FrancoFile: This thread will be comprised of three kinds of posts.I can count to potato shopsStupid English socialized medicine!!!!Dumbasses, you already have three kids, and you're old, so why did you get pregnant again?/3 is the number of the counting, and the number of the count shall be 3
Devolving_Spud: Arthur was accepted and Alfie refused.
darth_badger: Handicapable vs. Handicapped ... Gufus and Dufus?
nitefallz: Are the parents brother and sister or something? All the kids have severe medical issues.
phlegmmo: Two Down, one to go.
btraz70: phlegmmo: Two Down, one to go.nice! I feel somewhat bad for finding this so amusing...
Mimic_Octopus: already have 3 kids you cant afford ? best plan of action, have some more, and dont bother to abort the twin downies, more benefits !! man these people suck ! stop having kids you cant afford people !!!
WrathofDog: I suspect a computer or a claims rep discarded one of the applications as duplicate. It happens. And less likely although still possible, it may be that the system hasn't performed the correct application standardizations.On the plus side, the U.S. system is currently undergoing or has undergone standardization and uniforms entry and acceptance requirements to prevent exactly this type of thing from occuring, both cases, including review of rejections.I have two good friends who were twins and orphans. They therefore received U.S. social security orphans benefits. However, the initial application for one was rejected as a duplicate. Then it was discovered that the social security computer database at the time couldn't handle two people with the same birthday, address, and last name and kept throwing up errors. Thus one was classified as adult disabled and the other as an orphan. The one listed as adult disabled got some funny looks when many years later the company he worked for did a background check for security clearance. Good times...
GORDON: So the state-run benefits department just randomly sorts applicants into 2 piles, approves one, and rejects the other.This will never happen under Obamacare.
FarkinNortherner: Odd. FWIW, though, the mother isn't quite right about them being assessed separately rather than as twins - the caseworker can consider whether the resources being used for one child can be shared (nobody needs two disabled ramps, for example) as part of their assessment.nitefallz: Are the parents brother and sister or something? All the kids have severe medical issues.The identical twin boys have the same issues, I don't see anything indicating the other kids are sick.
Matthew Keene: This is what the state should be willing to pay for for these kids. Otherwise, you are on your own.[media.stylespress.com image 380x285]
netcentric: Technically, I don't think children belong to 'parents'. Recently the talking heads determined they belong to the community as a whole. Thus, if the State or local Government said one of your kids qualifies and another doesn't .... then you should follow thier quidelines.They know what is best for your family. Not you.
Grumpy Cat: Too many chromosomes in kids these days. I blame the parents.
xaldin: Inclined to agree. There's simply no point to maintain them from a society standpoint. Back in the day the parents would have already drowned them.
Lord Apathy: nitefallz: Are the parents brother and sister or something? All the kids have severe medical issues.That is the other shoe there falling. Maybe the state is tired of these two pumping out defective kids and then making the state pony up for the care?
Wodan11: each boy will have to undergo his own medical tests, etc.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 18 2018 17:45:00
Runtime: 0.354 sec (354 ms)