Medicare--subsidizing adoption?

The adoption industry uses medicare

1.) as a selling point to make adopting less expensive -

when they advise pap's to look for an expectant mother who has their own medical insurance, is on medicare or is living at home.

2.) as an essential part of facilitators, referral services, agencies, and lawyers adoption procedures -

they get expectant mothers to sign onto Medicaid and guide them through it's application process, so they are either making adopting less expensive or

3.) they are also charging pap's full cost of medical expenses (known as "double dipping") If it's a closed adoption who can question it?

The adoption tax credit is also applicable for pap's when mothers change their minds.

First of all...thank you for thinking of adoption vs abortion. I was adopted at 2 months old. I have since met my biological family. I will say that it was the biggest and most wondeful blessing of my life to have been given up for adoption. As a child I didn't understand as much, but as an adult - I realize the impact my bio-mom had on my life. I ended up with the MOST AMAZING parents and life. I am so grateful. There is always a choice. Adoption is absolutely a wonderful one. People want babies so badly who can't have them and this is a way.

1) Tax write-offs for adoption expenses is disgusting. Just...disgusting. One of my major pet peeves.

2) And I actually agree with you. If an adoptive parent/couple engages in pre-birth matching, they should be on the hook for all medical expenses incurred. I know this won't be a popular answer, but as far as I'm concerned, if AP's are audacious enough to assume ownership of someone's child while she is still pregnant, they can pay for the delivery...It's "their" baby, right? The only downside to this is the obvious coercion issues...If AP's are paying medical expenses, it's one more way in which a mother may feel obligated to hand over her baby. Maybe it's a blessing in disguise that taxpayers are paying it...It might safeguard against a mother feeling beholden because the P/APs are paying her medical bills. Or maybe "repayment" is the way to go. That way, if the expectant mother keeps her child, medicaid covers it and no one can lean on the mother to give away her baby.

You are right, Sunny. Not all APs who adopt via a private agency pay for things for first parents. They paid not a dime for my rent, medical care, food, etc. I had a job (without medical benefits) and paid for my home, food, bills etc. (and paying taxes) so medicaid covered pre-natal, L & D and post natal for both me and my son.

The APs did not reimburse the state but they did give the agency over $30,000 in fees. None of those fees paid for anything for me or my son. The APs even stayed WITH ME during the last several weeks of the pregnancy instead of a hotel so they could be at the delivery. All I got were broken promises.

ETA: I would be interested to know too. Unfortunately, there would be no way to find out as the US doesn't really keep records for/about adoption statistics.

ETA2: Kari, would you rather these women NOT get prenatal care and deliver children at home without assistance? Or should all pregnant women who's employers do not assist with health insurance just have abortions? You make it sound like these women are turning down private insurance and "choosing" to receive state assistance. Do you know of some other option that the rest of us don't know about?

ETA3: So who should pay for pre/post natal care?

ETA4: Then why should anyone pay for pre/post natal care?

I never understood getting money back for adopting a child. That is way beyond my comprehension.

However, I do not think AP's should pay back the US gov't. The pregnancy wasn't created at the behest of AP's. I'm not saying they didn't benefit. I'm saying they came along AFTER the pregnancy was carried through to birth. And sorry...but eventually, a choice is made. I don't even pretend the bio mom is any kind of winner in this scenario. But other than free counselling for the long term...what else should she get? Money? I believe that's called buying a child. Just because she would get "nada" doesn't mean the AP's should be made to pay back what the bio mom chose to use as resources.

I still reject the idea of AP's being able to claim a write off. That just smells bad to me.

As for "footing the bill" and "subsidizing infant adoptions", I suppose someone could look at it that way. Or, if one chooses to look at it another way: It's a hand up to women who may have chosen adoption believing their financial situation made they unable to parent. If they get support during pregnancy, it helps them and their child stay healthy.

And perhaps they would be more likely to turn to these resources in the future BEFORE considering adoption...thereby making them more likely to keep their children. Perhaps in the end, it's one way to subsidize family preservation.

Whether you meant it or not, I read your question as slamming bio parents for accessing resources available to them. I get you want AP's to pay in more ways than one but the bill is not being incurred by the agencies or AP's, it's triggered by one thing. The pregnancy. And a safe and healthy mom and baby is worth a few thousand bucks.

Actually it is Title 8 of the Social Security Act (in America) that subsidizes adoption in a variety of ways. It is the state's Medicaid program that pays for the mother's doc visits and hospitalization. Not all surrendering mothers are on Medicaid, as some expectant mother's actually do work and are covered under their employer's insurance programs. Far too many adoption agencies incorporate into their "Service Fees" (the cost to the adopters) the cost of the mother's medical bills, when in fact Medicaid has paid this cost for the mother. Just another extra profit for the adoption agency.

