181–190 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Sweden, so I assumed Finland had it similar. Here, parents are not always offered to know the sex. This is sometimes because of hospital policy, or because the ultrasound did not make it clear enough. Thanks for giving a definitive answer.
Why would there be a hospital policy against gender disclosure?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think building solidarity and values is tremendously important, and here's why: what is the government really responsible for? Even as you go down the political spectrum to libertarians (short of anarcho-libertarians), you have consensus that government should at least provide security, from domestic crime and international threats, the enforcement of contracts, etc. Most people would go on to say that it's the gov…
I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the g…
My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education, etc. E.g. in Chicago, there is a deep schism between the heavily black south side, and the whiter north side. Now, every city has poor parts and rich parts, but what's really stark about Chicago is how completely the two parts disassociate from each other, due to in no small part a lack of shared culture.[1] This is, of course, to the detriment of both. The school system (CPS) is a primary example. Its a deeply dysfunctional piece of welfare: generous on one hand (relatively high spending/student), but crippled by the fact that whites and the middle/upper classes all but "opt out" of the system (CPS is 90% minority and 90% low-income).
[1] My wife grew up in a small town in Iowa, where there were also rich people (doctors, store owners) and poor people. But there was tremendous shared culture: everyone went to the same high school, one of a small number of churches, participated in the same set of after-school activities, etc.
Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…
Even on a fiscally conservative level, this isn't a bad government program. It address a specific education / health problem and fixes it for everyone at a much lower cost than a lot of other attempts in other countries (think much fewer personal and administration costs). It is statistic-based[1] and save total cost[2].
I shudder to think of how expensive that box would be in the US after all the contractors and graft.
1) Although one would think infant mortality would be a straight forward stat, it actually isn't because of how people class "viable". Even inside the EU it is approached differently by different countries. One of the big dangers of comparing statistics across countries.
2) think problems that could be fixed in childhood / pre-natal as opposed to living costs later.
Now this is my kind of nanny state. A thought: This program started for low-income families but was extended after a few years to all families. The nice thing about universality rather than means testing is that a) middle class families are more apt to continue supporting it if they can experience its benefits first-hand; b) you save the money that would otherwise be spent testing, enforcing and auditing the system;…
This is a great idea, until you remember Finland has a population of about 5 million. LA itself has a population of almost 4 million. While I think this a great idea, it's pretty easy to do with such a small population. Once you start talking about a scale the size of the US, it gets rather spendy in a hurry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do any of those people post on HN?
Or exist, for that matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…
I don't think any of the people who think taxes are free money post to HN. Constantly reminding HN posters that "free" government programs actually cost money, like every single other thing in life, just derails the conversation. It serves no useful purpose, because we already know. It's just political grandstanding. Imagine if every single post on HN about the success of some company included comments like, "it's no…
The services provided by the government are paid for by the people (citizen and non-citizen) as taxes, foreigners as duties, or debt. The logical conclusion is that a person or company is paying for those roads and infrastructure. It is just another service, no more sacred than the cellular contract or rent on office space. We don't generally attribute the rent to our success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. Many European countries have similar arrangements. Personally, I think all this is money well spent by the governments as it gives nice financial boost to young parents and a sense that someone/something cares about them and their baby.
Why exactly is this worth noting? Nobody jumps to point out that there's still somebody paying for the "free" tiers of Dropbox or GitHub or whatever. Yet the moment somebody mentions a "free" social program, people suddenly have to hammer on the point that somebody pays for it. We're not a bunch of imbeciles who think that social programs just rain from the sky....
Because it's one of the best ways to make sure it never happens in the US. Another good way is to call it Socialist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think most people are troubled when they think the government is engaged in political activism or campaigning -- in fact it's illegal. So it's a difficult questions to answer, and you didn't directly answer it: "to what extent governments should be in the business of building solidarity and shared values?" You just identified the results of shared values or lack there of. If the majority of voters do not want the g…
I think the vast majority of Americans would not object to the government building solidarity and shared values. That is and always has been a core function of the educational system. The debates, to date, have raged about what those values should be. My pet theory is not just that homogeneity of culture makes it easier to share wealth, but that it makes most things easier: dealing with crime, dealing with education,…
Now I live in Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, which has a remarkable percentage of kids in private education (~25%) and very clearly drawn boundaries around social class.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting that the health system in Finland has the concept of paid 'luxury' options. In the UK NHS that would be considered anathema.
Do you mean the private room? That wasn't a luxury option, I should have been more clear on that :-). All rooms are private, and though we got lucky and got one that was slightly larger than the others it didn't cost extra. I think the small fee they impose is simply meant to encourage people not to overstay.
I had my first child in a great hospital with the same room all to my family for our full two-day stay.
For my current pregnancy, I switched care providers, but I chose the new midwife based on her ability to deliver at the great hospital where I had my first child.
Last month (when I was seven months pregnant), my insurance company decided they no longer cover the awesome hospital. My midwife said insurance companies almost never let you stick with the hospital you'd planned in these situations. So unless I want to pay for the whole thing (despite being insured at great cost to my employer and me), I can spend my first days with my new baby sharing a room with some random family of strangers and their new baby, at a hospital where there's a high likelihood that the other family's new baby will be enduring significant medical problems.
Hooray for privatized health care, right? Clearly better than any other possibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…
I don't think any of the people who think taxes are free money post to HN. Constantly reminding HN posters that "free" government programs actually cost money, like every single other thing in life, just derails the conversation. It serves no useful purpose, because we already know. It's just political grandstanding. Imagine if every single post on HN about the success of some company included comments like, "it's no…
How is pointing this out politics? If pointing it out is politically conservative, ignoring it is politically liberal? I don't get it. It's one of the few economic absolute truths we have.
> "it's not really their success, since they used public roads
That happens already. You didn't build that! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_didn%27t_build_that