Wait, you have to pay to have a baby in the US?
The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the birth of its own citizens?
I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but making people pay to give birth is insane.
The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the birth of its own citizens?
I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but making people pay to give birth is insane.
Most US citizens have babies in hospitals.
Many either don't know that alternative options exist or think of them as dangerous / an unnecessary risk.
No? I certainly don't. I'm constantly aware of how much we don't spend on roads.
Any conversation trashing the US for not having healthcare that is free-at-point-of-sale is meaningless without discussing the larger system.
What can I say, I get tired of Europeans trashing the US using singular metrics as if they're a meaningful reflection of policy.
You want to get into a more interesting conversation, let's talk about how the US citizenry is essentially subsidizing the universal healthcare that many other countries enjoy. That's not some political talking point, either, it's legitimate.
Let me ask this then - is there anything in the world you would call free, or do you avoid the word out of principle?
>>Any conversation trashing the US for not having healthcare that is free-at-point-of-sale is meaningless without discussing the larger system.
I think you are purposefully trying to drag me into a discussion about a point I didn't make, I merely expressed surprise at the fact that United States of America, the wealthiest nation in the world, cannot even pay for the births of its own citizens. No statement anywhere about healthcare as such. If you want to read into it in my comment, then that's on you.
>>You want to get into a more interesting conversation, let's talk about how the US citizenry is essentially subsidizing the universal healthcare that many other countries enjoy.
Let's have that discussion then, please, I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
Ideally, roads are that way too. People licensed should be charged a tax for road maintenance based on their odometer readings, or something to that effect. Or just use a Fastrak-type system where it automatically scans a device in your car when you get onto certain roads and charges you for that usage -- but do it in more places.
Everyone else can get a very minimal tax for the upkeep of the administration in case few very people use these services.
Hmmmm. I think the issue here is that you're looking at it from an individualism perspective. Why should I be paying for something that I'm not using. You're obviously completely entitled to such an opinion, and I'm not going to change it with one HN comment, but imho that's the wrong way to build a society. Society should be paying to support new births, because those people will eventually grow up to be the workforce of your country, they will be paying taxes, and supporting you in retirement. The individualist approach that I see so often in Americans just seems so short sighted to me - why should I pay for any of this. I don't care about any of those things, if people want workforce/taxes/retirement they should just work for it goddamit!
Like, ok. I just want to point out that societies, including American one, pay for things just because they want to have them, regardless of whether it benefits every individual or not. You pay for roads just so they are there and so that every American can use them, regardless of whether you personally are going to drive every mile of every road ever built. Most Americans want to pay for agencies that make sure you have clean water or air, even though personally you probably aren't going to live in Flint or next to a coal power station. And obviously all Americans pay for the biggest military in the world just to keep a certain level of control and place in the world, even though many people could say well, how does paying for the 20th aircraft carrier benefit ME?
Paying for people to give birth so that they don't end up in medical debt straight away when starting a family has benefits to the society. But you will never see it if you just try to see what's in it for you personally.
I view it as an optimization problem. Given a set number of tax dollars collected, everyone wants a piece of it. I don't trust people to allocate these correctly. The alternative is to give less of these dollars so less corruption and mistakes can occur, which is what I view is better.
As for using the next generation to support the older generation through taxation, this does not seem to work very well in practice. As societies reach higher quality of life, like in the US, Japan, some Euro countries, there tends to be a drop in birth rates. There are other factors in play (career opportunities, culture), as in some of these countries giving birth is highly encouraged (e.g. Japan pays families to give birth). I just view it as risky to expect there to be enough children to support all the old folks. They might even vote those benefits out and you'll be left hanging.
For example, if we're going to mandate something, rather than Social Security a mandatory 401k-style plan seems better. That account is yours, it's your own money, and the government just asks you to deposit 5-10% of every paycheck into that account and you can withdraw a fraction of that account with some interval once you're 50. Maybe it can used to pay for health care before 50.
Medical Debt Up => Poverty Up => Crime Up => Incarceration Up => Paying for their imprisonment instead.
You're protected by prisons, so you are a user of the service provided by them and must therefore pay under your model.
> Ideally, roads are that way too.
How would this work for e.g. Montana with seemingly-endless lengths of highway and a very low population density?
…
Let's take things a little further. Do you believe only private schools should exist?
Why would they need nice roads then? Seems like a waste of money to build a bunch of expensive roads for the 5,000 people who use them. They can manage with cheap roads and dirt roads that don't need much maintenance. The Chinese rural areas manage just fine with dirt roads, and those areas have way higher population densities.
>You're protected by prisons, so you are a user of the service provided by them and must therefore pay under your model.
