Why she did it?...$13,608.00 a month and free medical for the kids

[SoCalDem]

federal pays $674.00 per person for disability SSI
Calif adds to it, to make a total of $972.00 per person

times 14

equals $13,608.00 a month

Low income/NO income = medi-CAL (medicaid) for each kid..includes : dental, vision, ..the works

add to this:

Food Stamps
W.I.C. until age 6 (I think that's the age cut off)


Octo-Freak Mom has a "plan"... a plan to market herself & her freakshow family, and live off the government until the "big bucks" roll in....(that's not all that likely now)..

[cliffordu]

1. Wait till she tries to feed those brats on that ginormous food stamp card....

You ought to look up the fax 'n figures on that, too.....

[SoCalDem]

5. I'm not saying she'll have an easy time of it, but she'll have a LOT of government money

coming in, and a lot of small kids who cannot complain a lot.. :(

I do hope that she will have plenty of oversight..for the sake of the kids..

[cliffordu]

12. I think the brats all need to go to loving homes. They remove pooches from

puppy mills all the time.......I see no reason to think this insane self aggrandizing scumbag is any different than breeders that let pups wallow in their own feces in cages......

This whole thing stinks of the same kind of disorder.

[Zhade]

104. First we had serial killers, now we have serial birthers.

And my guess is that the same narcissism drives them both.

[ornotna]

130. Pooches, puppies and pups

Yet these poor kids are just "brats". Nice going. What was that about a disorder?

[cliffordu]

142. I don't like kids. Don't want them around me. So?

You the 'love the children' police??

[ornotna]

145. I have no problem with your disdain towards children

If you were describing a personal story of an encounter with some unpleasant kids and called them brats, I wouldn't give a damn. These poor babies have done nothing to you, lighten up man.

[Incitatus]

7. Some restaurants have a kids eat free deal when an adult purchases a meal. nt

:rofl:

[saltpoint]

11. True. Now if only there was an adult in that family...

[cliffordu]

13. "Load up the bus!! We're going to th' All you can eat!!!!!"

[underseasurveyor]

17. You know that saying.. it only takes one

It only takes one to screw it up for everyone else.

Yea, that'll be her

[hyphenate]

30. Many restaurants have

changed their policy on that--now it's a child's meal per adult purchase of a meal. So unless she's got 13 other adults to buy the meals, she's up shit creek.

As far as the other is concerned, California is close to bankruptcy, so I wouldn't count on all that cash in her pocket just yet. Most states have a cap on benefits, and I think if that was her plan from the beginning, she IS delusional.

[.... callchet ....]

44. Need an adult is the catch here.

[acmavm]

72. Those kids aren't brats, they're innocent victims. You are an ass though

for your remark.

[cliffordu]

143. Yet another member of the sensitivity police.

[acmavm]

144. Speaking to yet another one of our more classless specimens.

[cliffordu]

147. A title I embrace coming from you, sparky.

[bigtree]

2. if you're not prepared to deny those kids the things they need

. . . then your complaint about the money she expects for them is just hot air.

Kids are born every day who need assistance. It makes no sense to bear down on this one family.

[catnhatnh]

18. I don't think anyone here wants to deny anything the kids need...

Just things that the Mother craves (media attention and celebrity) which not so coincidentally will work to the children's detriment. And quite frankly if she were allowed to gain her goals there are other sick people who would be encouraged to compete...how's a litter of 12 or 14 sound?

[saltpoint]

19. If the cash is the motivation for popping out 8 babies then the

point raised is valid.

We will have to see how Octomom manages her new-found fame and notorieity.

Medical ethicists, beginning now to weigh in, find her off her damned rocker:

http://airamerica.com/content/octomom

[northernlights]

73. baloney -- all 14 should be taken away

and adopted out. She is not capable of raising them; she has proven she is not capable of reasonable decision-making.

Her PR agent -- YES HER PUBLIC RELATIONS AGENT -- was on Dr. Phil yesterday explaining how, "Yes, she made a mistake, but she's intelligent and educated and she's a CHRISTIAN!!! So now let's all just put her little mistake behind us and ante up to help the kids. Besides, it's not really her fault at all since the doctors told her it would be twins at most. Oh, and you can all rest assured; she promises never to get pregnant again."

Um, no. SHE MADE ONE MISTAKE...FIVE TIMES IN A ROW. Getting pregnant 5 times over with no means of support beyond mooching was not a single mistake. It was a serious mistake the FIRST time. It was the same mistake over and over and over.

I have limited pity for her parents, who have already bankrupted themselves for her, in their 900 square foot, 3 bedroom home already jammed full of cribs and bunk beds. After all, they raised the whackjob and they enabled her through 5 pregnancies.

The home is already deemed unfit for raising 6 kids in, with 3 quasi-adults. Beds and cribs jammed in everywhere, clothes draped everywhere. Where the eff do they think they're going to squeeze in 8 more? Seriously!

They also went over the costs per child, including their current lengthy stay in hospital. It's a couple million just for the hospital. And more than likely, some will be disabled. Oh, and did you know 3 of her 1st 6 are disabled/special needs?

