973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 12, 2015 14:48:37 GMT -5
So, you don't want Americans to have a decent replacement birth level? You'll have to import immigrants from the third world. Which demographic would you like a huge influx of? Pakistani? Chinese? Middle Eastern?
We are just now reaching the point where 50% of births are covered by Medicaid and the numbers have been steadily increasing every year. This indicates that in addition to the declining birth rate, we're having a very undesirable shift from having our most productive, successful citizens reproducing to instead having our least productive, successful citizens doing most of the reproducing. Our social incentives are a big part of this shift. Instead of continuing down the social incentive path, let's look at some other alternatives.
This is as much post ergo propter hoc as anything you have ever said wasn't true simply because they came after each other. I have no idea what the demographics are but the reason has been talked about in the health insurance circles for decades. Maternity coverage got pulled out of health insurance in most states. Once it became an "extra" that you didn't have to pay for the vast majority of people didn't buy it unless they knew they were going to have a baby in the next year or two. If all the people buying it are going to have babies it has to be priced accordingly. So the price became so expensive it didn't make financial sense to get it. The result was droves of people who otherwise had health insurance being pushed to medicaid because they were considered "in need" and the income allowed was even pushed way up to make sure they didn't go without care as that is even more expensive both in terms of dollars and human suffering. So if every one wants to point at something they should be mad at the people who managed to get one part of health insurance pulled out of it and put out as an extra. It's insurance. Of course we are all buying products that contain things we probably won't ever need. Everyone needs to get over it. Who know if it will bend the curve and if so how long it will take. But there is also weirdness in that until the ACA there were not true nationwide statistics on this just lots of state ones that never got put together.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2015 15:09:13 GMT -5
Yup, well when we started our business we didn't offer maternity coverage on insurance. Couldn't afford it. Eventually we did add it as well as young women who might need it. As we grew and prospered. But we needed to grow and prosper first.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 12, 2015 15:19:14 GMT -5
But not having children is also a choice (typically). You could opt into all those wonderful benefits by becoming a parent. You choose otherwise, that's not discrimination. Your argument is one that is typically used to justify the policies that we currently have. I look at the kids/no kids choice in the same light as a staycation/European vacation choice. If I choose to take an expensive vacation to Europe every year, should you be forced to help pay some of the costs? Should I get a tax deduction because I have contributed, theoretically, to international understanding of the American perspective and social structure? Or because I have acquired some appreciation for perspective or social structure of other countries? After all, I found my European vacations to be quite educational. Certainly, improving the population's ability to function in a multinational/multicutural business world is beneficial to the US. No? Sign me up for the European vacation please! Actually that is a very apt analogy for a childless benefit. In my last 8 years as the only single/childless employee at my work, I've always been first in line for the international business trips. It's been a great perk!
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 12, 2015 15:22:41 GMT -5
Well, that's a new one. Usually the complaint is that the ones without kids have to cover for the ones that do. Nice to see it go the other way
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Aug 12, 2015 15:23:59 GMT -5
Your argument is one that is typically used to justify the policies that we currently have. I look at the kids/no kids choice in the same light as a staycation/European vacation choice. If I choose to take an expensive vacation to Europe every year, should you be forced to help pay some of the costs? Should I get a tax deduction because I have contributed, theoretically, to international understanding of the American perspective and social structure? Or because I have acquired some appreciation for perspective or social structure of other countries? After all, I found my European vacations to be quite educational. Certainly, improving the population's ability to function in a multinational/multicutural business world is beneficial to the US. No? Sign me up for the European vacation please! Actually that is a very apt analogy for a childless benefit. In my last 8 years as the only single/childless employee at my work, I've always been first in line for the international business trips. It's been a great perk! Not to mention, I could afford a lot more European vacations before my $30K and soon to be $45K/year daycare bill...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 12, 2015 15:30:49 GMT -5
Honestly it sounds like you've worked in some shitty workplaces. If parents get away with everything & others are expected to pick up the slack, then blame it on the employer.
As far as the tax code. Some of it makes sense. Exemptions are based on number of people because the idea is you don't pay federal taxes on money spent on necessities & the amount of spending on necessities would be dependent on household size. Childcare deductions are similar to dozens of other deductions available, so I don't have a huge problem with those. If we are going to cut those, then cut mortgage, electric car, energy efficiency, student loan, and all the other deductions out there that only benefit certain groups.
