FMLA: Once again America is rather behind the times

[VigoTheCarpathian]

Because her family will take care of her while she's out of work. It's the system we have in place, here in the US. No need to overdose on the sarcasm. Also, "coworkers, students and parents helped to organize a blood drive in her name, advertised on the school's front door, and are planning a Relay-for-Life event".

A system is a set of interacting/interlocking entities that function as a whole. "Move in with mom and dad" is not a "system" that anyone has "in place", anyplace anywhere, unless you're living in the 1860s. Having a pre-existing condition and being unemployed, this person is up shits creek, and I don't care how much money/awareness they can raise in an event, you can't pay for cancer treatment with wishes and a few thousand bucks. I have some personal experience with this sort of thing, and are so off of base here, it's beyond ridiculous and in the realm of oblivious.

Being forced to rely on a family as your sole support structure in this globalized world (for children, both birth and rearing, or for leukemia) is as antiquated as driving a four-horse cart down I-5. The four horses being mom, dad, and 2 kids, with the .5 being the baby or the terminally ill person.

[Angalin]

I had a beautiful post written out about the possible merits of pre-natal leave and the computer ate it. :( I do remember this part, though:

<mod gloves>

Enough with the snark, folks. And save the UHC discussion for the appropriate threads.

</mod gloves>

I also found the abstract of an NIH paper that argued that infants in child care were introduced earlier to solid foods, which led to increased weight gain above the recommended amount; further study might show a link between this and overweight children.

As for pre-natal leave, amongst friends and acquaintances who've tried to maintain a close-to-pre-pregnancy activity level in their third trimester, many of them have given birth around 3-4 weeks before their due date. Pre-term babies require extra care and monitoring, often longer hospitalizations, and the breastfeeding process tends to be more challenging for both mother and child (the muscles in the baby's cheeks aren't developed enough to suck properly). If the mother goes back to work after six weeks, she is effectively leaving a baby who is at a 2-3 week development stage instead of a 6 week stage; that might not sound like much, but it's the difference between an infant who can smile back at you and one who can't.

[The Iceman of the North]

Not objective, not quantifiable. Show me some results. Give me some objective facts which show the European system leads to a better society directly linked to paid, as opposed to unpaid, maternity leave. Or, give me some objective facts which show negative results from unpaid maternity leave in the US.

Ask and ye shall receive.

[MinDonner]

Telling me I need to pay more because others aren't responsible is not a valid arguement. "It's the right thing to do" is not a compelling one either, and not because I'm a cold hearted-bastard. Unless there's a system in place not to reward unemployeed people from having artifical ensemination for 8 kids, I don't want any part of supporting her. It's human nature to exploit a system.

I have two kids. My wife took 12 weeks off for each of them, part of it unpaid (I don't remember the amount of weeks). It depended on how many days of vacation she had saved up (ie Insurance paid for x amount of days, then she took "vacation", then she took unpaid days until the 12 week time was up). When we got pregnant the first time, we sat down and figured out our finances. How much we had, how much we needed to save, decided if we could afford to stay in our current house and still pay for daycare, etc. So we tightened out belts and made it happen.

And again - how is it a reasonable argument to state that "some people abuse System X, therefore we should get rid of the entire system"? A lot of these complaints sound more like sour grapes, "we had to suffer so why should you be treated better?". Societies develop by aiming for the best system available, not by refusing to add services because it might upset those who were too late to benefit from them.

[Lyanna Stark]

I love this paragraph. I think too often people get away with saying 'I can't afford it' like budget is some concrete thing in which choices play no part. Thousands of choices go into any given situation.

Except this is, of course, a happy middle class problem. And totally rubbish. A lot of people actually do not have any space in their budgets already.

I consider myself lower middle class or working class (depending on your definition) and it's mind boggling looking at the apalling perspectives here from people who have never spent a day in their life poor, or struggling for money. Congratulations to you. Not everyone is as fortunate.

