3 ms·

Being reliant on public benefits to support and birth your family is pretty much the definition of not being able to afford it.

nicoburns 4y ago
I dunno, where I live hospital care (including birthing) is free (tax-payer funded) for everyone. In which case it seems to make more sense to say that everyone can afford it, not that nobody can. It's the things the state doesn't pay for that people can't afford, not the things it does.
- notch656a 4y ago
  In the US, the mother being on Medicaid is highly correlative with them and/or the child being on other public benefits. On the micro level (an individual birth), it implies nothing other than they were eligible for Medicaid. On the macro level ("nearly half of births") it implies a lot more. When health-care is universally tax-payer funded, the differential between the free-market unregulated premium you would pay for what you get and what you actually pay in taxes for it represents the net public benefit you've extracted. If you earn nothing, then odds are you can't afford health care even though you get it.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? There may be many other things that that person can't afford, but the thing provided to them is not one of them.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      >I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. It makes more sense when you step back and realize it isn't provided for free. If you don't pay taxes, it was provided by others who could afford to pay for it on your behalf. Someone else could afford it, and you got it. If you otherwise could have afforded it on your own or paid the tax that represents at least the free-market rate at which you would have got it, then you could have afforded it. >Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? The unsubsidized cost of the road for an individual isn't the cost to construct the road, it's the free market value of the utility the road provides them. While not perfectly reflected, a toll charged by a private toll road will give a ballpark of what that cost is. Similarly if you earn nothing, have no money, and use the roads freely provided to you then you cannot afford the roads. But you're still provided use of the road. Someone else was able to afford the roads, and they paid for it instead. You're completely dependent on the charity of the public to allow you using roads you yourself didn't pay for -- and that would be pretty much the definition of being unable to afford something you were provided. Whereas if you paid taxes commensurate with your use of the roads, then it's safe to say you can afford to use the roads. In this manner, people often have kids they can't afford, and instead others who can afford to pay (at least partially) for them do so in the form of Medicaid / WIC / EBT / Section 8 and other benefits.

nicoburns 4y ago

I dunno, where I live hospital care (including birthing) is free (tax-payer funded) for everyone. In which case it seems to make more sense to say that everyone can afford it, not that nobody can. It's the things the state doesn't pay for that people can't afford, not the things it does.

notch656a 4y ago
In the US, the mother being on Medicaid is highly correlative with them and/or the child being on other public benefits. On the micro level (an individual birth), it implies nothing other than they were eligible for Medicaid. On the macro level ("nearly half of births") it implies a lot more. When health-care is universally tax-payer funded, the differential between the free-market unregulated premium you would pay for what you get and what you actually pay in taxes for it represents the net public benefit you've extracted. If you earn nothing, then odds are you can't afford health care even though you get it.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? There may be many other things that that person can't afford, but the thing provided to them is not one of them.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    >I think I fundamentally disagree with the premise that anyone "can't afford" something that the state provides for free. It makes more sense when you step back and realize it isn't provided for free. If you don't pay taxes, it was provided by others who could afford to pay for it on your behalf. Someone else could afford it, and you got it. If you otherwise could have afforded it on your own or paid the tax that represents at least the free-market rate at which you would have got it, then you could have afforded it. >Would you say that someone "can't afford" to use roads because they wouldn't be able to afford to have them constructed if the state hadn't already done so? The unsubsidized cost of the road for an individual isn't the cost to construct the road, it's the free market value of the utility the road provides them. While not perfectly reflected, a toll charged by a private toll road will give a ballpark of what that cost is. Similarly if you earn nothing, have no money, and use the roads freely provided to you then you cannot afford the roads. But you're still provided use of the road. Someone else was able to afford the roads, and they paid for it instead. You're completely dependent on the charity of the public to allow you using roads you yourself didn't pay for -- and that would be pretty much the definition of being unable to afford something you were provided. Whereas if you paid taxes commensurate with your use of the roads, then it's safe to say you can afford to use the roads. In this manner, people often have kids they can't afford, and instead others who can afford to pay (at least partially) for them do so in the form of Medicaid / WIC / EBT / Section 8 and other benefits.