Should foreigner ask about benefits?

Jaqchic, you can change it in your own posts.

I suppose I don't see why an underpriveleged population would feel the need to put themselves out, since 1. there are classes of people, who by fortune of birth, don't seem to have to work hard and have everything, 2. they can see historically in their own neighborhoods and families that there is little to hope for, and 3. as a survival mechanism, people will abandon things like overwhelming guilt since it will only undermine them further.  A few slacker kids in a population, fine, it can be ridden off as poor upbringing or personality issues.  But when it becomes a current in an entire culture, I can't help but think that there are deeper sociological issues at work, since nothing happens in a social void.

Information availability is a good thing, but is only one small step towards balancing the scales in a society.  Sort of the idea of sending food overseas without teaching food production skills or providing the means to do so.  It creates a culture of dependency, and I think the upper classes underestimate how dehumanizing this is.

I never wrote that it was wrong they didn't feel guilt or shame for being on the dole.  Nor did any 'doler' I've known (including my SIL and her partner, who is in his mid-30s and has never held a job) feel 'dehuminised' in any sense.  They were all UK nationals, they can do as they will.  Most I met there seemed happy enough staying there.  It was others in government who labelled them 'underpriviledged' and 'deprived'; they didn't consider themsevles that.  Fair enough.  We didn't like it there, so we worked harder and saved and got out.  Others who felt the same way did the same. 

As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I don't quite see the point of it.

I am a bit uneasy about getting childcare at the taxpayers' expense.  I can't really explain why - it's just a feeling.  I would probably be inclined to hang on until the children were in full-time education or until you have developed a social network within your community where you could basically trade babysitting duties with your neighbors.

I completely agree with this...why should I as a taxpayer, pay - through my taxes - for the child care for other people? 

I have made a decision NOT to have children and I get really wound up that I might end up paying for other people's children! On another thread I mentioned - having children is a RESPONSIBILITY not a RIGHT. 

So if someone decided to take on that responsibility - they need to take FULL responsibility!

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for your treatment for breast cancer which you run a greater risk of contracting as you have not had children? Why should I pay for your decision not to have children, you need to take full responsibility for your own decision.

I completely agree with this...why should I as a taxpayer, pay - through my taxes - for the child care for other people? 

I have made a decision NOT to have children and I get really wound up that I might end up paying for other people's children! On another thread I mentioned - having children is a RESPONSIBILITY not a RIGHT. 

So if someone decided to take on that responsibility - they need to take FULL responsibility!

Oh and another thing, you may have made the decision NOT to have a baby but contraception can fail, even sterilisation can fail - it may be rare but it CAN happen. So if that happened to you and you found yourself pregnant, who should pay for the associated expenses? You can sue the condom manufacturer or whatever but the bottom line is if you want to make ABSOLUTELY sure you NEVER get pregnant, you'd better not have any sexual contact until you hit the menopause.

Jacky, you're entitled to your opinions but honestly, I think you're missing the whole point of having universally available healthcare.

Sorry, Britwife, but that is a pretty senseless argument.  That's not the way healthcare works in this country.  It is based on clinical need and not on causality.  Besides, why would anyone bring a child into the world for the sole purpose of reducing the risk of getting breast cancer?

Childminding is not a responsibility of the health service.  There are resources with Social Services to help out with emergency childcare, but things have to be pretty dire and be unforeseen before this help can kick in.

If I make a trip to the doctor or the dentist for routine care and feel that I want it to be a child-free experience, I don't expect the state to pick up a childcare tab for me.

The care of young children who are not at risk is not the responsibility of the state - it's up to the parents to sort out something that meets their needs and pocketbook.  Traditionally, people use friends, relatives (including the child's father) and neighbors to occasionally mind their children, and failing that a paid childminder or creche.  

Thanks Jaqchic I think you have misunderstood me. I don't expect anyone else to take care of my child, that is why I have given up a good income to stay at home with him.  The point I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that the NHS is there for everyone, it is not based on value judgements.  As you are a Brit like me, I am sure you are familiar with the concept.

Oh and another thing, you may have made the decision NOT to have a baby but contraception can fail, even sterilisation can fail - it may be rare but it CAN happen. So if that happened to you and you found yourself pregnant, who should pay for the associated expenses? You can sue the condom manufacturer or whatever but the bottom line is if you want to make ABSOLUTELY sure you NEVER get pregnant, you'd better not have any sexual contact until you hit the menopause.

Jacky, you're entitled to your opinions but honestly, I think you're missing the whole point of having universally available healthcare.

Well, in that were to happen, I'm sure Jacky would feel that she wasn't the first and would not be the last person in that situation.

Thanks Jaqchic I think you have misunderstood me. I don't expect anyone else to take care of my child, that is why I have given up a good income to stay at home with him.  The point I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that the NHS is there for everyone, it is not based on value judgements. 

It's there to deal with clinical needs for everyone, without judging whether someone deserves the care or not.  But this does not extend to providing childcare while a mother is attending the clinic.  Emergency childcare would be the remit of Social Services, which is judgmental and is not universal.

As you are a Brit like me, I am sure you are familiar with the concept.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Why should I as a taxpayer pay for your treatment for breast cancer which you run a greater risk of contracting as you have not had children? Why should I pay for your decision not to have children, you need to take full responsibility for your own decision.

ROFLMAO - that is the silliest reason to have a child....to avoid a potential cancer....seriously that cracks me up....

Oh and another thing, you may have made the decision NOT to have a baby but contraception can fail, even sterilisation can fail - it may be rare but it CAN happen. So if that happened to you and you found yourself pregnant, who should pay for the associated expenses? You can sue the condom manufacturer or whatever but the bottom line is if you want to make ABSOLUTELY sure you NEVER get pregnant, you'd better not have any sexual contact until you hit the menopause.

Jacky, you're entitled to your opinions but honestly, I think you're missing the whole point of having universally available healthcare.

Well first of all – my sex life is also my responsibility (and my husband's) and we take that responsibility very seriously.  We will not get pregnant because we do what we need to do in order to make sure that pregnancy does not occur. I am not sure why I need to defend this to you - but I think your arguement of not having sex until menopause is a bit OTT.

I won't approach the argument of "what if your condom breaks are you gonna sue" because again - I take full responsibility for my own reproduction - or rather non-reproduction.

From your tone Britwife I take it that you are offended by my personal choice to not have children.  I haven't spouted off to you about the fact that you have had children and what opinion I might have about that...so why be offended by my choice?  (and really I have no opinion on your choice to procreate)...well as long as I don't end up as a taxpayer paying to fund your childcare... 

ROFLMAO - that is the silliest reason to have a child....to avoid a potential cancer....seriously that cracks me up....

I wasn't saying that is a reason for having children. I was saying that if you beleive you should not have to pay for  the costs associated with someone else's decison to have children, then by the same token, you should not expect anyone to pay for the costs associated with your decision not to.  You are right to laugh at what I said - I fully intended you too, it is as ridiculous as what you said.


[

Well first of all – my sex life is also my responsibility (and my husband's) and we take that responsibility very seriously.  We will not get pregnant because we do what we need to do in order to make sure that pregnancy does not occur. I am not sure why I need to defend this to you - but I think your arguement of not having sex until menopause is a bit OTT.

Again, I meant to be OTT, but this is no more OTT than your stance. 

I won't approach the argument of "what if your condom breaks are you gonna sue" because again - I take full responsibility for my own reproduction - or rather non-reproduction.

From your tone Britwife I take it that you are offended by my personal choice to not have children.  I haven't spouted off to you about the fact that you have had children and what opinion I might have about that...so why be offended by my choice?  (and really I have no opinion on your choice to procreate)...well as long as I don't end up as a taxpayer paying to fund your childcare... 

Don't forget parents pay taxes too.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Of course! 

I wasn't saying that is a reason for having children. I was saying that if you beleive you should not have to pay for  the costs associated with someone else's decison to have children, then by the same token, you should not expect anyone to pay for the costs associated with your decision not to.  You are right to laugh at what I said - I fully intended you too, it is as ridiculous as what you said.

Breast cancer can be hereditary - so does that mean that my mother should pay for my breast cancer care? (my mother never has had breast cancer - I am using this as an example)  There is absolutely no proof that my choosing not to have children puts me at greater risk of breast cancer. I was on birth control pills - so apparently my risk of breast cancer was reduced - but my risk of ovarian cancer increased... It is also an assinine belief that you are better protected because you have had a child.

Parents may pay taxes, but I doubt that if you compared two married couples -

Couple one : Married - wife stays home with kid(s), husband works.  So one income - less taxes - also gets working family tax credit...so pays less taxes

Couple two: Married - no children - both work - combined income ...pays tax on all of it - no tax credits.

I reckon in scenario two (my husband and myself) - that WE pay more taxes than Couple one.  

Therefore - if they decide that the government is going to start paying for childcare (or part of it) - then couple TWO is going to probably pay MORE than the couple with a child.

I hope that is a clearer arguement for you.

Couple one : Married - wife stays home with kid(s), husband works.  So one income - less taxes - also gets working family tax credit...so pays less taxes

HA!  I wish.

Ok Jacky, you know what, have it your way. You're right and I'm wrong. Anyone who has children is a blood sucking leech.  I really hope you never get seriously ill and are unable to work and need NHS care or any kind of social support.