Posts by Sacha
-
I can see a position that we must as a society act in ways that in principle mean anyone can have as many children as they like while the rest of us are compelled to pick up the tab. I understand it might be the most reasonable answer; that it may be too hard to construct arrangements that balance supporting all children with restricting anyone having too many of them.
All ecosystems and species have limits on breeding, from the smallest microbes to sprawling jungles and peak predators. This planet is hardly short of humans and we can see the impact we're having. Yes we're more than animals but there seems to remain something fundamental about only having children if you can reasonably expect you'll be able to raise them successfully in your local environment. Why would any particular family need to have 8 children in this day and age when they're all likely to survive into adulthood?
Sure, there's a basic right to reproduction - but rights are balanced against other ones all the time. Don't children have a right to be brought up with enough resources and love (only one of which is finite, I know)? Don't you have a right to make that same decision for your own family without having it upended by other people's choices? Is it genetic greed if I decide that I really must have 6 children even if that means along with your contribution to raising mine (whether through whanau, community, taxation or sharing of services) it restricts you to affording say 2 of your own?
How is it "punishment" for parents if society says it will only pay for say 3 children as others have suggested upthread? We can certainly agree its punishment for the children involved, but that's exactly what Working for Families does already and I don't see a widespread clamour amongst society to overturn it - much as we've tolerated relative benefit levels remaining where Ruthless Richardson put them twenty years ago. Not something to be proud of.
As I've said, in practical terms I am not convinced at all that there are armies of breeding beneficiaries, and what interests me more here is the (encouraged?) public sentiment about a resource competition going on.
Seems understandable in our biggest wordwide recession in 80 years that attention to the issue might sharpen, at both conscious and unconscious levels. Fear is in turn bound to be driving other decisions and dynamics, including perhaps a preference for authoritative rather than inclusive leadership styles, and tolerance for group-based bigotry from the likes of Paul Henry.
Politically, how do we engage with all that constructively and progressively? If we don't come up with some answers, the vacuum will continue to be filled by more heat than light. However, this is not necessarily the place and right now, work beckons..
-
-
It's not, in fact, like this is actually a problem, is it?
Rampant bludging by breeding, no. The environment and social impacts of overpopulation or reduced quality of life/attention/resources for children from families living beyond their local means, possibly.
I'm interested in understanding how it might play into the theme of complaints from families that they're subsidising someone else's lifestyle choices (but not as interested as some other folk are).
-
discourage (ie punish) parents
By saying there is no unlimited right to have children? Hardly seems to qualify as harm or punishment.
-
bemoaning the fact that there were so few females playing pool, and how she was looking forward to play all the girls from "Chicks"
Now *there's* a story
-
There's a difference between supporting children's current and future needs and setting up social arrangements that encourage parents to make more children. If the latter is a policy goal, then let's hear it.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble
Knew there'd be a story..
-
They're appealing to unreasonable voters :)
-
I don't give a shit what they think about anything.
Just enough to respond within minutes :)
-
ACC cuts are cynically shifting people into Health or welfare instead.
The proportion of surgery claims that were rejected rose to 20 per cent last year, from 12 per cent the year before.
...
The Government quietly acknowledged that ACC's tightening up on surgery approvals would shift patients on to public hospital waiting lists.
In the Budget this year, Health Minister Tony Ryall announced "an extra $59.5 million for elective surgery over the next four years", and that public hospitals had done even better than he had asked at increasing their volumes of elective surgery.
But it later emerged in a Ryall cabinet paper that $40 million of the money was to cater for patients being declined by ACC and who were now causing "increasing waiting times" on public hospital lists.
Minister Nick Smith abuses the term "social insurance" in further preparation for privatisation. And invokes the brand of that nice Mr Key to say he isn't doing that (yet).
"Giving people more choice about the social insurance they take for non-work accidents could improve the service and the choices," Dr Smith said.
But he poured cold water on speculation that workplace accident insurance might be opened up to full competition from private insurers after an ACC "stocktake" completed in June by a group led by former Labour Party Finance Minister DavidCaygill. Its report has not been made public.
Dr Smith said opening the business to competition would be "a very major decision and, consistent with the John Key pragmatism and cautiousness, we are not in any hurry".
He expected to announce the Government's decision and issue the Caygill report by Christmas.