Now, if you wanted to complain about the child tax credit, that I could understand. That one doesn't make much sense & was upped when Bush made the tax changes & no one ever set it back to the lower amount.
Angel!, it sounds like you're a parent, so you've been on the benefitting side of parent/non-parent equation. Being parent or working mother friendly is a part of the workplace culture we have built over the last 50 years or so. It's not unique to a few employers. It's common throughout large businesses in the US. If you look at the practices of the company you work for, I'm betting that you will find several policies that benefit only parents, but no compensatory policies that only benefit non-parents, or that equalize the value benefits for all employees. While cafeteria plans that would have done that were all the talk, decades ago, it was a concept that never took hold. Shitty workplaces? No. One of the places that I worked is recognized every year as a great place to work, for working mothers, LGBT employees, minorities, etc. However, there is no organization that advocates for or recognizes employers who offer comparable benefits for non-parents that they offer to parents. We have reduced discrimination against some groups of employees and made life easier for working parents, but in the process, we have created discrimination against non-parents where it previously did not exist. Regading the tax code, it makes sense to you because it appears that you benefit from the provisions of the tax code. Since I don't benefit to the extent that you benefit, it doesn't make as much sense to me. To me, the tax code should be about funding government operations, not about social engineering. To eliminate the social engineering present in the tax code, we'd have to eliminate a lot of tax deductions. OK. Let's do it. You said: "The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave erly, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent wold have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The worplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent."
Sounds like a shitty workplace to me. Mine doesn't work that way. There is no expectation that others pick up my slack because of activities or daycare issues. Nor do I somehow get slack on working extra hours when it is needed. I find it odd that you seem to bitch about it on the one hand & then defend it as great when it is pointed out. If it was so great, then you wouldn't be bitching. And not all workplaces function that way. Sounds like a shitty, unfair place to work IMO.
Honestly the only policy at my company that benefits people with children over others is kid's health insurance is almost 1/2 subsidized. But, the same could be said about spouses health insurance. So those without a spouse (like me) don't get that benefit.
|
|
cktc
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 19, 2013 22:15:31 GMT -5
Posts: 3,202
|
Post by cktc on Aug 12, 2015 15:31:24 GMT -5
Well, that's a new one. Usually the complaint is that the ones without kids have to cover for the ones that do. Nice to see it go the other way I think a lot of it is just perspective. Some people would complain about being the one asked to travel. The way I look at it, I'm being paid to do whatever work is available, it's my job. If I don't think the effort to compensation ratio is appropriate, I can look elsewhere.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:30:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 15:43:03 GMT -5
Having/raising children is an investment in the future of this country/society. If you're in a nursing home at the age of 90, who's going to be taking care of you? Not your contemporaries. My large YM approved retirement account will be able to afford the finest of care facilities amongst the dwindling population, I'm planning for it! "Raises pinky to mouth Dr Evil style"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 10:30:14 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2015 15:45:55 GMT -5
I think the biggest reason that we need some sort of paid parental leave (even if it's only a few weeks) is not for people who work in decent paying jobs. It's for the women who often comes back to work days after they've given birth. Because they simply can't afford to take off any time. For those women i would like to see at least 4-6 weeks provided. So at the very least they can recover physically from giving birth. But, I also would like to see the same option provided to those people in those kinds of jobs who have surgery and come back sooner than they are physically ready because there is no sort of paid disability leave. This is very reasonable, I can get behind it.
|
|
gooddecisions
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:42:28 GMT -5
Posts: 2,418
|
Post by gooddecisions on Aug 12, 2015 16:00:05 GMT -5
Angel!, it sounds like you're a parent, so you've been on the benefitting side of parent/non-parent equation. Being parent or working mother friendly is a part of the workplace culture we have built over the last 50 years or so. It's not unique to a few employers. It's common throughout large businesses in the US. If you look at the practices of the company you work for, I'm betting that you will find several policies that benefit only parents, but no compensatory policies that only benefit non-parents, or that equalize the value benefits for all employees. While cafeteria plans that would have done that were all the talk, decades ago, it was a concept that never took hold. Shitty workplaces? No. One of the places that I worked is recognized every year as a great place to work, for working mothers, LGBT employees, minorities, etc. However, there is no organization that advocates for or recognizes employers who offer comparable benefits for non-parents that they offer to parents. We have reduced discrimination against some groups of employees and made life easier for working parents, but in the process, we have created discrimination against non-parents where it previously did not exist. Regading the tax code, it makes sense to you because it appears that you benefit from the provisions of the tax code. Since I don't benefit to the extent that you benefit, it doesn't make as much sense to me. To me, the tax code should be about funding government operations, not about social engineering. To eliminate the social engineering present in the tax code, we'd have to eliminate a lot of tax deductions. OK. Let's do it. You said: "The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave erly, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent wold have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The worplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent."
