America's parents want paid family leave and affordable child care. Why can't they get it?

[Paidiske]

Yes, but you couldn't get in for critical cancer surgery and care within 3 days of diagnosis like my husband did.

Yes, I certainly could. I've seen it happen.

Even with the ability to pay, a lot of time you can't be seen by your doctor the same day because there are no available appointments.

Yes, when I said I could see a doctor this afternoon, it might not be my preferred doctor (it is Saturday, after all, and I'd have to take whoever's on duty at the clinic). But I could see someone.

We have a multitude of issues involved in our medical systems. Part is having to find a system to meet the needs of 300 million people.

Sure; it's complex; it's expensive. What I cannot for the life of me understand, though, is wanting a system which deliberately financially exploits people and is designed to restrict access for those 300 million people; or at least allowing that system to exist without providing an alternative.

 

[blackribbon]

Yes, I certainly could. I've seen it happen.



Yes, when I said I could see a doctor this afternoon, it might not be my preferred doctor (it is Saturday, after all, and I'd have to take whoever's on duty at the clinic). But I could see someone.



Sure; it's complex; it's expensive. What I cannot for the life of me understand, though, is wanting a system which deliberately financially exploits people and is designed to restrict access for those 300 million people; or at least allowing that system to exist without providing an alternative.

Interesting is how many people cross the border from Canada to the US to get medical treatments that they can't get in Canada or have to wait too long for.

There are models that work. There was an excellent one in Houston, TX but it was run and controlled by the county government. I don't think a national hospital system would work here. It needs to be on the state level at the highest. And I'd rather see a good system put in place for indigent care rather than force everyone out of the current system.

For most, the system does just fine. ObamaCare, or the "affordable health care" act actually has made it more expensive to get health care for all except the poorest of citizens.

 

[Paidiske]

Ours has some elements at state level (like hospitals) and some, (like Medicare and the national disability insurance scheme) at a federal level. I don't think I have a strong view one way or the other on that. My point is more about government-run vs. private.

As to the going to the US for treatment, I imagine that works well for those who can afford it. I hear about Americans going to Canada for affordable insulin, though, (eg. here), or indeed dying for lack of it, so that doesn't seem to be the whole picture.

 

[bèlla]

I wasn’t a stay-at-home mother. But God was working providentially on my behalf. I secured positions in high paying industries with no direct experience. My tenacity and work ethic opened a lot of doors. I was fortunate to have bosses who championed my growth.

The Lord brought me home permanently. I planned to climb the ladder. I was good at it and networking is my forte. But an impromptu discussion with my boss changed everything. She mentioned her companion and told me he retired at 40. I asked how. She told me with a gleam in her eye and a knowing smile. A year later I was gone. I haven’t worked for another since that point.

My exodus was important. It paved the way for my return to God and a pivot which changed my life. I received my calling and won a book which put my daughter on a similar road. I never read it but she did. The Brainy Bunch describes one family’s approach to homeschooling. They’re Christian.

She wanted the same. So I crafted a plan to bring her home and provide the skills she’d need to earn an income while raising her children. I didn’t ask her to choose. I told her she could have both without compromise. She came home in March.

I think Christians need to be more strategic and plan the life they want instead of trying to make things work in the moment. When you’re single its easier to try something new than when others are depending on you for their livelihood. A side hustle is the perfect way to begin. There are numerous ventures you can do online with little overhead.

The bible mentions the value of shrewdness. I use my gifts and talents strategically. Now I’m doing the same with my family to enable them to mimic my actions and step into the work God desires them to perform. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. This isn’t the time to forgo income. Its an ideal period to explore new ways of making money.

~Bella

 

[NerdGirl]

My wife is a stay at home mom. With daycare north of $1200/mo, and her on a teacher's salary, it made no sense to pay such an amount to have someone else raise our children. Maybe the traditional way of things is the best way of doing this?

I agree completely. Children belong at home with their parents, at least when they're little. I can't imagine being all right with handing your newborn baby over to a stranger for 8-12 hours a day. My mind just cannot fathom it. Your baby belongs with you - its mother. That's simply a fact you cannot argue your way around. I was a single mother (not by choice) and my heart was in agony to place my child in daycare when the time came for it. But I had no choice, I had to work to support us.

 

[Paidiske]

Of course, when talking about childcare, it isn't necessarily full time or nothing, either. It might be for three hours once a week so that you can go to class, for example. Or one day a week so that you can keep working and return to more hours when the child is older.

 

[Radagast]

How is it logical to deny women employment and income?

If you go back about 1,000 years, married women were SAHMs, but there was a wide range of employment that could be done at home. For example, as Dorothy Sayers points out, before about the year 1400, women brewed all the beer, and did so at home.

For thousands of years, and across the world, work in textiles was also done by women at home, and Proverbs 31 includes a list of possible forms of at-home employment for women (at the time it was written).

Perhaps some of the techniques used for working from home during Covid-19 can be continued for women with children today.

 

[Paidiske]

If you go back about 1,000 years, married women were SAHMs, but there was a wide range of employment that could be done at home. For example, as Dorothy Sayers points out, before about the year 1400, women brewed all the beer, and did so at home.

For thousands of years, and across the world, work in textiles was also done by women at home, and Proverbs 31 includes a list of possible forms of at-home employment for women (at the time it was written).

Perhaps some of the techniques used for working from home during Covid-19 can be continued for women with children today.

I made the same point above, that actually, pre-industrial revolution, just about everybody worked "from home." But, also, everybody lived in extended family households and the like. The woman brewing beer, and the woman weaving cloth, and the woman making shoes or lace (or whatever), wouldn't have done so with their offspring having no other adult in sight, with no one else to help with the intensive labour of parenting, but would have had other household members with whom to take it in turns to juggle the care, education and oversight of children.

One can only work from home effectively, while having children at home, if there is at least one other adult there to share the load. Even with two working parents at home during Covid-19, it was an incredibly difficult juggle in our household, and everything - both jobs, child's education and parenting - all suffered. It's not enough just to inhabit the same space.

 

[Radagast]

But, also, everybody lived in extended family households and the like.

I don't know enough about the Middle Ages to comment, but I guess there were also neighbours.

The woman brewing beer

Beer is interesting because the technological changes associated with using hops stopped it from being woman-friendly. Before that, though, it had the advantage of requiring human intervention only at certain times.

wouldn't have done so with their offspring having no other adult in sight

I'm pretty sure older children would have done a lot of the "parenting" too. That's partly how large families still operate today. Child-friendly houses also help.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know enough about the Middle Ages to comment, but I guess there were also neighbours...
I'm pretty sure older children would have done a lot of the "parenting" too. That's partly how large families still operate today. Child-friendly houses also help.

Sure. The basic point is, though, that it wasn't a situation of socially isolated nuclear families where dad worked outside the home, leaving mum with x children and no support, and expected to work and parent and educate and do all the things. That is an unsustainable model.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you go back about 1,000 years, married women were SAHMs, but there was a wide range of employment that could be done at home. For example, as Dorothy Sayers points out, before about the year 1400, women brewed all the beer, and did so at home.

For thousands of years, and across the world, work in textiles was also done by women at home, and Proverbs 31 includes a list of possible forms of at-home employment for women (at the time it was written).

Perhaps some of the techniques used for working from home during Covid-19 can be continued for women with children today.

1,000 years ago, most men worked from home, also. The move of employment to outside the home was something that only happened with industrialization.

 

[archer75]

What we need are wages high enough that ONE parent can work a normal job and the other parent can work at home (caring for children full-time and so on).

And a system of social / financial support for single parents.

 

[Paidiske]

What we need are wages high enough that ONE parent can work a normal job and the other parent can work at home (caring for children full-time and so on).

And a system of social / financial support for single parents.

And/or possibly a re-think of the "normal job" so that it isn't all-consuming?

 

[archer75]

And/or possibly a re-think of the "normal job" so that it isn't all-consuming?

Yes. I meant to say, but failed to type, "a normal job (that wouldn't have been considered torture in 1955 or even 1970 and that allows you ALSO to do things at home)."

Of course, in the US, this will never happen. (Edit: so it seems to me.)

 

[Paidiske]

I would have hit "agree" except for the bit about it never happening.

Is change so impossible to imagine there?

 

[archer75]

I would have hit "agree" except for the bit about it never happening.

Is change so impossible to imagine there?

It's becoming impossible for me to imagine meaningful positive change here. My heart is sick over it.

If you don't belong to one of two political / social cults here, you may not exactly be ostracized, but you are considered "not to exist," at least as far as your ideas go. I have seen many perfectly good ideas start to get a foothold in public discourse and then immediately get destroyed. If it threatens profit, it will be laughed out of existence, ignored, or (so often the case these days) turned into a degenerate parody of itself that makes things worse.

I'm a leftie, but I'm talking not only about left-ish ideas here. If what you want goes against profit, you are taking on the entire "system." Anything having to do with "people being able to take care of their own children" is against profit. Children have to be generated to keep the "economy" going. But profit requires that as MANY people as possible be working for junk wages so their labor can be stolen. So it's an offense to profit for people to take care of their children. Profit wants the children to be warehoused in daycare centers or schools where they can be "overseen" in large groups attended to by just one or a couple adults. Profit wants the home EMPTY during the day. Everyone should be warehoused or slaving away at some job or another. There is no more hearth.

On the "mainstream" right, this basic truth about how our country works is hidden by notions of meritocracy, "saving money" (for most Americans: all but impossible), and sometimes by various complaints about "women's lib."

Among the "mainstream" liberals, the problem is gauzed over with talk about "affordable child care." So both parents can work, right? Why do both parents have to work? It wasn't always this way.

No one is willing to address that among most wealthy Americans and most poor Americans, the very idea of parents spending meaningful time with their children is going the way of the passenger pigeon. It has to be considered impossible because to consider it POSSIBLE means you immediately wake up to that it is normal and desirable...and then you're pushing back against the weight of the whole system again.

 

[mama2one]

.