to be candid, i have mixed feelings about this particular case, but it brings to light issues that need to be addressed. i admire all the reverend moms out there, people who are willing to adopt children who have multiple medical problems are truly being 'religious' as defined in the book of james in the bible - caring for widows and orphans. under the plan i laid out, her daughter would cost her quite a bit of money in flexible spending account funds and it is possible her major medical policy would have a higher cost as well. certainly there needs to be some way to make such adoptions more financially feasible for those families willing to take on the responsibility. i don't know who should provide the funds to help. it seems to me that it is not the state or federal government. perhaps the christian community could facilitate such sacrifices of time and love. i may be wrong, but it seems that it's usually christians who do such things. i hope i'm right. maybe some of that money that goes to 'art' or all the money used to advertise tobacco while telling people they need to quit smoking, that would be a start. some of the private funding for the campaigns of politicians could be redirected and more than pay for it, given there is a commercial starting or ending with 'i am ............ and i approve this message' competing with the 'mattress brothers'.
people with multiple medical problems need health care. if such a person is a child with no family, it takes a special person to even become involved in their life, much less adopt them. it shouldn't bear a penalty, but it will come at a cost. but here are my 'mixed feelings'. the person who is willing to adopt this child needs to know what they have to look forward to in the way of health care costs. yes, it may be a deterrent to said adoption. a family needs to know up front the financial costs involved and make the decision to adopt with eyes wide open.
so, having a system where the costs of care are known as i have mentioned would allow there to be a forecast of future expectations of the financial aspects of such an adoption.
as for those families whose children or parents or brothers or sisters have these problems, but who are not up for adoption, or even for those people who have these problems themselves, there should be a way that they can live without their health consuming all of their assets. i'm talking about things that people have no control over - to provide aid for those with all the 21st century ills representative of our lifestyle would break any bank.
i still don't think the government is responsible for these problems. the government shouldn't penalize people for doing the right thing, but subsidizing them? i don't think so. there should be ways to not tax the money used for healthcare that's legit. much like where insurance pays for your gallbladder surgery but not your boob job, pre-tax dollars could be used for the former but not the latter.
so...rambling, i don't have an answer for people who, by doing the right thing, have added burdens to themselves that are not 'fair'. i really think many would do the same thing regardless of who pays for it. they would find a way. it may be the government involvement in health care that has caused the problems we have currently. without their 'help', the 'church' as a whole would have been responsible and it would have had to step up and show that the 'true religion' is their true goal. regardless of how these things turn out, He knows what He's doing, we don't have to worry. we have to work, we have to be active and we have to pray, but we don't have to worry. i suspect that many of our health problems would be gone, and others more easily managed, if we stopped worrying. but that's another blog.