[bigtree]

100. frickin arrogant and ridiculous to make all of these judgments

. . . from behind your computer (or TV) screen.

Equally arrogant and ridiculous to single this one woman out to trash on the internet.

[Zhade]

106. All the poster did was point out facts.

NT!

[Hannah Bell]

121. No facts in the OP. She quotes the highest SSI disability payment

for an adult *blind* person, living on their own, & says all the kids will get *that*, & that's why the mother had the kids.

The mind-reading doesn't wash & the numbers are wrong. By more than $400 per person.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. All of the kids aren't disabled.

[SoCalDem]

8. Kids can be "disabled" enough to get SSI...by virtue of their living circumstances

if the parent is clever enough, and a doctor "says" they are disabled..

[LittleWoman]

49. Not really

The situation of the parents has nothing to do with the children actually getting SSI. Without objective medical records--ie medical test data etc--the word of the doctor is not worth anything either. Also even if a child is granted disability as a baby there is no guarantee the disability will continue to age 18. Claims are reviewed periodically and if there is determined to be medical improvement the benefits are ceased. The cessation can be appealed, but again there must be objective medical evidence and not just the say so of a doctor. There is a common miss-perception that if your doctor says you are disabled you are disabled. The standards are more rigorous than that as many on this board have said before. It is often very difficult to be granted disability whether the claimant in question is a baby or an adult. The standards of disability are different for children and adults, but in both cases objective medical evidence is required.

[Lance_Boyle]

67. all of the latest 8 are, by virtue of weighing less than 2# at birth

and 3 of the first 6 are, by virtue of that woman's fraud, or possibly legitimate conditions. That's quite a taxpayer-funded gravy train for the catastrophically selfish one.

[Hannah Bell]

74. bullshit. you don't get ssi just because your kids were underweight at birth.

[Generator]

92. Wrong

I looked this up when I heard her other three were on disability. I had no idea either.

Are children born prematurely eligible for SSI benefits?
Social Security does provide SSI disability benefits to certain low birth weight infants, whether or not they are premature. A child who weighs less than 1200 grams (about 2 pounds, 10 ounces) at birth can qualify for SSI on the basis of low birth weight, if otherwise eligible. A child who weighs between 1200 and 2000 grams at birth (about 4 pounds 6 ounces) AND who is considered small for his or her gestational age may also qualify. For this second category of low birth weight infants, the following chart shows the gestational age at birth and corresponding birth weight that satisfies our "small for gestational age" criterion.

http://www.accessible.org/social-security-disability.html

Also list gestational age-and they were only 31 weeks not even on the chart so they will automatically qualify.

[Hannah Bell]

114. there is no "automatic" SSI. SSI is a welfare payment, it's not Social Security.

And Social Security Disability isn't SSI.

SSI = Supplemental Security Income, welfare disability for those who never worked enough to qualify for Social Security Disability, & for the dependents of those who never worked enough.

It's administered by the SS Administration, but funded out of the general budget, not through FICA.

Thus:

"CAN qualify for SSI on the basis of low birth weight, IF OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE."

You don't get SSI just because you have low-birthweight kids, & the kids don't get it automatically either. First, you have to be basically indigent.


"What You Should Know When You Apply for SSI Disability Benefits for Your Child

Children from birth up to age 18 may get Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. They must be disabled and they must have little or no income and resources. Here are answers to some questions people ask about applying for SSI for children.

How does Social Security decide if a child is disabled?

Social Security has a strict definition of disability for children.

The child must have a physical or mental condition(s) that very seriously limits his or her activities; and

The condition(s) must have lasted, or be expected to last, at least 1 year or result in death."

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/disability/disability_starter_kits_child_factsheet.htm

[Generator]

141. You are still wrong

God you are an annoying ass. You would argue that water is wet. THE children were born at 31 weeks and most way under 2 or 3 pounds-and of course she IS indigent and the fragile children are automatically illegible. Putting you on ignore. Don't need to listen to your insufferable argument that we are bashing welfare or reproductive choice-that is not what this is about. You lack COMMON SENSE. And I can't believe this thread is still open-it is because of YOU. Goodbye.

[EFerrari]

4. She's going to lose those kids.

:shrug:

[saltpoint]

9. One of the most insightful things I've heard on this so far.

It is a damned sad thing but I fear you are absolutely right -- this mom is already overtaken by forces in herself she can't define, let alone manage.

There's going to be rough seas.

[SoCalDem]

14. I have a feeling the state will HAVE to step in , and take them

Can you imagine the uproar if something happens to one of those kids, and they had not stepped in.?

I feel badly for the first batch.. They are in the mix, too..

[saltpoint]

15. Agree. They are going to become "little babysitters" for the new bunch of

crying sibs.

The long-term prospects for sound mental health in this crew have been thrown into serious question.

And this woman is studying to become a therapist? My god.

[EFerrari]

16. There are a lot of couples who want to adopt babies.

The older children will have a rougher time but at least they have the grandmother for now. Breaks your heart.

[orleans]

20. i heard a radio clip of the grandma saying: "i'm sick of taking care of those 6 kids"

doesn't look pretty.

