High Taxes and Regulatory Costs create Childcare Crisis in Australia

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 5th, 2012

Week in Review

Parents can’t return to work quickly enough in West Australia after having their babies.  Because they can’t afford to be stay-at-home parents (see Working parents struggle to find carers for children by Rhianna King posted 8/1/2012 on The West Australian).

WA’s childcare sector is at breaking point, with critical shortages forcing parents to cut back their work hours or resort to hiring nannies…

Debbie Mashford, from Goodstart Early Learning in Edgewater, said the shortage was partly the result of more parents returning to work sooner…

The association is calling for a 30 per increase in the childcare benefit for parents of under-threes, which they claim would encourage more parents back to work and allow centres to fund more places…

Federal Minister for Early Childhood Kate Ellis said the Government wanted to remove the obstacles to longer opening hours at childcare centres.

“So many parents have the stress of having to ensure they rush out of work by ten past five to get through the traffic and collect their children by 6pm,” she said.

I never attended any childcare.  My dad worked.  And my mom worked longer hours at home raising the family.  The childcare issue is masking a much bigger problem.  Why can’t families survive these days on a single income?  And the answer to that is, of course, higher taxes.  And higher regulatory costs on businesses.  All of which have raised prices.  While shrinking take-home pay.

All of this results from increased government spending.  That’s the problem.  They add new bureaucracies to government.  Requiring more tax revenue to fund them.  New regulatory policies increase the cost of business reducing the number of employees they can hire.  Leaving more people dependent on government benefits.  Which is more government spending.  Paid for by higher taxes.  And then there’s the carbon tax.  The biggest boondoggle of them all.  Which just hammers power plants.  Increasing the cost of electricity.  Increasing everyone’s electric bill.  Both consumers and businesses.  Requiring further subsidies to those who can’t pay their electric bills.  And then there’s the carbon tax on the consumer’s utility bill.  It’s just all too much.  And the reason why West Australian families can’t make it on a single income.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The NHS prefers Midwives delivering Babies at Home while Hillary Clinton prefers Expensive Hospital Stays for Childbirth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

The Clinton administration tried to nationalize health care with Hillary Clinton designing the system.  In secret.  Which didn’t go over well with the people.  They didn’t trust her or what she was going to do to their quality health care.  And rejected her and her health care plans within a year.  Before anything was ever passed into law.

The Obama administration was able to do what the Clintons could not.  Buy off enough Congress people to pass Obamacare.  All the while during this process to nationalize health care both Clinton and Obama attacked the private system.  The greed of doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and insurance companies.  President Obama even saying perhaps Granny should take a pill to manage her pain while she dies instead of wasting money to try and save her life.  And despite this hatred towards the health care industry here’s Secretary Clinton in the Obama administration pledging aid for maternal health everywhere.  To allow them to have the same kind of expensive hospital stay Secretary Clinton enjoyed when she had her baby (see U.S., Norway pledge $150 million for maternal health by Arshad Mohammed posted 6/2/2012 on Reuters).

Recalling the 1980 birth of her daughter, Chelsea, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mused about how she would have felt had she not had a healthcare facility with skilled doctors and nurses and the equipment and expertise to handle emergencies.

Interesting.  How she wants everyone to have an expensive hospital birth just like she had.  While in perhaps the best know national health care system in the world, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), a health care system they would so love to see Obamacare evolve into, encourages women to give birth at home with a midwife.  Because child birth is not a life threatening disease and rarely requires hospitalization (see Midwives in push for more homebirths by Cathy O’Leary posted 6/2/2012 on The West Australian).

Homebirth supporters want to convince WA women and GPs that most pregnancies do not need a doctor to manage them, let alone an obstetrician.

They say WA women have among the highest rates of caesareans and medical interventions in the world and women are conditioned to see childbirth as an operation before a stay in a hotel-type hospital…

Childbirth educator Pip Wynn Owen said WA was way behind Britain where midwives handled most births and doctors took only risky cases.

“Doctors have done a good job of selling caesareans as normal and they like doing low-risk births, because that’s their bread and butter, when they should be concentrating on abnormal pregnancies,” she said.

“In WA, many women have private health insurance so they’re encouraged to choose a hotel-type hospital with their own doctor and private room…”

Private practice midwife Liza Kennedy said she was gobsmacked at the medicalisation of birth in WA when she moved from Britain five years ago. “There is a lot of sinister fear around birth perpetuated by the medical profession so women give away their power very readily,” she said. “Homebirth is made out to be odd when it’s the gold standard in terms of continuity of care and gives huge satisfaction.”

Pam Hogarth-Gray, 32, chose a homebirth for Sequoia five months ago after having her older children in hospital.

“It was amazing. I recovered in five minutes and felt like Wonder Woman,” she said. “I was glowing on a natural high and still am.

It would appear that childbirth in a hospital is more about the revenue than the birthing.  And yet the cost-conscious architects of Obamacare not only want American women to have their babies during expensive hospital stays.  They want to pay for women everywhere in the world to have their babies during expensive hospital stays. 

Giving birth isn’t a disease.  It’s painful.  And rather unpleasant.  And often is accompanied by an inadvertent bowel movement.  But it is a natural thing.  Much like breastfeeding.  Which liberals want to have mothers everywhere to do as much in public as possible instead of using high-tech formula.  But they draw the line on childbirth.  Because that is too complex not to do surrounded by machines and doctors and nurses.  Which I find amusing.  For one of my grandfathers delivered a child or two while my grandmother was sitting on the toilet at home.  Go back a couple of hundred years and all children were born at home.  Because there were no hospitals.  Which was the norm for some 200,000 years of our existence on this planet.  And here we are.  Our forefathers having successfully delivered babies at home for all those years to propagate the species.  To give us time to invent the expensive hospital stay.  After fire, farming and irrigation.  And a few other things more critical for our survival.

Perhaps the reason why Secretary Clinton wants women to have babies in hospitals is because she tends to look at pregnancy as a disease.  It would explain their aggressive policies on abortions and birth control.  To minimize the suffering from this unfortunate disease that can be brought about from having a good time.  For as those on the Left say these are women’s health issues.  And interfering with them is tantamount to resurrecting the plague.   Of course some 200,000 years of history would disagree with that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,