8 ms·

Lovely article. However, I must say that the box is only the tip of the iceberg. It's been almost four years since we went through the gauntlet so my memory may

Lovely article. However, I must say that the box is only the tip of the iceberg. It's been almost four years since we went through the gauntlet so my memory may be a bit fuzzy but if I remember correctly the FREE tier of forming babby in Finland includes: - Initially monthly (increaing to weekly) pre-natal checkups that include bloodwork, metabolism tests, ultrasounds and any treatments necessary to ensure the baby's and mother's health. - About 12 hours of parental training which I found surprisingly useful (containing none of the Lamaze class stereotypes I had been expecting). Also, our group of people contained an absolutely adorable teenage couple, everybody else was in their late twenties to mid thirties. - The whole "actual business". Now this bit we did have to pay for, about $80 per day that we stayed in one of the maternity ward's private rooms with full room service. - First weekly and later monthly post natal checkups (also for the mom) including vaccinations. At two years the schedule switches to annual checkups and starts including dental chaeckups. At some point during the first months a doctor actually visits your home to check up on how you are dealing with the whole situation. If there are clear indicators of problems (e.g. alcoholism) the doc can point you in the direction for help. - You start getting about $150/month from the state for the baby (until it is 18 years old), this is about half of the cost of municpal daycare. In addition to this you get financial support during (m|p)aternity leave (the amount is actually scaled based on your salary). Maternity leave is about 100 days, paternity leave is about 50 days and on top of that you are entitled to 160 days of parental leave (either mom or dad can take this). Your place of employment can get state compensation if they decide to pay you a full salaray during your leave. Then there is a general child care leave than can extend to three years, it gets nitty gritty with the bureaucracy of compensations but effectively it is possible to take care of your kid for the first three years and still have your old job back when you're done. In our circle of friends there are at least a couple of "career women" who have checked out for ~5 years to have two kids and successfully gotten back into the game. So yeah, the box is nice but it is only the icing on the fabulous cake that is having a baby in Finland :-).

jan_g 13y ago
It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. Many European countries have similar arrangements. Personally, I think all this is money well spent by the governments as it gives nice financial boost to young parents and a sense that someone/something cares about them and their baby.
- ProcessBlue 13y ago
  True, true, I didn't want to go into that because that way lies a never ending comment chain on fiscal policy ;-).
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- belorn 13y ago
  > It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. While its technically true, its really misrepresent it. Every time i hear that argument it sounds like a kid holding one part of a singular share of Microsoft stock, proclaiming to the world that he has now "funded Microsoft!" because of his $10 investment. Sure, in societies with lower tax, the state would be less likely to be funding a baby box. However, in trade of, society itself tend to then evolve a culture of charities to handle the slack. The US is a good example here, where such a box would likely also exist in some places, but maybe coupled with a bible or a cooperation logo on. People could then argue that such a thing is also "not free", but provide under advertisement for a religion or brand. So while its technically true that this is a gift paid by tax payers money, that description deserve a lesser attention that we currently are giving it.
  - jan_g 13y ago
    It's more than a baby box. I do not know how familiar you are with some European countries' social system, but young parents are usually given quite a few months of vacation time and salary from the state, a sort of children allowance until a child is 18 years old (100EUR or so), tax deductions for every child until a child is 18 years old, kindergarten 'bonuses', free health care for every child and similar. So this definitely deserves a lot of attention as it makes young parents' lives quite easier. And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it.
    - rlpb 13y ago
      > And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it. What if it turned out that the baby pays for it because the improved average upbringing allows the baby to earn more and consequently pay more tax in absolute terms, though not in percentage terms? Would it be a cost to the taxpayer then?
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
It's a pity that in neither ar nor new york does babby get a box. I haven't heard of it happening this mroing or on any other day. You will not get a box, even if you have three kids ; i am truley sorry for your lots In all seriousness, though, even though the United States' infant mortality rate is declining[1], it's still very upsetting to me that we're aren't far lower than we are, given how wealthy we are as a country. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/health/infant-mortality-rate-in-us-declines.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/health/infant-mortality-ra...
ivix 13y ago
Interesting that the health system in Finland has the concept of paid 'luxury' options. In the UK NHS that would be considered anathema.
- Nursie 13y ago
  Definitely in the NHS it would, but there's always the option of opting-out to the private system. That's very much all-or-nothing though.
- ProcessBlue 13y ago
  Do you mean the private room? That wasn't a luxury option, I should have been more clear on that :-). All rooms are private, and though we got lucky and got one that was slightly larger than the others it didn't cost extra. I think the small fee they impose is simply meant to encourage people not to overstay.
  - jami 13y ago
    I'm experiencing extreme envy at these private room stories. I had my first child in a great hospital with the same room all to my family for our full two-day stay. For my current pregnancy, I switched care providers, but I chose the new midwife based on her ability to deliver at the great hospital where I had my first child. Last month (when I was seven months pregnant), my insurance company decided they no longer cover the awesome hospital. My midwife said insurance companies almost never let you stick with the hospital you'd planned in these situations. So unless I want to pay for the whole thing (despite being insured at great cost to my employer and me), I can spend my first days with my new baby sharing a room with some random family of strangers and their new baby, at a hospital where there's a high likelihood that the other family's new baby will be enduring significant medical problems. Hooray for privatized health care, right? Clearly better than any other possibility.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- vidarh 13y ago

