Nebraska’s safe-haven law works — too well
posted at 1:40 pm on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
When Nebraska passed a law that allowed panicked mothers to abandon their babies at hospitals with immunity from prosecution, many hailed it as a breakthrough in helping to keep unwanted infants alive. Now it looks more like a poster child for bad legislation. Thanks to a lack of specificity in the law, parents have begun dumping troublesome teenagers at hospitals, and crossing state lines to do it (via Q&O):
Frustrated parents are dumping their teenagers at Nebraska hospitals — even crossing state lines to do it — and the state Legislature has scheduled a special hearing to try to stem the tide.
Nebraska’s “safe haven” law, intended to allow parents to anonymously hand over an infant to a hospital without being prosecuted, isn’t working out as planned.
Of the 17 children relinquished since the law took effect in July, only four are younger than 10 — and all four are among the nine siblings abandoned by a man September 24 at an Omaha hospital.
On Tuesday, a 14-year-old girl from Council Bluffs, Iowa, was abandoned at Creighton University Medical Center in Omaha, Nebraska, just across the Missouri River from Council Bluffs. The case marks the first time a parent has crossed state lines to abandon a teenager in Nebraska, authorities said.
All 50 states now have safe-haven laws, but only the Nebraska legislature didn’t put an age limit on the mechanism. Now, the law intended to save infants has never been used for that purpose. Instead, most of the children abandoned are troubled teenagers, and the state has a big problem on its hands.
Badly-written laws create far more mess than they solve, even when the underlying intent is admirable. No one doubts the need to act to protect infants that had been previously tossed away by irrational mothers, but Nebraska botched its safe-haven law. The ADA was another piece of legislation that started with good intentions but quickly got distorted into a trial-lawyer’s dream, as the definition of “disability” grew to include addiction and other conditions. Many other examples exist.
Usually, it is better to avoid legislation that to use it to solve social problems. Occasionally, as here, it often creates a slew of new problems.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Heh. Nice job Nebraska.
Theworldisnotenough on October 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Interesting…. you have got to have some serious problems to abandon a teenager.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Ok my comment about the sign on this blog. 9:00AM till 8:30 PM… does the ER close for a 30 minutes break or something?
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Are you sure? Have you seen the youth (and parents of that generation) of today?
I mouthed off to my mom when I was a teenager once. She decked me.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 1:49 PM
This is a good law, parents are dropping off their teenagers is better than the teenagers running away.
Conservative Voice on October 9, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Government trying to fix problems they created. Thanks to the One, we’ll soon all be delivered.
kirkill on October 9, 2008 at 1:50 PM
I left home when I was 16. Now I am taking care of my Mom. Kids grow out of it (most of the time), but if the parents were allowed to do what you and I went thru, and I am not saying beating.. but spanking and actual punishments for bad behavior… do you really think it would be this bad?
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 1:52 PM
I believe that the laws have been tightened up in recent years, but, in Missouri, my foster brother’s mom would regularly drop him and his brother off with DFS and say she was too overwhelmed to take care of them.
A few weeks later, when she wanted to make sure the welfare money wasn’t going to stop, she’d take a 4-hour Saturday parenting class and have them back within one week of asking.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat. through his entire childhood. It only stopped after my parents spent 1 year fighting for (and getting) legal custody of him. Of course, at that point, the case worker decided that family reunification was in his best interest so he had state mandated, unsupervised visits with his mom (who was always sure to have some drugs around for him….though that’s a different story)…
The point being that, at least as of 10 years ago, you could dump a kid on DFS in Missouri (and, most states with similar programs) with relatively few penalties, so, this doesn’t seem to be too new of a phenomenon.
JadeNYU on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Are you sure they won’t run away from the foster home of a stranger?
The parents made a decision to have kids, breaking away when they become teenagers is a crime.
Bishop on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Parents need to do their jobs and discipline their children, talk with their children, be a part of their lives and let them know who the boss it. Stop expecting the government to do it for them!
Robyn S on October 9, 2008 at 1:53 PM
some people just shouldn’t breed, damn liberals
Robyn S on October 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Man you dont know my triplet teenage daughters do you?
skatz51 on October 9, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Heck no, the world would be a million times better off.
Good grief.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Nope. The parents of that generation abandoned parenting in favor of friendship.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Not “troublesome teenagers”, necessarily, but, rather “troubled parents” or “troubled relatives”.
