Seriously, I was trying to be funny. Or more like not-as-boring-sounding… Sorry again, you can stop the name-calling now.

As I said, would I have kids in some point of my life I’m sure I’d make sure they had all they needed for a happy life. Providing love and care is part of that too, not just putting food on the table.

You say money is the most important thing you need for raising children. I would go for love. But of course money is important – especially in our society – when did I say that it’s not? I live a very non-consuming life right now but that doesn’t mean that my children would have to beg or anything. Bah, I don’t understand why your attacking me. Are you just trolling?

Of course you hit a nerve, you hit my ‘I don’t suffer fools’ nerve. I thought that would be blatantly obvious to anyone who is literate.

““Insurance is for pussies” was my way of saying I can do without it while i’m a student and it’s not a necessity.”

There’s a place for you in politics after all. What you wrote was very clear. The fact that you feel the need to explain it after the fact, makes you appear like… hang on, I know, I’ll say it with a word even you can understand…It makes you appear like a pussy.

“Do you think money is a problem if one wants to procreate?”

I would certainly hope it would come in as a primary consideration (in your case obviously that would be asking too much) since a person planning on a family should be able to provide for their family.

And?

It’s not like it’s much better here [about the health care]

Actually it’s without a doubt much better. I suppose it takes a libertarian to think that it’s “reasonable” that the poor get just emergency care.

Tell me one state where the homicide rates haven’t dropped since the beginning of the 90′s.

“Secondly, several European nations have plenty of minorities and have had them for decades. Sweden has as high a proportion of minorities as the US.”

And as was posted here some days ago, a remarkable proportion of our (Europe’s) prisoners are either Muslims or immigrants. This is the so called European “social model”. Compare Malmö’s crime statistics to that of other cities in Sweden. Finland has, at least on some level, managed to avoid most of these problems simply because we have so little foreigners here.

Violent crime in the US is most existant in neighborhoods where nearly or over half of the population consists of non-whites. This is a statistical fact:
http://m-sandt.blogspot.com/2005/12/violent-crime-in-american-cities.html

“As for health insurance, you will get treated in the US if it is an emergency (i.e. you will die) but if you go into a hospital without coverage because you feel bad or have been having headaches, or need a couple of stiches or have toothache or mild bronchitis, you won’t even be seen. You need to be visibly in serious trouble.”

Sounds reasonable yet there are more than one type of hospitals in the US. Many take in the poor and the weak and give them what they need. It’s not like it’s much better here – the state-run hospitals won’t spend extra money on you just to be sure. This leads to delayed operations and deaths.

“The only person I’ve ever heard argue what you just argued is Bill O’Reilly so it’s pretty shoddy company you keep.”

And?

“You deserve to be living off of EUR 200 a month until time eternal. Lets hope your monetary situation stays the same and it prevents individuals such as yourself from procreating.”

If you’re trying to say that I get all the money I deserve, then I agree. I don’t really need any more. And about procreating… well if we ever decide to have kids I might just get that insurance then. But that’s not on the agenda right now. Do you think money is a problem if one wants to procreate?

Even though I have no insurance I do get excellent health care at the university. Insurance companies seem very dodgy to me anyway.

You don’t really believe what you just wrote do you? Firstly, the homicide rate in the US is three times that in Europe and it’s dropping a little bit in some places in the US and rising in others. Secondly, several European nations have plenty of minorities and have had them for decades. Sweden has as high a proportion of minorities as the US.

As for health insurance, you will get treated in the US if it is an emergency (i.e. you will die) but if you go into a hospital without coverage because you feel bad or have been having headaches, or need a couple of stiches or have toothache or mild bronchitis, you won’t even be seen. You need to be visibly in serious trouble. The only person I’ve ever heard argue what you just argued is Bill O’Reilly so it’s pretty shoddy company you keep.

in case of an emergency.

Homicide rates are dropping in the US but are on the rise in Europe. US suffers from high homicide rates because of certain black/latino neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have only lately started to appear in Europe while they’ve existed in the US for centuries.

Number of people without health care coverage:
USA: 45-50 MILLION

Health insurance or not those people are still free to walk in to a hospital and expect treatment. Besides – those 45-50 million people are not without a health insurance at all times. Periods without a health insurance are usually short term.

What an utterly juvenile and ignorant thing to say. You deserve to be living off of EUR 200 a month until time eternal. Lets hope your monetary situation stays the same and it prevents individuals such as yourself from procreating.

Go on. Go and call an individual with a family a pussy for taking out insurance policies to protect his children and his property. I’d call that a loving and sensible human being. You on the other hand would call them a pussy?

You are a pleb. The fact that you proclaim it with such clear abandon proves that a pleb you will remain, regardless of your financial circumstances.

Exactly. Guess how the country kids financed their mopeds and gadgets. Heck, referring to that immigrant identity in Europe and America discussion, I propose we hand the finnishness of the highest degree to jenkki immigrant with the secret handshake. The comment could have been made by my late WWII veteran grandfather with the f-word included.

According to Stakes those who are threatened are (mostly) young families. Nowadays people don’t have a decent work history when they become parents and thus are not getting decent social security. Goes to show that there is something wrong with the system.

I agree, there is most likely something wrong with the system. To continue the thought:

I didn’t read the study, but I assume that the “young family” means young couple with kids. That would be a newsworthy finding, because traditionally the poor household is most often a single mother household.

Anyway, if we assume that the new poverty threatened families are young couples, and we further assume that they are doing their best to promote their own wellbeing, the finding could show that:

1) The public sector promises benefits that make it an optimal choice for young couples to have their children before having that decent work history. For instance the couple might calculate that they lose some income-dependent discounts/benefits in child care if they first have decent incomes and then have children. Or they might expect to not have those decent incomes in any case, so there is no good reason to postpone starting a family.

2) The couples fail to predict their future chances and to choose between their options correctly. Consequently, they choose to start a family against their own best interest.

3) The condom broke and abortion is not an acceptable option.

But then, would it be wise to have sex with someone if it led you to have a clearly unwanted child with that person? A child is, after all, a bigger investment decision than a house: it ties your time use, other consumption, and investments for the next 20+ years. And unlike with houses, there is no resale market. So probably the surprise parents at least “kind of like” the idea of becoming parents. Which brings us back to 1) or 2).

Or perhaps some of those couples-at-risk don’t really care to be couples, but plan to be single parent households?

I recently read a news piece in a Finnish newspaper (Aamulehti?) that the Finnish social workers are worried about an increasing divorce trend among young couples with a first baby. Maybe that trend goes to show that people want to have a baby, but not a spouse. Maybe people want a wedding, but not a marriage. Maybe the woman wants to protect the property rights of the child by marrying the father and divorcing him later. Maybe the man wants to protect his rights to have a fatherly relationship with the child by marrying the mother first and divorcing her later.

I think it is wisest to assume that people do use the options available for them to promote their best interest, but that their best interest might not always be what “the system” assumes or wants it to be.

Hehehee. My annual income has been roughly 2000 € for a few years, and I collect no support money from the system, just doesn’t seem right to take free money for no reason. But I have savings and close relatives that farm, so that makes it easy to live on, especially since I hunt (bears are surprisingly tasty and the fur leaves a nice pile of euros when it is relocated to a buyers wall or clothing).