Daycare.com Forum Kidacare by Minute Menu Force of Nature Disinfectant HiMama Childcare App

Go Back   Daycare.com Forum > Parents and Guardians Forum

Parents and Guardians Forum Parents and Guardians should post and answer questions here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-02-2010, 01:15 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Babies 6 Weeks of Age?

Daycare providers shouldnt take babies as young as 6 weeks of age.

The babies are too young to leave their mothers and need more time for bonding and attachment.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-02-2010, 07:19 AM
DBug DBug is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 934
Default

Totally agreed! But if mom is ready/needs to go back to work, and I didn't take the baby, someone else would. At least I can make sure I'm giving the baby the time, attention, and cuddling that it needs!

That said, up here in the Great White North, not many moms go back that early -- we get 50% of our regular salary on mat. leave for one year, even if we're not going back to work (provided you were paying into it while you were working). The employer may top that up. One mom I have is taking mat. leave this summer, and she's getting 93% for the year. And of course the Child Tax Benefit helps too.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-02-2010, 07:55 AM
Former Teacher's Avatar
Former Teacher Former Teacher is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,136
Default

Sad thing is..we once had a baby who was only 2 weeks old. Mom had to go back to work and dad was no help even he was unemployed at the time. Dad's exact words to mom was.."you wanted him, you take care of him because I ain't!"

Our absolute youngest was a week old and that's only because mom was the infant caregiver. She convinced my former boss that she would go crazy just being at home. So she came back to work early.

I guess I see both sides of the story. Yes I think 6 weeks old is still to young. However we would all be out of money if parents didnt
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-02-2010, 08:51 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Daycare providers shouldnt take babies as young as 6 weeks of age.

The babies are too young to leave their mothers and need more time for bonding and attachment.
I think your post may be more effective if based towards parents. While we may agree, it is not our place to tell parents how to raise their infants.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-02-2010, 09:03 AM
Daycare Mommy's Avatar
Daycare Mommy Daycare Mommy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: By the beautiful sea...
Posts: 323
Default

In a perfect world we wouldn't be needed at all... but this is reality we live in. Many families need the dual income and most of the jobs out there won't let you bring your kids. Sure there are plenty that don't need to work, but do it anyway to keep their big house, fancy cars, etc., but that's their choice. I can't make them prioritize their babies. I skrimped and saved and managed to take a year off after the birth of each of my children by living off of my husband's income. Not everyone has that luxury though, so I try not to judge. The best we can do is try to make our daycares the best home away from home that we can for the infants and children that are brought to us.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-02-2010, 03:32 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

seems like a lot of families listen to their daycare provider. So maybe you could encourage Moms to stay home longer. I love the help that is given in the "great white north". Where is that? I wish the lower 48 did that!!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-03-2010, 04:08 AM
nannyde's Avatar
nannyde nannyde is offline
All powerful, all knowing daycare whisperer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 7,292
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
seems like a lot of families listen to their daycare provider. So maybe you could encourage Moms to stay home longer. I love the help that is given in the "great white north". Where is that? I wish the lower 48 did that!!!
We don't have that kind of influence especially with a new family. They wouldn't spend a second considering what WE thought was best for their child. We are strangers to them. Either we will take the kid when they want care or we won't. It's that simple.

The only way to make this not an issue is to regulate minimum age for entry into care. I haven't heard of any State that does that. There might be though. I know my State won't pay for child care assistance until they are two weeks old. Private pay can start any time they want.

I have had babies as young as ten days. I'm fine with newborn on. The younger the better IMO. You can really eliminate a lot of transition problems if you get them in the early newborn stage.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-03-2010, 05:53 AM
DBug DBug is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 934
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
seems like a lot of families listen to their daycare provider. So maybe you could encourage Moms to stay home longer. I love the help that is given in the "great white north". Where is that? I wish the lower 48 did that!!!
The 51st state - Canada Talk to (email, write, etc) your Government reps and suggest it. Who knows, one of them may share your opinion and be able to use your backing (along with lots of others, of course), to make a change! I think it's an amazing thing our government does to encourage parents to stay home for at least a little while. True, taxes reflect it, but I'm okay with that, and so are most other Canadians. And the mat. leave benefits don't just apply to moms -- dads can split the time with moms too (ie. dad stays home for 6 months, then mom stays home for 6 months).

And as for encouraging parents to stay home, honestly, if parents had already made the decision to go back to work, my opinion won't matter. Generally before a family starts with me, I've only met them once during the interview. I don't have alot of say until they've been with me for awhile.

An idea for your community might be to start a mommy/daddy & me group specifically for moms/dads and their newborns. You could advertise to brand new parents in the maternity wards in your area, and offer money-saving tips on how to survive on one income, set up babysitting co-ops, organize playgroups, playdates, baby-friendly coffee dates, and movie afternoons. All to encourage parents to take more time off after baby is born.

But, thing is, you'll have to do something, rather than just telling others what to do
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-03-2010, 10:41 AM
Golden Rule Golden Rule is offline
Former Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Daycare providers shouldnt take babies as young as 6 weeks of age.

The babies are too young to leave their mothers and need more time for bonding and attachment.
In a perfect world, sure.

It takes brass balls to make such a generalized statement. I noticed you did not register first, though so I guess that means you wont stand up for your conviction? That is all I am left to guess....

Glad your life worked out for you so well....hope it continues that way for you. Especially with the inability to understand others have different situations.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-03-2010, 11:21 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

that's totally a matter of opinion, and of course we all know opinions are like....

yeah, so anyway....

both of my children started daycare when they were 6 weeks old and i don't regret it ONE bit! when i had my first child, i was completely miserable after two weeks of staying at home. yes, i loved my daughter, but i went from working two jobs and never being at home to never leaving the house. i convinced my boss to let me work 3 days a week 2 weeks after having a c-section, and i got my mom to babysit. at first my boss told me no, and then my eyes welled up with tears....and he said yes. thank goodness! i respect stay at home mothers - it's just not for me.

in fact, i do daycare from home right now because my old job ended when the grant that funded it ran out. i love kids which is why i chose to be a teacher, but i love teaching kids at school, with other people, other adults, etc. as soon as i get another job offer, i'll stop caring for children at home. i don't want to be at home! it's just a personal preference. it doesn't make me a bad mother. in fact, it makes ME a better mother. you can't be the best mother you can be unless YOU are happy. I'M happy when i'm busy working outside the home.

say whatever you want, but both of my kids were in daycare at 6 weeks and both of my kids are literally obsessively in love with me. we bonded just fine. actually, mothers who are separated from their infants at birth due to the infant needing to go to NICU are at higher risk for bonding issues than children who go to daycare at 6 weeks. the most critical time for bonding is immediately after birth thanks to a hormone called oxytocin. i gave birth to a child i didn't see for hours besides a polaroid picture, and i later researched/wrote about the subject. i know.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-09-2010, 05:30 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Aren't you special

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Daycare providers shouldnt take babies as young as 6 weeks of age.

The babies are too young to leave their mothers and need more time for bonding and attachment.
Must be nice to be able to stay home longer than 6 weeks. Some of us would have loved to stay home longer than that, but didn't have that luxery! If I didn't have a daycare to take my son at 6 weeks, I would have been out of luck. Thanks a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-10-2010, 11:42 AM
Aya477 Aya477 is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 40
Default don't judge

I believe that alot of issues between parents and caregivers generally falls down to one matter---difference in opinion. Ex: A caregiver believes a child should be weaned from bottles whereas a parent does not believe that is the right step for their child so a disagreement arises. Or a parent believes that a caregiver should be open to allow a child to bring a toy into dc (most likely because it makes for a more pleasant drop off for all involved) whereas the provider prefers he/she should not bring the toy into dc again creating a disagreement. But what does the disagreement boil down to?? Difference in opinion. The bottom line is this: a parent chooses to place their child in a dc program and it is not the place of the dc provider to judge the parent's choices. If a provider does not wish to take in children as young as 6 weeks because they don't believe that is an appropriate age, then don't do so and let that be your choice. But please do not blast the parents that make the choice to bring their children into dc at 6weeks of age. Many a time do we believe our own opinions reign supreme and we fail to acknowledge that what works for our own family may not work for another. Live and Let Live.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-10-2010, 03:34 PM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aya477 View Post
I believe that alot of issues between parents and caregivers generally falls down to one matter---difference in opinion. Ex: A caregiver believes a child should be weaned from bottles whereas a parent does not believe that is the right step for their child so a disagreement arises. Or a parent believes that a caregiver should be open to allow a child to bring a toy into dc (most likely because it makes for a more pleasant drop off for all involved) whereas the provider prefers he/she should not bring the toy into dc again creating a disagreement. But what does the disagreement boil down to?? Difference in opinion. The bottom line is this: a parent chooses to place their child in a dc program and it is not the place of the dc provider to judge the parent's choices. If a provider does not wish to take in children as young as 6 weeks because they don't believe that is an appropriate age, then don't do so and let that be your choice. But please do not blast the parents that make the choice to bring their children into dc at 6weeks of age. Many a time do we believe our own opinions reign supreme and we fail to acknowledge that what works for our own family may not work for another. Live and Let Live.
Hmmm...are you a parent or a provider? I am guessing that you are a parent. It is not simply the parents choice what program to choose--the provider chooses which family to accept and makes the rules that the parents must follow, such as no toys or no bottles after a certain age. If the parent doesn't like said rules they should find another provider whose philosophies more closely reflect the parents opinions. While I think most providers, myself included, respect the opinions and desires of the parent, in the end our opinion does reign supreme...at least in our own home.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-11-2010, 12:22 AM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

i thought aya's post was pretty diplomatic.

just sayin.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:23 AM
Aya477 Aya477 is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 40
Default Point Proven

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
Hmmm...are you a parent or a provider? I am guessing that you are a parent. It is not simply the parents choice what program to choose--the provider chooses which family to accept and makes the rules that the parents must follow, such as no toys or no bottles after a certain age. If the parent doesn't like said rules they should find another provider whose philosophies more closely reflect the parents opinions. While I think most providers, myself included, respect the opinions and desires of the parent, in the end our opinion does reign supreme...at least in our own home.