As the article mentioned, there is the Boys Town, which is also a worthy target for donations. Note that the summary page I link mentions other similar charities with good records as well. Note also that more than half of the children in Boys Town are girls, and they did briefly change their name to “Girls and Boys Town” but the longer name never caught on.
unclesmrgol on October 9, 2008 at 1:58 PM
This is also a law in Louisiana. Mothers can drop their kids off and it is perfectly legal. Every health unit in the state must follow this law, no questions asked.
Its the Nanny State for real.
Although, I have never heard of teenagers getting dumped off….lol. That is just nuts.
Wonderful new precedent we are setting. “Cant handle your teenage son or daughter? Just drop them off at a hopsital or health unit. Show them how much you really care!”
And we wonder why our kids are screwed up?
The next generation folks! Raised and cuddled by the US Government! Say good-night to your freedom folks! Like all good children, who is not going to go home crying to momma when they dont get their way?
TheHat on October 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM
When this law was passed did anyone think it wasn’t going to be abused? In about 20 years we will know the full impact of what happens to a teen that is thrown away by their parents. I’m thinking alcoholism, drug abuse and prison.
Tommy_G on October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
In Soviet United States, circa 2009, teens abandon parents.
lorien1973 on October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Without God there is no morality. No morality means no reason to obey parents. It is the consequence of actively trying to remove God from every aspect of American life. The more success you have, the worse depravity becomes.
No matter how much the parents may use corporal discipline.
The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Tru dat.
Get me an extra helping, Grue. I’m feeling a little pot roasty.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
No but I feel for you, multiplied by 3!
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Oh my…God help you, my friend, God help you.
Of course, I on a daily basis spend my time with upwards of 20 teenaged girls at a time, plus an equalish number to boys to season the pot. Triplets would be a breeze.
:)
Bob's Kid on October 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
These kids will be raised to be part of the Hitler.. strike that… the Obama Youth.
grdred944 on October 9, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Damnit, Yakov!!! You had to follow us into this thread, too!!!!
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I think at the time the people were thinking “Who in their right mind would dump a kid they’ve raised? We can understand giving up an unwanted child, but a child you’ve raised why would you ditch?”
They underestimated the “easy ride” mentality of the current generation(s).
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Holy crap! I’m a student at the University of Nebraska. We’ve been talking about this story in classes and I’ve covered it on our school radio station for weeks. I can’t believe it got so big.
The loopholes have to be fixed.
loganthompson on October 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
“Give me more vodka, that I may not think of what is to come.” – altered from Voltaire
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:05 PM
I am not sure how old many of you are, but think about it. I am 32 and they were starting to inact the rules of who can spank and who can touch you kids as long as it isn’t YOU, when I was 8 … here in Alaska.
I am not sure when they started it in other States. But over 15 yrs now, makes people wonder. I won’t say I didn’t deserve a swat on the butt and in some cases a slap in the face … beatings never.
But maybe my opinion differs from other people. Your Mother and Father (whom ever they may be or step into the place of) INSTILL the fear of God into you and the start of Morals. What is right and wrong… etc. Most children today do not understand the fear of Parent/God that most of us on this thread undertstand.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Yeah like:
You had sex, birthed a kid, and now must raise him.
So quit quitting on your kid and grow up and be an adult.
Is that ok to say? “quit quitting”?????…lol.
TheHat on October 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
12 hr/30 min break??? And you are not allowed to have an emergency during that time…under the Obama health care plan.
HawaiiLwyr on October 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
No sh*t?
What kind of geniuses do they have working in the government?
ballz2wallz on October 9, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Also, in Soviet United States, circa 2009, The debt clock runs out of digits; but government is simply not spending enough money!
lorien1973 on October 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Racist.
lorien1973 on October 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM
“Stop Quitting” or “Don’t Quit” might work better.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Doesn’t McCain’s pro-insurance company healthcare plan call for allowing patients to go across state lines to get adequate healthcare?
philnewkirk on October 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Liberals.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Indeed. I can’t believe they’re even calling it a “loophole”. I mean, it’s the most obvious thing ever. It’s more of a gaping-loop-gap if you ask me.