[SoCalDem]

22. That woman should not be expected to take care of 6 kids under 8 yrs of age

she's retired, and lives in a smallish home.. It's not her responsibility, but she's been forced into doing it.. she's tired...There's a reason why nature intended for YOUNG women to bear children..energy levels are not the same at 60, as they are at 25-35..

[SoCalDem]

21. I'm sure they could find four couples who would agree to take 2 each, and

raise them , remaining in contact with the others, and the first batch too.... these children have a special bond that will always make them "famous", so farming them out, only to lose contact, would be cruel, but they ned stable families where THEY would be the center of loving attention..not of a media circus, or as a mealticket for a needy, narcissistic birth-vessel.

[krabigirl]

52. I hope the "state" doesn't shove them all into the system. At least give them an option for adoption

maybe keeping some of the siblings together?

[Nevernose]

133. That's more up to the mother

It takes quite a bit before the state will take away a parent's rights to that extent. The theory being that a natural parent is the best option for a child, even if that parent is temporarily not living up to his duty.

The mother, however, could start putting up kids for adoption tomorrow. She might be more inclined after she hasn't seen a few of them for a few years. Sad all around.

[backscatter712]

64. I'd hope the state could deal with her ... issues ... without going so far as taking them all away.

Push the mother into therapy - sounds like she genuinely needs it.

If she has relatives, maybe grant them custody, and the mother visitation rights - that way, the family at least somewhat stays together, but there's enough resources and helping hands to take care of all 14 kids.

As far as the OP's point of her getting tens of thousands of dollars, it's probable that some of those kids, especially the octuplets will be genuinely disabled, and all that money will go to medical care.

I would hope that the state could find ways of dealing with the issues without the whole "YANK 'EM AND TOSS 'EM IN THE ORPHANAGE!" routine. Yes, this family is fucked up, but if there's a way of keeping this family together, it should be done.

[EFerrari]

83. I mostly agree in the cases of the older children but not the infants.

The problem is, there is no functioning family unit here. There is what looks like a very ill mom who has dumped her parenting job on her mother. The older kids probably have some kind of bond to her and it might be better for them to be able to preserve that in some way. I don't think those infants should be fed into that very dysfunctional system when they could go to good homes with adults in them.

[Zhade]

107. What if her relatives don't want to be used by a selfish narcissist like her?

NT!

[leftstreet]

6. I'd rather pay for her kids than pay for bombs in Afghanistan

Honestly this woman sounds like a sad mental case, but the M$M is using this as yet another method to get us to turn on each other.

[stray cat]

40. I don't like to pay for stupidity or irresponsibility - I don't have that kind of money

[krabigirl]

56. so you were fine with that bailout then?

[krabigirl]

55. same here. We think nothing of paying for endless wars, or corporate welfare.

I see more anger at this woman than at the fricken CEOs living high off of the bailout billions...

[relayerbob]

85. No, at least in my case ....

I'm angry at the same selfish, unthinking, screw-the-consequences atttude coming from each. The CEOs need jail time, she needs therapy ... maybe the CEOs should pay for it.

[Zhade]

108. Oh, I've got plenty of anger for BOTH. They're all selfish fucks.

NT!

[Lilith Velkor]

91. Fuckin' A.

[Believing Is Art]

10. Eh, no

She did it because she has an insatiable appetite for attention. Fourteen kids will give you a lot of attention. Sure drew mom and dad back into her web. After watching a few too many episodes of John & Kate + 8 and seeing other litters making the news, she probably figured she'd get some kind of TV, movie, and/or book deal. Reality will bite her in the butt, and hopefully she'll make the right decision and put some of the babies up for adoption.

[Mamacrat]

117. TV and attention.

I noticed the couple of times I saw her on TV with her infants that several of them had names like the Duggar family (the family with 18 or so children): Josiah, Jeremiah, and another "J" name, while the girls she named had "M" names. I'm not sure if those names are exact, but at the time I recognized them as Duggar family names. Sounds like she's very impressed with many "celebrities."

[terisan]

23. Those evil scheming poor disabled women and their welfare babies!!!-Yes I am being sarcastic.

[Maru Kitteh]

24. We now hate single moms on welfare. Check.

You know, Freepers assume they "know" the thoughts and motivations of single women with kids who dare draw any assistance.

Maybe some people here have more in common with Freepers than they care to admit.

[SoCalDem]

26. nope.. just delusional grifters

:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

43. Single moms cannot be criticized for any choice they might make. Check.

You're dumb.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

45. Always

making friends wherever you go. :)

[BlooInBloo]

59. It's a gift.

:P

[QueenOfCalifornia]

46. please...

could you reread what you wrote.

No one here sounds like they "hate single moms on welfare." What it sounds like is people here can see a lunatic who purposefully had a litter of humans to get all the attention possible and used those poor little babies to do so. It is difficult to take care of one little baby - try taking care of 8 tiny, screaming, hungry, pooping, peeing babies who have 6 older siblings -

Sometimes common sense is just common sense. Octomom has zero.