I am a parent and what I want for my child will reign supreme and I HAVE chosen centers based on what suits my child and my wants for him. There is no basis for argument there because afterall, I am the parent and have the ultimate say in raising my minor. I believe the instances where a provider chooses a family as you suggested solely occurs in home care settings; not center care facilities. I personally do not prefer a home care setting for the very reasons you specified--the provider mandates what *they* believe to be developmentally appropriate or in general what *they* deem appropriate for the child(ren). I prefer center group settings and in that type of care, the parent chooses where to enroll their child and would have more levels of individuals to bring problems forth to. In a center setting, if something is not working out in a classroom there is atleast an assistant Director, Director, owner, or further level of management to discuss the matter with where parents aren't in a deadlock disagreement with one individual as you would find in a home care setting. The first time a provider attempts to tell me how to raise my child, a notice would be forthcoming. I have no issue with rules. I have no issue with set schedules or programs. I am not unreasonable in what I expect from my child's dc center. But I will take issue with someone mandating their opinion onto my child. I have not had my child in a home care setting so cannot speak for the need for such rules to exist. I would imagine that the operator of a home care setting may need to place rules of their own for items such as bottles, toys, pacifiers, etc for the simple fact that they may have scattered age groups and be the only person caring for the group and the rules would be necessary for the benefit of the provider. Yet another reason why homecare is not an option for my child. But, that was not the topic of this thread was it? I was simply pointing out in my earlier post that disagreements occur because of differing opinions which is just the fact and you proved that with your reply.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:44 AM
mac60's Avatar
mac60 mac60 is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Northeast
Posts: 1,597
Default

In my own personal experience with my children in both centers and home daycares, I found that the centers were much more rule oriented than home daycares. I found home daycares to be much more willing to work with a parent than at a center.
__________________
mom to many.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-13-2010, 08:49 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aya477 View Post
I am a parent and what I want for my child will reign supreme and I HAVE chosen centers based on what suits my child and my wants for him. There is no basis for argument there because afterall, I am the parent and have the ultimate say in raising my minor. I believe the instances where a provider chooses a family as you suggested solely occurs in home care settings; not center care facilities. I personally do not prefer a home care setting for the very reasons you specified--the provider mandates what *they* believe to be developmentally appropriate or in general what *they* deem appropriate for the child(ren). I prefer center group settings and in that type of care, the parent chooses where to enroll their child and would have more levels of individuals to bring problems forth to. In a center setting, if something is not working out in a classroom there is atleast an assistant Director, Director, owner, or further level of management to discuss the matter with where parents aren't in a deadlock disagreement with one individual as you would find in a home care setting. The first time a provider attempts to tell me how to raise my child, a notice would be forthcoming. I have no issue with rules. I have no issue with set schedules or programs. I am not unreasonable in what I expect from my child's dc center. But I will take issue with someone mandating their opinion onto my child. I have not had my child in a home care setting so cannot speak for the need for such rules to exist. I would imagine that the operator of a home care setting may need to place rules of their own for items such as bottles, toys, pacifiers, etc for the simple fact that they may have scattered age groups and be the only person caring for the group and the rules would be necessary for the benefit of the provider. Yet another reason why homecare is not an option for my child. But, that was not the topic of this thread was it? I was simply pointing out in my earlier post that disagreements occur because of differing opinions which is just the fact and you proved that with your reply.
Look, all I'm saying is this...unless you keep your child home, no daycare, no preschool, no school at all, your opinion only reigns supreme as long as it falls in to the parameters of the program that that you choose. That is just a fact of life.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-13-2010, 12:40 PM
Vesta's Avatar
Vesta Vesta is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Illinois
Posts: 99
Default

I was really under the impression that the OP was a parent, or at least not a provider.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-13-2010, 05:57 PM
missnikki's Avatar
missnikki missnikki is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,037
Default

I am a Director of a center, and I have those same rules. I absolutely interview parents and children for the purpose of finding out if we are a 'fit' for their family. That being said, it is the same as finding an auto shop or hairdresser. You get recommendations, visit the site and get a feel, even speak to the service person. You have the chance to ask questions, and take it or leave it. So do they.
Ultimately, we aren't out to take over the world, one infant at a time. We are in it because we love kids and are more experienced with unique family dynamics than, say, opinionated parents.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-13-2010, 09:27 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
seems like a lot of families listen to their daycare provider. So maybe you could encourage Moms to stay home longer. I love the help that is given in the "great white north". Where is that? I wish the lower 48 did that!!!
We are already free to do that here in the US.

We can save our money, and be responsible, and with the help of modern science and being responsible adults, put off having children until we are financially able to take off as much or as little time as we please, without forcing someone else to pay for it.

I'm glad we don't have that here....I pay for mine already, why should I pay for everyone else's?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-14-2010, 07:09 AM
missnikki's Avatar
missnikki missnikki is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,037
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
We are already free to do that here in the US.

We can save our money, and be responsible, and with the help of modern science and being responsible adults, put off having children until we are financially able to take off as much or as little time as we please, without forcing someone else to pay for it.

I'm glad we don't have that here....I pay for mine already, why should I pay for everyone else's?
As always, well said. I think you should run for office- Department of Telling It Like It Is, When No One Else Will.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-14-2010, 10:29 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I dont think it has much to do with paying for other people who aren't being responsible and planning for their children. Even people who prepare get paid maternity leave AND paternity leave in many countries. It's NOT welfare. It's a benefit through employers.

1) Out of 173 countries studied, 168 countries offer guaranteed leave with income to women in connection with childbirth; 98 of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. ... The U.S. guarantees no paid leave for mothers in any segment of the work force.

2) Sixty-six countries ensure that fathers either receive paid paternity leave or have a right to paid parental leave; 31 of these countries offer 14 or more weeks of paid leave. The U.S. guarantees fathers neither paid paternity nor paid parental leave.

3) At least 107 countries protect working women’s right to breastfeed; in at least 73 of these the breaks are paid. The U.S. does not guarantee the right to breastfeed, even though breastfeeding is proven to reduce infant mortality.

Another recent study from the Census Bureau provides even more sobering statistics about the lack of family values in American public policy. This study highlights the fact that 51per cent of women who give birth in this country have no paid maternity leave whatsoever. These women are forced to use unpaid leave or quit their jobs. The 49 per cent of women who do have some sort of paid leave generally have to cobble together vacation and sick days as well as "disability" leave. It is truly disgusting that we could ever consider pregnancy as a "disability."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-14-2010, 08:12 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
I dont think it has much to do with paying for other people who aren't being responsible and planning for their children. Even people who prepare get paid maternity leave AND paternity leave in many countries. It's NOT welfare. It's a benefit through employers.

1) Out of 173 countries studied, 168 countries offer guaranteed leave with income to women in connection with childbirth; 98 of these countries offer 14 or more weeks paid leave. ... The U.S. guarantees no paid leave for mothers in any segment of the work force.

2) Sixty-six countries ensure that fathers either receive paid paternity leave or have a right to paid parental leave; 31 of these countries offer 14 or more weeks of paid leave. The U.S. guarantees fathers neither paid paternity nor paid parental leave.

3) At least 107 countries protect working women’s right to breastfeed; in at least 73 of these the breaks are paid. The U.S. does not guarantee the right to breastfeed, even though breastfeeding is proven to reduce infant mortality.

Another recent study from the Census Bureau provides even more sobering statistics about the lack of family values in American public policy. This study highlights the fact that 51per cent of women who give birth in this country have no paid maternity leave whatsoever. These women are forced to use unpaid leave or quit their jobs. The 49 per cent of women who do have some sort of paid leave generally have to cobble together vacation and sick days as well as "disability" leave. It is truly disgusting that we could ever consider pregnancy as a "disability."
Call it what you want, semantics, whatever, but when the gov't makes a law mandating an employer do something like paid maternity/paternity leave, paid vacation, etc, it's a socialist program of gov't interfering with private business.


You state "It's a benefit through employers"....but it's guaranteed and required by the gov't?

That means that everyone's wages in that workplace are reduced to make up for Fertile Myrtle's annual paid maternity leave. That money has to come from somewhere.

Someone large like Intel, HP, Toyota, etc can weather something like this, but I run a small business. Now, if I was mandated to pay 14 weeks of maternity leave with no production (revenue) for that expense, I would be all done and over with-bankrupt. My only other option would be to hire a temp to fill that position, but that still doesn't make up for 14 weeks of pay going out of the checkbook with no return. Thus, I would not hire females of child bearing age to protect myself and my business from this risk.

Why should women get special treatment when it comes to paid breaks for breastfeeding? What happened to "equal work for equal pay"?

The US is not a socialist nation (not yet anyways), we are a capitalist (for now), kinda-free-market nation where if you don't like the way things are where you work, you are free to seek an employer who better suits your wants.

And if no employer wants to give you what you want, you are free to get some education and job skills and make yourself and what you bring to the workplace so valuable that employers will be bidding against one another, offering you the sun, moon and stars just to come work for them.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-14-2010, 08:34 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

chickenhauler - what DID happen to equal work for equal pay?

women STILL don't get paid as much as men for the same job.

and you say why should women get special treatment? in many countries, they have paternity leave as well. i see nothing sexist about that.

just because america doesn't do it, doesn't mean it's not right.

america is the most family unfriendly country in the world. if other countries can do it, so can we. there are countries where everyone has access to healthcare, education, maternity AND paternity leave (paid) and they are nowhere near the welfare state we are in.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-15-2010, 06:12 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
chickenhauler - what DID happen to equal work for equal pay?

women STILL don't get paid as much as men for the same job.

and you say why should women get special treatment? in many countries, they have paternity leave as well. i see nothing sexist about that.

just because america doesn't do it, doesn't mean it's not right.

america is the most family unfriendly country in the world. if other countries can do it, so can we. there are countries where everyone has access to healthcare, education, maternity AND paternity leave (paid) and they are nowhere near the welfare state we are in.
We have all those things you list here in America, you are free to choose which healthcare provider you want to pay for, you are free to attend whatever level of education you want to pay for, and you are free to take as much or as little time off when you or your spouse has a child.

Who is paying for this leave? Where is the money coming from? This is the question I ask everytime someone brings up one social program or another, yet nobody can give me a straight, honest answer. All I ever hear is "Don't worry about it, we'll figure it out later"....dammit, that's why this nation is in the condition it's in, we spend, spend, spend, and worry about paying the tab later.


So, if I moved to one of these nations that are so 'equal', when my co-worker goes to breast feed, I also get a paid break also?

I highly doubt it, I'm willing to bet that while she's getting paid to pump or breastfeed, I'm getting paid to do twice the work for the same amount of money.

When my wife was working a regular job, she did her pumping on her regularly scheduled breaks, not during special paid breaks that she was given just because she was breast feeding.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-15-2010, 07:56 PM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

It would be nice if we just treated people like, oh, I don't know HUMAN BEINGS! Good grief, if a new mother needs a few minutes to pump, why in the world do you care if you need to do a little extra for a few minutes! I am certain that at some point someone will do a little extra for you as well.