People helping people. It’s beautiful.
loganthompson on October 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM
This Nebraska resident wonders why it is every time we somehow get in the national news it’s over something embarrassing like this. Last time it was when that race baiting State Sen. Ernie Chambers got the school districts essentially segregated by race and now this. Ugh.
Yakko77 on October 9, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I’d just like to point out the sad fact that we have only made national news in the past year for really negative things… Ugh.
loganthompson on October 9, 2008 at 2:10 PM
Ha! Omg, I hadn’t read this until after I posted. We even both ended with “ugh.”
I’m very creeped out right now.
loganthompson on October 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM
As a Florida resident, I feel your pain.
lorien1973 on October 9, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Yeah, it’s a disaster. Yet another example of a well-intentioned policy that doesn’t turn out as planned.
The goal, obviously, is to give another alternative to abortion, not to let some guy drop off his seven mostly-gown kids that he can’t handle.
Our governor is about to hold a special session to get some of the language changed.
logansbro on October 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I do try. :)
Ugh. It wouldn’t surprise me.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Don’t forget that Ol’ Ernie filed a lawsuit against GOD.
Plus, we brought the country Chuck Hagel.
Lucky for us, both are about to retire.
cntrlfrk on October 9, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Mine used shame.
misterpeasea on October 9, 2008 at 2:14 PM
Well said.
I’m 38 on Nov 5th. Can you guess what I want for my birthday present? (Hint: Not Obama as president elect)
Unfortunately many parents, including mine, take a backseat approach to education, leaving it up to the state. They still had what I call the echoes of Christianity, being raised in that faith, but having abandoned it themselves.
By the grace of God, I think critically, and eventually made my way out of the Fog of the indoctrination that occurs in the schools.
By the way, God says to spare the rod, which doesn’t mean NEVER, just when necessary. Fortunately there is a memory input switch implanted under fleshy buttocks muscles. Conveniently placed there for needed times by God.
:)
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 2:19 PM
You mean like the bail out bill Congress passed last week?
I actually kind of think Nebraska is the only state that got it right. The original intent of the bill was to protect infants BUT it appears that this loophole points to a need not being met by other means. Isn’t it better that these situations be brought to light- even if they involve teens? Perhaps Nebraska should look at what kind of assistance is available for the “overwhelmed” parents of older children.
P.S. None of the above is to imply that the state should take on raising children. Just considering if the safety net for 10-year-olds is lacking for those children whose parents would even think about dropping them off in the first place.
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Yeah. I got that, too, since my parents were/are divorced.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM
Same.
Same.
And same here. (even the age thing, too)
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:20 PM
No. That’s the Chicago health care system you are thinking of. One way tickets to Kenosha, Wisconsin. All aboard.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Objection!
Morality does not require religion.
Your misconception here comes from the fact that, for the most part, religion requires morality. As such, the immoral will often reject religion.
However, there are a number of us that were raised with a strong morality in the absence of religion.
So, please, let us focus on the immoral ones. It is their irresponsibility that causes these problems.
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Liberalism doesn’t work every time its tried. I wonder if that was the sort of “Change” Nebraska was looking for.
mtbunji on October 9, 2008 at 2:22 PM
great you both have to have a youngster point out the obvious? This isn’t good!
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM
How about this one… Morality or not.
In the eyes of Children, all Parents are Gods.
Think HARD about it.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Uh, um, uh, um, no. I’ve been a parent for 7 years. Before I became a parent, my wife and I talked about raising children before we had our daughter. We were already on the same page.
…..and stop it with “youngster” talk. I already have enough white (I know, racist) hairs sticking out of my brown mane.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 9, 2008 at 2:28 PM
But it is more fun to say quit-quitting! Try it. 10 times real fast.
Its like Sam Witwicky.
TheHat on October 9, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Okay, I’ll bite. If not from religion, how does one develop a strong sense of morality? Outside the confines of religion, why is it “wrong” to steal what you need from others, commit adultery, or otherwise do those acts which religion declares wrong? How does one determine right from wrong when God isn’t involved?
highhopes on October 9, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Quit quitting
Quit quitting
Quit kitting
Kit kitting
….
Fhtagn!!
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM
My father had a tendency toward hyperbolic threats.
A memorable one was “If you spill that lemonade on the hard wood floor, I’ll skin your legs.”
Would that be considered child abuse now a days?