[DS1]

68. I'll skip the commentary from someone with 'kitteh' in their user name

:eyes:

[northernlights]

77. only single moms of litters, on welfare...with PR agents

telling us why we should overlook her "mistake," shut up and ante up.

A mistake is you forget to take your pill. How the eff are 5 annual in vitro fertilizations with no means of a support "a mistake?"

I'm very curious how she's paying for the PR agent. With her welfare check? Or is the agent working for a percentage of the take?

[PVnRT]

119. lulz

SoCalDem, Hardcore Reaganite

Freepers also have no problem with people having as many kids as possible, too. Hmmmmmmm

[Melinda]

25. Some factual corrections, if I may.

1) In order for a child to receive SSI, that child must be medically declared disabled. Despite the fact that the babies are preemies, they aren't presumptively eligible to SSI. The child must have a physical/mental condition or conditions that can be medically proven and which results in marked and severe functional limitations.

2) Even if a child is eligible to SSI, SSA uses what is called a "deeming" formulation to determine the benefit amount available to a/each disabled child. This means that all other sources of income, whether earned or unearned, is used when calculating the payment. For instance, any "donations" to the children would be deemed income. Additionally, any "resources" the mother may have or will acquire in the future will also be deemed in determining the benefit amount.

3) The SSP portion of SSI contains the State payment equivalent of the Fed food stamp benefit, ie, a child receiving SSI does not receive food stamps.

4) As I understand it, the mother receives SSI for only the 1 autistic child, and some form of disabilty assistance for 2 others (CA State Disabilty Development Centers comes to mind), although I could be in error.

5) Each and everyone of the children, as of this writing and regardless of whether or not they may or may not receive SSI, is eligible to Medi-cal as a result of "absent parent deprivation". Any SSI child automatically receives Medi-cal. Medi-cal does not automatically cover dental and vision, and those services are notoriously hard to get which is another reason why CA's "Healthy Families" (SCHIP) program is so important to low income children.

Thanks for letting me share a bit of knowledge and allowing me to park in this space. :)

[emilyg]

27. Thank you for the knowledge.

[SoCalDem]

28. Thanks.. I got my info from a CA Lawyer's Blog

and from personal info from people I know whose kids are/were on medicaid..

http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=california%20ssi%20monthly%20payment&id=dd9963d63618875722a67cc7292acf3b

and

http://tovah45.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/2009-ssi-amounts-for-california1.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

75. you got the information that all her kids were on ssi there too?

[SoCalDem]

80. The AMOUNTS of SSI... No one (even the press) seems to know

much about the actual dollar amounts she's getting.. In fact just this AM, it was released by MSNBC that she received a $169K lawsuit settlement against the state of CA, and apparently, instead of using that to support her SIX little kids, she got herself 8 more..:grr:

[Hannah Bell]

81. no, she got disability payments, over something like 7 years, because she was

injured in a prison RIOT when she worked in the prison. She was protecting another employee & got whacked in the back with a chair or something like that. Yeah, what a scammer.


Have you nothing better to use your little icon for? Maybe the rich assholes stealing your state?

[LisaL]

98. Yes, she is supposed to have back pain from her injury.

How is she going to be taking care of 8 young infants with her bad back?
Do tell.
Somebody is going to have to pick all those infants up every now and then.

[Hannah Bell]

105. Gee, the government-run website seems to know what the maximum possible is.

If "no one" else does, maybe it's because they didn't look too hard.

Took me 2 minutes.

but don't let that stop you from posting nonsense.

[DeltaLitProf]

99. If students of mine use blogs as their sources for any assertion . . .

. . . those blogs better be written by experts. Please do us the courtesy of doing GOOD research before you use outlandishly ridiculous numbers to brandish the "welfare queen" image on DU. That image has done waaaaaay too much damage to this country to spread casually.

In my view, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[SoCalDem]

135. so very very very very very very sorry that a source should not meet with your approval

my life's goal is to meet with the approval of every anonymous web-person with whom I cross paths :rofl:


http://www.blogcatalog.com/search.frame.php?term=california%20ssi%20monthly%20payment&id=dd9963d63618875722a67cc7292acf3b
California Social Security Lawyer Blog
Published by Geri Kahn, San Francisco Bay Area Social Security Disability Attorney

[snowbear]

29. I have a question that keeps gnawing on me about Octomom..

.
.

Isn't the in-vitro-fertilization procedure expensive? My cousin and her husband scraped and saved for years and were finally able to give it a try about 5 years ago. Unfortunately for them it wasn't successful..

I don't live near her, but I remember her telling me that they had to save up something like $25,000.00 to go through the procedure.

Bummed out from the results, they worked and saved again for the next 4 years and this time, went the international adoption route. Just a few months ago they became the parents of twin babies they adopted out of Petersburg, Russia. (Expensive for them to fly over there and deal with the Russian government, but the cost was a fraction of the IVF procedure) ...Both she and her husband work full time...

...But how is it that an unemployed mom with 6 children has the money to undergo such an expensive medical procedure?

p.s.. I'm sure this was covered on Dateline or one of the other shows.. but the only one I've been able to catch is one Today Show interview.