Why should I pay for someone's crimes? It's such a stupid system. If they are murderers they should just receive the capital punishment. And if the crime is not murder, they can be put into factories where they are able produce something of value -- farming or whatever. If their business is not profitable it should at least reduce the taxpayer burden. I know this is dreamland ideal world logic, but working closer to this certainly doesn't hurt, with the alternative being they don't do anything at all and are pure leeches. Yes, I know they make license plates but surely they can do a little more than that with such a huge prison population. This also incentivizes training them and providing them skills when they leave prison -- if training them with skills will help the prison make money, why not? The inmate also leaves the prison with job prospects with many years of experience in a trade.
>Do you believe only private schools should exist?
Private schools have higher success rate for their graduates. There are other factors that play into this, obviously. Let me ask you this first - do you think public schools are doing poor kids any good? Especially in the inner cities where many poor black families live? I think any alternative is worth looking into to bring them out of poverty. Or you can just leave them to their devices.
God, I would hate to live in the system you're describing.
And again, it's all me me me. Society wants to punish people with prison, so society should pay for it. Whether you personally want to is fortunately irrelevant.
As for forcing people to work so they are not a burden on society - that's just slavery with extra steps. But oh wait, I forgot that US still does that. Nevermind then.
>>if training them with skills will help the prison make money, why not?
Because prisons should never ever ever be money making institutions in a functional society. I can't believe I actually have to say this.
>>Let me ask you this first - do you think public schools are doing poor kids any good? Especially in the inner cities where many poor black families live?
Of course they do, what are you on about.
This is just a difference in our morality I guess. I don't think prison should be a great place to live. They should be incentivized to leave prison. And they aren't treated as slaves, they are learning a trade and applying those skills. They should be paid a lower wage, have the option to send money to their families, and fund the prisons themselves to some degree. We already this to a lesser degree. Prisons just aren't doing this enough.
>Because prisons should never ever ever be money making institutions in a functional society. I can't believe I actually have to say this.
I don't understand why prisons should not make money. Why does there be distinctions for things that should or shouldn't make money? For things to function well, they need to be decently funded. Whether that's from you and me or them funding themselves.
>Of course they do, what are you on about.
Okay, then I guess we live in different realities if you think black kids are doing well in inner city public schools.
No one said prisons should be nice. Just that we have empirical data which prison systems support rehabilitation and reintegration into society and which ones don't. American prisons aren't on the first list. They are disproportionately about revenge and retribution, which leads to low rehabilitation rates.
>>They should be incentivized to leave prison
Let me get this straight - you think current prison system doesn't incentivize leaving prison enough?
>>I don't understand why prisons should not make money. Why does there be distinctions for things that should or shouldn't make money?
Because it creates a whole lot of perverse incentives that simply shouldn't exist around the prison system. Incentives to both keep people longer than necessary in prisons as well as put them in prisons in the first place if they are places to make money. And it's not just a made up fear - there have been judges in the US found to be doing exactly this, taking cash bribes to send people to for-profit prisons. That profit making incentives shouldn't exist. Just like schools shouldn't be making profit, just like hospitals shouldn't be making profits - they are utilities for the society, not profit centres. Or at least in a well adjusted society they shouldn't be. As soon as you introduce profit the incentives shift where they shouldn't.
>>Okay, then I guess we live in different realities if you think black kids are doing well in inner city public schools.
That wasn't your question though. You asked if public schools are doing black kids in inner cities any good. To which my answer is still the same - of course they do. If you'd like to ask your question again I'll answer it again.
Yes, it doesn't. Many have nothing to look forward to outside of prison. I hate to use a movie as an example, but take a look at Shawshank Redemption. They should leave having gained something, maybe prisons can help inmates find employment for the skills they gained as they reach the end of their sentence.
>Because it creates a whole lot of perverse incentives that simply shouldn't exist around the prison system.
I view nothing as immune to corruption. It's just a matter of better alternatives. Ideally inmates are allocated more to prisons with high rates of success after serving their sentence, which gives prisons an incentive to get their inmates out and with marketable skills.
>taking cash bribes to send people to for-profit prisons
This is not exclusive to for-profit prisons. Prisons that have higher number of inmates can make an argument for a higher allocation of tax dollars.
>Just like schools shouldn't be making profit, just like hospitals shouldn't be making profits - they are utilities for the society, not profit centres
You've said this more than once, but I still don't see why they shouldn't be. All I hear is "they just shouldn't make money". Why? They're just going to play games to get more tax dollars if they're forced not to make any money themselves. Bad schools are allocated more funds, take the LA Unified School District for example -- some of the worse performing schools in the nation, yet some of the best funded public schools! If I'm pessimistic enough, I would even imagine the teachers and administration are not doing their job on purpose.
That the private prisons wouldn't lobby to make all speeding illegal in order to increase the labor pool for profit.
That they'll hear about the law change in time.
That they'll never have to drive 5mph above the speed limit because they're running late.
That they'll never be one of the slaves in the cyberpunk dystopia they're longing for.
I live in the UK, which has quite a generous benefits system. Although such a system is open to abuse, it's much cheaper than imprisoning people that have resorted to crime to get by (they they do in the US).
The problem is you have to apply for it. Maybe people should be automatically enrolled.