Here is the federal tax credit (write-off) for adoption:

""You qualify for the adoption tax credit if you adopted a child and paid out-of-pocket expenses relating to the adoption. The adoption credit is calculated on Form 8839 Qualified Adoption Expenses (PDF). You may claim an adoption credit of up to $12,170 (for tax year 2010) per eligible child.""

So those people who adopted in 2009 can claim a adoption tax credit of $12,170 on their income tax return now.

Adoption Tax Credit Amounts

2011: $5,000 or $6,000 for a special needs child (projected)

2010: $12,170

2009: $12,150

2008: $11,650

2007: $11,390

2006: $10,960

Adoption Tax Credit Phase-out Ranges

2010: $182,520 - $222,520

2009: $182,180 - $222,180

2008: $174,730 - $214,730

2007: $170,820 - $210,820

2006: $164,410 - $204,410

So yes, for those women here who are complaining what they have to pay for other women on their 'lazy butts', you are also paying for people who adopt.

The woman who gave birth to her own child and is raising her child is getting a child exemption of far less..

""Individuals are entitled to claim a personal exemption for themselves and any dependents they support. The personal exemption acts just like a tax deduction: it reduces your taxable income, so you end up pay taxes on less income.

The personal exemption amount is indexed annually for inflation. For tax year 2009, the personal exemption amount is $3,650. For a personal exemption amounts in other tax years, see the table below.""

My question now would be...if a person adopted a child in 2009...are they getting both tax credit and tax exemption...totaling $15,800 for one child? BTW the adoption tax credit is a one time deal per adopted child.

We are all paying for abortions with our taxes too. But I guess since that involves infant murder and not adoption, that must be ok.

We are paying for welfare families to keep having kids, housing and feeding them and THEN we get to pay some more if the children are taken away and placed in foster homes. I have watched SO many people continually have children and live pretty much for free while my husband and I work our asse$ off to provide for our children. We pay co-pays and dr bills. Yet the person who doesn't want to work and just wants to keep getting pregnant can have a free ride. That's ok because even if they might not be actually caring for their child- at least they didn't give it up for adoption?

Oh, and Bio mother COULD get a baby of her own if she didn't give it up for adoption to the adopters!! It's not ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL the adopters fault.

So, I guess the bio mother of my children should also be paying the state back for the years of free housing, food stamps, rides, therapy, counseling and state checks (which she bought crack with and turned her apartment into a crack house while she had her babies there)??? Would that be fair too? I certainly think so!

At the time the money was given by welfare or Medicaid, the expectant mother and father were the only legal parents. Not the adoptive family.

Without changing that fact, I don't see how we can retroactively hold a third party responsible for the costs that were incurred by someone else in the process of parenting THEIR child, for however long they parented.

If she parented till the child was ten and then the child is placed in foster care, should the eventual adoptive parents pay ten years of expenses?

Parents have parental rights and parental responsibilities. Unless we say the mother was NOT a parent at the time, I don't see how that can be changed. Even though it's not ideal.

Unfortunately, none of us really have a direct say in how our tax dollars are used.

Sorry but I think this is kind of a stretch. It was the mother's choice to apply for federal assistance.

eta: whoa umm no. i never said anything close. i'm asking why she thinks adoptive parents should be responsible for the bill since they are not the ones receiving the medical care. i think pre-birth matching sucks anyhow.

eta 2: those programs are in place to provide for the citizens, and no one should have to pay it back, it's not a loan, it's assistance. there is a reason we have social programs.

Since when is an ap who goes through an agency and have probably never even met the woman who had the child that is placed with them responsible for the bills of the bio mothers food and medical bills. Even if they did meet her they aren't responsible for her bills. They shouldn't have to repay welfare they weren't the ones on welfare the pregnant woman was. And most of the time she was on welfare well before she chose to give her kid away. The adoption agency wasn't the one on welfare either. The bio mother chose to give her child up for adoption through the agency. The agency finds adoptive parents for the child. If the bio mother got money wouldn't that be selling her child which is illegal? So they get a write of big deal so do parents who have children naturally. Besides they will be paying for the child's care for at least the next 18 years or more which way exceeds the write off they get for adopting.

I have more of a problem with those women who make welfare a career. Popping out kid after kid so they can get more money from welfare. I'm tired of supporting people who could get off their lazy butts and get a job an support their own families.

We aren't subsidizing infant adoption but we are subsidizing a lot of lazy people who could work and are just plain to lazy to do so because the government has made it to easy for those types of people to live off of those who do work and pay taxes.