Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

alum93

Best country to raise a child

Recommended Posts

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/health/best-country-to-raise-child-wellness/index.html

But if you factor in such qualities as safety, gender equality, green living, family friendly laws and human rights, you'd look elsewhere. The US came in at number 18 for best country to raise a child, beaten by many countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. Child raising is just one of several categories listed in the survey.

 

Top marks went to Denmark, Sweden and Norway, a typical trend.
 
"These countries tend to have generous paternal leave and maternal leave, offer free preschool and have good overall public education systems," said Deidre McPhillips, senior data editor at U.S. News & World Report.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RogueStout said:

While I am sure the Scandinavian countries are great places to visit, I personally could not handle the long, oppressive winters.  

As someone who has lived through a couple Michigan winters, i wholeheartedly agree.  You can't make up for mountains, warm weather, and sunny skies nearly every day of the year.  As a mountain biker, i am obviously biased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RogueStout said:

While I am sure the Scandinavian countries are great places to visit, I personally could not handle the long, oppressive winters.  

Looking at the climate, Boise has worse winters than Copenhagen, but Copenhagen's fall and spring are significantly cooler (not really "winter" cooler). Oslo's winter and fall highs are lower than Casper's but its lows are a lot higher and its record lows are way, way warmer. 

I think what really makes it better to raise a kid is the culture of an area and that having policies like that of Scandinavian countries reveal underlying cultural trends more than anything. I was always struck by how much nicer it was to visit SLC with a couple small kids than Denver.

27 minutes ago, Jackrabbit said:

Great....lots of free stuff for kids....until they grow up and have to pay for it.

Gender equality and green living as factors.   What a joke.

Yeah lol you know what's great for little girls? Telling them they're only good for the kitchen amirite polluted streams are great for kids

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Looking at the climate, Boise has worse winters than Copenhagen, but Copenhagen's fall and spring are significantly cooler (not really "winter" cooler). Oslo's winter and fall highs are lower than Casper's but its lows are a lot higher and its record lows are way, way warmer. 

I think what really makes it better to raise a kid is the culture of an area and that having policies like that of Scandinavian countries reveal underlying cultural trends more than anything. I was always struck by how much nicer it was to visit SLC with a couple small kids than Denver.

Yeah lol you know what's great for little girls? Telling them they're only good for the kitchen amirite polluted streams are great for kids

You project a lot....better tell the Dem prez candidates to pay females more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, alum93 said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/15/health/best-country-to-raise-child-wellness/index.html

But if you factor in such qualities as safety, gender equality, green living, family friendly laws and human rights, you'd look elsewhere. The US came in at number 18 for best country to raise a child, beaten by many countries in Europe, Canada and Australia. Child raising is just one of several categories listed in the survey.

 

Top marks went to Denmark, Sweden and Norway, a typical trend.
 
"These countries tend to have generous paternal leave and maternal leave, offer free preschool and have good overall public education systems," said Deidre McPhillips, senior data editor at U.S. News & World Report.

And they pay astronomical taxes. 

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jackrabbit said:

You project a lot....better tell the Dem prez candidates to pay females more.

I don't think you know what projection means

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have money--it's hard to beat the United States in terms of raising a child.  Basically because in the USA (and other wealthy countries) you can buy opportunity.  One thing that's harder to do in Scandinavian countries.

It really depends on your socio-economic status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do they have trans story hour at their libraries? That is the only question that matters here. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broncomare said:

And they pay astronomical taxes. 

And they benefit from those taxes.  Some societies don't mind paying higher if you get benefits.  Wouldn't it be nice if you went to the emergency room, stayed overnight, and paid $50, while getting the same quality of care or higher as here?  Just one tiny example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Broncomare said:

And they pay astronomical taxes. 

I'm not a huge fan of taxes but I currently pay $1,300 a month with a $6,000 deductible for health insurance on a healthy family of 3. I'm essentially already getting 'taxed' $21,000 a year for my health insurance. Now, I'm not saying I'm all in on Single Payer government provided health insurance, but the "astronomical taxes" argument rings more and more hollow for me every year. Especially when I hear my retired military co-workers rave (mostly) about Tri-Care, which is single payer government provided health insurance. 

I really don't know what the answer is, but it really doesn't feel like our country has figured it out yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

I'm not a huge fan of taxes but I currently pay $1,300 a month with a $6,000 deductible for health insurance on a healthy family of 3. I'm essentially already getting 'taxed' $21,000 a year for my health insurance. Now, I'm not saying I'm all in on Single Payer government provided health insurance, but the "astronomical taxes" argument rings more and more hollow for me every year. Especially when I hear my retired military co-workers rave (mostly) about Tri-Care, which is single payer government provided health insurance. 

I really don't know what the answer is, but it really doesn't feel like our country has figured it out yet. 

This...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Bob said:

Yup. I have a brother in med school who is on food stamps and he and his family is also on medicaid and they go to the doc for every little thing and pay nothing. My wife and I work our asses off and pay out the ass for medical costs and we're extremely healthy all things considered thank goodness. It's +++++ing bullshit. If I were the president I would end all welfare for anyone that's not disabled and under 65. period. Why the +++++ do we owe welfare to anyone? 

Sounds like you agree our system is screwed up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob said:

Oh yeah. Medical costs are so screwed up. And I'm so against welfare it makes me rage when I think about it too much. All those lazy +++++s that don't work and get stuff for free. ugh 

Lazy +++++s like people in med school? I haven't met a lot of lazy people in med school. And I know more than a couple of people in med school.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, alum93 said:

And they benefit from those taxes.  Some societies don't mind paying higher if you get benefits.  Wouldn't it be nice if you went to the emergency room, stayed overnight, and paid $50, while getting the same quality of care or higher as here?  Just one tiny example.

Higher taxes means less disposable income for things you really want to do. Most people that are interviewed all want so called “free” health care until they are told they have to pay for it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, THEUniversityofNevada said:

I'm not a huge fan of taxes but I currently pay $1,300 a month with a $6,000 deductible for health insurance on a healthy family of 3. I'm essentially already getting 'taxed' $21,000 a year for my health insurance. Now, I'm not saying I'm all in on Single Payer government provided health insurance, but the "astronomical taxes" argument rings more and more hollow for me every year. Especially when I hear my retired military co-workers rave (mostly) about Tri-Care, which is single payer government provided health insurance. 

I really don't know what the answer is, but it really doesn't feel like our country has figured it out yet. 

I've heard from some retired military that Tri-Care is a mess.  

 

 

 

 

down in a hole.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bob said:

Why should someone get free medical care because they chose to voluntarily go to med school? 

Where did I argue that they should get free medical care? I am specifically commenting on you suggesting that people on welfare are there because they are lazy, and then using an example of someone who is objectively in a situation that requires one to be the opposite of  lazy to succeed. You should find a better example.

Here's a good example about where we should consider welfare reform - people who make specific choices where they can choose to mitigate potential risk of future catastrophic health issues and instead say that they'll "take my chances," then experience a health catastrophe and get public assistance or get to declare bankruptcy when they would have been in a better situation to deal with the catastrophe had they made better decisions when they were in the financial position to do so.

My in-laws are those people. It's annoying. Do you know anyone like that?

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smltwnrckr said:

Where did I argue that they should get free medical care? I am specifically commenting on you suggesting that people on welfare are there because they are lazy, and then using an example of someone who is objectively in a situation that requires one to be the opposite of  lazy to succeed. You should find a better example.

Here's a good example about where we should consider welfare reform - people who make specific choices where they choose no to mitigate potential the risk of future catastrophic health issues and instead say that they'll "take my chances," then experience a health catastrophe and get public assistance or get to declare bankruptcy when they would have been in a better situation to deal with the catastrophe had they made better decisions when they were in the financial position to do so.

My in-laws are those people. It's annoying. Do you know anyone like that?

There are a large number of mainly young people like that. They have very few health problems and don’t see the need for health insurance. Then there is the group that simply can’t afford it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...