Anyone know how she paid for the IVF?

[LisaL]

47. Octomom had disability payments.

Her mother says octomom didn't even tell her about those.
Her mother also said octomom didn't pay the bills.
I mean, you can save up quite a lot if you don't pay the bills and get paid every year.

[rvablue]

69. According to her from the Curry interview:

She claimed that while working at the mental hospital she saved $100,000.

I don't buy it. She had some entry-level type position.

[Mamacrat]

120. Money for IVF

Nadya said in her interview on Dateline that before she ever had her first child she worked a lot of double shifts and saved almost all of her money for the purpose of having IVF, as she'd had no success with achieving a successful pregnancy with her husband. From the interview I inferred that she lived with first her husband then her parents, which would allow her to save a good bit if she in fact worked those kind of hours.

Edit for spelling.

[democracy1st]

31. thanks for posting she's sick in the head

[JVS]

32. BFD

[Kahuna]

33. I believe there is a monthly maximum of about $2400.00. nt

[Child_Of_Isis]

34. Is this sarcasm?

Or are you actually believing this stuff?

[cornermouse]

35. I don't see how she can possibly keep the kids.

In order to thrive each child needs a certain amount of one on one time with mom. One of them is already autistic, something which requires an incredible amount of time even with two parents. Two others require therapy which isn't that uncommon but which does require time and transport (difficult with 8 babies). I believe one of the older children said about mommy being upset or angry or crying (I can't remember exactly) when she came home with all those babies. None of the children already at home are old enough to help take care of the babies. Grandma has already announced her intention to split when the babies come home and given the enormity of what she did I doubt neighbors will come in and help her, which is something she said on camera. Care for babies goes well beyond just the financial aspects. Babies require a basic level of physical care and love and attention. From here it doesn't look like she's capable of providing any of that.

I don't think she'll be allowed to keep them for very long.

[ejpoeta]

36. what are you talking about.

there is no law requiring one on one time with each child. otherwise there'd be a lot of multiples in foster care. I find myself feeling unnerved about this situation. i mean, if she had the money for another round of invitro, she should have used it to care for the kids she already had. but my feelings are based on the little info I know. we only know part of the story. and that begs the question.... who are we to decide for someone else, when we don't even know the whole situation. the media has decided this woman is unhinged and a bad lady. so i guess she must be.

[cornermouse]

37. I am talking about

the basic care each child needs and her inability to give it to 8 babies and 6 children that small, with special needs and disabilities no less. I'm talking about the basic time needed to feed, diaper, and clean for 14 kids, the 6 oldest of which are too small to be any real help. I am talking about one on one time needed by each child in order to develop correctly mentally and emotionally. I am talking about the inequality of the ratio of 1 adult and 14 children, 8 of which are infants. I am talking about 8 babies who will no doubt be confined to either baby bed or baby carrier or high chair for longer than is healthy in an effort to maintain some semblance of control. That is what I am talking about.

[TorchTheWitch]

38. she IS unhinged - don't need the media to tell anyone that

It's perfectly obvious that this woman isn't playing with a full deck by her own words.

[carlyhippy]

39. and she just can't figure out why people are being so mean to her about her situation

In a time where economic hardship is the norm she is making out like a bandit, and can't figure out what the problem is with everyone else. She needs to take her donation website off of the internet and deal with her problems herself. There is no way that lady is going to be able to take care of those kids individually emotionally and give them the time and attention they deserve, I forsee a meltdown in a couple of months. She is not the Duggars, or Angelina.

[krabigirl]

54. People are mean because they can't just worry about their own damn lives.

[Zhade]

111. This selfish woman doesn't live on the fucking planet alone.

Each of her brood will use up FIVE TIMES the resources of a child in the developing world.

Fuck her and her selfishness. Fuck her and her using these poor kids to get rich.

[Hannah Bell]

118. So will every American kid. Were you one? Do you have any?

Do you live in a mud hut?

Guess you're "selfish," then.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. Child Services is already investigating - I don't think she'll have those kids long

I hope not.

She deserves worldwide public scorn.

[saltpoint]

50. I didn't know Child Services was involved. That is likely not a real

good prognosis for this household.

My instinct tells me the kids would be better off with a parent who is less, uh, market-directed.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

60. Take these kids away, she'll pump out some more

Who's to stop her? She thinks this is all great!

:hi:

[saltpoint]

62. Yes, it's possible, although she's 33 now. with each flip of the calendar

the odds for difficulties rise.

[krabigirl]

53. wow, worldwide?

I admit that she is not mentally sane, and her choices were bad, but wtf, world public scorn? Some people on here remind me of fundies. Mob mentality scares me.

[AngryAmish]

48. Her body, her choice

[saltpoint]

51. But also her judgment.

When that variable is added, her decision is less noble.

[KittyWampus]

57. okay, but the State is compelled to ensure all 14 children are taken care of properly.

[AngryAmish]

58. Does the State, since it is compelled to ensure the kids are taken care of

then get a vote in whether or not she gets to have this procedure?

That is a slope one does not want to be on if one cares about reproductive freedom.