Sounds like a shitty workplace to me. Mine doesn't work that way. There is no expectation that others pick up my slack because of activities or daycare issues. Nor do I somehow get slack on working extra hours when it is needed. I find it odd that you seem to bitch about it on the one hand & then defend it as great when it is pointed out. If it was so great, then you wouldn't be bitching. And not all workplaces function that way. Sounds like a shitty, unfair place to work IMO.
Honestly the only policy at my company that benefits people with children over others is kid's health insurance is almost 1/2 subsidized. But, the same could be said about spouses health insurance. So those without a spouse (like me) don't get that benefit.
My company is also on the list of "great for working mothers" companies. But, it's not just great for working mothers, but work/life balance in general. Before I had kids, I never really found that balance and now after- I'm forced to. It was my choice to be a workaholic and I didn't realize it was me putting that pressure on myself until I took that pressure off myself and nobody was breathing down my neck. In the 11 years I worked there before I had kids, I never found myself keeping track of co-workers' work ethic and whether that aligned with having children. My focus was on getting my work done by the deadlines. I learned some people don't care about missing deadlines and it has nothing to do with having kids or not having kids. Some of the worst offenders don't have children. Regardless, nobody picks up any slack for me and if people are staying late, it's likely because they didn't come in until 10:00 am, took a long lunch or they are just not very efficient. There is one woman I know who stays until 7:00 pm every single night. She's been doing that for 20 years. We all think she's nuts. She never had kids. So, maybe she blames it on the folks with kids leaving at 5 and having to stay late to pick up the slack. But, that's just simply not the case. She's putting the pressure on herself. I agree with Angel, sounds like a shitty place to work if you have to stay late to complete the work that your co-workers who are parents should be there doing. That's not what a true work/life balance culture is about.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Aug 12, 2015 16:11:12 GMT -5
I agree with Angel, sounds like a shitty place to work if you have to stay late to complete the work that your co-workers who are parents should be there doing. That's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. That is a good way to put it. My company is big into work/life balance, but not just for parents. All employees have equal freedom to dictate their schedule, leave early, come in late, work from home, take a long lunch, etc. The only rules are you don't miss deadlines, you don't miss meetings, and you put in your hours. The only time someone would have to cover for me is in an emergency. Otherwise I can dictate my hours and my schedule around my deadlines/meetings and personal life, but so can everyone else - kids or not. If parents are given the freedom to dictate their schedule around their needs, then everyone else should have the same benefit & no one should be forced to cover someone else's slack. If your company doesn't function that way (although many probably don't), then I would say they suck.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Aug 12, 2015 16:40:37 GMT -5
As an employee who has never had children, I think that becoming a parent is an individual choice. As such, parents should not get a benefit when no compensatory benefit is provided to non-parents. But not having children is also a choice (typically). You could opt into all those wonderful benefits by becoming a parent. You choose otherwise, that's not discrimination. Right, a 401k match is available to all, but you have to contribute to get the match.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Aug 12, 2015 16:49:33 GMT -5
I agree with Angel, sounds like a shitty place to work if you have to stay late to complete the work that your co-workers who are parents should be there doing. That's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. That is a good way to put it. My company is big into work/life balance, but not just for parents. All employees have equal freedom to dictate their schedule, leave early, come in late, work from home, take a long lunch, etc. The only rules are you don't miss deadlines, you don't miss meetings, and you put in your hours. The only time someone would have to cover for me is in an emergency. Otherwise I can dictate my hours and my schedule around my deadlines/meetings and personal life, but so can everyone else - kids or not. If parents are given the freedom to dictate their schedule around their needs, then everyone else should have the same benefit & no one should be forced to cover someone else's slack. If your company doesn't function that way (although many probably don't), then I would say they suck. This sounds great, but has generally not been my experience in the work place. I don't have kids, and I have found that parents often get more perks than non-parents. A lot of isn't major benefits a parent gets to work from home all the time or come and go as they please, but it's smaller. They get a leave a little earlier to do daycare pick-up. Or they take off in the middle of the day to take their kid to the dentist (and don't get docked PTO, etc.). I've been in some workplaces where priority was given to parents for vacation requests. Where I work now, is much better from that perspective, but until recently there was still inequity. For example, we travel as a group about three times a year. We work very long hours, typically between 14-18 hours a day. It's exhausting. Most of the group would be gone a week, but we had a couple of employees with younger children (under the age of 10), who got to go home several days early to accommodate their daycare needs. Most of the group would have loved to leave early. And losing those extra people meant more work for everyone else during those last few days. The organization felt that giving this opportunity to these employees was being family friendly. And I didn't mind the policy it was the first trip after an employee had a new baby. But, it wasn't ever a one off thing, it continued for years. This opportunity was not provided to any of the non-parents (and to be fair it wasn't provided to the parents with older children, only to a couple of employees with young children). Thankfully this policy was changed this year. Although, the reaction of the employees who have had this perk taken away hasn't been pretty. So even those companies that try and be fair, there are often perks provided to parents (sometimes with the parent even being asked) that aren't available to non-parents. Although, I do agree that a crappy employee is a crappy employee regardless of their parental status.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 17:42:23 GMT -5