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Heck yes. Psychological as well as ordinary. /iSarc
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:33 PM
What’s the problem? The mothers are just facilitating the process of the “Village” bringing up their children.
aero on October 9, 2008 at 2:34 PM
That might have worked up until shortly after my mother ran of with another woman (okay, she got joint custody, and tried to get the house, but you know what I mean…).
Divorces have a way of taking the shine off of things.
Still, my parents where the only role models I ever had, and I would like to think I learned from their flaws.
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 2:36 PM
As a baby until you hit about 7 -10 yrs old, your Parents or whomever raised you are usually the only Figures with authority in your life. They are in standings, God!
But when you get older you realize they have flaws too… but until then, you assume they are perfect.
I am talking about the roll of a Family who work together, not children whom are starved, beaten, or anything grossly wrong happen to them. Those Parents or Custodians should be shot in my opinion.
That is my theory and I am sticking to it.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:40 PM
I disagree with the premise that morality does not require religion.
Most Americans, even if they weren’t raised in a particular faith only have to trace back one or two generations behind their parents to find the faith that input their morality. This is what I was calling the echoes of Christianity, but you could also substitute the religion of your ancestors instead of Christianity.
On the flip side, I’ll offer this thought up as grist for thinking. (Not to derail the thread, but just provided as food for thought)
In the absence of religion, the only rational explanation must come from an evolutionary basis. Where is the selective advantage for morality in the evolution of a species, which is based ultimately upon survival of individuals in a population? This kind of self serving approach to life will guarantee you pass your genes along to the next generation.
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 2:43 PM
I forgot to add that I agree with you that the immorality, or is it more appropriately amorality, is the root cause.
I was just attributing that to the decline in honoring God as a nation.
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I was not raised with religon in my house. Neither of my parents are religous either.
I didn’t turn into some weirdo satan worshipping hippie. (Or did I?)
I concider myself normal… or as close to it as possible.
I just debunked Marine and Count.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:51 PM
My knee-jerk answer is the enforcement of a moral authority suggests acquiescence to their standard – at least to some degree – to avoid the consequences set in place. Basically, because the law says so. However, not being an atheist myself, I can only surmise and guess.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 2:52 PM
My mother thought I was a “troubled teen” – I fought constantly with her partner who hated me, so one day, I come home from school to a recruiter on my couch. I had been planning to join up anyway, but that’s how my mom got me out of the house at 17.
As I said in the headline thread, I’ve joked about driving to Nebraska to take advantage of this loophole, or putting my kids on Craig’s list – but I’d never actually do it. When the kids get bad enough that I’m thinking of paying someone to take them away, I put them to bed early, get some tea, and watch some frakking tv or play a video game. Next morning, I start fresh. I suffer from quite severe depression at times (PPD never went away), and I’m in a stressful situation (being a geographical single parent of 3 kids, one with special needs), and I can handle it better than these wimps dumping their kids and responsibility on the state. Chort.
Anna on October 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Wasn’t Obama born in Nebraska?
Nebraska is one of the 57 states, no?
Just a question.
Mcguyver on October 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Uh, where did the debunking occur of what either of us wrote?
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I can see some validity to that.
I think you are stretching things a bit.
However, it is true that morality is intertwined with religion. I’m going to try not to be offensive hear, but would you consider that this might be a case of people wanting God to be moral, rather than the other way around?
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Religion silly ;)
sorry I am VERY tired.. so I am not totally on the up and up.
upinak on October 9, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Good for you.
…but how was that supposed to be debunking, exactly?
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM
This is just the result of contemporary America’s bizzare classification of post-pubescents as “children.” Even a casual student of human history knows that males and females with reproductive abilities were considered adults by their respective cultures. How many HA readers alone can boast of a patriarch and matriarch who married at ages 13-17?
It’s time to stop treating adults like children and start demanding they behave like grown-ups.
TMK on October 9, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Grue, here’s the thing, law traces back to religion.
As a reformed atheist, I can tell you this is an area of discussion that is actually amusing to watch an anthropologist dance through. Even for an atheist.
Hey, slightly off topic, but your tag in a different post was
*headdesk*
which made me think of FacePalm
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 3:02 PM
That’s a non sequitor. One has nothing to do with the other. These are parents running away from their children, not the other way around.
And if they’re willing to run away from their own parents, why wouldn’t they run away from government parents?