Personally I am eternally grateful that I live in Europe and have some sort of safety net, which while small, is still something. If me or my husband gets unemployed though, we only have about 5 months savings and will most likely become homeless, since a) council housing hardly exists here and b) average rents in our area means at least £450 per person per month, not counting utilities. Plus housing is extremely scarce (it has its downsides living in an area more densely populated than most of Bangladesh).

All the "EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE 8 MONTHS SAVINGS" is also totally mindboggling. Again, middle class fucking problems. I am utterly and completely appalled.

I'm taking my full 9 months off. A lot of it is not at all well paid and not based on income and we'll be looking at me having a take home pay of around £100 a week (which would not even cover rent, had I been a single mother btw, not counting food and utilities).

I think the UK legislation is way to old fashioned and should be more like the Swedish one.

As for low productivity in Sweden, as far as a I recall, it's never been a problem there whatever the productivity is, so it must be pretty good as it's doing quite well, TYVM, regardless of the long parental leaves. In fact, it is often a very good opportunity for recent graduates and young people to get a foot on the job market. They get experience and references, making future job hunting much easier. In the end, everyone wins.

But then, why should anyone have to pay anything for anybody else eh? As long as *I*'m on Right Now, why should I care if my neighbour's kids starve to death, or they can't afford heating at winter in -25C? Not my problem, they should obvioiusly have Saved More and Planned Better.

Ridiculous.

[Balefont]

And again - how is it a reasonable argument to state that "some people abuse System X, therefore we should get rid of the entire system"? A lot of these complaints sound more like sour grapes, "we had to suffer so why should you be treated better?". Societies develop by aiming for the best system available, not by refusing to add services because it might upset those who were too late to benefit from them.

Yes, this is why I propose a complete overhaul of our little state's system. There's no built in accountability or guarentee that the state benefits are being used for their intended purposes. It's such a shame because there are people who need a deserve assistance. I think the benefits should have more strings attached.

Instead cuts were made to the Welfare-to-Work program. :dunno:

[Minaku]

Except this is, of course, a happy middle class problem. And totally rubbish. A lot of people actually do not have any space in their budgets already.

I consider myself lower middle class or working class (depending on your definition) and it's mind boggling looking at the apalling perspectives here from people who have never spent a day in their life poor, or struggling for money. Congratulations to you. Not everyone is as fortunate.

Thank you for assuming that because I think people should save money and only look to the government for assistance when they are desperate and on their last legs that I have been quite wealthy all my life. I have not been. My family has never been rich. I grew up without very much at all - I had a roof over my head, and food on the table, even if the entire meal cost less than 2 dollars to make. And I still feel very strongly that one should depend on oneself first and foremost. Absolutely. The only person who is always going to help you is... yourself.

My income level is below the poverty line. I am very fortunate to live with my husband who's willing to put up with a wife who doesn't make a whole lot. However, we do not mix our money. Even if I had to pay rent, and utilities, and my grocery bill, I'd still be able to do that on the meager wages that I earn. Best existence ever? No. Would I still save money every week? You bet, even if it's only five dollars.

People of all types, of all income levels have different opinions. This isn't the first time you've spouted this ridiculous opinion that only rich people must think this way. I am self-sufficient because I grew up poor. I've always had to make the decision on what was necessary versus what I wanted (and the things that are necessary are quite few compared to the things that are wanted). Maternity leave - necessary. How long, that's debatable. Paid maternity leave? That's a want.

Edit: Why is it you who has to take 9 months off and suffer a pay cut? You and Joskii can juggle childcare duties throughout the week. He can use a vacation day once or twice a week so you can go out and do things like work part-time and earn money for yourself. Maybe that's my problem. Paid maternity leave is not going to be the same money as what I'd earn working, so I'll take the hit to the care of my child, share that burden with my husband, daycare, or other family, and just go to work.

By the way, I am the only member of my entire family who lives down here in the South, and my entire family consists of a whopping three people, two of whom live up in NJ. I'm going to have to hobnob with some other moms in birthing class to see if we can come to some sort of group childcare arrangement should our current childcare arrangements not pan out.

[Lyanna Stark]

Thank you for assuming that because I think people should save money and only look to the government for assistance when they are desperate and on their last legs that I have been quite wealthy all my life. I have not been. My family has never been rich. I grew up without very much at all - I had a roof over my head, and food on the table, even if the entire meal cost less than 2 dollars to make. And I still feel very strongly that one should depend on oneself first and foremost. Absolutely. The only person who is always going to help you is... yourself.

My income level is below the poverty line. I am very fortunate to live with my husband who's willing to put up with a wife who doesn't make a whole lot. However, we do not mix our money. Even if I had to pay rent, and utilities, and my grocery bill, I'd still be able to do that on the meager wages that I earn. Best existence ever? No. Would I still save money every week? You bet, even if it's only five dollars.

People of all types, of all income levels have different opinions. This isn't the first time you've spouted this ridiculous opinion that only rich people must think this way. I am self-sufficient because I grew up poor. I've always had to make the decision on what was necessary versus what I wanted (and the things that are necessary are quite few compared to the things that are wanted). Maternity leave - necessary. How long, that's debatable. Paid maternity leave? That's a want.

Well, this is where we differ. I also didn't grow up in a rich household. My family never went on holiday. My parents could on many occasions not afford to feed me and my sister on their own, but lived on handouts from my uncle (who was a fisherman and we had fish 6 times a week since his left over fish = our dinners). They also didn't have the opportunity to have one of them pay for the other: my dad worked day time when I was very small and my mum had to quit her job and work night time. To me this is barbaric. This is WHY I don't mind paying higher taxes : so that people like me, like my parents, don't have to be put in a situation like that. It was further complicated with my sister basically being ill for the first 1.5 years of her life, with various complications.

So no, I don't think paid maternity leave is a want, it is something that to me, is 110% necessary unless you want a society for the middle and upper classes.

My parents can't support me through the time I need to take off. They can't pay my childcare. Neither can my in-laws. We don't have any family apart from our parents and my sister (who is a walking financial disaster).

I don't feel you should depend on yourself 100% as this means you can never have accidents, you can't have sick children and you can't be laid off. And these things happen. They happen ALL the time to people. Sure, you may get lucky, or you may not. In the cases where you are not, I hope to God that society is there to at least help those people get back on their feet, cos frankly, somebody who is bankrupt because of a complicated pregnancy, unemployment or medical conditions...I would not want to live somewhere where that happens. Ever.

As I stated above: I don't have families or relatives who can cater for me if things go wrong. I'm sure a lot of people do, but also a lot of people don't.

Also, you say you can actually afford rent, utilities and grocieries on your salary, which means you CAN actually manage. Somebody here on a minimum wage or close to cannot have a chance in hell to pay rent for a flat plus utilities and food. I'm not sure what rents are like in your area, but around London, I can tell you they are not small. For the same space I had in Sweden, I pay 4 times as much, and that does not include utilities and food, which are both far more expensive.

What would such a person do if maternity leave was not paid? Forced abortion? For somebody without safety nets (husband, family etc) I just don't see how it can even be possible to not terminate the pregnancy if things go up the shitter without some sort of maternity leave and protection.

Edit: Why is it you who has to take 9 months off and suffer a pay cut? You and Joskii can juggle childcare duties throughout the week. He can use a vacation day once or twice a week so you can go out and do things like work part-time and earn money for yourself. Maybe that's my problem. Paid maternity leave is not going to be the same money as what I'd earn working, so I'll take the hit to the care of my child, share that burden with my husband, daycare, or other family, and just go to work.

1. Our employer would have a very, very hard time stomaching such an arrangement.

2. You do know that Britiain is in a recession and that work is extremely hard to come by? :) I've been looking around for options, but they are either scams or working for £6.45 an hour in places where the train fare along would cancel out any earnings. We downsized to just one car in order to save money, so our options are fewer here too.

3. We fully plan to use child care once my nine months are over (or shorter, we are going with 9 months as the default since we have no idea whether it will be uncomplicated or not. I was a great kid, and as I stated my sister was sick for the first 1.5 years and caused my parents no end of trouble). Then of course we have to deal with pricey childcare and queues and the possibility that they won't accept children under 1 year, which is entirely possible as well.

The maternity pay outs are only done for a couple of weeks after the child is born, after that, the rest of the 9 months are on statuatory maternity pay, which is currently £117 a week before taxes and national insurance are paid. However, my employer is required to hold my spot open for me if I return at or within the nine months. I can take longer off (unpaid) but they are then not required to hold my position for me. I really hope I won't have to do this, but who knows? I'm not expecting an uncomplicated delivery and first couple of months. I will consider it a big bonus.

[Minaku]

Well, this is where we differ. I also didn't grow up in a rich household. My family never went on holiday. My parents could on many occasions not afford to feed me and my sister on their own, but lived on handouts from my uncle (who was a fisherman and we had fish 6 times a week since his left over fish = our dinners). They also didn't have the opportunity to have one of them pay for the other: my dad worked day time when I was very small and my mum had to quit her job and work night time. To me this is barbaric. This is WHY I don't mind paying higher taxes : so that people like me, like my parents, don't have to be put in a situation like that. It was further complicated with my sister basically being ill for the first 1.5 years of her life, with various complications.

So no, I don't think paid maternity leave is a want, it is something that to me, is 110% necessary unless you want a society for the middle and upper classes.

My parents can't support me through the time I need to take off. They can't pay my childcare. Neither can my in-laws. We don't have any family apart from our parents and my sister (who is a walking financial disaster).

I don't feel you should depend on yourself 100% as this means you can never have accidents, you can't have sick children and you can't be laid off. And these things happen. They happen ALL the time to people. Sure, you may get lucky, or you may not. In the cases where you are not, I hope to God that society is there to at least help those people get back on their feet, cos frankly, somebody who is bankrupt because of a complicated pregnancy, unemployment or medical conditions...I would not want to live somewhere where that happens. Ever.

As I stated above: I don't have families or relatives who can cater for me if things go wrong. I'm sure a lot of people do, but also a lot of people don't.

Also, you say you can actually afford rent, utilities and grocieries on your salary, which means you CAN actually manage. Somebody here on a minimum wage or close to cannot have a chance in hell to pay rent for a flat plus utilities and food. I'm not sure what rents are like in your area, but around London, I can tell you they are not small. For the same space I had in Sweden, I pay 4 times as much, and that does not include utilities and food, which are both far more expensive.

What would such a person do if maternity leave was not paid? Forced abortion?

Vacation was not something I did either as a child. I grew up with solely my mother as my caretaker. We were in the US. The rest of the family was and is in Taiwan. No childcare arrangements other than paid daycare. My mom did work two jobs in order to have surplus money. She put me to work at 14 to occupy my time; I started getting paid as soon as I could, at 16. Scraping for money, cutting coupons, denying myself things, that's not barbaric to me. That's life. My mother grew up with even less, believe it or not, and her family had 6 people in it.

I've had things happen to me, not medical problems, knock on wood, but normal things that occur. I've had to shell out 1300 bucks to overhaul my entire brake system, for example. Every year, I need to spend money on my car. Since I have a very specialized field, there are months where I rake in the cash and then months where every single line in my checking account is a deduction. I cry if a bill comes out to more than a thousand dollars - I think it's because I'm a miser, not because I can't afford it. I continue doing what I do because I want to be able to take a hit and come back. I just paid full tuition for my grad school, took a rather sizeable chunk out of my savings to do that. And slowly I am recovering from it.

I firmly believe it's a mindset. It's not, "I can't," or, "I'm afraid x is going to happen," it's, "What can I do with what I have, and how can I make my situation change after taking account of things that will happen?" You say that there is no way I can survive on minimum wage and still pay for the things I pay for, and still have money left over. That's bubkis. That is defeatist. Some people can. Some people can't. It's about what happens in your life, what you do to help yourself, and money management. Like I said above, even if what I save at the end of the week is five dollars, it's still five dollars saved. It is five dollars that's gone into an account I will not allow myself to access, an account with interest, an account that becomes my safety cushion should anything happen. I can still depend on myself understanding that catastrophic things can and do occur.

As for living expenses, London is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. I live in Atlanta. To have a comparable situation, I'd need to compare my cost of living here to cost of living in New York City. Cost of living in Atlanta is almost 40% less than in NYC. If I lived in NYC I'd be destitute and on the streets if I didn't share a 6th floor closet space walkup with 3 other people (and then, saving five bucks a month would be something I'd be grateful for). But since I live here, I have more wiggle room every month.

There are a few options when you get pregnant. You think to yourself, "How can I afford this child? How will this child impact my life? Am I ready? Do I want it?" Some women get an abortion. Some others celebrate with the fathers of the child. And some others pack up what they have, quit their jobs, move back in with their parent(s). It is a weighty decision, as it should be, because there will be a new life in the world.

I think we're pretty similar when it comes to backgrounds, Cerys, and current situations. I have no family here. My husband has his family here but they're about an hour away, so we can't depend on them for a lot of help. We're pretty much on our own. Having this kid is going to put a huge dent in our wallets. Maybe not his wallet, but it'll put a big dent in MY wallet. I'm saving what I can, cutting out expenses, to prepare for him. And taking the smallest possible maternity leave I can so I can go back to work and make sure I can pay for his things.

[The Iceman of the North]

Hm, the UK seems quite backwards. Not as bad as the US, but still...

[Guest Raidne]

Is this just a personality thing? Because I don't get it. Nobody is perfectly self-sufficient. We all use government services. I just don't get why it's controversial to cost-share letting mothers physically recuperate from birth and giving new parents a small amount of time to bond with a new baby, any more so than we fund roads, or college education, or anything else.

I hope everyone who's addicted to this self-sufficiency myth turned down not only government aid for education, but also interest-free loans.

[Minaku]

Is this just a personality thing? Because I don't get it. Nobody is perfectly self-sufficient. We all use government services. I just don't get why it's controversial to cost-share letting mothers physically recuperate from birth and giving new parents a small amount of time to bond with a new baby, any more so than we fund roads, or college education, or anything else.

I hope everyone who's addicted to this self-sufficiency myth turned down not only government aid for education, but also interest-free loans.

To be honest I don't think it's controversial. Mothers and fathers need time to care for their new children. The question for me, as it always has been, is where is the money going to come from? Who do we ask, and is this something the government really is equipped to handle?

If we want paid leave, we can't just say only people working for business X get it. It's something all working mothers and fathers should have access to. That means a tax or a fee on the national scale. Then it's a question of how much money can you really get, and if it's enough to live off of. Would it be more cost efficient to work, or more cost efficient to take the leave? How large of an agency would this have to be in order to pull paid leave off? I mean, there are just so many questions to answer.

As for loans, we only took the grant from the school and a small loan from the government, of which I paid off within a year after leaving school. :P Part of it was helped by me graduating a semester early, thus saving roughly 10k.

[potsherds]

And again - how is it a reasonable argument to state that "some people abuse System X, therefore we should get rid of the entire system"? A lot of these complaints sound more like sour grapes, "we had to suffer so why should you be treated better?". Societies develop by aiming for the best system available, not by refusing to add services because it might upset those who were too late to benefit from them.

Min, this attitude is extremely common in Americans. It's part of the basis of much of the opposition to any and/or all social services and safety nets. There's quite an unusual sense of entitlement at work that is hard to explain. I won't do it justice but it's something like a sense that 'if I don't benefit, or someone else abuses the system and gets way more out of it unfairly than I do, it shouldn't be done'. It's a concern for self over society, very much a common drive in Americans.

ETA: Re: Common drive in Americans: It's really sad too, because it tends to cause *everyone* to struggle needlessly on their own, with no help or security, when paying in a little bit more each year would benefit themselves and everyone else and the whole society so very much.

[Minaku]

Min, this attitude is extremely common in Americans. It's part of the basis of much of the opposition to any and/or all social services and safety nets. There's quite an unusual sense of entitlement at work that is hard to explain. I won't do it justice but it's something like a sense that 'if I don't benefit, or someone else abuses the system and gets way more out of it unfairly than I do, it shouldn't be done'. It's a concern for self over society, very much a common drive in Americans.

ETA: Re: Common drive in Americans: It's really sad too, because it tends to cause *everyone* to struggle needlessly on their own, with no help or security, when paying in a little bit more each year would benefit themselves and everyone else and the whole society so very much.

Hey Pots, if you want to fall on your sword, sacrifice for society, and let me have your money (without getting any from me, since I don't fall in a certain income bracket), I'll gladly take it.

[potsherds]

Hey Pots, if you want to fall on your sword, sacrifice for society, and let me have your money (without getting any from me, since I don't fall in a certain income bracket), I'll gladly take it.

I'd be glad to pay higher taxes of all sorts to pay into a social safety net that will benefit you during your pregnancy. :) Pregnancies are stressful enough without worrying overmuch about work and finances the entire time before and immediately after.

[Minaku]

I'd be glad to pay higher taxes of all sorts to pay into a social safety net that will benefit you during your pregnancy. :) Pregnancies are stressful enough without worrying overmuch about work and finances the entire time before and immediately after.

I think it'd be more efficient to come to you, personally.

Anyone who is curious about what the US really offers in terms of assistance, go to http://www.govbenefits.gov. We do have quite a few social programs in the US.

[Lyanna Stark]

Is this just a personality thing? Because I don't get it. Nobody is perfectly self-sufficient. We all use government services. I just don't get why it's controversial to cost-share letting mothers physically recuperate from birth and giving new parents a small amount of time to bond with a new baby, any more so than we fund roads, or college education, or anything else.

I hope everyone who's addicted to this self-sufficiency myth turned down not only government aid for education, but also interest-free loans.

:huh:

I don't know. I honestly don't.

I really don't mind paying higher taxes so I know the people who are less well off than me won't go bankrupt if they get ill or their pregnanices go wrong etc. Like potsherds, I consider that sort of solidarity completely natural and a part of which creates a cohesive society. If we don't have that, what are we? It's just so...selfish to me.

And I say this as somebody who has never been rich. Parting with a little more cash for a safety net is so totally worth it.

I think we're pretty similar when it comes to backgrounds, Cerys, and current situations. I have no family here. My husband has his family here but they're about an hour away, so we can't depend on them for a lot of help. We're pretty much on our own. Having this kid is going to put a huge dent in our wallets. Maybe not his wallet, but it'll put a big dent in MY wallet. I'm saving what I can, cutting out expenses, to prepare for him. And taking the smallest possible maternity leave I can so I can go back to work and make sure I can pay for his things.

Yes, I think so too.

To add to this, I am also 33, and I honestly thought I could not ever get pregnant (due to a couple of things) so while it was a happy surprise I could, it also came a little bit too early for how we had hoped to plan it. On the other hand, I am not getting any younger, and I have no wish of becoming an older mum with all that brings with it. (I have full respect for the people who can cope with it, I just don't think I could.)

[Galactus]

I really don't mind paying higher taxes so I know the people who are less well off than me won't go bankrupt if they get ill or their pregnanices go wrong etc. Like potsherds, I consider that sort of solidarity completely natural and a part of which creates a cohesive society. If we don't have that, what are we? It's just so...selfish to me.

Our current PM Lex Luthor did write that the swedish population has been brainwashed by social democratic propaganda. Obviously he is correct.

[Minaku]

I want the freedom to give my money to whom I want. I want the freedom to provide for the people I want to provide for. If my neighbor needs assistance from me to take care of her child in a time of need, I will provide it. The fundamental difference is that I don't want the government to tell me I have to do this, and take my money. I've said this before, and I'll reiterate it. I want the choice to do what I want with the money I earn. Hoard it or spend it, whatever, but it's not the government's place to tell me what I should do with it. However, if I am taxed more than I am currently, I may not have the funds to give to the poor, or help needy mothers, or dying neighbors. This is the kind of society I am interested in - a humane one, one with a face. I am not interested in having society run through government.

There are things that government is good at, such as taking a census or taxation, and things that government is bad at. In the US, the government is overwhelmingly bad at a great deal of things.

Edit: I wanted to add that the US is a world leader when it comes to philanthropy. (Here is another link.) Now, I don't know where this information comes from, nor do I really know how biased or unbiased the sources are. Also, a lot of this info stops at 2005-2007, before the current economic downturn. I acknowledge that philanthropy is very hard to track - hell, I've given away money but haven't listed it on my taxes.

Excluding remittances, the U.S. is still the most philanthropic nation, followed bythe the U.K. and Germany. The landscape will not remain the same, however. With the number of millionaires in Ireland increasing by 10% the last year, it is the second wealthiest country in the world and has a defined philanthropic culture.

Private giving as a percentage of GNP is lowest in Norway, France and Spain where it is close to zero. There are a variety of factors that affect private assistance but, the most significant is taxation policies. Tax deductions and credit increase incentives for charity, as do low tax revenue to GNP ratios.

Austria, Finland and Sweden's tax structures offer no incentive, and it is not surprising that private charitable giving in these three countries are some of the lowest seen amount the top 20 donor countries. On the other hand, Australia, Germany and the U.S. are among the top favorable tax climates for private giving and these countries are the same leading the top 20.

So like I've said, I want the freedom to give to whom I want. Maybe it all just evens out in the end.

[Lyanna Stark]

Minaku,

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is: a lot of people in the US are completely without security nets and go bankrupt for things that are not even disasters in a European country. Like for instance a C-section with some complications. Here this won't cost you a penny extra and you don't have to worry yourself sick about whether you can afford it or not.

I don't see any rich people in the US saying "Oh I can pay to save poor Pamela from bankruptcy due to the C-section and the complications".

To be completely honest, I don't think I would have dared having a child in the US, as any type of complications would most likely have lead to financial ruin for me and my husband. I don't like taking that type of risk.

Re the charity stuff: I don't know about you, but I'd be embarrassed sick from taking money from a charity. Is there ANY way you could feel like a bigger failure? 0.o The State on the other hand, I have paid them tax money from my own income and I can feel that the money they give me back, well, I have contributed to that, as have my parents, my husband and his family, hence I have a right to them.

I don't want to live on rich people's pity and handouts. I WANT to contribute. To myself and in solidarity with everyone around me. Working and paying taxes feel natural to me as the way to go. I'd rather pay more taxes than hope some well off philantropist will save my working class arse.

EDIT: they had an interview with a single mother in a Swedish newspaper not so long ago. As recession has hit Sweden, so has benefits and other things. This single mother had been laid off, and due to some issue with her union, she had not yet received any unemployment benefits, and had to rely on charity to feed her and her child. She spoke to the newspaper about how utterly humiliated she felt, and how ashamed she was to have to live on CHARITY. The same horror would fill me if I had to do it. Maybe it's because of the old Swedish poorhouses and the stories about them, and our history as an extremely poor people.