The state of Michigan is offering a father the choice of paying for the medical costs of his daughter’s birth – which was paid for by taxpayers via Medicaid – or marrying the girl’s mother. I applaud their efforts to reduce single parenthood and make fathers take responsibility for their sperm deposits, but I think it’s a poor choice. The parents of the child should be made to pay regardless of whether they get married, whenever they can afford to pay.
Their priorities are completely out of line. The mother is complaining,
“I don’t think anybody should tell me when to get married,” said Witt. “I would like to have a nice wedding, and I can wait for it.”
That’s fine, but the state should not have to wait for its money. Why should taxpayers subsidize her nice wedding by covering their medical debt for the baby?
I was a welfare recipient at the time I had my daughter. I was married, but had lost my husband and wasn’t able to work due to my pregnancy. I qualified for Medicaid, food stamps, and job training with a $10 a day stipend. In point of fact, I’ve more than paid into the system whatever it cost the state to support me and my daughter during that period in tax dollars since then. I got a job when my daughter was a month old and have paid into the system as both an employee and as an employer in the eighteen years since then. But if at some point I was presented with a bill for what I received during that time, I wouldn’t object to paying it. The state gave me money I had not earned, and provided services for which I had not paid. What’s not fair about me paying it back?
If we start looking at the welfare system as loans, not entitlements, people might start making better choices and taking responsibility for themselves.