[rvablue]

70. Really???? In that case, you have no problem if she goes in for more treatments?

How is this woman supposed to care for 14 kids very close in age. How?

Does the welfare/future of these poor kids not vex you at all?

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Ya know what? It's not just her "choice". She involved other people in it.

I really can't get with this "choice feminism". All choices a woman can make are NOT equal and value-neutral and, quite honestly, it's offensive and insulting to act like they are.

[Mamacrat]

124. Thank you Hello_Kitty!

I just wonder how many of the people defending this choice she made in regards to neglecting to address the reality of the situation and responsibility she has undertaken, for which she seems grossly unprepared, actually have children for whom they are responsible on a daily basis. As the poster below writes: Children are people, too. They are not just playthings.

We have one child (just over 3 1/2) who has been in up to four types of therapy since four months of age. It's been very distressing at times dealing with his issues. And we are an intact family with a grandmother actively involved in our lives, and an income and insurance. We have received zero assistance with our son's problems, although at this point he will be eligible for some free speech therapy in the school, which is not based on income, in addition to what we pay for at a rehabilitation center. We also pay for preschool and other activities to supplement his therapies. We are broke. Period. And eligible for nothing. That means that at my age (42) I'm pretty much going to have to accept that we will have only one child; I never wanted a child to be an only child, so that saddens me. But we can not afford another child now, and by the time we will be able to I'll be too old, if not already. We've made the responsible choice to not have another child.

I do find her cavalier attitude to her situation insulting to all of us, whether working or by misfortune not, who are making these responsible decisions for our families. She did not accidentally have these children. She knew full well she could not be responsible for even one more, but paid to have another. Interesting that in the videos of her home she had not even one crib set up for those infants. She has shown nothing that indicates that she is responsible. So, for those saying that it's just a media frenzy, she's been given ample opportunity to show how she has been and is responsible for these infants and her other children. All she could provide was lies about receiving public assistance ("It's a resource," not welfare. Semantics.) And saying she will live on student loans, which anyone who has them knows is not a good way to live. She also says she'll continue her degree. When will she find the time? And how many (three at least) new employees will her university have to hire to care for her children alone at the "free daycare" on campus she says she'll use. She's doing nothing but living off of others without even acknowledging that she is. Additionally, her doctor told her she needed surgery for her back (to go back to work, god forbid), but she refused on the grounds the x-rays would affect her chance of conceiving. So, she can have all of these children over the past 8 years or so, but can not so much as get a job in an office. Her activity alone indicates she can handle physical stress, and she flat-out refused a surgery that might have relieved any back pain for her. And who saw any fidgeting during her interviews, which surely a woman with such back pain would do after just giving birth to eight children!!

Back to the feminist issue... She also keeps saying people are angry with her for making the choice to be a single mom. People applaud responsible single moms. It's that she is not one!

[saltpoint]

127. Hello_Kitty, I tried and failed to make this point last evening, yet you

have made it here with snap, polish, and permanence.

Thank you, dammit.


:yourock: :thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

84. Children are people too. nt

[Zhade]

112. I feel for the poor kids. Their mom? Fuck that selfish narcissist.

NT!

[kskiska]

61. NY Post: Octomom Web Beg

(snip)

Suleman plans to turn the site into a tax-deductible charity to encourage additional gifts, publicist Michael Furtney told The Post.

"We're in the process of doing that - to make it like a 501(c)(3)," he said. "We've had many donations already, but wanted to create a central location. We also want to make sure she is legally protected."

"We thank you from the bottom of our hearts," Nadya states on the site, which also allows visitors to e-mail their comments.

However, the IRS does not permit 501(c)(3) charities to be established for the benefit of a single person or their family, according to the agency's Web site. Philanthropy experts say Suleman could establish an organization that aids a class of people, such as "single mothers with large families."

Furtney would not say how much cash has been donated, but said people have primarily been offering furniture, clothing, food and other essentials.

more…
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02122009/news/nationalnews/octomom_web_beg_154778.htm

[citizen snips]

63. she has a mental problem

hopefully child services will step in soon.

[Stuckinthebush]

65. I really don't think so

I think she is simply addicted to having children and being a mother. It gives her validation.

[schmear happens]

66. Are you aware that someone can have a mental illness yet appear sane?

Obsessions are a type of mental illness. There is a distortion happening. Somehow, one's emotional "need" (which is most likely magnified) takes over logic. An example of a distortion is with body image. An anorexic may be completely lucid, yet mentally ill because s/he doesn't see his/her body as it really is and cannot help but starve, even if it leads to death.

[Mamacrat]

125. Body Dismorphic Disorder

Yes, the way she denies having any plastic surgery, which after viewing the photos of "before" it is very obvious she has, as if we could not tell it before. I guess she had a "procedure" instead of surgery, a la Michael Jackson. Her excessive surgery and her lying about it are another indication of her instability, narcissism an immaturity, not to mention a very manipulative personality.

[Zhade]

113. Like I said, we have serial killers, now we have serial birthers.

NT!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

76. The Puppy Mill has a new website seeking donations

Next Step in Get Rich Quick Plan:

*put the kids up for adoption but don't give refunds.

