007-09-02 04:13:40 · answer #9 · answered by Brianne 7 · 4 3

That would open a can of worms. Should the uneducated not have kids too? Or what about the handicap?

Just because someone is poor does not mean they will stay poor and some people are poor by choice. Taking away people's rights is unconstitutional.

2007-09-02 04:11:34 · answer #10 · answered by Edge Caliber 6 · 6 3

fedest.com, questions and answers