Esthier on October 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I likely have several, but it’s not something I boast of.
This can’t happen until we start training our children to be adults at 13+. I’m not sure that’s a wise idea. We have enough problems caused by the stupidities that happen around the currently-turntable ages of 18 and 21.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I could be wrong, but, I don’t think he’s advocating that people cross state lines for health care (which, I believe is already perfectly legal).
He’s advocating that people in one state can buy an insurance plan from another state (which is currently illegal in many states, such as CA).
Different states mandate different things in their insurance plans which means that a state like California which has quite a few mandates will have much more expensive insurance than a state with fewer mandates. This means that the cheapest insurance I can get in California is much more expensive than the cheapest insurance that’s available in another state.
If McCain had his way, I could say, “Hey, I don’t drink, smoke or do drugs and my family has no history of mental illnesses, so I’d like a cheaper insurance plan that doesn’t include coverage for treatment of addiction and mental illness.” I could then go find a plan in Idaho or Tennessee that doesn’t include that stuff and spend less on my insurance.
JadeNYU on October 9, 2008 at 3:03 PM
wait until planned parenthood gets wind of this. Abortion of teenagers would be easier and cost less (just a bullet). Who knew the government could enact legislation that extends abortion issues to teenagers? Planned Parenthood must be salivating.
ThackerAgency on October 9, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I’m aware. I’ve lost count of the times not only that I’ve heard people say but that I myself have said that the current moral standard of the past and present was originally based on Judeo-Christian values.
In a society where they are the minority, amoralists (which most atheists fall into) must either conform to the culture’s morality – even if they do not conform to its beliefs – or be faced with the mortal consequences of rebellion. For the most part, in the past, this has always been the case: the Greeks and Romans had the Zeus/Jupiter pantheon, the Northlanders had the Odin pantheon, the Celts and Grecos had their deific entities, and so on and so on and so on.
There really has never been a society in which those who believe in no greater power whatsoever are a majority. The ultimate question, at least to me, is what such a society might be like. On what would their laws be based, if they had any laws at all? How and why would they be enforced? There are a million questions down this vein, it’s a subject I’ve been quite curious about for a very long time.
Can’t see the link, blocked here, but it’s essentially the same thing – just banging my head on my keyboard rather than slapping myself. ;)
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:09 PM
I might be missing something, but I don’t see a big problem with this… why pay for something you’re never going to use, and all that.
Why is it illegal currently? That’s probably the kicker question.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:10 PM
I happen to know someone who works in the online health insurance business. There are some rather odd rules they have to deal with, like having to tell people to hang up the phone because the agent can’t tell them something over the phone, but can tell them in an online chat room.
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Unfortunately the argument then becomes circular, because where does the desire for God to be moral come from?
But this is more like the kind of discussion to be had over a few beers and some serious time on hand.
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 3:12 PM
It worked for thousands of years, right up until “Pop-Tarts” and “Tang” were invented. I don’t see any reason to doubt it’s effectiveness just because toaster pastries and simulated juice have been invented.
*shines a light around*
TMK on October 9, 2008 at 3:12 PM
See, here’s the problem with this idea. It SOUNDS good (which is why politicians say it) but if you know what you are talking about, you’ll know why it’s not a good idea.
Each state has a department of insurance that is directed to look out for the state’s taxpayers. If someone in California (or New York) wanted to buy a health insurance plan in Tennessee or Nebraska (where costs are lower), then the taxpayers of Tennessee or Nebraska would see their rates SKYROCKET. Guess what happens next election to the Commissioner of insurance at the helm when that happens. . .
Rates are based on the COSTS in particular areas. COSTS are higher in California and New York. If you get a health plan in Nebraska that has to pay the outrageous rates in Ca and NY, everyone in Nebraska will have their rates go way, way up.
While the California and New York residents are happy to rape their less expensive (for a reason) brother states, residents of the states would be uber angry.
Here’s what you do if you aren’t satisfied with your state’s available plans. Contact your department of insurance and tell them that you want better and more affordable plans in your state – as a VOTING TAXPAYER. DEMAND IT. Don’t rape other states who HAVE demanded it.
Of course DC politicians who have never had to get their own insurance or deal with pre-existing conditions are in no way shape or form in a position to fix this issue.