Your argument is one that is typically used to justify the policies that we currently have. I look at the kids/no kids choice in the same light as a staycation/European vacation choice. If I choose to take an expensive vacation to Europe every year, should you be forced to help pay some of the costs? Should I get a tax deduction because I have contributed, theoretically, to international understanding of the American perspective and social structure? Or because I have acquired some appreciation for perspective or social structure of other countries? After all, I found my European vacations to be quite educational. Certainly, improving the population's ability to function in a multinational/multicutural business world is beneficial to the US. No? Sign me up for the European vacation please! Actually that is a very apt analogy for a childless benefit. In my last 8 years as the only single/childless employee at my work, I've always been first in line for the international business trips. It's been a great perk! Problem is that there aren't enough of those kinds of opportunities.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Aug 12, 2015 18:49:39 GMT -5
You said: "The informal system adds benefits, such as leaving early for kids activities, leaving on time due to child care issues while non-parents work late to complete projects parents should be participating in, etc. And, when parents leave erly, who gets the benefit of dealing with the issues that the parent wold have dealt with, had they been at work? The non-parent. Refuse to cover for the absent parent? Not an option. The worplace culture of most businesses will have you branded uncooperative and not a team player if you refuse to take on the tasks of the absent parent."
Sounds like a shitty workplace to me. Mine doesn't work that way. There is no expectation that others pick up my slack because of activities or daycare issues. Nor do I somehow get slack on working extra hours when it is needed. I find it odd that you seem to bitch about it on the one hand & then defend it as great when it is pointed out. If it was so great, then you wouldn't be bitching. And not all workplaces function that way. Sounds like a shitty, unfair place to work IMO.
Honestly the only policy at my company that benefits people with children over others is kid's health insurance is almost 1/2 subsidized. But, the same could be said about spouses health insurance. So those without a spouse (like me) don't get that benefit.
My company is also on the list of "great for working mothers" companies. But, it's not just great for working mothers, but work/life balance in general. Before I had kids, I never really found that balance and now after- I'm forced to. It was my choice to be a workaholic and I didn't realize it was me putting that pressure on myself until I took that pressure off myself and nobody was breathing down my neck. In the 11 years I worked there before I had kids, I never found myself keeping track of co-workers' work ethic and whether that aligned with having children. My focus was on getting my work done by the deadlines. I learned some people don't care about missing deadlines and it has nothing to do with having kids or not having kids. Some of the worst offenders don't have children. Regardless, nobody picks up any slack for me and if people are staying late, it's likely because they didn't come in until 10:00 am, took a long lunch or they are just not very efficient. There is one woman I know who stays until 7:00 pm every single night. She's been doing that for 20 years. We all think she's nuts. She never had kids. So, maybe she blames it on the folks with kids leaving at 5 and having to stay late to pick up the slack. But, that's just simply not the case. She's putting the pressure on herself. I agree with Angel, sounds like a shitty place to work if you have to stay late to complete the work that your co-workers who are parents should be there doing. That's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. I agree that's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. But, I think many companys do a better job of talking about work/life balance than they do about actually making it happen. And I think there are careers that tend to have more work/life balance issues than others. Accounting seems to be one of those. And the closer you are to the operations end of the business in your accounting job, the more balance seems to be an issue. It's also a matter of perspective. I remember reading an ariticle many years ago about how the female CFO of Sara Lee managed working mom and work/life balance issues. The really pithy comment that struck me was that she said she didn't mind getting calls from work after she'd put the kids to bed. Yes, she was dealing with work issues from home. In the evening. But what I read was that some poor schmuck of your staff is still at work and hasn't even thought about going home yet. In the mean time, you've gotten home, relieved the nanny (the article indicated she had a nanny and a housekeeper, who prepared the meals), fed the kids, played with the kids, and put the kids to bed. Sounds like the CFO had a lot better work life balance than her staff probably enjoyed.
