Saturday, March 26, 2011

Points To Ponder

Well, I don't really know what to think about this.  A mom is trying to obtain social security benefits for her daughter, even though the daughter was conceived after the death of the father.

Melissa Amen conceived her 3-year-old daughter, Kayah, seven days after Kayah's father died of cancer.

"It's my miracle," the 28-year-old Nebraska resident told FoxNews.com. Melissa and her husband, Joshua, struggled for two years to have a child before she conceived through intrauterine insemination. Joshua had stored his sperm in a bank in case treatments for his cancer rendered him sterile. They were planning to raise a family together despite his three-year battle with cancer.

Now Amen faces her own battle: Winning Social Security benefits for Kayah from a federal government that, in essence, doesn't recognize Joshua as the father.

The Social Security Administration denied Melissa's application seeking survivor benefits for Kayah because she was conceived after the death of her father.

Part of me says "why not"?  I immediately think of soldiers who bank their sperm in case they're killed in action.  I'm for the SSA paying benefits for the posthumously conceived children of soldiers.

But...this particular case...I'm not so sure.  Amen chose to be a single mom.  Her hubby was not a soldier.  Why should taxpayers foot the bill?  Why not?

What do you all think?


Cute little girl, isn't she?  Adorable and hug-able!

5 comments:

  1. The whole phraseology bothers me too. "Winning" social security benefits? Are government handouts really something you "win"?

    Isn't charity something you "accept", not something you "win"? Shouldn't she be embarrassed rather than defiant?

    I guess my values are dusty and antiquated in today's world. :(

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just another example of a hard-core rent-seeker's attempt to milk the system. Utterly suffused with the entitlement mentality- "they" will always take care of every problem, won't "they"?.

    But, hey!- it worked for Greece/Spain/Ireland/Portugal/Canada(1992), didn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hard core rent seeking is right ... and it's been done before successfully ... she is likely to "win" in court because others have done so , also in vitro yada yada. Some lawyer best git to steppin' because the benefits expire when the kidlet turns 18.

    I think that court bit is the "win" part ... anticipated, no doubt. How likely is it that she didn't know of the rather similar Nebraska case?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Correction: ... the rather similar IOWA case?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, wait ... can't be payin' no SSA survivor benefits this heah yeah because the Jug Eared Messiah, the Wedgie-Man, and the Faux Faced Queen Regent cut the FICA tax revenue by 16% as a temp "stimulus" maneuver ... there by causing the first non-surplus year for FICA.

    I think it's pretty funny how they *stimulate* you with essentially your own money. I call it financial masturbation.

    ReplyDelete