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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Matter of fact - all the bickering in here compelled me to write a few senators asking them why CI is allowed to be paid for on taxpayers tab... :)
 
I don't care so much that Medicaid/Medicare pays for the CI (and btw, it doesn't in ALL cases; at least, not with Medicaid.) But, I DO take issue with the fact that Medicaid doesn't always pay for HA's either, and, they SHOULD. Typically, Medicaid will pay for them if the person is a minor, but once that person turns 18, Medicaid won't pay. WTH? I believe in equality here. If the CI is paying paid for by Medicaid for an adult, then, so should HAs.
 
LoveBlue said:
He may be saying "In your opinion" as to whether car seats are necessary. I don't think car seats are necessary (as food, water, clothing, etc are), but you'd be stupid not to strap your child into one for his/her safety.
Click to expand...

Exactamundo
 
jillio said:
But they are necessary now. It is illegal to transport a child without one. And childhood injuries and deaths as the result of auto accidents has been greatly reduced as a result. Children have died from not being placed in car seats. No child has ever died from the lack of a CI.
Click to expand...

So.....because it is law it is necessary?
 
Oceanbreeze said:
I don't care so much that Medicaid/Medicare pays for the CI (and btw, it doesn't in ALL cases; at least, not with Medicaid.) But, I DO take issue with the fact that Medicaid doesn't always pay for HA's either, and, they SHOULD. Typically, Medicaid will pay for them if the person is a minor, but once that person turns 18, Medicaid won't pay. WTH? I believe in equality here. If the CI is paying paid for by Medicaid for an adult, then, so should HAs.
Click to expand...

I agree. I recall a conversation with a deaf couple who were destitute and in need of hearing aids and dental care. They complained that it was an all-or-nothing predicament: they cannot afford new hearing aids, yet their Medicare will pay for CI's, and Medicare does not cover dental care unless all their teeth were pulled out and replaced with dentures. Pretty bizarre, really.
 
jillio said:
In the opinion of the law. Perhaps you would rather be charged with child endangerment for not using one, but most wouldn't. However, no one has been charged with child endangerment for not implanting a deaf child.

God, with the unreasonable comparisons. The only way to support your position is with sarcasm and fallicious comparisons.
Click to expand...

Like I said.....does law=necessary?
 
Beowulf said:
I agree. I recall a conversation with a deaf couple who were destitute and in need of hearing aids and dental care. They complained that it was an all-or-nothing predicament: they cannot afford new hearing aids, yet their Medicare will pay for CI's, and Medicare does not cover dental care unless all their teeth were pulled out and replaced with dentures. Pretty bizarre, really.
Click to expand...

It's very haphazard. I'm curious... Do you know what justification they have for not paying for HAs? Do they consider it cosmetic?
 
Oceanbreeze said:
It's very haphazard. I'm curious... Do you know what justification they have for not paying for HAs? Do they consider it cosmetic?
Click to expand...

I do not really know. They mentioned that it used to pay for dental work but that was several years ago. I have no idea if it is the same with hearing aids. I will defer to others who may have the answer.
 
AlleyCat said:
I'd like to think that regardless of whether it's law, it's SAFER to wear a seat belt. So, necessary? Yes. Wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

I believe using a child seat is a wise choice for a parent... of course. :)
 
GrendelQ said:
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)
Click to expand...

One word: Medicaid.

Can you provide support for your 95,000 figure?

A free and appropriate education is the right of every child. Education is mandatory. CI is a choice.
 
People seems to forget that driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. You can't really make up your own rules as you go along.

Besides, it has nothing to do with this topic.
 
shel90 said:
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?
Click to expand...

There isn't one. Just another way to deflect.
 
rick48 said:
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
Click to expand...

Proves nothing if the sort. One child cannot be generalized to a whole population. Even though you seem to need to believe it can. Still looks as if you are attempting to justify something.:cool2:

Yeah, you get a big kick out of annoying people, we see. It appears to be your primary goal. Guess what? You are successful in your endeavor. You annoy everyone here. If you are attempting to hold yourself out as the typical CI parent, it is no wonder that they have gotten a bad name with the deaf community.

No one here worries about your life for a nanosecond, until you come in here spewing your hatred for the deaf community. And then, you are only considered enough to occasionally respond to your nonsense. What an ego you have to think that you make any difference to anyone on this forum. Yet you keep coming back again and again, even knowing that no one takes anything you say seriously. Got some personality flaws hanging out there.
 
faire_jour said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you can virtually back none of this blathering up. Repeating what the oral advocates tell you is all you are doing.

Can't learn to hear? How very audist of you. One can learn to hear at any age, just as one can learn to speak at any age.

Receptive communication involves much more than the sounds made by someone speaking. In fact, studies have shown that when receiving the message with meaning, non-verbal language is relied on more than the speech for understanding. And that includes hearing people.
 
faire_jour said:
Wirelessly posted



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

Because a CI is not necessary for education, because it is being used as an excuse to place deaf children in a restrictive environment educationally, and because it is a choice.
 
AlleyCat said:
The reason I can identify with posters who are not fond of those implanting a child at an early age is that we share the same feeling -- that these hearing parents feel their child cannot get by in life without being implanted with a CI early on. I am profoundly deaf, but I have a high-paying job, I wear HAs and hear what's going on around me, my speech is so good that nobody can identify that it's a deaf person (seriously!) speaking, my English skills are good. Sorry -- I'm not bragging -- just pointing out -- and I did this, among MANY others, without a CI at an early age. If I'm going to get a CI at some point, it will be more to satisfy my curiosity of sounds that I've never heard before. I don't need to improve anything else. Hence why I haven't gotten one just yet, based on my CI audi's recommendations. Yes, many of us have shared "horror stories" of our school years, myself included, and much of that has changed in present times. A deaf child without a CI doesn't necessarily go through even close what many of us did 30, 40 years ago. So for me, a CI is NOT a necessity to succeed. Why parents want to discount the successful adults who did not have a CI as a child is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
TXgolfer said:
So.....because it is law it is necessary?
Click to expand...

Unless you want to face the consequences of breaking the law. And yes, given the statistics regarding the number if childhood injuries and death that have been reduced since seat belt laws took effect, it is necessary unless you want to risk your child's life. But your argument is moot because the situation is completely uncomparable to the CI situation. Unless you can show me a single case of where a CI has saved a child's life, you are simply attempting to deflect from the topic. As usual when you are backed up against the wall with no logical argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top