4 ms·

The problem exists in shades in the USA and pretty much everywhere with nation state robust social security that relies in tragedy of the commons of privatizing

The problem exists in shades in the USA and pretty much everywhere with nation state robust social security that relies in tragedy of the commons of privatizing the lions share of cost of children while socializing the gains ( your health insurance scheme is perfect in scope example I think). The effect is so predictable it's stunning that it's rarely seen as an obvious focus of study.

oktoberpaard 3y ago
How does this scheme socialize the gains of children if children don't pay premiums? In my country it's actually free to have children (as there are no hospital and healthcare costs involved for the parents) and having children gets subsidized in various forms (allowances, education, etc). Sure, it's still expensive to have children, but it's expensive to have children in any country. And mind you, there is no country in the world where the per capita healthcare expenditure (private and public combined) is higher than in the US. Edit: per capita.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  This scheme seems to squeeze young adults for cash so they can only afford children shortly before they are no longer able to produce them.
  - oktoberpaard 3y ago
    Because of the premiums they have to pay, you mean? The premiums are currently about $150 a month, or less if you accept a higher out-of-pocket payment. If you don’t earn much, it’s almost 100% subsidized by the government, which is mostly paid for by people with higher incomes who pay more taxes (in absolute numbers as well as relatively, due to the progressive tax system). I think one of the most important factors for not having children early is the sky-high housing market, definitely not the healthcare insurance system.
oktoberpaard 3y ago
I guess what you're referring to is the long-term benefit of having children, as in: the benefit of having adult children to support you when you're old. Yes, that has been socialized to an extent, which does indeed come with a risk. Maybe I'm too European, but I don't see how a system devoid of public safety nets is superior, though. Everybody benefits from a society that where most people are relative well-off and worry-free, including those that don't need it, and over time it surely needs to adjust to new realities, which is unavoidable.
- beaeglebeached 3y ago
  I think it's achievable with a nation state net but more challenging. Given kids at least up to replacement rates are usually net positive, society will have to economically reflect them as a profit center rather than hogging most of the gains and artificially shunting them as cost center to producers of children. Although if it were me, well, I'd just leave the kids the hell alone and let them decide who they want to help.

oktoberpaard 3y ago

How does this scheme socialize the gains of children if children don't pay premiums? In my country it's actually free to have children (as there are no hospital and healthcare costs involved for the parents) and having children gets subsidized in various forms (allowances, education, etc). Sure, it's still expensive to have children, but it's expensive to have children in any country. And mind you, there is no country in the world where the per capita healthcare expenditure (private and public combined) is higher than in the US. Edit: per capita.

thriftwy 3y ago
This scheme seems to squeeze young adults for cash so they can only afford children shortly before they are no longer able to produce them.
- oktoberpaard 3y ago
  Because of the premiums they have to pay, you mean? The premiums are currently about $150 a month, or less if you accept a higher out-of-pocket payment. If you don’t earn much, it’s almost 100% subsidized by the government, which is mostly paid for by people with higher incomes who pay more taxes (in absolute numbers as well as relatively, due to the progressive tax system). I think one of the most important factors for not having children early is the sky-high housing market, definitely not the healthcare insurance system.

oktoberpaard 3y ago

I guess what you're referring to is the long-term benefit of having children, as in: the benefit of having adult children to support you when you're old. Yes, that has been socialized to an extent, which does indeed come with a risk. Maybe I'm too European, but I don't see how a system devoid of public safety nets is superior, though. Everybody benefits from a society that where most people are relative well-off and worry-free, including those that don't need it, and over time it surely needs to adjust to new realities, which is unavoidable.

beaeglebeached 3y ago
I think it's achievable with a nation state net but more challenging. Given kids at least up to replacement rates are usually net positive, society will have to economically reflect them as a profit center rather than hogging most of the gains and artificially shunting them as cost center to producers of children. Although if it were me, well, I'd just leave the kids the hell alone and let them decide who they want to help.