A Violation of Human Rights Re: Forcing A Deaf Child to Wear CI

[GrendelQ]

I don't think Banjo was referring to Yiz.

really? Who, then?

 

[GrendelQ]

Yet taxpayers foot the bill for CI's.

Our taxes don't go towards paying for cis in the US, unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that. But taxpayers do pay the $95,000 a year for a single deaf child to attend an asl-based school, multiplied by 15 years. (fr which I'm very grateful, btw)

 

[shel90]

Our taxes don't go towards paying for cis in the US, unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that. But taxpayers do pay the $95,000 a year for a single deaf child to attend an asl-based school, multiplied by 15 years. (fr which I'm very grateful, btw)

Taxpayers pay for education, dont they? So, what's the comparision between a deaf child going to a deaf school and a child getting a CI?

 

[posts from hell]

Our taxes don't go towards paying for cis in the US, unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that. But taxpayers do pay the $95,000 a year for a single deaf child to attend an asl-based school, multiplied by 15 years. (fr which I'm very grateful, btw)

Yup they sure do. Just take a look at medicaid.

 

[AlleyCat]

Our taxes don't go towards paying for cis in the US, unless I'm not understanding what you mean by that. But taxpayers do pay the $95,000 a year for a single deaf child to attend an asl-based school, multiplied by 15 years. (fr which I'm very grateful, btw)

If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers.

Their very first line:

Medicare is funded by the Social Security Administration. Which means it's funded by taxpayers.

Ultimate guide to retirement: Who pays for Medicare?

 

[rick48]

Taxpayers paid nothing towards my child's implants, however, they saved thousands of dollars over the years because her cochlear implant allowed her to attend her local public school as opposed to the Deaf school in our area.

 

[rick48]

Rick, why are you here justifying your decision so many years after the fact? It's time to move on... literally and figuratively.

Not justifying my decision at all although my daughter, as one of the first kids implanted in the US, is indeed living proof that the anti-cochlear implant crowd has been wrong for almost a quarter of a century.

BTW why don't you ask the hearing parent who thinks cochlear implants for children are being forced upon them by their parents and that the surgery itself is a form of torture and who denied her child a cochlear implant is doing spending hours every day posting in a cochlear implant forum? Regretting her decision by constantly putting down ours?

Come to think of it, why are you here?

I post to share my experiences raising a child with a cochlear implant and to give information when needed and like here to point out those with an obvious anti-cochlear implant agenda. If in doing so, I annoy someone like you then I consider that a small perk!

Have a nice day and try to get a life instead of worrying about mine,
Rick

 

[GrendelQ]

If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers.

Their very first line:

Medicare is funded by the Social Security Administration. Which means it's funded by taxpayers.

Ultimate guide to retirement: Who pays for Medicare?

Medicare applies to retirees over the age of 65. So I suppose there may be a handful who receive coverage for their ci in this way, but they paid into their own coverage all of their working lives. It's their own FICA they are getting back. Taxpayers didn't pay for my child's CIs.

 

[AlleyCat]

If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers.

Their very first line:

Medicare is funded by the Social Security Administration. Which means it's funded by taxpayers.

Ultimate guide to retirement: Who pays for Medicare?

Medicare applies to retirees over the age of 65. So I suppose there may be a handful who receive coverage for their ci in this way, but they paid into their own coverage all of their working lives. It's their own FICA they are getting back. Taxpayers didn't pay for my child's CIs.

If you re-read my first line, it says "If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers."

We didn't say all CI implantees are paid for by taxpayers. But those who are on Medicare who get a CI are.

Just clarifying.

(p.s. those who are on SSDI, which some deaf are, regardless of age, qualify for Medicare. Not just retirees.)

 

[Oceanbreeze]

If you re-read my first line, it says "If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers."

We didn't say all CI implantees are paid for by taxpayers. But those who are on Medicare who get a CI are.

Just clarifying.

(p.s. those who are on SSDI, which some deaf are, regardless of age, qualify for Medicare. Not just retirees.)

You're correct. Also, Medicare isn't just for the retired. There are many people on Medicare that are under the age limit. However, they must qualify. Regardless, Medicaid and Medicare pay for CI's, and, they most certainly ARE paid with taxpayers dollars.

