Insurance Questions

Questions about whether or not insurance issues might have motivated a deception have been swirling since the very beginning of this.

Here is my read on this. I don't think this is or was a primary motivator here. Here's why. Legally adopted children become for all intents and purposes absolutely equivalent to naturally born children. There would have been nothing to prevent the Palins from legally adopting their daughter's child, starting proceedings immediately after birth, thus guaranteeing any and all benefits to him for life, exactly the same as would have come to any child Sarah gave birth to.

Not only would this have benefited the child, but I think it would have spoken very well of the Palins. Had they handled an adoption openly but still discretely (I hope people don't think that's a contradiction) I would be 100% behind that choice and I would defend their right not to name the mother, even if "everyone" knew the baby was really Bristol's. That really would be a private family matter, no one else's business but the Palin's.

Of course, a daughter's birth might not have been covered (I have no idea how the State of Alaska Government Workers' Health Care plan might handle this) but the Palins are not poor. They certainly could have afforded to pay cash for a daughter's birth if they had had to.

So... let me know if you think I'm wrong here but I find it difficult to see why anyone would plan and attempt to carry out a deception like this, when the child could have been legally adopted within a few months of birth. If the deception happened, as I believe it may have, I think there's another reason besides insurance.