It’s like asking someone who has never taken a drink to cure someone of alcoholism. A blind man leading a quadriplegic.
ThackerAgency on October 9, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Then again, as someone who served our nation I imagine you had those wimps beat long before you started having children anyway.
Still, I feel for you. With your husband away it must get insanely tough at times. I think I’ve asked you this before, but don’t you have any family who can take the kids from you for a break? That’s one of the things I’m waiting on before we have kids. We’re four hours away from family right now, and I can’t imagine trying to raise kids without free babysitting from grandparents (that and my mom’s threatened me if I keep grandkids away from her the way my sister did when she moved across the nation with her kids).
Back on topic though, I’m horrified that people would even do this, especially the man who left all nine of his kids after their mother/his wife died. That’s the time when they needed him most, and instead now they don’t even have each other.
Esthier on October 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM
It just occurred to me that since when do Emergency Rooms close?
“Gotta remember not to have a heart attack or appendix flare up at 3:00 am, Fred, we can’t get in to the hospital.”
tru2tx on October 9, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Maybe. It would have to involve a massive, MASSIVE societal change. Depending on how the next couple of decades go we might just get it, but who knows.
*HISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Depending on where you draw some of those lines (those affiliated with a church may not in fact be believers, or may have compartmentalized their mind enough that they most of the time they don’t believe, even if they sometimes do) such a society may already exist.
Europe.
(Which, unfortunately, does not give a resounding endorsement of the health of such a society)
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 3:17 PM
That explains it better, which makes sense why it would/will be a problem. Is Phil correct on McCain’s stance? (Not that I don’t have enough to be irked at him for, despite the fact I’m still voting for him I’m not 100% on board with his policies….)
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 9, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Well, I’m not a drinker, but I can definitely see my self burning a good chunk of time in said discussion.
Count to 10 on October 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM
This should be fixed, but my Husker football team’s fragile psyche must be fixed first.
gmbdds on October 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM
I definitely understand and agree.
Though, rather than asking the state to have fewer mandates, I’d like for them to get out of the mandates altogether.
I should be able to negotiate what coverage I want and what I will pay with my insurance coverage without the government’s involvement.
People would be furious if the state mandated that their home owner’s insurance includes insurance for swimming pools regardless of whether or not they had a pool. And yet, people seem fine with the fact that their health insurance is required to cover addiction treatment whether they are at risk for it or not.
Of course, the average American probably isn’t even aware of the fact that the state mandates what things their insurance must cover in the first place. They’re most likely under the impression that it’s all still a free-market system.
JadeNYU on October 9, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Phil is right about McCain allowing across state lines insurance. However, I disagree with Thacker on one point. This would allow competition, and tend to standardize costs, if (BIG IF) handled apropriately.
Marine_Bio on October 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM
I should have previewed before I sent.
I meant that I should be able to negotiate what is covered and what I pay for it with my insurance company without the government’s involvement.
JadeNYU on October 9, 2008 at 3:25 PM
That’s how I understand it as well.
If that’s true, then why can’t the insurance companies just charge extra for people in other states unless those people receive medical care in the state where they get their insurance? They already charge extra for those with preexisting conditions. I don’t really see the difference here.
Besides, unless I’m mistaken, people can get insurance in the state in which they live and get treated in another.
When my mom was being treated for cancer she was at M.D. Anderson in Houston which has a good reputation, and I always saw people who only came to Texas to go to that hospital for their treatments, some British people too actually.
Esthier on October 9, 2008 at 3:26 PM
And who writes these badly written laws? Oh yeah…lawyers. Sheesh, go figure.
SKYFOX on October 9, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Tim Burton on October 9, 2008 at 3:35 PM
The family lives in MD and DE… we’re going up this weekend for the Navy Day Ball/5th anniversary, but it’s a minimum 5-hour trip. He comes on the weekends when he cans, so I get a few hours to myself. Yeah, it’s lonely, and very difficult at times… I’ll admit I cry a lot. Which makes me pissed to read stories like this – I mean, times get hard for a number of reasons, but none of it is an excuse to dump children into the hands of the state. Buck up, people. When it gets super bad, just think: each day that passes is another day closer to the day they move out. My husband calls this thinking about the positive. : )
Anna on October 9, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Yes, it’s all the kid’s fault. Parents take no blame and no responsibility.
Esthier on October 9, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »