Does America want Moms to stay at home?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2005
Does America want Moms to stay at home?
987
Mon, 12-12-2005 - 11:28am
It was actually dh that suggested that America (gov't I suppose) wants Moms to stay at home. From what I have learned from these boards daycare is hideously expensive and maternity leave is very short. Many have said they couldn't afford to work because of daycare costs. Compare this to Canada where we have $7 a day daycare and Quebec is increasing maternity leave to 2 years at 55% pay or 1 year at 75% pay in January. With the $7 a day daycare Moms can easily afford to work, and with the paid maternity leave Moms can easily afford to stay home. It seems that in the states you're 'forced' into situations because it's your only option. Can't afford daycare? Stay at home. Maternity leave too short or have to work to support the family? Go back to work. Would any of you prefer if it would be easier financially to make either decision like it seems to be in Canada or are you fine with how it is?

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

Image hosted by Photobucket.com


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-1998
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:01pm

My parents were completely average, working class people. NOT "middle-class educated people who understand how investments work."

In your example of your GFIL, I'm unclear what the problem was. He died with 30k - so? He obviously had plenty to care for himself. Had he chosen better investments, he might have had more left over, but to what point?

That your MIL had the misfortune to enter the market when she did is sad, but had she been investing in it all along she could have ridden it out better.

Pat

Pat

"If you need something done, ask the busy man. The other kind has no

Avatar for myshkamouse
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:05pm
Because with private companies its your word for it. With public its easy to look at proxi statements and work it out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:22pm
My favorte was the $700/day for the baby to sit in a basinette next to me, with me doing 100% the care for her because the nurses were too busy.

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:33pm

But he couldn't do that in July b/c I didn't have the endo diagnosis until November. I have no idea how he's coding it, I just know they're covering drugs they're not supposed to cover. Like I said, I'm not complaining!

We're not doing IVF--I can't see spending that kind of money on a crapshoot. If it comes to that, we'll adopt.

<>
That would be my mom...so her surgery would be covered anyway, I suppose.

C

iVillage Member
Registered: 12-29-1999
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:34pm
City Hospital, right? It closed in the 80s didn't it? Aren't they putting condos there now?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:47pm

The point that I was trying to make is that, financially, they are pretty typical examples of working-class Americans who are now upward of 75 yrs old. If they had been left to invest their own money for retirement rather than participate in the SS system, they would have had a lot less money.

In both cases, their savings were the extra cushion that was intended to maintain a small level of luxury over and above what SS would provide. They were lucky enough to have steady jobs with pension benefits for a long time, and they saved a good percentage of income, as many Americans who experienced childhood poverty in the early 20th century are wont to do. However, like most people of their generation, class, and educational level, they invested it in vehicles which, overall, have had a lesser return than SS contributions do, because they could not stomach the idea of any investment risk whatsoever.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:52pm
It's also assuming that people with more money don't work hard.
-----------------
Wait - since when does saying one group of people work hard for a living mean the other doesn't?

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2004
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:53pm
Yes, my Mom scrimped and saved her whole life and put everything into CD's.

Mondo

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 10:59pm

I got billed for two deliveries 3 days apart; with one child!

I was supposed to have been induced, but after 8 hours they had to give up b/c I was having hallucinogenic reactions to the pitocin. They sent me home, and I ended up delivering the old-fashioned way 3 days later in the same hospital. The thing is, when they started the induction, the billing dept went ahead and sent in the bill for all of the services and supplies they anticipated baby and I using, and they didn't recall those bills when I left without delivering.

The best part is, after I really did deliver, the insurance company swore up and down that I was responsible for paying the first set of charges. Why? Because I had failed to call them within 2 working days to give them the child's birth information. They kept saying that they were not going to pay for the baby's treatment for those 2 days because of it, and they just could not wrap their minds around the idea that the hospital had billed them for a delivery that never happened!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Wed, 12-14-2005 - 11:07pm
But before that he was looking for a reason, no? Diagnostic testing doesn't count as actual "infertility treatment" for most insurance companies; for all they know the problem could have been uterine cancer, so he had permission to do as much testing as he needed to to find out what your problem was. Actually *solving* the problem is sometimes another thing entirely.

Pages