Honest Question?

[noelandmero]

As a Canadian not living in Canada I was wondering do Canadians really want a government run day care system and why?

[takeanumber]

The market has failed when it comes to providing quality daycare for children.

Just as the market had failed for healthcare in Canada prior to the 1960's.

Just as the market for healtchare in the United States is an abject failure.

Where the market can't perform, the government must step in.

(Although, if you regulate a market well enough, you can coax it to work properly.)

Markets, as a rule, don't always fail.

But when they do, you need a government to step in.

I'd prefer to see S.92 of the Constitution rewritten so that cities get some power, and that way, we could weaken the provinces and let local communities decide how to provide daycare.

In the case of daycare, it's something that's best done locally.

Which, of course, is the anti-thetical to provincial power, because in most provinces, they're allowed to get away with blatant Gettymandering that gives the rural regions way too much representation, starving cities as a result.

[August1991]

Do Americans offer to children government run kindergarten and elementary school? Why?

[noelandmero]

as to elementary school and kindergarten yes the US does. Why it is education not baby sitting. As to health care in the US until you have lived here and used it I don't think you can have an opinion on wether or not it has failed or not the CBC is not exactly and unbiased source on it. The US health care system works great it just costs more money than a canadian system as the free market dictates the price. And contrary to popular canadian belief it is not the poor that get screwed as they do get government health care. It is generally the foolish guy making ok money that the US system hurts as he makes to much to get gov't medicine and made enough to pay for insurance and chose instead to squander the extra 250 a month. As this was his choice to piss away his money I am not inclined to feel overly sorry for him. In fact at one point while living down here I was him I PREFERED TO TO HAVE A FAST FLASHY CONVERTIBLE I COULD NOT AFFORD WHILE PAYING FOR INSURANCE. Obviously at 25 I bought the car who needs insurance. Well I did and five grand later after an accident I went and bought some and hawked the car. However why is it any other taxpayers fault that I was a moron. That said with some tweaking I prefer the Canadian system but all things considered the US system works well also.

[August1991]

as to elementary school and kindergarten yes the US does.

Why? (Your long post doesn't answer that question.)

Well, you offer this:

Why it is education not baby sitting.

What's the difference between "education" and "baby-sitting"? Three year old children don't learn? Nine year old children don't need baby-sitters? Sorry, got me there.

If you answer, please don't mix up health care, the CBC and flashy convertibles with the question, unless they are directly pertinent. Otherwise, create a new thread and we'll discuss.

With all that said, I understand your point. You are saying that people should assume responsibility for their actions and choices. I don't disagree.

Except.

Would you apply that idea blindly to three year olds?

[Sully]

I do not support a national day care system from the point of view that parents are responsible for their children, I believe everyone wants to hand off their responsibilities nowadays. The only way I support this, is if the numbers show that it is beneficial to Canada as a whole to implement such a program. There are too many poor decisions made by people is this society and I for one do not want to be the one flipping the bill for those decisions.

[idealisttotheend]

I agree with takeanumber that daycare is a market failure, but I think the issue is larger than even that. A society that makes it too expensive to have children is a society that will fail to reproduce itself and a society that will die. With the ever declining birth rate we are already seeing this and it must be corrected. All of society has an interest in both the ability for two parents to be able to work if that is in societies best interests and all of society has an interest in the success of children.

Furthermore we need opportunities to have programs that will bind us together as a nation and this is a good opportunity since the need is coast to coast.

[August1991]

I agree with takeanumber that daycare is a market failure

Idealist, and TalkNumb, daycare and education are not examples of market failure.

They are examples of unfairness.

Before we're born, none of us knows what parents we'll have. (Have you ever seen a weird family and thought, "These nutbars could have been my parents?" Have you ever looked at a normal dog or cat and thought, "These animals have to live with these people?")

Daycare and kindergarten and school is the attempt to ensure that even if you have hopeless parents, you'll have a chance in life. We're not all born the same.

[noelandmero]

I am not aplying this blindly to three year olds I am applying it to there parents. As to the part about health care the previouse poster stated that the US healthcare system was a failure which I do not feel is accurate. I also now why most Canadians feel that it is and it is because of the canadian media. Either way you got my point that personal responsibility might be a good idea. I am also sure that three year olds learn however that is not primarily why they are sent to daycare. On this issue though I honestly was asking if people wanted it or not and why or why not.

[noelandmero]

I am not aplying this blindly to three year olds I am applying it to there parents. As to the part about health care the previouse poster stated that the US healthcare system was a failure which I do not feel is accurate. I also now why most Canadians feel that it is and it is because of the canadian media. Either way you got my point that personal responsibility might be a good idea. I am also sure that three year olds learn however that is not primarily why they are sent to daycare. On this issue though I honestly was asking if people wanted it or not and why or why not.

[Slavik44]

Something really gets to me with this whole child daycare thing, I mean my mom stayed home despite the fact she had a degree in acounting, she stayed home to look after us kids. A friend of mine, both his parents work. So when he was a kid he went to daycare, now are you telling me that my family should pay for my friend to go to daycare when his parents are bringing in well over $100,000 with their combined income? That makes no sense to me. If both parents are going to work, they can give up some of their additional incoem to pay for child care, the only case I see government funded childcare being an option is for single parents, who have no choice.

[willy]

As much as possible families need to bring up their kids.

Why? Because in the first few years of life kids need an emotional bond with a parent. As a kid starts to mature they learn values first form their families. Daycare for the youngest of kids as the norm robs the child’s opportunity to have family values instilled. I personally don’t want the state paid daycare workers deciding what is important to teach to my children. At the same time child tax breaks help me afford parenting for the first few years of life. Tough choices have to be made but now days children are a choice and then they should be a responsibility.

I understand single parents must work but that needs a much different solution than universal daycare.

[August1991]

Something really gets to me with this whole child daycare thing, I mean my mom stayed home despite the fact she had a degree in acounting, she stayed home to look after us kids.

Slavik, you're right.

As much as possible families need to bring up their kids.

I agree Willy.

I am not aplying this blindly to three year olds I am applying it to there parents.

NM, I'll take you at your word.

But what happens to a smart kid whose parents are irresponsible nutbar whackos. An adult would walk away from the situation. The kid can't.

The kid? It could have been anyone of you. Slavik, Willy, NM. You did not choose your parents. "God" gave your parents to you. Some kids wind up with whackos, and as kids, they can do nothing about it. They're only three years old.

State day care makes sense to me. Cheap insurance. I would have bought it before being born. I happily pay the premium now.

[willy]

The kid? It could have been anyone of you. Slavik, Willy, NM. You did not choose your parents. "God" gave your parents to you. Some kids wind up with whackos, and as kids, they can do nothing about it. They're only three years old.

Whackos have also worked in residential schools, as teachers in our public schools and in our current daycares.

The question is valid but August your answer will not fix the problem.

How can the state help, good social workers and a community that has somewhere to turn to when they witness abuse. The state should always step into abusive situations.

The working poor should also get extra benefits to give a better chance for their kids. As you said it was not the kids choice to be born into poverty and we need to give them a chance.

This still does not need a societal change that universal child care would provide. The expectation would change that the state should bring up you kids. This is a very scary thing to me and very expensive.

People talk of the expensive child care today, why would state run, public sector employee run, day care be cheaper at the unit cost level. You have just shifted the cost to everyone. This is not like insurance, as people choose to have kids and then are entitled to my money.

:angry:

[August1991]

How can the state help, good social workers and a community that has somewhere to turn to when they witness abuse. The state should always step into abusive situations.

That's my point. That's all. Not radical abuse, it's a question of degree. I don't want the State raising kids. Parents have kids because the parents want to raise them. That's life itself.

The original question was about State daycare. I'm in favour. But I don't know how to do it exactly. The 2000$ per kid Harper deal or the 7$ per day Quebec solution.

In my mind, I thought. I'm three years old and my parents are simply poor. They're disorganized idiots. My parents are plain whacko. Which proposal would be better for me? (If my parents are sensible people, the question is irrelevant.)

As a 35 year old looking back, I'd want protection for what parents "God" gave me when I was born.

[noelandmero]

But what happens to a smart kid whose parents are irresponsible nutbar whackos. An adult would walk away from the situation. The kid can't

How exactly does daycare help this child unless he stays there permanently his parents will screw him up in the hours that he is at home. And no I would not want to be this child but is government funded day care the answer.

I understand single parents must work but that needs a much different solution than universal daycare.

This makes perfect sense to me bravo willy and slavik.

August1991 do you not worry that stated sponsored child care might encourage, the nutbar whackos, to have children. As at 7$ a day you can have children with none of the responsibilities for 49$ a week.

[Slavik44]

Something really gets to me with this whole child daycare thing, I mean my mom stayed home despite the fact she had a degree in acounting, she stayed home to look after us kids.

Slavik, you're right.

As much as possible families need to bring up their kids.

I agree Willy.

I am not aplying this blindly to three year olds I am applying it to there parents.

NM, I'll take you at your word.

But what happens to a smart kid whose parents are irresponsible nutbar whackos. An adult would walk away from the situation. The kid can't.

The kid? It could have been anyone of you. Slavik, Willy, NM. You did not choose your parents. "God" gave your parents to you. Some kids wind up with whackos, and as kids, they can do nothing about it. They're only three years old.

State day care makes sense to me. Cheap insurance. I would have bought it before being born. I happily pay the premium now.

I am not saying his parents were necasairly whakos, but what I am saying is that my mom made a choice, his mom made a choice. But the fact is the option was open to both of them, but jsut because my mom chose to stay home doesn't mean my dad should ahve ot pay to let his mom work. She is working, obviously the money she makes can cover daycare, if not it would be pointless to work. The whole point of a double income is to hav emore money, having more money you can afford to send your child to daycare. So i see it as being a amtte rof choice, neither one is wrong neither one is right, but the choice is made, and so others shoudln't expect peopel to pay for their choice. It woudl be ridiculous for my mom to say I want the government to give me $10,000 because I could be working, it was her choice not to. Likewise it is ridiculous for someone else to say I want the government to give me $10,000 because I am working and my kid needs to go to daycare. Both situations were created by choice, because they was a choice involved, and it was made, whoever it is can live with it.

Now to cover myself from the arguement I forsee coming. Daycare should be subsidized for single parents, obviously they have to work, they have no choice in this matter, they must work. They also have no choice, daycare is a must. Because these peopel do not ahve the luxury of a choice I would support subsidizing Daycare for these people. But those who have a choice in the matter, do not need to be subsidized or we should subsidize both sides equally.

[playfullfellow]

As much as possible families need to bring up their kids.

This is very correct willy, parents need to take responsibility to raise their kids. I know this is not always possible due to financial situations. We made the choice that my wife would stay at home with the kids for the first few years. The decision was for me to go to work because I could make a better income.

Countries like Denmark and Sweden have had (still do) national daycare programs for years. These countries are or were socialist countries. The programs worked in the sense that it allowed both parents to work, earn money and pay taxes. By and large, it has been succesful because the Danes put a lot of time and money into creating the perfect enviroment for children. Of course this system is very costly and paid for by high taxes.

I found this article interesting http://www.canadianparents.com/articles/feature04e.htm

There are also drawbacks too from having your kids in daycare all the time. We have all read the articles pertaining to higher health risks associated with having a lot of kids in one place together. I also found this article pertaining to kids vocabulary nad the effect that daycare may have on it.

http://www.denmarkemb.org/news/news_01_24_03.html

In effect, we as parents still need to take responsibility for our kids and not just off-load them at the "sitters" so we can make more money.

If we are to have any sort of national day-care program, then we definately need to do it right or we will screw-up our kids even more than we already have. Single parents and low income parents are an entirely different story. People struggling through these situations definately need our help to improve their lives. I also feel that such a program should not be free to everyone, the people who can afford it should pay for it. But we as parents should take responsibility for our kids and take a very active part in raising them to be responsible adults.

[willy]

I only have one other little point in this discussion.

The provinces need to be responsible for these types of issues. With the cutbacks to transfers some of the family services meant to protect children have been reduced. Our federal government should really pay up and we must hold our provinces responsible for the protection of kids.

Be it to subsidize child care for the most poor or policing abusive parents and having safe homes for kids and women to go to when needed. These are priorities that those on the left and right can probably agree on.

[playfullfellow]

Be it to subsidize child care for the most poor or policing abusive parents and having safe homes for kids and women to go to when needed. These are priorities that those on the left and right can probably agree on.

very true, good point and one often forgotten about.

[takeanumber]

With the cutbacks to transfers some of the family services meant to protect children have been reduced. Our federal government should really pay up and we must hold our provinces responsible for the protection of kids

I'm sick of the provinces pleading fiscal inbalance.

They took all the money Ottawa gave them and used it for tax cuts.

It's time for the Provinces to start spending our money wisely, and not for pork.

(Ie. Alberta giving money to meat packers. Pure pork barrelling).

Child Daycare should be a local issue, out of the grips of provincial mismanagement.