When I worked outside the home I was on salary; I just locked my office door and did what I needed to do. When the receptionist had a baby, I watched the phones for her why she used my office! And no, I did not ask her to clock out.

Now aside from simply doing the right thing, there are economic realities as well...

Breast fed babies are in general less likely to become ill than forumula fed babies. When babies are ill, somebody is gonna be staying home to care for that child! Do you have any idea how much lost productivity there is when parents are home for days with a sick infant? It is much cheaper to allow women the opportunity to breast feed than it is to have them miss many more hours home with a sick baby.

Then there would be the health care costs...breast fed babies, as they are sick less often, spend less time utilizing health care services. Less health care costs can save the company THOUSANDS of dollars in premiums.

It would be great if the world were as simplistic as you've made it out to be, but it just isn't so.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-15-2010, 10:19 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

chickenhauler,

you asked about how to pay for it and how nobody can answer the question, etc.

really?

it's not that complicated, really. the U.S. is actually the worst when it comes to maternity/paternity leave and benefits.

other countries treat it much like unemployment benefits are handled. anyone who works and pays taxes is eligible for unemployment if they get laid off or fired in a lot of cases. it's no different. not everyone gets laid off and uses unemployment, but it's there should they need it. not everyone gets pregnant or has a wife that gets pregnant, but the benefits work the same way.

you act as if it's welfare and it isn't. people who don't work wouldn't get a check on maternity/paternity leave just like people who don't work don't get unemployment.


why would anyone be AGAINST working mothers and fathers being able to have paid time off (up to a year in many countries).

are you against unemployment benefits too?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-16-2010, 05:11 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
chickenhauler,

you asked about how to pay for it and how nobody can answer the question, etc.

really?

it's not that complicated, really. the U.S. is actually the worst when it comes to maternity/paternity leave and benefits.

other countries treat it much like unemployment benefits are handled. anyone who works and pays taxes is eligible for unemployment if they get laid off or fired in a lot of cases. it's no different. not everyone gets laid off and uses unemployment, but it's there should they need it. not everyone gets pregnant or has a wife that gets pregnant, but the benefits work the same way.

you act as if it's welfare and it isn't. people who don't work wouldn't get a check on maternity/paternity leave just like people who don't work don't get unemployment.


why would anyone be AGAINST working mothers and fathers being able to have paid time off (up to a year in many countries).

are you against unemployment benefits too?

Ok, now answer the question-where will the money come from?


Are you going to mandate that every person, regardless of whether they have children, plan to have children or even cannot have children, have a percentage deducted from their paycheck to be paid out to those who have kids?

That, my dear lady, is socialism.


Why would I be against it? Because I live in the real world where I understand that money doesn't just appear magically. Before the gov't can give ANYONE ANYTHING, they must first take it from someone else.

And that's WRONG.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-16-2010, 05:12 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
It would be nice if we just treated people like, oh, I don't know HUMAN BEINGS! Good grief, if a new mother needs a few minutes to pump, why in the world do you care if you need to do a little extra for a few minutes! I am certain that at some point someone will do a little extra for you as well.

When I worked outside the home I was on salary; I just locked my office door and did what I needed to do. When the receptionist had a baby, I watched the phones for her why she used my office! And no, I did not ask her to clock out.

Now aside from simply doing the right thing, there are economic realities as well...

Breast fed babies are in general less likely to become ill than forumula fed babies. When babies are ill, somebody is gonna be staying home to care for that child! Do you have any idea how much lost productivity there is when parents are home for days with a sick infant? It is much cheaper to allow women the opportunity to breast feed than it is to have them miss many more hours home with a sick baby.

Then there would be the health care costs...breast fed babies, as they are sick less often, spend less time utilizing health care services. Less health care costs can save the company THOUSANDS of dollars in premiums.

It would be great if the world were as simplistic as you've made it out to be, but it just isn't so.
My question is, why can't this be performed on their regularly scheduled break times?

Why should there have to be special accommodations made for them?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-16-2010, 06:42 PM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

I am sure that there are companies who do require women to pump during their regular break times...during my last 3 jobs prior to daycare we didn't get "breaks." We got an hour for lunch, but other than that we used the restroom, got coffee, or pumped when we needed to.

It isn't just nursing women who get special accomodations. Hell, smokers had been getting special treatment for YEARS!

In the end, it still comes down to this...EVERYBODY benefits from breast feeding. The company with healthy, happy mothers who are at work and productive as opposed to at home with a sick child--not to mention the reduction in health care services and savings on insurance premiums. In a perfect world, when the company is productive and saving money, the employees are making more money, getting better benefits, and enjoy a certain level of job security.

Lots of people get special treatment for different things. We in Minnesota are fortunate enough to be able to purchase subsidized health insurance if we are self employed or if our employer doesn't offer health care. Many people balk about that, but in reality it comes down to the same thing. It is CHEAPER to ensure that people have access to health care than it is to deal with health issues once they have become emergent. Same deal, it is cheaper to provide women with the opportunity to pump than it is to have them home with sick kids or in the doctors office.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-16-2010, 07:08 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
I am sure that there are companies who do require women to pump during their regular break times...during my last 3 jobs prior to daycare we didn't get "breaks." We got an hour for lunch, but other than that we used the restroom, got coffee, or pumped when we needed to.

It isn't just nursing women who get special accomodations. Hell, smokers had been getting special treatment for YEARS!

In the end, it still comes down to this...EVERYBODY benefits from breast feeding. The company with healthy, happy mothers who are at work and productive as opposed to at home with a sick child--not to mention the reduction in health care services and savings on insurance premiums. In a perfect world, when the company is productive and saving money, the employees are making more money, getting better benefits, and enjoy a certain level of job security.

Lots of people get special treatment for different things. We in Minnesota are fortunate enough to be able to purchase subsidized health insurance if we are self employed or if our employer doesn't offer health care. Many people balk about that, but in reality it comes down to the same thing. It is CHEAPER to ensure that people have access to health care than it is to deal with health issues once they have become emergent. Same deal, it is cheaper to provide women with the opportunity to pump than it is to have them home with sick kids or in the doctors office.
How about this.....EVERYONE be responsible for their own choices in life?

Why are we subsidizing ANYTHING? Unless someone is flat broke, destitute, and unable to care for themselves, we shouldn't be subsidizing them.

Why do people think it's acceptable to take money from someone by force (threat of arrest and jail) to give to someone else who doesn't have as much? If you or I did that, we'd be called thieves, extortionists and criminals. Why is it OK for the gov't to do it?


Pump during your regular breaks (in the state of MN, if you work 8 hours, the law states you get 15 mins paid break after two hours).

IDK where you have worked, but every place I have ever been employed, if you wanted to smoke, pump, talk on the phone, or just stare at the wall, you did it on your regularly scheduled breaks, not during the work periods, and not when you felt like it.


Can you tell that I really have a strong dislike for nanny government?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-16-2010, 08:26 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
Ok, now answer the question-where will the money come from?


Are you going to mandate that every person, regardless of whether they have children, plan to have children or even cannot have children, have a percentage deducted from their paycheck to be paid out to those who have kids?

That, my dear lady, is socialism.


Why would I be against it? Because I live in the real world where I understand that money doesn't just appear magically. Before the gov't can give ANYONE ANYTHING, they must first take it from someone else.

And that's WRONG.
i did answer where the money comes from. it comes from working people's paychecks...just like unemployment and SSI regardless of whether they will ever be unemployed or live to see SSI.

i'm pretty sure there are more people give birth or have a wife that gives birth than people who get laid off.

again, are you against unemployment? it's the same concept, except much more likely to happen.

furthermore, there is a paid maternity/paternity leave in america - it's called WELFARE! if people who don't work and don't want to can get a free check and stay home with their babies - what's so unbelievable about WORKING people being able to do it, but the money is coming from what they've paid in and NOT what everyone else has paid in like you're suggesting.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-16-2010, 08:46 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
My question is, why can't this be performed on their regularly scheduled break times?

Why should there have to be special accommodations made for them?
in tennessee, employers are required to give employees an unpaid 30 minute break if they work more than 6 hours and IF they work at a job that's not considered to already allow "rest time" by the nature of the job - which is very vague. not to mention, the 30 minutes could be given anytime after the 6hours, not on the sixth hour. it could be on the tenth or eleventh hour. unless you want a wet t shirt contest via breast milk going on in your place of business, you'd have to get over the "it's not fair cus i'm a man" attitude.

the alternative is allowing a shorter break where the employee gets paid. i worked somewhere once where i got one ten minute paid break when i worked from 9-4:30. sure, i could pump breast milk if i had the pump set up and ready at the break table and someone was feeding me while i pumped. oh yeah, who needs to eat? that's silly.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-17-2010, 07:08 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

I have worked in several places, my last employer was an accounting firm where I was the Director of Administration, prior to that a college prepatory school as the Assistant Development Director, and before that the Assistant to the Controller for a very large apparel service in the United States and Canada (think uniforms and bathroom towels).

I think the kind of specified "break times" you are thinking of are more of a blue collar/union thing...the law in Minnesota is actually pretty vague...

http://www.dli.mn.gov/LS/WorkBreaks.asp

"The state law requires employers to provide restroom time and sufficient time to eat a meal. If the break is less than 20 minutes in duration, it must be counted as hours worked.

Time to use the nearest restroom must be provided within each four consecutive hours of work. Meal time applies to employees who work eight or more consecutive hours (see Minnesota Statutes 177.253 and 177.254)."
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-17-2010, 09:05 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
i did answer where the money comes from. it comes from working people's paychecks...just like unemployment and SSI regardless of whether they will ever be unemployed or live to see SSI.
Where did you get the idea that unemployment insurance premiums are deducted from the employees paychecks?

These are premiums paid by the employer based upon the number of employees they have file against it (history).

Quote:
i'm pretty sure there are more people give birth or have a wife that gives birth than people who get laid off.
So you admit that the costs of this program would be much higher?

Quote:
again, are you against unemployment? it's the same concept, except much more likely to happen.
The way that it is abused by so many, yes. I think we've all heard multiple persons say "Why should I go find a job, I got unemployment" or "I better start looking for work, my unemployment is going to run out".

Quote:
furthermore, there is a paid maternity/paternity leave in america - it's called WELFARE! if people who don't work and don't want to can get a free check and stay home with their babies - what's so unbelievable about WORKING people being able to do it, but the money is coming from what they've paid in and NOT what everyone else has paid in like you're suggesting.
Don't even get me started on welfare, my theory is the able bodied should work or starve. No sympathy for the lazy.

Here's a better idea-people should wait until they are financially able to take responsiblity for having kids. Why should everyone else pay for their decisions/lack of responsibility?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-17-2010, 10:04 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
in tennessee, employers are required to give employees an unpaid 30 minute break if they work more than 6 hours and IF they work at a job that's not considered to already allow "rest time" by the nature of the job - which is very vague. not to mention, the 30 minutes could be given anytime after the 6hours, not on the sixth hour. it could be on the tenth or eleventh hour. unless you want a wet t shirt contest via breast milk going on in your place of business, you'd have to get over the "it's not fair cus i'm a man" attitude.

the alternative is allowing a shorter break where the employee gets paid. i worked somewhere once where i got one ten minute paid break when i worked from 9-4:30. sure, i could pump breast milk if i had the pump set up and ready at the break table and someone was feeding me while i pumped. oh yeah, who needs to eat? that's silly.
Sounds like you worked for a crappy employer. That was your choice.

Don't you see what will happen if you suddenly mandate the kind of things nationwide that you would like to see?

Less women will get jobs. And when they get pregnant, their employers will find a reason to 'lay them off' or 'dismiss them'.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-17-2010, 10:18 AM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
Sounds like you worked for a crappy employer. That was your choice.

Don't you see what will happen if you suddenly mandate the kind of things nationwide that you would like to see?

Less women will get jobs. And when they get pregnant, their employers will find a reason to 'lay them off' or 'dismiss them'.
are you SERIOUS?

that's exactly WHY things like this should be mandated - because there are LOTS of crappy employers out there, and not everyone has the option to quit their job because they don't have a break that allows them to breastfeed. instead, they just don't breastfeed. my point exactly.

btw, i wasn't breastfeeding when i worked there. but if i had needed to, it wouldn't have been possible.

oh - and employers already find reasons to dismiss pregnant women.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-17-2010, 10:23 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
are you SERIOUS?

that's exactly WHY things like this should be mandated - because there are LOTS of crappy employers out there, and not everyone has the option to quit their job because they don't have a break that allows them to breastfeed. instead, they just don't breastfeed. my point exactly.

btw, i wasn't breastfeeding when i worked there. but if i had needed to, it wouldn't have been possible.

oh - and employers already find reasons to dismiss pregnant women.
Like I said, maybe you just worked for a crappy employer. I've done that too. But as soon as I realized what they were, I found another job.


So, once again, where will the money come from?

Will you be adding this onto an already insane amount of deductions from the workers paycheck?

Or will you be adding yet another burden upon the employer?



Here's a better idea....those that want to purchase it, can purchase a policy to do so. But we already have that, don't we? It's called "planning", and I'm sick and tired of paying for other people's lack of it.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-17-2010, 11:05 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

I've noticed that you don't respond to simple facts...like that it actually saves the company money to allow women to breast feed. It is easy for you to focus on opinion but your comments would mean a great deal more if you dealt with the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-17-2010, 11:07 AM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

it's nice that you could just quit your job and find another.

a lot of people can't do that - especially today - and especially if they're pregnant.

if you're tired of handouts, you should be mad at all the people who get paid to sit at home and do nothing aka welfare. if they can get checks, food, etc. and don't even work - why can't people who work get the benefit of maternity/paternity leave like most of the rest of the world does. oh, wait, i guess they do have a "choice" in that they could quit their job and sign up for welfare. gotta love america.

the U.S. is far behind when it comes to education, healthcare, and what we've been talking about - maternity benefits. there's no reason for that - other than greed.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 05-17-2010, 11:47 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I could be mistaken in these facts and you are welcome to check but....

In USA, employers must provide FMLA (12 weeks UNPAID time off) for maternity/paternity/adoption if the company employees more than 50 employees. Those that have fewer than 50 employees are exempt from providing FMLA. Where a person receives any compensation while on such leave is thru a short term disability policy and one would have to give birth--adoption or paternity doesn't constitute a claim to a short term disability policy. And from there, the payout is generally 66% of normal earnings and only thru the timespan that your doctor has written you out. Speaking of a disability policy, the employee would elect to receive such and contribute thru small premiums deducted from each paycheck. True, an employer kicks in a portion on any insurance premium--health, disability, life insurance--but so does the employee. But for an all out handout while on maternity leave--I'm not aware of one.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-17-2010, 12:18 PM
AmandasFCC's Avatar
AmandasFCC AmandasFCC is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 409
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
We have all those things you list here in America, you are free to choose which healthcare provider you want to pay for, you are free to attend whatever level of education you want to pay for, and you are free to take as much or as little time off when you or your spouse has a child.

Who is paying for this leave? Where is the money coming from? This is the question I ask everytime someone brings up one social program or another, yet nobody can give me a straight, honest answer. All I ever hear is "Don't worry about it, we'll figure it out later"....dammit, that's why this nation is in the condition it's in, we spend, spend, spend, and worry about paying the tab later.


So, if I moved to one of these nations that are so 'equal', when my co-worker goes to breast feed, I also get a paid break also?

I highly doubt it, I'm willing to bet that while she's getting paid to pump or breastfeed, I'm getting paid to do twice the work for the same amount of money.

When my wife was working a regular job, she did her pumping on her regularly scheduled breaks, not during special paid breaks that she was given just because she was breast feeding.

In Canada, throughout the year a portion of your pay is taken as taxes off each cheque for EI, which is employment insurance. Once you have accumulated enough hours (when I took my mat leave, it was 900 hours) of work, then you are able to claim Maternity Benefits, Sickness benefits, and benefits if you are laid off. It's just like any other insurance, only it doesn't cost us an arm and a leg.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-17-2010, 07:42 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
I've noticed that you don't respond to simple facts...like that it actually saves the company money to allow women to breast feed. It is easy for you to focus on opinion but your comments would mean a great deal more if you dealt with the facts.
These are my opinions, I am not putting them forth as facts.

When a person puts hard stats and links to back them up, they become facts in a debate.

You're not my mommy, therefore, 'cuz I said so' does not qualify as a fact.



Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
it's nice that you could just quit your job and find another.

a lot of people can't do that - especially today - and especially if they're pregnant.

if you're tired of handouts, you should be mad at all the people who get paid to sit at home and do nothing aka welfare. if they can get checks, food, etc. and don't even work - why can't people who work get the benefit of maternity/paternity leave like most of the rest of the world does. oh, wait, i guess they do have a "choice" in that they could quit their job and sign up for welfare. gotta love america.

the U.S. is far behind when it comes to education, healthcare, and what we've been talking about - maternity benefits. there's no reason for that - other than greed.
Yup, welfare ranks up there on my list of rants, but that's another subject altogether. I thought we were discussing something else?

Why is it either get a gov't program just for a special interest group, or welfare?

Why can't people buy disability insurance (which is misnamed, maybe should be called "unable to be at work insurance") like we did with child #2? Why can't they save and plan ahead like we did with #3?

Why does it have to be a gov't nanny project to hold people's hand all the time?

Quote:
the U.S. is far behind when it comes to education, healthcare, and what we've been talking about - maternity benefits. there's no reason for that - other than LAZINESS.
Fixed that one for ya to reflect reality!

Seriously, America is still the land of opportunity, if you can't get your crap together here and make a go of things, where on planet earth is going to be an easier life?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-17-2010, 08:01 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

first of all, don't change my quotes.

secondly, are you implying that the countries who have healthcare across the board and maternity/paternity leave, etc. are condoning LAZINESS?

you planned and saved up for maternity leave, huh?

yeah, you're right - america is the land of opportunity which is why we shouldn't have people that can't even afford to go to the doctor when other countries have proven there is a better, effective way that enables EVERYONE to go to the doctor - not just the upper/middle class.

i know americans like to think this is the best country on the planet (and maybe it is) but there's always room for improvement. no, i wouldn't mind paying a little bit more to make sure there aren't people out there dying because they have no health insurance. you know the ones who DON'T have insurance aren't the people who DON'T work -they are the ones who DO work. if you don't work, everything is given to you for free - free housing, food, healthcare, etc. maybe they should just quit their jobs and get welfare and free insurance. that's what america condones, and it's why we're in the state we're in.

if i had job where i couldn't afford insurance, and one of my kids got a terminal illness, u best believe i'd get a divorce and sign up for free insurance. in fact, there are people who do JUST that. there's more than one way to skin a cat. it'd just be nice if we did it the practical way like most other civilized countries.

ok, a little off topic, but it's the same concept - anyone who wants paid maternity leave can get it in america, i guess. just quit your job and go to your local welfare office. they'll pay you for as long as u wanna sit on your butt - no work history or future required. illegal immigrants can get food stamps and welfare, free education, etc. in a country where THAT is possible, i don't see anything far fetched about maternity/paternity benefits for people who DO work.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-17-2010, 08:34 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
first of all, don't change my quotes.
lighten up, it's a joke

Quote:
secondly, are you implying that the countries who have healthcare across the board and maternity/paternity leave, etc. are condoning LAZINESS?
You said "there's no reason for that - other than greed." in reference to why other nations are ahead of us in healthcare ( which is BS-if that were so, why does every other nations leaders come here to get their bodies fixed?) and education (which anyone who wants to go, can go to school here, the question is, do you want it badly enough to work for it?)


Quote:
you planned and saved up for maternity leave, huh?
Yes, we did. I worked my butt off without a day off for over a month at a stretch, we saved, cut expenses where we could, and reduced non-essential spending (fun stuff/wants) and built up a nice cash nest egg.

I haven't turned the key on the semi in over a month, and our situation is just fine.

I know it's hard to believe, but a person can do anything if they really want to.

Quote:
yeah, you're right - america is the land of opportunity which is why we shouldn't have people that can't even afford to go to the doctor when other countries have proven there is a better, effective way that enables EVERYONE to go to the doctor - not just the upper/middle class.
We do, and we already fund it. For those who are unable to afford medical insurance, there is Medicaid. I paid plenty into that fund last year.

There are many who say they can't afford health care, but then have things like cable, nice new cars, their kids wear $100 shoes, internet, etc. None of those things are free.

Priorities.


Quote:
i know americans like to think this is the best country on the planet (and maybe it is) but there's always room for improvement. no, i wouldn't mind paying a little bit more to make sure there aren't people out there dying because they have no health insurance. you know the ones who DON'T have insurance aren't the people who DON'T work -they are the ones who DO work. if you don't work, everything is given to you for free - free housing, food, healthcare, etc. maybe they should just quit their jobs and get welfare and free insurance. that's what america condones, and it's why we're in the state we're in.
Then feel free to pay my 'share' out of your own pocket, I'm sick and tired of paying for everyone else and their uncle.

Quote:
if i had job where i couldn't afford insurance, and one of my kids got a terminal illness, u best believe i'd get a divorce and sign up for free insurance. in fact, there are people who do JUST that. there's more than one way to skin a cat. it'd just be nice if we did it the practical way like most other civilized countries.
I'd have looked for a job with decent health care coverage long before that was an issue, or at minimum, bought a major medical policy for the kids to cover them just in case.

Health care isn't expensive, it's the caddilac plans that aren't cheap. High annual deductibles make a huge difference in premiums.


Quote:
ok, a little off topic, but it's the same concept - anyone who wants paid maternity leave can get it in america, i guess. just quit your job and go to your local welfare office. they'll pay you for as long as u wanna sit on your butt - no work history or future required. illegal immigrants can get food stamps and welfare, free education, etc. in a country where THAT is possible, i don't see anything far fetched about maternity/paternity benefits for people who DO work.
There you go again, using drama and scare tactics while ignoring the fact that ANYONE can purchase a short term disability plan from a company like aflac for about the monthly cost of a dinner for two ($30).
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-17-2010, 08:44 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

chicken - you're singing to the choir.

i have insurance, a home, etc. and i definitely didn't have everything given to me. in fact, i worked very, very hard to avoid being in the situation of the people i'm talking about. it's nothing to envy.

i'm just not naive enough to think that everyone is in a situation where they CAN afford cable, new shoes, etc.

i worked at a fast food joint in HS and i made about 400 every two weeks after taxes - working full time. there were adults with families and kids who worked there, and there's no way on earth they could afford insurance making that kind of money. they weren't LAZY by any means. they weren't educated. they were doing what they could to bring in money - other than getting welfare.

it seems like you think medicaid is okay for people who can't afford insurance, but do you realize people who just don't want to work are a big chunk of the ones receiving medicaid? it's just ironic that you think that's okay.

also, the fact that pregnancy would ever have to be considered a disability is just unreal. i don't know if it makes me want to laugh or puke.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-18-2010, 06:42 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Chickshauler, you misunderstand me. It is a FACT that breastfed babies are sick less often, resulting is less missed work and less doctors appointments which does in fact save money for the company. If you need me to post the stats I'll find them for you.

My big question to you is this...

When will you be withdrawaling from the food program??? That is most definitely a gov't subsidy.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:39 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
Chickshauler, you misunderstand me. It is a FACT that breastfed babies are sick less often, resulting is less missed work and less doctors appointments which does in fact save money for the company. If you need me to post the stats I'll find them for you.
I'm not disagreeing with your claim, but until you post something up to back it up, it's a claim, not a verifiable fact with supporting data.

Quote:

My big question to you is this...

When will you be withdrawaling from the food program??? That is most definitely a gov't subsidy.
Do you understand the food program and why/who runs it?

It isn't operated by the FDA, health and human services, but by the Dept of Ag.

Now, why is the D of Ag running a program to feed kids? Their mission isn't to make sure nobody goes hungry on their dime....

...but their mission is to help the farmer.

The Food programs in schools (and later expanded to daycares, nursing homes, etc) were originally put in place to insure that food products raised by farmers were being bought and used to feed people.


And yes, I am sickened by the mass amount of money that is spent on subsidizing this, that, and the other.

Anymore, I don't really care. I've tried and tried to do for my own, on my own. I'm starting to think I'd better jump on the bandwagon and at least get something for all the money I keep paying into the system. Lord knows I won't see a dime when I turn 65 from social security.

- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-21-2010, 11:45 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
chicken - you're singing to the choir.

i have insurance, a home, etc. and i definitely didn't have everything given to me. in fact, i worked very, very hard to avoid being in the situation of the people i'm talking about. it's nothing to envy.

i'm just not naive enough to think that everyone is in a situation where they CAN afford cable, new shoes, etc.

i worked at a fast food joint in HS and i made about 400 every two weeks after taxes - working full time. there were adults with families and kids who worked there, and there's no way on earth they could afford insurance making that kind of money. they weren't LAZY by any means. they weren't educated. they were doing what they could to bring in money - other than getting welfare.

it seems like you think medicaid is okay for people who can't afford insurance, but do you realize people who just don't want to work are a big chunk of the ones receiving medicaid? it's just ironic that you think that's okay.

also, the fact that pregnancy would ever have to be considered a disability is just unreal. i don't know if it makes me want to laugh or puke.
I'm basing my opinion on what I see day in, day out.

My wife has a daycare family in care, dad drives a beater minivan (maybe worth $500 to the right sucker). He had some electrical issues this winter when it was -20F, and lives in an apartment, is obviously struggling financially, so I offered to work on it in my heated shop for free.

I started chasing the wiring looking for shorts, dead grounds, etc, and what did I discover? About $3,000 worth of bumpety-bump ghetto blaster stereo gear.

He's not poor, he makes poor choices. I made a poor choice by continuing to fix his van. Next time he can stand outside and get frostbit fingers for all I care.

And he's not the exception to the rule, either.


I think Medicaid should be reserved for those physically or mentally unable to work. Not for those who would rather have window rattling stereo systems.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-21-2010, 07:33 PM
Former Teacher's Avatar
Former Teacher Former Teacher is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
I think Medicaid should be reserved for those physically or mentally unable to work. Not for those who would rather have window rattling stereo systems.
I TOTALLY agree with you Chickenhauler!!!
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-24-2010, 09:46 PM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424
Default

First, I share many of the opinions of Chickenhauler. However, I do see both sides of this debate. My opinion is that both sides are right AND wrong. I have been trying to work on an idea that would satisfy both sides (to a degree). I think that the US should develop a program for men AND women to accrue time off for PAID maternity/paternity leave. Not like an insurance program where EVERYONE pays in, but elective, like a 401K or FSA (flexible spending account). I had a job where I could choose to take an extra week of paid vacation. It really wasn't paid. They deducted 1/26 of my weekly pay from each biweekly paycheck. So during that extra week, I got paid (from the money I "saved" via payroll deductions).
Make it ELECTIVE and SELF-FINANCED and for both MEN and WOMEN.
Now here's the added advantage:
Look at the state of the economy. Sure, they keep "bringing more jobs in", but it's not helping when you replace $20/hr jobs with minimum wage jobs. Employers are paying minimal wages and salaries because they can in this market. By allowing more new parents to take more paid (self-funded) time off (for months at a time), you are freeing up work. That work still needs to get done. So the employer needs to bring in a temp or long-term temp. That temp is now off welfare and paying taxes. Lessens the burden on society. The more time a woman is on maternity leave, the more women on maternity leave each day. More women on maternity leave, more vacancies. More vacancies, takes more people off welfare and into the job market. This can spiral into less unemployment, less welfare, etc. This also evens the playing field between employers and employees. Employees can bargain for high wages and salaries. Employers will have to pay the higher salaries to keep good employees. Overall, salaries go up. Fathers (or the parent working outside the home) can bargain for better pay, increasing their ability to be better able to support their families on that one income. So some of these mothers (or stay-at-home parent) do not HAVE to go back to work unless they choose to.
I'm sure my ideas will get poo-pooed, but at least I'm trying to come up with a solution that supports the family unit without turning our country into a socialist country. God bless!
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-24-2010, 11:27 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

there isn't an even playing field and never will be.

just ask the top 10%.

they're the ones who should really be PO'd, but they aren't allowed to be cus then they'll be called greedy.

and - canada and MOST other civilized countries have managed to succeed at providing maternity/paternity leave, healthcare, and education that's available to anyone who wants it - without being socialists.

that's what's pathetic about our "great country."
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-25-2010, 08:03 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by professionalmom View Post
First, I share many of the opinions of Chickenhauler. However, I do see both sides of this debate. My opinion is that both sides are right AND wrong. I have been trying to work on an idea that would satisfy both sides (to a degree). I think that the US should develop a program for men AND women to accrue time off for PAID maternity/paternity leave. Not like an insurance program where EVERYONE pays in, but elective, like a 401K or FSA (flexible spending account). I had a job where I could choose to take an extra week of paid vacation. It really wasn't paid. They deducted 1/26 of my weekly pay from each biweekly paycheck. So during that extra week, I got paid (from the money I "saved" via payroll deductions).
Make it ELECTIVE and SELF-FINANCED and for both MEN and WOMEN.
Now here's the added advantage:
Look at the state of the economy. Sure, they keep "bringing more jobs in", but it's not helping when you replace $20/hr jobs with minimum wage jobs. Employers are paying minimal wages and salaries because they can in this market. By allowing more new parents to take more paid (self-funded) time off (for months at a time), you are freeing up work. That work still needs to get done. So the employer needs to bring in a temp or long-term temp. That temp is now off welfare and paying taxes. Lessens the burden on society. The more time a woman is on maternity leave, the more women on maternity leave each day. More women on maternity leave, more vacancies. More vacancies, takes more people off welfare and into the job market. This can spiral into less unemployment, less welfare, etc. This also evens the playing field between employers and employees. Employees can bargain for high wages and salaries. Employers will have to pay the higher salaries to keep good employees. Overall, salaries go up. Fathers (or the parent working outside the home) can bargain for better pay, increasing their ability to be better able to support their families on that one income. So some of these mothers (or stay-at-home parent) do not HAVE to go back to work unless they choose to.
I'm sure my ideas will get poo-pooed, but at least I'm trying to come up with a solution that supports the family unit without turning our country into a socialist country. God bless!
Now there is a solution that isn't mandatory, doesn't increase the size of the government, and is privately funded.

Now that's a solution worth talking about!
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 05-25-2010, 08:06 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
there isn't an even playing field and never will be.

just ask the top 10%.

they're the ones who should really be PO'd, but they aren't allowed to be cus then they'll be called greedy.

and - canada and MOST other civilized countries have managed to succeed at providing maternity/paternity leave, healthcare, and education that's available to anyone who wants it - without being socialists.

that's what's pathetic about our "great country."
That is the definition of socialism. When gov't steps in and levels the playing field.

Socialism really boils down to allocation of resources.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-25-2010, 09:27 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
That is the definition of socialism. When gov't steps in and levels the playing field.

Socialism really boils down to allocation of resources.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Karl Marx
well, since the top 10% in america own appx 3/4 of the wealth - i'd say we're already in that state, aren't we? do you think you or i pay the same for our schools or roads as those folks? why shouldn't we?

it's already unevenly distributed - now if it were just properly distributed to things that matter most. of course nobody can agree on what matters most - especially when it involves those who don't matter aka poor people.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:00 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
well, since the top 10% in america own appx 3/4 of the wealth - i'd say we're already in that state, aren't we? do you think you or i pay the same for our schools or roads as those folks? why shouldn't we?
No, we're in a capitalistic state. You missed the whole topic. Are we having the same discussion here?