|
|
quince
Senior Member
Joined: Sept 23, 2011 17:51:12 GMT -5
Posts: 2,699
|
Post by quince on Aug 12, 2015 20:02:34 GMT -5
I think I'd like to see the version of this that is short term disability coverage widely available at lower income brackets a lot more than I would like to see the paid parental leave version.
I also wouldn't mind a restriction on the paid parental leave similar to the rolling 12 month period for FMLA. (6 months in a rolling 24 month period at 75% of income? I could get behind that with rather more enthusiasm than unrestricted/full pay)
Also, I HAVE a child and my lack of enthusiasm for paid parental leave has not changed since before. I also worked for over a year after having the child, so not a case of I don't care because I SAH. I do not think that having a child is a magical awesome sacrifice that deserves cookies.
I also don't think the Idiocracy dystopia is a real worry, either. People who are less educated have generally outnumbered those that are more educated/successful. Making sex education and birth control extremely easy to access would do more for that than parental leave, anyway.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 12, 2015 21:12:12 GMT -5
My company is also on the list of "great for working mothers" companies. But, it's not just great for working mothers, but work/life balance in general. Before I had kids, I never really found that balance and now after- I'm forced to. It was my choice to be a workaholic and I didn't realize it was me putting that pressure on myself until I took that pressure off myself and nobody was breathing down my neck. In the 11 years I worked there before I had kids, I never found myself keeping track of co-workers' work ethic and whether that aligned with having children. My focus was on getting my work done by the deadlines. I learned some people don't care about missing deadlines and it has nothing to do with having kids or not having kids. Some of the worst offenders don't have children. Regardless, nobody picks up any slack for me and if people are staying late, it's likely because they didn't come in until 10:00 am, took a long lunch or they are just not very efficient. There is one woman I know who stays until 7:00 pm every single night. She's been doing that for 20 years. We all think she's nuts. She never had kids. So, maybe she blames it on the folks with kids leaving at 5 and having to stay late to pick up the slack. But, that's just simply not the case. She's putting the pressure on herself. I agree with Angel, sounds like a shitty place to work if you have to stay late to complete the work that your co-workers who are parents should be there doing. That's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. I agree that's not what a true work/life balance culture is about. But, I think many companys do a better job of talking about work/life balance than they do about actually making it happen. And I think there are careers that tend to have more work/life balance issues than others. Accounting seems to be one of those. And the closer you are to the operations end of the business in your accounting job, the more balance seems to be an issue. It's also a matter of perspective. I remember reading an ariticle many years ago about how the female CFO of Sara Lee managed working mom and work/life balance issues. The really pithy comment that struck me was that she said she didn't mind getting calls from work after she'd put the kids to bed. Yes, she was dealing with work issues from home. In the evening. But what I read was that some poor schmuck of your staff is still at work and hasn't even thought about going home yet. In the mean time, you've gotten home, relieved the nanny (the article indicated she had a nanny and a housekeeper, who prepared the meals), fed the kids, played with the kids, and put the kids to bed. Sounds like the CFO had a lot better work life balance than her staff probably enjoyed. To be fair, she's the CFO - she really shouldn't be doing all that grunt work. And also people should know that there are some careers that will not be very flex time/family friendly.... accounting/finance is one of them.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 12, 2015 21:21:17 GMT -5
We are just now reaching the point where 50% of births are covered by Medicaid and the numbers have been steadily increasing every year. This indicates that in addition to the declining birth rate, we're having a very undesirable shift from having our most productive, successful citizens reproducing to instead having our least productive, successful citizens doing most of the reproducing. Our social incentives are a big part of this shift. Instead of continuing down the social incentive path, let's look at some other alternatives.
This is as much post ergo propter hoc as anything you have ever said wasn't true simply because they came after each other. I have no idea what the demographics are but the reason has been talked about in the health insurance circles for decades. Maternity coverage got pulled out of health insurance in most states. Once it became an "extra" that you didn't have to pay for the vast majority of people didn't buy it unless they knew they were going to have a baby in the next year or two. If all the people buying it are going to have babies it has to be priced accordingly. So the price became so expensive it didn't make financial sense to get it. The result was droves of people who otherwise had health insurance being pushed to medicaid because they were considered "in need" and the income allowed was even pushed way up to make sure they didn't go without care as that is even more expensive both in terms of dollars and human suffering. So if every one wants to point at something they should be mad at the people who managed to get one part of health insurance pulled out of it and put out as an extra. It's insurance. Of course we are all buying products that contain things we probably won't ever need. Everyone needs to get over it. Who know if it will bend the curve and if so how long it will take. But there is also weirdness in that until the ACA there were not true nationwide statistics on this just lots of state ones that never got put together. None of what you've posted shows that otherwise "successful" people are accessing and using Medicaid for their births. So states get waivers to offer CHIP/Medicaid to pregnant women who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level... are you claiming that these women earning up to $15,521 (133% of the 2014 federal poverty level), which is the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job, are highly successful women that you're hoping are doing the majority of reproducing?
If we're talking about using government incentives to impact behaviour, we'd be much better off giving out free birth control and education to this highly successful minimum wage earning group, rather than encouraging them to be the majority of the breeding stock of our country.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 12, 2015 22:55:53 GMT -5
This is as much post ergo propter hoc as anything you have ever said wasn't true simply because they came after each other. I have no idea what the demographics are but the reason has been talked about in the health insurance circles for decades. Maternity coverage got pulled out of health insurance in most states. Once it became an "extra" that you didn't have to pay for the vast majority of people didn't buy it unless they knew they were going to have a baby in the next year or two. If all the people buying it are going to have babies it has to be priced accordingly. So the price became so expensive it didn't make financial sense to get it. The result was droves of people who otherwise had health insurance being pushed to medicaid because they were considered "in need" and the income allowed was even pushed way up to make sure they didn't go without care as that is even more expensive both in terms of dollars and human suffering. So if every one wants to point at something they should be mad at the people who managed to get one part of health insurance pulled out of it and put out as an extra. It's insurance. Of course we are all buying products that contain things we probably won't ever need. Everyone needs to get over it. Who know if it will bend the curve and if so how long it will take. But there is also weirdness in that until the ACA there were not true nationwide statistics on this just lots of state ones that never got put together. None of what you've posted shows that otherwise "successful" people are accessing and using Medicaid for their births. So states get waivers to offer CHIP/Medicaid to pregnant women who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level... are you claiming that these women earning up to $15,521 (133% of the 2014 federal poverty level), which is the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job, are highly successful women that you're hoping are doing the majority of reproducing?
If we're talking about using government incentives to impact behaviour, we'd be much better off giving out free birth control and education to this highly successful minimum wage earning group, rather than encouraging them to be the majority of the breeding stock of our country.
If you read that link, and the others like it. they were required to provide medicaid to those people but also given the option of providing it to others. One of the others that must get provided medicaid are what is called "medically needy" and pregnant woman are in that category. It makes them eligible even with a much higher income. All this is state to state. That is why it is so hard to judge this as a country. Some states were always above 50% being publicly funded before. The highest I heard was over 70%. But some states had laws requiring all health insurance policies to cover maternity and had much lower numbers. And what the heck is a highly successful minimum wage earner??
|
|
skubikky
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 7:37:12 GMT -5
Posts: 3,044
|
Post by skubikky on Aug 13, 2015 6:19:02 GMT -5
Out of 105 women in my department, I can only recall 5 women taking maternity leave, myself included since I started at the company 15 years ago. I know of 2 men who took parental leave (one for an adopted child and one for a bio child) and 2 women who took adopted parental leave. It's all 100% paid for 12 weeks. That is not a dramatic number over the course of 15 years for over 150 people including men. All came back to the company after 12 weeks. I have direct reports myself and would fully support and encourage anyone adopting a child or having a child to take the leave and not worry or think about work- to focus on bonding with their new child. I was lucky to have a few supportive managers, although one was not very supportive. While I don't necessarily agree that anything should be government mandated, I think it's great if a company wants to sweeten the pot with a generous parental leave policy. And maybe it's does not come at such a dramatic cost as people think it might. You make a good point here. In our company of 350, there have probably been 4 pregnancies in the last 10 years. So, the actual cost of providing a maternity leave as has been proposed probably wouldn't be that much of a burden for our situation.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 13, 2015 6:42:17 GMT -5
None of what you've posted shows that otherwise "successful" people are accessing and using Medicaid for their births. So states get waivers to offer CHIP/Medicaid to pregnant women who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level... are you claiming that these women earning up to $15,521 (133% of the 2014 federal poverty level), which is the equivalent of a full time minimum wage job, are highly successful women that you're hoping are doing the majority of reproducing?
If we're talking about using government incentives to impact behaviour, we'd be much better off giving out free birth control and education to this highly successful minimum wage earning group, rather than encouraging them to be the majority of the breeding stock of our country.
If you read that link, and the others like it. they were required to provide medicaid to those people but also given the option of providing it to others. One of the others that must get provided medicaid are what is called "medically needy" and pregnant woman are in that category. It makes them eligible even with a much higher income. All this is state to state. That is why it is so hard to judge this as a country. Some states were always above 50% being publicly funded before. The highest I heard was over 70%. But some states had laws requiring all health insurance policies to cover maternity and had much lower numbers. I read the link. You're generalizing and making a guess based on what it says. It does not quantify number of women who are above the 133% federal poverty line that received Medicaid. If you have something that shows how many of that 50% receiving Medicaid for their birth/delivery were above the 133%, please post it.
Your other data about which states have the highest % of births on Medicaid - the poor states in the South - support the idea that these are low wage earners, just what Medicaid is designed for. There's nothing here to indicate that a big chunk of that 50% on Medicaid when they have their baby are successful wage earners who just happen to be on Medicaid for some odd reason.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Aug 13, 2015 6:46:09 GMT -5
And what the heck is a highly successful minimum wage earner?? That's my point. The data shows that Medicaid is available to pregnant women earing up to 133% of federal poverty; 133% of federal poverty equates to a full time minimum wage job. If 50% of the births are to women on Medicaid, that means that these births are to women who earn less than minimum wage... So half our births are now to women who are basically unemployed or unemployable, doesn't imply a lot of confidence that these are highly successful people we want to be doing the majority of reproducing.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,874
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Aug 13, 2015 7:00:01 GMT -5
I thought numbers showed that educated, responsible people were having fewer children than low income, less financially successful people. Plus in many states being pregnant qualifies you for Medicaid when you other wise would have not qualified as a single adult.
And sadly a lot of people I know who have their shit together and would make good parents have a very hard time getting pregnant for one reason or another.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 13, 2015 7:23:45 GMT -5
Those stats are in 51 different pieces and even then don't have anything in one set standard. Which I'm sure you know. You can either believe me because it was what I did for 25 years or not. But this moving forward is going to get worse until health insurance gets totally fixed.
The ACA didn't invent these people who needed/had medical care but didn't have insurance it just brought them to light by moving them from one part of the system for payment to another which is medicaid. Before if someone didn't have insurance and was pregnant they walked into an ER and had the baby and the hospital figured out how to bill the state through charity care if they didn't qualify for medicaid. Now they are being funneled into medicaid through the ACA. Before in a lot of states it was what I a state funded birth but didn't have to be medicaid. Now those births are medicaid funded because of the ACA changes.
Whether this changes how much money is spent taking care of an infant, who is born at 33 weeks because of no prenatal care type of thing, remains to be seen but that was always the point of it. And for the record if they didn't work at all they would qualify just fine with no extra medically needy rules required.
And I get the poor=bad parents and rich=good parents. I just don't agree with it.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Aug 13, 2015 7:27:56 GMT -5
I thought numbers showed that educated, responsible people were having fewer children than low income, less financially successful people. Plus in many states being pregnant qualifies you for Medicaid when you other wise would have not qualified as a single adult. And sadly a lot of people I know who have their shit together and would make good parents have a very hard time getting pregnant for one reason or another. Yes and I'm pretty sure that has always been true if only because there are way more of them than rich educated people. But lower income people have kids younger too. It doesn't mean they will always be lower income though just look at Dark. Having kids younger makes getting pregnant much easier even if we don't feel ready until later. And my back says having kids at 38 probably wasn't a great idea either.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,874
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Aug 13, 2015 7:36:52 GMT -5
They aren't always bad parents. More than income determines that. Dark didn't make a lot of money when Loop was pregnant with his first. He had a plan though to get training and get a better job so he could support his kid. Some of these people though have no plan to increase their income and don't take care of their kids. That I have a problem with. Just read a Washington Post article about withdrawal for a baby born addicted to heroin. 31 days of treatment to the tune of $31k charged to Medicaid. The baby deserves treatment and a much better life than that. I'm not begrudging that. Shit like that pisses me off when I see my friends struggling to conceive but this heroin addict gets pregnant no problem. And believe me I know Medicaid is all kinds of fragmented. Which is why I prefer Medicare audits!!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 13, 2015 9:32:58 GMT -5
As a woman with a PhD in a STEM field - I watch the pipeline bleed women every year, often from having children. I had 12 weeks; I would have liked 6 months. A 3 month old baby is just still too tiny to be sent to daycare IMO. They still need their mamas. I spent half the next year pumping and nodding off at work anyways because my child wasn't sleeping. Not to mention recovering from my emergency C-section. It would have been better to spend 3 more months getting rest and healing than to go back to work and to pretend to be productive. Luckily my spouse took 2 more months so my DD didn't go to daycare until 5 months. It seems to me babies really start being stronger, sleeping more, etc at 6 months. Why shouldn't we work with nature instead of fighting against it?? There are many conditions that cause sleep difficulties, change in hormones, change in brain chemistry, and many life choices, too. Why is pregnancy deserving of a year paid, but, say...cancer, depression, menopause, divorce, narcolepsy, back pain, care of aging parents, etc. does not?
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 11,049
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Aug 13, 2015 9:44:56 GMT -5
As a woman with a PhD in a STEM field - I watch the pipeline bleed women every year, often from having children. I had 12 weeks; I would have liked 6 months. A 3 month old baby is just still too tiny to be sent to daycare IMO. They still need their mamas. I spent half the next year pumping and nodding off at work anyways because my child wasn't sleeping. Not to mention recovering from my emergency C-section. It would have been better to spend 3 more months getting rest and healing than to go back to work and to pretend to be productive. Luckily my spouse took 2 more months so my DD didn't go to daycare until 5 months. It seems to me babies really start being stronger, sleeping more, etc at 6 months. Why shouldn't we work with nature instead of fighting against it?? There are many conditions that cause sleep difficulties, change in hormones, change in brain chemistry, and many life choices, too. Why is pregnancy deserving of a year paid, but, say...cancer, depression, menopause, divorce, narcolepsy, back pain, care of aging parents, etc. does not? maybe they should require more flex time and leave as well. There's a woman in my department whose parents are sick and aging. She's in SC right now because her mother is in the hospital doing poorly and her father is starting to go as well. Surely people in her situation need extra leave time and accomodation as well - I think there's a provision in FMLA for caring for sick guardians or children. Wouldn't depression fall under STD?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,749
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 13, 2015 9:55:20 GMT -5
All of the things I rattled off may or may not fall under STD or FLMA (except divorce)- but I doubt any policy would give 100% pay for as long as someone might need - which is basically what the political stance is - that women should get 12 months of pay for birth. My stance is that we are being too specific by defining birth as something that should be compensated, and every single other disease - you are on your own, and good luck with that.
I am sticking with the opinion that before we increase maternity leave past the current 6 weeks/12 weeks model, we need to make sure every employee can take a few days off per year to tend to their medical needs without having it send them into the payroll loan / triple digit interest cycle. If we can get all of our sick-day policies to be at the very least compassionate, then we can start discussing the social and economic impact of more pay for fertile women.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Aug 13, 2015 10:00:04 GMT -5
How much pay should an employer be mandated to pay their employees for not working when the employer had nothing to do with the employee not working? Zero. If they want to do it voluntarily that's up to them.
|
|