Hacker News Reader

Comment by AdrianB1 | Hacker News Reader

You make it sound like there is no cost for anyone but "health insurance", but it is costing everyone including yourself: higher taxes, higher prices, lower salaries. The result is a higher cost of living.

US can use the same system, factoring the cost of maternity leaves and the paternity leaves into the product prices or into reduced salaries. In the end, this is where money can be taken to cover.

View on HN

So, if such things lead to more productive next-generation workers, it's possible that much like education, it's a net win, even if you don't have children yourself.

As someone who plans on retiring (without children of my own) - yes, I consider saving money for my own retirement to be pretty important, but I also see having people around that I can buy stuff from in my retirement as pretty important, too. I'd really like to have the benefits of an advanced economy, so I think it's worth kicking in a bit to see to it that the next generation is cared for and educated.

(Of course, I have no idea how important having mom and dad around the first few weeks is vs. having access to good schools or something else entirely. Not my field. But I am saying that it is in my interest to contribute towards having an advanced, educated workforce that is... working during the years while I'm retired.)

The US is already spending almost twice the amount on healthcare per person than Austria! https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-...

* US: $10,224

* Germany: $5,728

* Austria: $5,440

The system in the US is just totally dysfunctional, and I know a complex issue. But in essence it's using a lot more money than comparable countries but the benefits don't even compare remotely.

Except that being a parent is not a disease; a kid is not a sickness and it has nothing to do with healthcare. The mother recovering after giving birth is a health care matter, but that usually takes 6 weeks in most countries.

I fully agree that USA has a major problem with the healthcare system, but that is a different matter.

But where to draw the line in this economic assessment? What about the cost of the stress and mental health problems for both parents and children that are caused when lots of people are not given the opportunity to look after their newborns properly? The first few months for a new family are absolutely crucial in terms of baby health and parental relationships etc.

I think I was misunderstood: it is not about the economic assessment, it is about who is paying it. So far there is no good answer for that.

My point is - who pays if you don't do it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com