I already pay more than you, him and her combined for the roads. I pay on average $17k per year in road use taxes. Why? Because I use the roads ALOT and put ALOT of wear on them.

Even when it comes to personal vehicles, my wife's car's license is much, much cheaper than the license on my one ton dually. Why? Because the dually weighs more.

Not only that, but it burns more fuel to go the same distance, thus it is paying even more per mile in fuel taxes.

On school taxing, where I lived it is based upon home value. I think that's a total crock. But, you can 500 billion dollars in the bank, and live in a 150k home, and still pay the same property taxes as the guy in the 150k home next to yours.

Quote:
it's already unevenly distributed - now if it were just properly distributed to things that matter most. of course nobody can agree on what matters most - especially when it involves those who don't matter aka poor people.
Therein lies the problem....why should we redistribute the wealth?

Who are you (or the gov't) to say that Richey Rich be required to give a portion of his money to Poor Paulie?

What makes it right that if one person makes more money, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? WHY?

In case you missed it the first time-


- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers


It's not that poor people don't matter, it's that nobody matters to me. EVERYONE, white, black, red, purple, green, poor, rich, they all come SECOND after me and my family. My family will always come first.

Why? Because they are MY responsibility and nobody else's.


Sorry if that makes me selfish, so be it.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-25-2010, 10:25 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
No, we're in a capitalistic state. You missed the whole topic. Are we having the same discussion here?

I already pay more than you, him and her combined for the roads. I pay on average $17k per year in road use taxes. Why? Because I use the roads ALOT and put ALOT of wear on them.

Even when it comes to personal vehicles, my wife's car's license is much, much cheaper than the license on my one ton dually. Why? Because the dually weighs more.

Not only that, but it burns more fuel to go the same distance, thus it is paying even more per mile in fuel taxes.

On school taxing, where I lived it is based upon home value. I think that's a total crock. But, you can 500 billion dollars in the bank, and live in a 150k home, and still pay the same property taxes as the guy in the 150k home next to yours.



Therein lies the problem....why should we redistribute the wealth?

Who are you (or the gov't) to say that Richey Rich be required to give a portion of his money to Poor Paulie?

What makes it right that if one person makes more money, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? WHY?

In case you missed it the first time-


- The worst thing that can happen to a nation is for half of the people to get the idea they don't have to work because somebody else will work for them, and the other half to get the idea that it does no good to work because they don't get to enjoy the fruits of their labor."

-Adrian Pierce Rogers


It's not that poor people don't matter, it's that nobody matters to me. EVERYONE, white, black, red, purple, green, poor, rich, they all come SECOND after me and my family. My family will always come first.

Why? Because they are MY responsibility and nobody else's.


Sorry if that makes me selfish, so be it.
what makes it right if one guy makes more, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? THAT IS MY POINT!

if the top 10% (meaning the wealthiest people) didn't pay more than the rest of us - we'd all have to pay a LOT more than we do - and it'd be impossible. unless you think you could pay the same taxes as a billionaire? i know i couldn't.

therefore, the wealth is ALREADY redistributed! it's just that nobody cares because it's the richest people that are "suffering" when it comes to taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-25-2010, 11:06 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
what makes it right if one guy makes more, we take a higher chunk of his earnings? THAT IS MY POINT!

if the top 10% (meaning the wealthiest people) didn't pay more than the rest of us - we'd all have to pay a LOT more than we do - and it'd be impossible. unless you think you could pay the same taxes as a billionaire? i know i couldn't.

therefore, the wealth is ALREADY redistributed! it's just that nobody cares because it's the richest people that are "suffering" when it comes to taxes.
Actually, if everyone paid their fair share....I read recently that the number was 17%.....17% of their income for EVERYONE. From Bill Gates to Minimum Wage Dude (no deductions for things like child credits, mortgage interest, etc for employees) just a straight up 17% across the board, the Feds would have a surplus of funding.

Now, IDK how accurate all the numbers are, but if you earn $100, you take home $83 (which is more than you do now) and that would be the end of it.

No filing at the end of the year, no returns, no nothing, no capital gains tax. Just 17%.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-26-2010, 06:30 AM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
Actually, if everyone paid their fair share....I read recently that the number was 17%.....17% of their income for EVERYONE. From Bill Gates to Minimum Wage Dude (no deductions for things like child credits, mortgage interest, etc for employees) just a straight up 17% across the board, the Feds would have a surplus of funding.

Now, IDK how accurate all the numbers are, but if you earn $100, you take home $83 (which is more than you do now) and that would be the end of it.

No filing at the end of the year, no returns, no nothing, no capital gains tax. Just 17%.
I've been saying this for years. Then we wouldn't have to worry about tax returns, etc. No worrying about an audit because you may have made a mistake on your taxes due to the insanely complicated tax code. Simple, fair, and makes everyone own up to their responsibilities.
I know some may say that it's not fair that Richie Rich pays the same as Poor Paulie, but they are only paying the same PERCENTAGE. If Richie Rich makes $1,000,000 per year, he PAYS $170,000 (based on the 17% example). But Poor Paulie who only made $20,000 only PAYS $3400. So Richie Rich is still PAYING more dollars, just at the same percentage.
As things are now, it doesn't pay to work your behind off to earn more because if it bumps you into the next tax bracket, you could end up bringing home LESS than you were before. And why would I work harder and longer to make more only to have the government come in and take 30-40% of it? Where's the incentive?
Either way, the original issue was mothers (or fathers) being able to spend more time with their babies to allow for more bonding. I think we all agree that it SHOULD be this way, it's just a matter of HOW. There are ways, but it takes ingenuity. Plus, the idea I proposed would get shot down by many people just because people think government (funded by the wealthiest people) owes them something and should pay for the extra time off. They think that if they have a need or a want, all they need to do is hold out their hand to have government put money in it. And mentioning "responsibility" or "self-reliance" in Washington will get you black-listed and shunned faster than anything I know.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 05-26-2010, 12:19 PM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

I agree with that as well...

In Minnesota as well as many, many other states individual who aren't offered insurance through their employers can PURCHASE insurance through the State. It is less expensive because you are buying in to a group plan and because although it has wonderful day-to-day coverage, the Major Medical isn't great.

For the working poor, that insurance is subsidized but not free. I believe that the max premium is around $600 with no deductibles. While I am aware that there are those who feel that EVERYONE should have figured out away to have insurance without intereference from the State, I would say this...

...it's a perfect world and EVERYONE went to college and moved on to lucrative careers. Or didn't go to college and figured out a lucrative career all on their own.

Who the hell is working at Walmart? The gas station? Doing daycare? Last I checked, not every brain was created equally. For those who might be a bit on the challenged side of the IQ test, what shall we do with them? Maybe working at Walmart (who is famous for not letting people work enough hours to qualify for insurance...hell, they are currently being sued for not allowing employees to use the washroom) is the best that they can do. Shall we let them go without proper medical care because they aren't truly "disabled?"

It is easy to spit out Sarah Palin like platitudes but in reality complex problems require complex thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-26-2010, 06:46 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

exactly - someone has to pick up the garbage and clean the crappers...

and trust me, people are doing the work nobody else wants to do aren't making enough to do much of anything except survive.

maybe some of you have never known poor people (and no, not all poor people just waste their money) but things like insurance, car insurance, retirement plans aren't even in the realm of a possibility.

it's nice to dream though
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-30-2010, 12:51 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
exactly - someone has to pick up the garbage and clean the crappers...

and trust me, people are doing the work nobody else wants to do aren't making enough to do much of anything except survive.

maybe some of you have never known poor people (and no, not all poor people just waste their money) but things like insurance, car insurance, retirement plans aren't even in the realm of a possibility.

it's nice to dream though
The reason that menial task jobs are paid a pittance is simple supply and demand.

Brain surgeons command high salaries because there are very few people who can do that task.

Just about anyone who can manage to walk and chew gum at the same time can clean a toilet and take out the trash. This means that roughly half the population can fill this position (maybe less).

Supply and demand.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 05-30-2010, 01:56 AM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
The reason that menial task jobs are paid a pittance is simple supply and demand.

Brain surgeons command high salaries because there are very few people who can do that task.

Just about anyone who can manage to walk and chew gum at the same time can clean a toilet and take out the trash. This means that roughly half the population can fill this position (maybe less).

Supply and demand.
brain surgeons SHOULD be paid a lot because they do a very important job as do most surgeons - and they deserve the rewards they get.

just about anyone CAN clean a toilet and collect garbage (not exactly taking out trash, but ok).

so, u agree that people with important jobs (brain surgeons) deserve high salaries, while housekeepers and garbage men don't. i can go with that.

but is there ANY job that a WORKING person who is willing to get up, go out, and go do - whether it be brain surgery or especially cleaning toilets....

that they shouldn't be able to afford the LUXURY of healthcare?

that's what is so sick about our country. people who stay at home in their pajamas and do jack crap get everything, including healthcare for FREE. i live in tennessee and our free healthcare to every skank and deadbeat is called TennCare. every woman who doesn't work and has kids is eligible free of cost. it even pays for their lortabs, oxy's, roxy's - u name it. kid gets a fever of 101? RACE to the doctor - it's FREE!

but that trash man we're talking about - he's out in the blazing sun picking up TRASH and would rather suffer with a broken finger than go to the doctor cus he can't afford insurance - and since he's not a lazy bum sitting on the couch - can't get it for free!


the middle class is getting screwed. the upper class are fine cus they have the $$ in their pocket. the lower class is fine cus they're getting the $$ from the upper class's pockets. the middle class is getting screwed.

yeah, i know "be responsible, save your money, blah blah" i get it. that doesn't make it okay that the people who do jack crap are getting taken care of while the ones who work hard are doing without. ever seen someone who gets food stamps at the grocery store? they're easy to spot. buggy loaded full with crap normal people can't afford. i guess it doesn't matte - cus when they have a heart attack, they'll get open heart surgery via free healthcare.

i'll just eat pb&j, call myself responsible, and ignore the fact that our system is screwed and should (and CAN) be fixed.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 05-30-2010, 12:08 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by QualiTcare View Post
brain surgeons SHOULD be paid a lot because they do a very important job as do most surgeons - and they deserve the rewards they get.

just about anyone CAN clean a toilet and collect garbage (not exactly taking out trash, but ok).

so, u agree that people with important jobs (brain surgeons) deserve high salaries, while housekeepers and garbage men don't. i can go with that.

but is there ANY job that a WORKING person who is willing to get up, go out, and go do - whether it be brain surgery or especially cleaning toilets....

that they shouldn't be able to afford the LUXURY of healthcare?

that's what is so sick about our country. people who stay at home in their pajamas and do jack crap get everything, including healthcare for FREE. i live in tennessee and our free healthcare to every skank and deadbeat is called TennCare. every woman who doesn't work and has kids is eligible free of cost. it even pays for their lortabs, oxy's, roxy's - u name it. kid gets a fever of 101? RACE to the doctor - it's FREE!

but that trash man we're talking about - he's out in the blazing sun picking up TRASH and would rather suffer with a broken finger than go to the doctor cus he can't afford insurance - and since he's not a lazy bum sitting on the couch - can't get it for free!


the middle class is getting screwed. the upper class are fine cus they have the $$ in their pocket. the lower class is fine cus they're getting the $$ from the upper class's pockets. the middle class is getting screwed.

yeah, i know "be responsible, save your money, blah blah" i get it. that doesn't make it okay that the people who do jack crap are getting taken care of while the ones who work hard are doing without. ever seen someone who gets food stamps at the grocery store? they're easy to spot. buggy loaded full with crap normal people can't afford. i guess it doesn't matte - cus when they have a heart attack, they'll get open heart surgery via free healthcare.

i'll just eat pb&j, call myself responsible, and ignore the fact that our system is screwed and should (and CAN) be fixed.
I hear you, but take a step back and let's look at the reality of it all.