jan_g 13y ago

It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. Many European countries have similar arrangements. Personally, I think all this is money well spent by the governments as it gives nice financial boost to young parents and a sense that someone/something cares about them and their baby.

ProcessBlue 13y ago
True, true, I didn't want to go into that because that way lies a never ending comment chain on fiscal policy ;-).
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
belorn 13y ago
> It is worth noting that all this is not free, but paid for by the tax payer. While its technically true, its really misrepresent it. Every time i hear that argument it sounds like a kid holding one part of a singular share of Microsoft stock, proclaiming to the world that he has now "funded Microsoft!" because of his $10 investment. Sure, in societies with lower tax, the state would be less likely to be funding a baby box. However, in trade of, society itself tend to then evolve a culture of charities to handle the slack. The US is a good example here, where such a box would likely also exist in some places, but maybe coupled with a bible or a cooperation logo on. People could then argue that such a thing is also "not free", but provide under advertisement for a religion or brand. So while its technically true that this is a gift paid by tax payers money, that description deserve a lesser attention that we currently are giving it.
- jan_g 13y ago
  It's more than a baby box. I do not know how familiar you are with some European countries' social system, but young parents are usually given quite a few months of vacation time and salary from the state, a sort of children allowance until a child is 18 years old (100EUR or so), tax deductions for every child until a child is 18 years old, kindergarten 'bonuses', free health care for every child and similar. So this definitely deserves a lot of attention as it makes young parents' lives quite easier. And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it.
  - rlpb 13y ago
    > And I am not arguing against it, just that in the end someone has to pay for it. What if it turned out that the baby pays for it because the improved average upbringing allows the baby to earn more and consequently pay more tax in absolute terms, though not in percentage terms? Would it be a cost to the taxpayer then?

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

It's a pity that in neither ar nor new york does babby get a box. I haven't heard of it happening this mroing or on any other day. You will not get a box, even if you have three kids ; i am truley sorry for your lots In all seriousness, though, even though the United States' infant mortality rate is declining[1], it's still very upsetting to me that we're aren't far lower than we are, given how wealthy we are as a country. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/health/infant-mortality-rate-in-us-declines.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/health/infant-mortality-ra...

ivix 13y ago

Interesting that the health system in Finland has the concept of paid 'luxury' options. In the UK NHS that would be considered anathema.

Nursie 13y ago
Definitely in the NHS it would, but there's always the option of opting-out to the private system. That's very much all-or-nothing though.
ProcessBlue 13y ago
Do you mean the private room? That wasn't a luxury option, I should have been more clear on that :-). All rooms are private, and though we got lucky and got one that was slightly larger than the others it didn't cost extra. I think the small fee they impose is simply meant to encourage people not to overstay.
- jami 13y ago
  I'm experiencing extreme envy at these private room stories. I had my first child in a great hospital with the same room all to my family for our full two-day stay. For my current pregnancy, I switched care providers, but I chose the new midwife based on her ability to deliver at the great hospital where I had my first child. Last month (when I was seven months pregnant), my insurance company decided they no longer cover the awesome hospital. My midwife said insurance companies almost never let you stick with the hospital you'd planned in these situations. So unless I want to pay for the whole thing (despite being insured at great cost to my employer and me), I can spend my first days with my new baby sharing a room with some random family of strangers and their new baby, at a hospital where there's a high likelihood that the other family's new baby will be enduring significant medical problems. Hooray for privatized health care, right? Clearly better than any other possibility.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
vidarh 13y ago