[flagged]
Free at the point of use is how it's usually expressed.
In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
11–20 of 540 posts
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#12Medicare should cover children. Then we'd be covering children and the elderly. I think that seems fair--children deserve healthcare (just like education) as a fundamental right. It shouldn't be dependent on their parents.
Be aware that Medicare is a long way from free. At least if you've had a well-paying job in the past few years, Medicare premiums are pretty similar to exchange costs (or COBRA).
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#13US actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…
The US will kick into gear at certain emergency times (WW2, Covid, etc) but not so great outside of then.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#14It's not an unmitigated positive, instead it's a transparent move to paper over the high cost of housing by getting both parents to work. Of course housing prices will adjust accordingly, the supply remains the same, and the demand side has more money to spend.
Exactly. Now landlords will charge more. The owner of assets get all the money.
By your and OP's logic, nothing should be done to subsidize anything or make people's lives more affordable because the excess will be sucked up by landlords. On the flip side, if we did things to make people's lives less affordable, would that translate into landlords giving back by lowering rents? I don't think so.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#15US actually provided child care to mothers employed during WWII. [0] Richard Nixon vetoed the bill that would have expanded it out to all families. [1] Funny how we keep forgetting the past and reject what benefited us as a whole with a moved to pure individualism built around selfishness. AKA The rich keep getting richer. [0] https://www.wwiimemorialfriends.org/blog/the-lanham-act-and-... [1] https://en.wikipedia.or…
The US will kick into gear at certain emergency times (WW2, Covid, etc) but not so great outside of then.
I don't see how the US's feeble and lackluster response to COVID counted as "kicking into gear".
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#16[flagged]
Free at the point of use is how it's usually expressed.
Sure, but that hides most of the facts about how it works. There are a lot of parties involved in this, including people paying for it and being paid for it, and those paying probably out number those getting it for free at point of use. Sweeping that under the rug is just a sales ploy, which shows what the outlet wants you to believe about this program.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#17It's not an unmitigated positive, instead it's a transparent move to paper over the high cost of housing by getting both parents to work. Of course housing prices will adjust accordingly, the supply remains the same, and the demand side has more money to spend.
Land price will adjust accordingly in response to any positive economic news. If you want an unalloy good to come out of these programs, tax lands. Otherwise, any welfare program will just get some of its value captured by landlords.
Land value tax won't help unless you greatly reduce the zoning and regulation over what can be built on the land.
Putting the land to its most efficient use isn't possible if all you're allowed to build is a two-story detached single family house.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#18Medicare should cover children. Then we'd be covering children and the elderly. I think that seems fair--children deserve healthcare (just like education) as a fundamental right. It shouldn't be dependent on their parents.
It should cover everyone.
No body goes to the doctor because they want to.
I'll dare say it would be a net positive to even expand this to the undocumented.
Many of them have dependents, it's not going to be great if your dad can't afford his insulin and is thus unable to work to provide for you.
This includes a large percentage of our farm workers who are literally getting sprayed with pesticides all day. That's another issue, but when they get sick they more than deserve treatment.
And finally, the vast majority of illnesses can be treated cheaply if irregularly do your checkups. It can cost society $200 today for a doctor visit , or 30k for an ER stay in 3 years.
That said, I think this should be handled on a state by state basis. If the people of Alabama don't believe in single-payer healthcare, or they want to forbid using single pair healthcare for contraceptive or something, that shouldn't stop a progressive state from implementing it.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Land price will adjust accordingly in response to any positive economic news. If you want an unalloy good to come out of these programs, tax lands. Otherwise, any welfare program will just get some of its value captured by landlords.
Land value tax is interesting because it encourages/forces more efficient use but you can do a lot more by cutting demand through limiting immigration and financialization opportunities.
I'm not sure why people don't immediately get serfdom vibes whenever they mention a land tax.
Re: In a U.S. First, New Mexico Opens Doors to Free Child Care for All
#20[flagged]
If the tax payer was Apple, I wouldn't mind.