[earth mom]

78. Can you show where California adds to SSI? I've never heard of that before.

This whole thing bugs me because there are 3 disabled children already who will not get the help they need with so much chaos in the home.

Also, none of the octuplets have been diagnosed with anything yet, so no one can say that they will get SSI.

So right now, the mom is looking to feed and house those kids for $2022 a month (SSI x 3) plus Food Stamps.

I heard a snippet on the news today that the mom is getting panicky because not that much help is coming in.

Yikes.


A few days ago, I was disgusted and angry with her, but now I'm starting to feel a teeny tiny bit sorry for her.

But mainly I'm sorry for her mom and for the first 6 kids who did not deserve this.

The whole thing is beginning to look like a major tragedy without a happy ending.

[Hannah Bell]

82. because the op made it up. kinda like rush limbaugh does, when pontificating on similar topics.

nothing suits the ruling class better than directing economic & social anxieties toward the disturbed, poor, powerless, minority, foreigner, etc.

[SoCalDem]

86. not "made up"..google California SSI payments..

woopsie.. I DID just now notice that I quoted the 972..should have been $907.00 per.. mea culpa.


The SSI payment in California consists of two parts: a portion paid by the federal government and a portion paid by the State of California. The federal portion in 2009 is $674.00 to a single person and $1011.00 for a couple. (You can see the actual figures posted on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) website here. The State of California adds to that portion to make the total amount $907.00 for a single person and $1579.00 for a couple. Not every person receives the maximum amount. The amount could be different if a person has other income. Here is the chart for an individual/couple living independently in 2009:

Elderly Blind Disabled

$907.00/$1579.00 $972.00/$1806.00 $907.00/$1579.00

[Hannah Bell]

88. I did, & the OP is bullshit.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11125.html


Monthly SSI payment amounts

"The amounts INCLUDE BOTH FEDERAL & STATE PAYMENTS COMBINED. Not all SSI recipients receive the maximum amount. Your payment may be lower if you have other income:"

Single people: Independent living status: $907.00

*Except she's living in her parents' home. If she's not paying rent, that = "income" & "dependent living status," see below:

Living in the household of someone else: $683.34


Disabled minor child in household of another: $557.34

"People who get SSI in California cannot get food stamps because the state adds money to the federal SSI payment instead."


Yeah, you checked the numbers *real* good. I'm sure she's making out like a bandit on her MAXIMUM of $557.34 federal/state combined, per child, & NO FOOD STAMP eligibility.

Oh, & let's see your evidence that the other 6 children are disabled or all getting public funds.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11125.html

The main reason to apply for SSI would be automatic Medicaid eligibility.

[SoCalDem]

89. Wat-evah... by all means, get your checkbook out, Hannah, and mail the little lady some money

she sure needs it...
and include a referral to a good shrink, while you;re at it..:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

90. The numbers & facts in the OP are bullshit, but "wat-evah". There speak the dispensers

of the five-minute hate.

"Kill the witch!" Never mind the facts.

[doyourealize1]

79. Welfare queens are part of the reality

I know a few. I don't respect them at all, and I can't say a good thing about this woman. Welfare may be a good thing in most circumstances, but there is a bad side to everything.

[cherish44]

87. I don't think she has any concept of money...

Or reality for that matter.

[LisaL]

93. Her mother claimed Nadya didn't pay the bills.

So yea maybe she has no concept of money, if her parents were paying the bills.

[Generator]

94. Of course the children will need every penny

Nadya Natalie Doud Suleman doesn't deserve it, but the children do. I don't think she had a "plan" at all. I think she has some major psychological problem and doesn't deal well with reality. So far, living off the mom and dad has worked for her, living of disability and student loans and food stamps has worked.

It will not just work with 14 children. She needs masses of other people to help raise the children. I can't see them staying with her if she doesn't find a way for that to happen and not spend the money on either more children or more plastic surgery or whatever she has spent it on in the past.

[leftchick]

95. For Those Dissing SoCal....

Here you go, anti up!



Octuplet mom Nadya Suleman has launched a website asking for donations for her family of 14 children.

The site features pictures of the eight newborns, with their names and birth weights, drawings of a rainbow, bottle and pacifier, and has two options to donate.

She is accepting monetary donations payable by credit card (MasterCard, Visa, AmEx and Discover taken) and she also given an address to which one can send goods.

The website also contains a section to leave a comment and the following message:

"We thank you for the love and good wishes sent to us from around the world. The octuplets arrived on 1-26-09. They are all healthy and growing stronger by the day."

Suleman no doubt needs help. She has no income, is $50,000 in debt. She also receives $490 a month in food stamps and receives about $600 in disability payments a month for each of the three of her older six children with disabilities. One has ADHD, one had a speech impediment and one has autism, according to NBC's "Dateline" special.

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

[SoCalDem]

96. Thanks

:hi:

I think this poor woman is hopelessly naive, and may have THOUGHT that people would jump on her bandwagon, and be eager to help.. I bet she also thought she WOULD get enough public assistance to be able to stay home and take care of her kids, and go to school ,and that her mother would raise those kids with the help of all the adoring fans...but it's just not gonna happen for her or for them:(

My best friend's mother-in-law was a foster Mom to 3 teenagers and received $4400.00 a month for their care. It;s entirely possible that poor Nadya, thought she would be paid to take care of those kids..