 

[deafdyke]

Think about the continued insidious choices parents force their children into, sending children to schools to be indoctrinated by "teachers" and the masses of sheep-like children out there -- enforcing rules.

*Evil grin* There is something called unschooling/deschooling, which is extreme lefty homeschooling, where kids don't learn through teacher/class interaction, or formal lessons or even a traditional curriculum. My best friend and her sister did that.

however, they saved thousands of dollars over the years because her cochlear implant allowed her to attend her local public school as opposed to the Deaf school in our area.

rick, FYI that's based on the assumption that all a dhh kid needs is minimal accomondations. Most CI kids of your daughter's generation still required intense "traditional deaf ed" Heck, the res program at CID, St. Joseph's and Clarke were all booming back then!!!!!

 

[shel90]

Deaf schools have done a lot to many deaf children. A child doesn't come with a price tag when it comes to education. :roll:

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

there are plenty of people who received CIs as adults and say that their only regret is not getting it earlier as well as many who wish they had received them as children. There is also a growing number of ***********s who are implanting their children because of the immense benefit that childhood implantation provides.

it is impossible to compare the benefit that a child gets from an implant to that of an adult who was deaf from birth. It is the difference between enviromental awareness and open set language comprehension. You can't "just wait", you are deciding to deny them that opportunity.

as for "you can learn speech at any age", yeah, but you can't learn to hear. Receptive understanding is 50% of communicating and that is what you are disallowing.

 

[faire_jour]

Wirelessly posted

Deaf schools have done a lot to many deaf children. A child doesn't come with a price tag when it comes to education. :roll:

then why do they when it comes to a CI? Because you don't like it?

 

[GrendelQ]

If you re-read my first line, it says "If a CI is funded by Medicare, then yes, they are paid by the taxpayers."

We didn't say all CI implantees are paid for by taxpayers. But those who are on Medicare who get a CI are.

Just clarifying.

(p.s. those who are on SSDI, which some deaf are, regardless of age, qualify for Medicare. Not just retirees.)

Yes, true, but I was initially responding to the following blanket statement:

Yet taxpayers foot the bill for CI's.

But even those with Medicare have funded their own coverage -- you pr your spouse / parent have to have paid during your work life to benefit from it when you retire.

 

[posts from hell]

Yes, true, but I was initially responding to the following blanket statement:


But even those with Medicare have funded their own coverage -- you pr your spouse / parent have to have paid during your work life to benefit from it when you retire.

Now you're back pedaling?

Medicaid AND medicare pays for it. People intentionally drop jobs to get on medicaid to get the CI.

just drop this one too. You were wrong, man up, admit it.

 

[AlleyCat]

Yes, true, but I was initially responding to the following blanket statement:


But even those with Medicare have funded their own coverage -- you pr your spouse / parent have to have paid during your work life to benefit from it when you retire.

You're right in that it was a blanket statement, but it was in response to the previous statement about seatbelts, and going off topic. I'm going to shut up now. I don't want to play a semantics game. Basically, if someone's on Medicare, taxpayers are paying for any care given under it. Whether it's all taxpayers or what you paid into it during your work life. It still boils down to the same thing.

 

[posts from hell]

Wirelessly posted

Corrected it for you.

 

[shel90]

Now you're back pedaling?

Medicaid AND medicare pays for it. People intentionally drop jobs to get on medicaid to get the CI.

just drop this one too. You were wrong, man up, admit it.

I should quit my job so I can get a CI.

Get a CI and bills paid for at the expense of the taxpayers! What a great idea!!!!

 

[posts from hell]

You're right in that it was a blanket statement, but it was in response to the previous statement about seatbelts, and going off topic. I'm going to shut up now. I don't want to play a semantics game. Basically, if someone's on Medicare, taxpayers are paying for any care given under it. Whether it's all taxpayers or what you paid into it during your work life. It still boils down to the same thing.

It's bullshit, once we give them a point that they can't argue or rebuke they defer to semantics of the most ridiculous things.

It's amazing if you consider their background! You'd be shocked....