Good example....ag workers. If we're going to raise their standard of living to where they can afford health insurance for them and their 19 offspring, suddenly lettuce is going to cost $12 per head.

Nothing in an economy exists in a vaccuum, it's all related. A dollar sign butterfly effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Health care is not cheap. And it shouldn't be, I don't want a minimum wage brain surgeon. I want the best, and one that is being paid a really good wage.

Ask yourself this.....how much is your life worth? Couple hundred bucks a month?



PS-the garbage man where I live makes some really good coin, $50k or better with full benefits.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-31-2010, 12:23 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Not everyone has a job where they can get health insurance for a couple hundred bucks a month. And for those that do, even their coverage is not good with high deductibles before any medical expenses are paid, and I am talking deductibles of over $3800 per year, add that up and the insurance cost are well over $500 per month between monthly fees plus deductibles, not really affordable to many families. Yea, we may have health insurance, but we can't use it because we can't afford too.

Try to get your own policy going online or thru a local insurance broker, and you will pay upwards of $400 (That is a low monthly premium) per month for a family of 4, and the deductibles are $10,000 or more per year. Yea, again not affordable to many families.

It is easy for people who have a good health insurance policy to knock those of us who don't, until you have been in our shoes well then.................well maybe someday you will be in our shoes, because it wasn't always this way for us.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-01-2010, 08:29 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Not everyone has a job where they can get health insurance for a couple hundred bucks a month. And for those that do, even their coverage is not good with high deductibles before any medical expenses are paid, and I am talking deductibles of over $3800 per year, add that up and the insurance cost are well over $500 per month between monthly fees plus deductibles, not really affordable to many families. Yea, we may have health insurance, but we can't use it because we can't afford too.

Try to get your own policy going online or thru a local insurance broker, and you will pay upwards of $400 (That is a low monthly premium) per month for a family of 4, and the deductibles are $10,000 or more per year. Yea, again not affordable to many families.

It is easy for people who have a good health insurance policy to knock those of us who don't, until you have been in our shoes well then.................well maybe someday you will be in our shoes, because it wasn't always this way for us.
I've been in their shoes more than once in my life, and here's what I did....worked more hours, worked harder, found a better job, improved my lot in life, reduced my 'non-essential' spending.

There are many options available, straight up health insurance being only one of them.

Try looking into HSA's once. They can be very affordable and reasonable.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-01-2010, 08:48 AM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

HSA are a joke, the money that goes into to them comes out of your paycheck.....that is how ours works. If you don't have money to put in them, you have no money for healthcare. Yes, some companies do contribute something, and yes it is non taxable money. Still, you have to have the money to put in it, and not everyone does. Yea, we would all like to find a better job....hell, some of us would be happy to find ANY job, but with unemployment so high, it is not that easy.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-01-2010, 09:33 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

According to the Kaiser Institute the AVERAGE cost of medical insurance for a family of four in the United States is $13,375 per year, up from $6,400 in 2000. That is not a few hundred bucks, it is over $1,000.

As for HSA's they do NOTHING for the working poor or lower end of the middle class. In fact, they were designed by the rich and for the rich. The theory is that families can put away a part of their paycheck into a savings account (tax free of course) for future use of medical expenses and secondly, enroll in a high deductible insurance plan.

Here is a list of the published "benefits" of an HSA account:

•used in combination with a high-deductible health plan.

Poor people cannot afford high deductibles and therefore will often refrain from seeking medical attention until a health condition has reached a critical point. This means more hospitilzations and deaths. This is especially a problem for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes.


•contributions are not includible in gross income – they are tax-free.

The working poor aren't making enough wages to have tax liablities. This is a means for the rich to stash away money and shift more of the burden on to the middle class.

•help employees become better health care consumers.
This may be true, especially for the middle class. Consumers who lack education and savy to navigate the health care system are unlikely to have that skill set. The poorest in our country do tend to be the least educated.

•payouts for qualified medical expenses are tax-free.

Again, the working poor don't have tax issues.


•savings are owned by the individual and can move from employer to employer.

True, but if you don't have enough money to put food on the table, it is unlikely that you will have anything to contribute.

•can "roll over" year-to-year to create a sizable retirement nest egg.

Again, if you don't have enough food, you aren't going to be putting much away. Very nice benefit for the upper middle class and above though.


•accumulated interest and dividends are tax-free or tax-deferred.

See above

•contributions by employers are exempt from payroll taxes.
The working poor are having very little taken out for taxes, little benefit for them.

•"the better rainy day fund" health care savings plan.

See above
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-01-2010, 09:33 AM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
I've been in their shoes more than once in my life, and here's what I did....worked more hours, worked harder, found a better job, improved my lot in life, reduced my 'non-essential' spending.

There are many options available, straight up health insurance being only one of them.

Try looking into HSA's once. They can be very affordable and reasonable.
I agree with the "reduced your non-essential spending". Been there, done that! However, in this day and age, many people do not know how that is defined. I try to tell people that you have to think of survival NEEDS - food, water, clothing, shelter, etc. - the things that you WILL DIE without. Beyond those are secondary needs such as health, safety, etc. which make life worth more than a mere exisitence. Then come the wants. However, I find that most people get confused by this category. Many think the Internet is a Need. I "need" it to do the reporting for the food program and DHS, but if I really think about it, I could report by phone or go to the library, so it's really a "want" for convenience.

Sadly, many people buy into the propaganda of the latest commercials for the latest electronic device (and other things). Then they think they "need" it because their neighbors, the Joneses, will get it and they have to "keep up with the Joneses". It's pathetic and embarrassing how easily humans can allow themselves to be manipulated. Thankfully, my parents taught me to think for myself, so I don't fall into these "I gotta have it" traps.

But I also remember tv remotes that had CORDS, rotary phones, and typewriters. When I was growing up, we didn't have wireless "stuff", cell phones, video cameras, DVDS (or even VCRs), digital cameras, Internet, email, ipods, etc. We didn't have that stuff AND we didn't need it. If I lived once without all of that, I could do it again. But, today's generation would feel like they stepped into the stone age. Heaven help us if we lose indoor plumbing!
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-01-2010, 09:54 AM
professionalmom's Avatar
professionalmom professionalmom is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: MI
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
According to the Kaiser Institute the AVERAGE cost of medical insurance for a family of four in the United States is $13,375 per year, up from $6,400 in 2000. That is not a few hundred bucks, it is over $1,000.

As for HSA's they do NOTHING for the working poor or lower end of the middle class. In fact, they were designed by the rich and for the rich. The theory is that families can put away a part of their paycheck into a savings account (tax free of course) for future use of medical expenses and secondly, enroll in a high deductible insurance plan.

Here is a list of the published "benefits" of an HSA account:

•used in combination with a high-deductible health plan.

Poor people cannot afford high deductibles and therefore will often refrain from seeking medical attention until a health condition has reached a critical point. This means more hospitilzations and deaths. This is especially a problem for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes.


•contributions are not includible in gross income – they are tax-free.

The working poor aren't making enough wages to have tax liablities. This is a means for the rich to stash away money and shift more of the burden on to the middle class.

•help employees become better health care consumers.
This may be true, especially for the middle class. Consumers who lack education and savy to navigate the health care system are unlikely to have that skill set. The poorest in our country do tend to be the least educated.

•payouts for qualified medical expenses are tax-free.

Again, the working poor don't have tax issues.


•savings are owned by the individual and can move from employer to employer.

True, but if you don't have enough money to put food on the table, it is unlikely that you will have anything to contribute.

•can "roll over" year-to-year to create a sizable retirement nest egg.

Again, if you don't have enough food, you aren't going to be putting much away. Very nice benefit for the upper middle class and above though.


•accumulated interest and dividends are tax-free or tax-deferred.

See above

•contributions by employers are exempt from payroll taxes.
The working poor are having very little taken out for taxes, little benefit for them.

•"the better rainy day fund" health care savings plan.

See above
Ok, this thread has gotten WAY off topic. However, I am curious about solutions. We can debate the healthcare issue all day. Some people think it's the government's job to step in and "fix" everything. Others, like Chickenhauler and I think that the government can't "fix" anything because when you hand over control to "Big Brother" you lose your rights and freedoms (which our forefathers gave their blood, sweat, tears, and lives for). Why can't we, the thinking, intelligent civilians, figure out a way to make these "dreams of a brighter future" a reality withOUT giving up our rights and freedoms? Let's search for solutions. It's pointless to point out what's broke unless you can help develop a "solution". But I wonder if the "solution" is part of the problem. I could be wrong, but to me it seems like some people just want to complain and then pass the buck to "big Brother" to fix. Others want the general population to step-up and be responsible for themselves without expecting a government bailout. So, is the solution a debate over WHO is responsible for finding the solution? If that is the case, we will never find a solution.

If anyone has any solutions to propose, I'm sure we would all love to hear those.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-01-2010, 11:46 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
HSA are a joke, the money that goes into to them comes out of your paycheck.....that is how ours works. If you don't have money to put in them, you have no money for healthcare. Yes, some companies do contribute something, and yes it is non taxable money. Still, you have to have the money to put in it, and not everyone does. Yea, we would all like to find a better job....hell, some of us would be happy to find ANY job, but with unemployment so high, it is not that easy.
An HSA worked really well for me for many years, and I never laughed at it.