(the teens had ADDHD and were "troubled" teens). When they aged out of the system, the mother-in-law decided that she was too old, and she quit doing foster care, but she regualrly collected that $4400.00 a month from the state of California for about 7 years..

[leftchick]

140. you are being too kind

I think she is a fucking nut job and her children should be taken away before she does more harm. The three older children have disabilities. I can only imagine how many of the octos will as well.

[Texasgal]

101. I don't think that anyone is "dissing" the OP

Just disagreeing which is normal here. :shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

110. From SSI website:

Monthly SSI payment amounts:

The amounts include both federal and state payments combined. Not all SSI recipients receive the maximum amount. Your payment may be lower if you have other income:

Disabled minor child in household of another $557.34

People who get SSI in California cannot get food stamps because the state adds money to the federal SSI payment instead:

However, you may be able to get food stamps:

While you are waiting for a decision on your SSI application;
If your application for SSI is denied; or
If you move to another state.

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11125.html


Gee, who to believe, SSI, or the hard-hitting investigative reporting of "Dateline NBC"?

[Mamacrat]

134. Food Stamps

Nadya Suleman admitted her family receives food stamps, which she denies is welfare, but is a "temporary resource." The SSI site does show that "people who get SSI in California can not get food stamps..." but that does not mean the the other people in her house not receiving SSI do not get food stamps.

[Hannah Bell]

137. Exactly - someone other than the persons getting SSI is getting the food stamps,

or they're getting them temporarily.

But those kind of details aren't noted when the goal is to paint someone as a welfare queen who's getting rich from having babies.

[Hannah Bell]

122. You're already "anti-ing up".

ante.

[leftchick]

123. lol

I am soooo upset at my error! NOT!

:rofl:

[DeltaLitProf]

97. Would you care to state your credentials for such a finding?

And show where you get your figures?

[SoCalDem]

129. I posted links from the sites I used (in another reply)

and I must have missed the memo that told of which credentials were "necessary" to have an opinion that matches 75-80% of the general public.. :P

[Thickasabrick]

102. Holy crap! We're calling these innocent infants brats now? I'm

past the point of giving a shit why she did it. I just hurt for those poor babies who will be so deprived of individual time and attention. I don't want to see them broken up but they each deserve a lot of time and attention....at the same time.

Calling them "brats" is something I would expect to hear on Free Republic.

[Hannah Bell]

109. a lot of the comments are things you'd hear on free republic.

[Zhade]

116. I agree with not holding those poor kids accountable -- they're innocent.

NT!

[SoCalDem]

126. I called them kids...not brats

maybe you were responding to another person:shrug:

[Thickasabrick]

128. Yes, I'm sorry. Not directed at you.

[Hannah Bell]

136. Don't apologize: the poster called them a "freakshow" in her OP.

"a plan to market herself & her freakshow family"


brats, freakshow, litter, spawn, brood - what's the diff?

She's poor, she's nutty, she has too many kids & an arab name: let the 5-minute hate proceed.

[LisaL]

138. I hope you've personally volunteered to help taking care of her

offsprings. By the way I hope "offsprings" is o'key to use, or do you have problem with it too?

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

139. If I there is a homeless alcoholic in a soupline, & the folks spooning up the soup say,

"Here ya go, ya freaking wino!"

If I'm helping fund the soup kitchen just like they are, & chastise them for berating the man, do they redeem themselves by answering,

"Yeah, well, why don't you take the stinking wino to your house & make him some soup! It's his own fault he's a stinking wino!"

[Zhade]

103. She's essentially going to get rich off child abuse.

It's disgusting -- and infuriating.

[SoCalDem]

131. maybe from the infamy, but I have a feeling that the state will step in, and soon

Think about it.. a daycare provider cannot have more than a certain number of children under their care without having extra employees.

I think Ms.Suleman called attention to herself, in a very negative way, and the state will be closely watching her every move, and if they fear for her kids in any way, they will HAVE to step in.. It's all too "high profile" to ignore..

Making money off this endeavor, is going to be difficult for her now, since people love a schmaltzy story that has a happy ending.. there won't be one here...just 14 more poor kids with no Daddy and no responsible parent in the home...just a tired, worn-down granny and a Momma who wants to be Angelina Jolie:(..

Sad stories about neglected kids, don't make much money for the parents whose job it is, to take care of and protect those kids..

[.... callchet ....]

115. Pass no judgment. They throw a bone in the kennel and the dogs

fight each other. Our enemies don't live with us, they live above us.

[csziggy]

132. Should we crown her Welfare Queen of 2009 now?

:sarcasm:

[kskiska]

146. She's been out shopping for video game equipment

Someone must have gotten some cash on her website.

[LisaL]

148. And apparently getting her nails done.

TMZ posted a photo of her getting a manicure.

[kskiska]

149. Right. Probably a pedicure, too.