Bummer, the money comes out of your paycheck....how awful, you have to pay for your health insurance! What next, you have to pay for your own groceries, electricity, housing?

Why do so many people think that someone else should pick up the tab for their healthcare?
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-01-2010, 12:14 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
According to the Kaiser Institute the AVERAGE cost of medical insurance for a family of four in the United States is $13,375 per year, up from $6,400 in 2000. That is not a few hundred bucks, it is over $1,000.

As for HSA's they do NOTHING for the working poor or lower end of the middle class. In fact, they were designed by the rich and for the rich. The theory is that families can put away a part of their paycheck into a savings account (tax free of course) for future use of medical expenses and secondly, enroll in a high deductible insurance plan.

Here is a list of the published "benefits" of an HSA account:

•used in combination with a high-deductible health plan.

Poor people cannot afford high deductibles and therefore will often refrain from seeking medical attention until a health condition has reached a critical point. This means more hospitilzations and deaths. This is especially a problem for people with chronic conditions such as diabetes.


•contributions are not includible in gross income – they are tax-free.

The working poor aren't making enough wages to have tax liablities. This is a means for the rich to stash away money and shift more of the burden on to the middle class.

•help employees become better health care consumers.
This may be true, especially for the middle class. Consumers who lack education and savy to navigate the health care system are unlikely to have that skill set. The poorest in our country do tend to be the least educated.

•payouts for qualified medical expenses are tax-free.

Again, the working poor don't have tax issues.


•savings are owned by the individual and can move from employer to employer.

True, but if you don't have enough money to put food on the table, it is unlikely that you will have anything to contribute.

•can "roll over" year-to-year to create a sizable retirement nest egg.

Again, if you don't have enough food, you aren't going to be putting much away. Very nice benefit for the upper middle class and above though.


•accumulated interest and dividends are tax-free or tax-deferred.

See above

•contributions by employers are exempt from payroll taxes.
The working poor are having very little taken out for taxes, little benefit for them.

•"the better rainy day fund" health care savings plan.

See above
Sounds like a classic case of class envy instead of looking at another option to determine if it will be viable for your personal situation.

Here's an idea, if your current employer does not offer health insurance and does not pay enough to afford it, find one that does.

Here's a starter http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers/benefits.html

yup, even Fry-O-Later operaters get health insurance.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-01-2010, 12:28 PM
Unregistered
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
An HSA worked really well for me for many years, and I never laughed at it.

Bummer, the money comes out of your paycheck....how awful, you have to pay for your health insurance! What next, you have to pay for your own groceries, electricity, housing?

Why do so many people think that someone else should pick up the tab for their healthcare?
Wow, I can't believe how some people comment here. No one said anything about anyone paying for my healthcare. I have ALWAYS paid for it. I just said HSA'a are a joke, you HAVE to have money to put in them for them to work. Jen spelled it out very well in her post. Until a person has been in the shoes of a parent or family that is dealing with unemployment, no jobs in the area, barely able to buy groceries, working a part time job in order to pay for a health insurance (thru COBRA), with a high deductible, well, life isn't always that easy. And I never said anything about anyone paying for my groceries, electricity, housing. We have never received a food stamp, had a utility bill paid, received any help from anyone.....WE HAVE ALWAYS PAID OUR OWN WAY. There are many many many families struggling right now just to survive. It has nothing to do with the way they have managed their money. Many have lost their jobs due to absolutely no fault of their own, and unless you have the money to move away, we do what we have to to survive.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-01-2010, 04:36 PM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
Sounds like a classic case of class envy instead of looking at another option to determine if it will be viable for your personal situation.

Here's an idea, if your current employer does not offer health insurance and does not pay enough to afford it, find one that does.

Here's a starter http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/careers/benefits.html

yup, even Fry-O-Later operaters get health insurance.
LOL! you didn't read the disclaimer!!!!

*Subject to availability and certain eligibility requirements and restrictions. Talk to your local franchise owner or restaurant manager to learn more.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-03-2010, 08:58 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
LOL! you didn't read the disclaimer!!!!

*Subject to availability and certain eligibility requirements and restrictions. Talk to your local franchise owner or restaurant manager to learn more.
I did, and believe it or not, most McD's offer not only medical, but dental, 401k, profit sharing, flex time, etc etc.

(I visit many McD's around the country in my travels, I have a weakness for their big breakfast burrito's....and I think it's starting to show.....OINK)
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-07-2010, 02:12 PM
Anna's Avatar
Anna Anna is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 29
Default

Military only gives moms six weeks of maternity leave. A lot of babies around here are going into daycare at this age. I have a six month old DCG that I have had since she was six weeks old. Not to mention she was born a month early and only weighed 5lbs when she started Also I have her from 6a-6p every day.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-08-2010, 11:56 AM
jen jen is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,808
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
I did, and believe it or not, most McD's offer not only medical, but dental, 401k, profit sharing, flex time, etc etc.

(I visit many McD's around the country in my travels, I have a weakness for their big breakfast burrito's....and I think it's starting to show.....OINK)
Hey look...this Mickey D's does offer insurance...and it's government subsidized!

Steve Bigari, owner of nine McDonalds restaurants in Colorado Springs, has been master-minding an employment plan during the past five years and recently presented his blueprint to a number of local employers at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center.

Bigari's plan involves taking the low-income wage earner who does not have an education, experience or basic living suste nance, such as child care or transportation, and giving them a hand up - not a hand out.

"The free market is forcing us to took at this (employment) problem differently," said Bigari.

His plan not only assists these limited-skill workers in learning how to take control of their lives, but also can be an asset to other businesses in the community including the high-tech field.

His plan consists of six elements - health care, childcare, transportation, housing, education, and training.

"Most people operate on a crisis basis," Bigari said, adding that most people with limited means haven't learned how to be self-sufficient. If they could reach that level, they would be on a level playing field and have more opportunities in life.

Bigari's healthcare plan will take employees to a fully insured status within two years. When an employee begins working at McDonalds in a non-management position, the hourly pay is close to minimum wage. Because of this, the employee cannot afford to purchase quality health-care insurance.

But because of a deal Bigari worked out with Community Health Centers the non, profit organization, along with the government, contributes more money toward the required premium in the beginning of the program. The average cost of the premium is $16 per month and employers' contributions are based on the number of hours worked the employee. The conceptual model is that the longer an employee stays on the job, the more the employer and employee pay in.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-11-2010, 10:11 AM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jen View Post
Hey look...this Mickey D's does offer insurance...and it's government subsidized!

Steve Bigari, owner of nine McDonalds restaurants in Colorado Springs, has been master-minding an employment plan during the past five years and recently presented his blueprint to a number of local employers at the Pikes Peak Workforce Center.

Bigari's plan involves taking the low-income wage earner who does not have an education, experience or basic living suste nance, such as child care or transportation, and giving them a hand up - not a hand out.

"The free market is forcing us to took at this (employment) problem differently," said Bigari.

His plan not only assists these limited-skill workers in learning how to take control of their lives, but also can be an asset to other businesses in the community including the high-tech field.

His plan consists of six elements - health care, childcare, transportation, housing, education, and training.

"Most people operate on a crisis basis," Bigari said, adding that most people with limited means haven't learned how to be self-sufficient. If they could reach that level, they would be on a level playing field and have more opportunities in life.

Bigari's healthcare plan will take employees to a fully insured status within two years. When an employee begins working at McDonalds in a non-management position, the hourly pay is close to minimum wage. Because of this, the employee cannot afford to purchase quality health-care insurance.

But because of a deal Bigari worked out with Community Health Centers the non, profit organization, along with the government, contributes more money toward the required premium in the beginning of the program. The average cost of the premium is $16 per month and employers' contributions are based on the number of hours worked the employee. The conceptual model is that the longer an employee stays on the job, the more the employer and employee pay in.
You do understand the McD's are franchises, each store is individually owned, right?

Not all are the same.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-11-2010, 10:22 AM
Carole's Daycare's Avatar
Carole's Daycare Carole's Daycare is offline
Daycare Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 236
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chickenhauler View Post
We are already free to do that here in the US.

We can save our money, and be responsible, and with the help of modern science and being responsible adults, put off having children until we are financially able to take off as much or as little time as we please, without forcing someone else to pay for it.

I'm glad we don't have that here....I pay for mine already, why should I pay for everyone else's?
I love your no-nonsense approach to things lol. Here in MN, there actually is a regulated minimum age of 6 weeks for daycare entry. Anything beyond that is up to the parents to figure out- whether using Grandma, changing shifts so mom& dad can cover most of the time- whatever. Regardless, its up to the parents, not daycares, to determine whats best for their family. Then its up to us to do our best for the children we care for. More regulations and programs are not the solution- more planning on the parents end is.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-11-2010, 04:24 PM
Chickenhauler's Avatar
Chickenhauler Chickenhauler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carole's Daycare View Post
I love your no-nonsense approach to things lol. Here in MN, there actually is a regulated minimum age of 6 weeks for daycare entry. Anything beyond that is up to the parents to figure out- whether using Grandma, changing shifts so mom& dad can cover most of the time- whatever. Regardless, its up to the parents, not daycares, to determine whats best for their family. Then its up to us to do our best for the children we care for. More regulations and programs are not the solution- more planning on the parents end is.
Actually, no, there is not a state law about a minimum age.

I posted the link about this not long ago, too....and now I can't recall where I placed it. DOH!


Your county may have a statute, but the state does not.
__________________
Spouse of a daycare provider....which I guess makes me one too!
Reply With Quote
  #81  
Old 06-12-2010, 12:53 PM
QualiTcare's Avatar
QualiTcare QualiTcare is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,484
Default

have you ever watched that documentary called "super size me" where the guy eats mcdonald's for thirty days.

well, the same guy - morgan spurlock did another documentary where he and his wife attempted to live on minimum wage for 30 days.

it's worth watching. if you think it's possible to work at mcdonald's and have health coverage, it must be nice on whatever planet you live on.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
6 weeks old, infants

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Only 3 Weeks Left... MrsB Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 9 06-27-2012 08:19 AM
2 Weeks Notice is actually 3?? tlc Parents and Guardians Forum 5 02-25-2011 11:36 AM
For Those of You With Babies... tenderhearts Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 5 08-04-2010 10:57 PM
Babies, Babies, Babies Francine Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 3 05-15-2010 03:13 AM
What Kinds of Activities sahm2three Curriculum 10 04-26-2010 01:47 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 PM.



Daycare.com         Find A Daycare         List Your Daycare         Toys & Products                 About Us

Daycare.com
Please read our Disclaimer before continuing.

Topics pertain mainly to the following States:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming