If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(STLToday)   Missouri lawmaker who says he's "not trying to kill babies or make kids unsafe" introduces bill that would inevitably kill babies and make kids unsafe   (stltoday.com) divider line 108
    More: Dumbass, Missouri, state licenses, daycare, Missouri Attorney General, Barry County, Capitol rotunda, baby, lawmakers  
•       •       •

4142 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Feb 2014 at 4:04 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-07 05:09:41 PM

rzrwiresunrise: To be fair, every parent has the opportunity to choose another daycare service if they're dissatisfied with the service.


Well, except for the ones with the dead kids, but just think of the money they're saving.
 
2014-02-07 05:10:33 PM

Warlordtrooper: Given that these requirements and regulations exist for the sole purpose of limiting competition and keeping prices high, I'm fine with this.  More competition in the market never hurt anything.


I'm fairly sure neither of those are the reasons for these regulations.
 
2014-02-07 05:11:29 PM
farking libtard Dimocrats. Don't you understand that he is just eliminating job killing regulations?
 
2014-02-07 05:11:38 PM
Daycare is a tough one.

On one hand anyone who has looked after an infant can readily tell you that having more than about three per caregiver is well outside the interests of the infants. More than that and the kids are either not getting changed on a regular basis or are spending the day in a crib with minimal interaction with anyone as the caregivers run an assembly line of feeding and diapers.

On the other hand - if your parents are working 40 hours a week on slightly different schedules you need your caregivers to work ~50 hours a week. Assuming you use part timers to avoid overtime and health insurance you're looking at a staff cost, ignoring all other costs, of about $1800/month in wages and payroll for every three infants assuming you're paying absolute minimum wage. Add in insurance, equipment, utilities and other overhead the costs per three infants would be somewhere in the region of $2400/three infants.

And not a lot of poor people can fork out $800/month for daycare without some sort of help. And at the end of the day - having a roof over your head and food on the table is a much more immediate and acute need than whether your kids are getting quality care.

So... What to do? Let Daycare facilities operate in substandard conditions or tell poor people they need to find more money from somewhere or give a big FU to daycare workers and exempt them from minimum wage laws, which isn't exactly going to attract people who are particularly motivated to work hard looking after the kids.

I mean - some sort of state funded daycare would be nice, but lets face it - that's not going to happen any time soon.
 
2014-02-07 05:13:05 PM

theorellior: Warlordtrooper: I don't have kids so that wouldn't apply, but if a kid dies at your daycare then I would imagine nobody would give somebody their business after that.

Yes, indeed. You'd imagine that would happen, wouldn't you.


Yes, you'd think that would happen . . . if there was some sort of rule or something that required the daycare to report any dead children to the other parents. Or maybe they'd do it out of the goodness of their hearts - after all, I'm sure you can trust people who let 50 kids die in order to save a few bucks.
 
2014-02-07 05:16:45 PM

Warlordtrooper: theorellior: Warlordtrooper: Given that these requirements and regulations exist for the sole purpose of limiting competition and keeping prices high, I'm fine with this.  More competition in the market never hurt anything.

And when your kid dies, you'll know not to give that daycare center your business with the next one. Thanks, Free Market!


I don't have kids so that wouldn't apply, but if a kid dies at your daycare then I would imagine nobody would give somebody their business after that.


Except if they're not licensed, how are you supposed to know? Word of mouth? Two years, they decide to re-open and take in new business....how the heck will the new clients know?
 
2014-02-07 05:16:52 PM

draypresct: theorellior: Warlordtrooper: I don't have kids so that wouldn't apply, but if a kid dies at your daycare then I would imagine nobody would give somebody their business after that.

Yes, indeed. You'd imagine that would happen, wouldn't you.

Yes, you'd think that would happen . . . if there was some sort of rule or something that required the daycare to report any dead children to the other parents. Or maybe they'd do it out of the goodness of their hearts - after all, I'm sure you can trust people who let 50 kids die in order to save a few bucks.


I think criminal charges for the operators would be more appropriate.
 
2014-02-07 05:20:40 PM

StopLurkListen: "Make kids unsafe" ... for whom?

I mean, if you were endangering kids, I'd understand. But "making them unsafe" requires a thing they are being made unsafe "for". At any speed? To use with heavy machinery? To mix with bleach? At high tide?


I love when someone here is an even worse grammar Nazi than I am. Keep up the good work.

Mikey1969: I had fun with lawn darts, and nobody ever got hurt.


My friends and I had fun with crude pipe bombs when I was a teenager and none of us got hurt, either - but that doesn't mean I approve of them for children generally.
 
2014-02-07 05:22:20 PM

kidgenius: Except if they're not licensed, how are you supposed to know? Word of mouth? Two years, they decide to re-open and take in new business....how the heck will the new clients know?


The Invisible Hand of the Free Market will whisper in their ears, because the Invisible Hand is cool like that.
 
2014-02-07 05:23:54 PM
Can we Puh-lease give Missouri it's own Fark tag now?
It is beginning to rival Florida, Texas and Brownbackistan (Kansas) for complete farking idiocy.
There are many of us who are innocent, who are suffering because of those who air their fark in public.
So go ahead, lay it on us.
We deserve it.
 
2014-02-07 05:26:58 PM
I really hate to White Knight these a-holes but there is a reason for this.

Child care is expensive. I live in Missouri and before my kids started school my wife and I put them in day-care/preschool. The program was very good and the class sizes were excellent. They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per kid. For a 50 week year that works out to $7,500 per kid or $15k for two - which we paid for FOUR YEARS before our first started kindergarten. That is a lot of money. If I was given a choice to cut my bill in half if they could double the capacity I don't know what I would have done. The purpose of this bill is to lower tuition(or increase daycare profits) at the cost of a safe and well managed educational environment. Not everyone is willing to spend that kind of money if they don't have to.
 
2014-02-07 05:27:00 PM

Target Builder:
And not a lot of poor people can fork out $800/month for daycare without some sort of help. And at the end of the day - having a roof over your head and food on the table is a much more immediate and acute need than whether your kids are getting quality care.

So... What to do? Let Daycare facilities operate in substandard conditions or tell poor people they need to find more money from somewhere or give a big FU to daycare workers and exempt them from minimum wage laws, which isn't exactly going to attract people who are particularly motivated to work hard looking after the kids.

I mean - some sort of state funded daycare would be nice, but lets face it - that's not going to happen any time soon.


Yeah, day care is farking expensive. That's why a lot of two-parent households will have one parent stay at home because the costs are just astronomical. I'd say that many more reforms like increased wages would be a good start so people can afford to live off on income....ya know, like the good ole days that the 'pubs are always pining for.
 
2014-02-07 05:29:36 PM

madgonad: I really hate to White Knight these a-holes but there is a reason for this.

Child care is expensive. I live in Missouri and before my kids started school my wife and I put them in day-care/preschool. The program was very good and the class sizes were excellent. They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per kid. For a 50 week year that works out to $7,500 per kid or $15k for two - which we paid for FOUR YEARS before our first started kindergarten. That is a lot of money. If I was given a choice to cut my bill in half if they could double the capacity I don't know what I would have done. The purpose of this bill is to lower tuition(or increase daycare profits) at the cost of a safe and well managed educational environment. Not everyone is willing to spend that kind of money if they don't have to.


Think how cheap it would be to leave them home alone - and yet the government would call that "child abandonment," and throw you in jail. Tyranny!
 
2014-02-07 05:31:14 PM

madgonad: They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per ki


That's a bargain....

The places we looked at here in Phoenix, at a joint that borderline acceptable (i.e., clean toys, clean rooms, etc) wanted more like$250/month per child. The "nice" day cares were almost $400/month per kid. That's the newborn cost of course. As the kids get older, the places cut you a break of $25/month or so because they no longer have to but diapers on the kids, etc.
 
2014-02-07 05:34:53 PM
Rep. Scott Fitzpatrick, R-Shell Knob


It's like they're all named Scott. Sometimes I wonder if there was a secret cold war program that ran from 1955 through 1968 that put lead in every kid  named Scott's baby formula just to make sure that John Birch-types would never go extinct, or something.
 
2014-02-07 05:35:09 PM

kidgenius: Target Builder:
And not a lot of poor people can fork out $800/month for daycare without some sort of help. And at the end of the day - having a roof over your head and food on the table is a much more immediate and acute need than whether your kids are getting quality care.

So... What to do? Let Daycare facilities operate in substandard conditions or tell poor people they need to find more money from somewhere or give a big FU to daycare workers and exempt them from minimum wage laws, which isn't exactly going to attract people who are particularly motivated to work hard looking after the kids.

I mean - some sort of state funded daycare would be nice, but lets face it - that's not going to happen any time soon.

Yeah, day care is farking expensive. That's why a lot of two-parent households will have one parent stay at home because the costs are just astronomical. I'd say that many more reforms like increased wages would be a good start so people can afford to live off on income....ya know, like the good ole days that the 'pubs are always pining for.


Thing that makes me laugh about that is that the Republicans who are whining and screaming about people 'leaving the workforce to take care of children' are the same people who are pushing these cuts to regulation which would mean even more job cuts. But they're all about jobs.
 
2014-02-07 05:35:25 PM
I think I can understand where this guy is coming from. I don't condone his position, but I think I do understand it.

Due to the fact that wages are so low right now, the idea of a stay-at-home parent, even in a two-parent household, is simply unrealistic, especially in the poorest parts of an already poor state. The elimination of things like Food Stamps compounds this issue.

Government regulations that ensure day cares are safe do, at times, kind of seem ridiculous - for instance, why do I need an EXIT sign at the obvious front door that people just came in? Why do I need a third person on staff when I only have six kids? Abiding by all of these regulations makes it so that even day-care centers operated out of someone's home, and not operated with a vested interest in profit so much as survival of the single mother that operates it, must charge outrageous rates to cover their expenses, most of which don't have anything to do with directly providing care to the child. (Why do I need a 180 degree- dishwasher, when I serve the kids prepackaged foods on paper plates?) When day care becomes expensive, it makes it so that the parent going to work for minimum wage is only coming out a couple of dollars per hour ahead of where they would be if they just stayed home with the kids and didn't work.

What this guy is proposing is that the local governments take care of their own regulation, which lets local officials make some determinations on a case-by-case basis, such as letting a woman that keeps three neighbor kids in her house get away with not having an EXIT sign, or an expensive sanitizing dishwasher. While this sounds great in theory, what generally happens is that there is no local money to even do a cursory check on these places, and no one will report themselves as being a daycare when they're only "keeping the neighbors' kids". Toss in a bit of "good ol' boy" nepotism, as well as a little abuse of local authority, and you're in an even worse jam than you are now.

In my opinion, a more reasonable proposition would be state grant money to make some of these day care facilities compliant - for example, a person reports themselves as a daycare, and they get an assessment and the state pays for a new dishwasher or EXIT sign. They also get on the books as a licensed facility, and training is made available for workers to become better at handling multiple children. Of course this is a liberal solution that requires money be taken from the rich to pay for it, and the rich wouldn't be using these unlicensed facilities anyhow. So what if the rich are receiving a direct benefit from the ridiculously low wages that necessitate these sorts of child care situations in the first place?
 
2014-02-07 05:36:44 PM

kidgenius: madgonad: They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per ki

That's a bargain....

The places we looked at here in Phoenix, at a joint that borderline acceptable (i.e., clean toys, clean rooms, etc) wanted more like$250/month per child. The "nice" day cares were almost $400/month per kid. That's the newborn cost of course. As the kids get older, the places cut you a break of $25/month or so because they no longer have to but diapers on the kids, etc.


Lol that's chump change. I pay over $200 a week daycare for my two year old. In Cincinnati. And it's not even one of the top shelf ones.

It boggles the mind that we have public schools but no public daycare.
 
2014-02-07 05:37:23 PM

kidgenius: madgonad: They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per ki

That's a bargain....

The places we looked at here in Phoenix, at a joint that borderline acceptable (i.e., clean toys, clean rooms, etc) wanted more like$250/month per child. The "nice" day cares were almost $400/month per kid. That's the newborn cost of course. As the kids get older, the places cut you a break of $25/month or so because they no longer have to but diapers on the kids, etc.


Dude...his price is "PER WEEK...PER KID"....you're quoting 250 a MONTH per kid. ....
 
2014-02-07 05:42:52 PM

Target Builder: Daycare is a tough one.

On one hand anyone who has looked after an infant can readily tell you that having more than about three per caregiver is well outside the interests of the infants. More than that and the kids are either not getting changed on a regular basis or are spending the day in a crib with minimal interaction with anyone as the caregivers run an assembly line of feeding and diapers.

On the other hand - if your parents are working 40 hours a week on slightly different schedules you need your caregivers to work ~50 hours a week. Assuming you use part timers to avoid overtime and health insurance you're looking at a staff cost, ignoring all other costs, of about $1800/month in wages and payroll for every three infants assuming you're paying absolute minimum wage. Add in insurance, equipment, utilities and other overhead the costs per three infants would be somewhere in the region of $2400/three infants.

And not a lot of poor people can fork out $800/month for daycare without some sort of help. And at the end of the day - having a roof over your head and food on the table is a much more immediate and acute need than whether your kids are getting quality care.

So... What to do? Let Daycare facilities operate in substandard conditions or tell poor people they need to find more money from somewhere or give a big FU to daycare workers and exempt them from minimum wage laws, which isn't exactly going to attract people who are particularly motivated to work hard looking after the kids.

I mean - some sort of state funded daycare would be nice, but lets face it - that's not going to happen any time soon.


I wish daycare was that cheap around here (Boston).  My wife is due in July and we are looking at $1600-$2000 per month once she goes back to work.  But we can do that because we both have good jobs and we still come out way ahead.
 
2014-02-07 05:43:38 PM

A Cave Geek: kidgenius: madgonad: They followed all of the rules. However, it cost us $150 per week per ki

That's a bargain....

The places we looked at here in Phoenix, at a joint that borderline acceptable (i.e., clean toys, clean rooms, etc) wanted more like$250/month per child. The "nice" day cares were almost $400/month per kid. That's the newborn cost of course. As the kids get older, the places cut you a break of $25/month or so because they no longer have to but diapers on the kids, etc.

Dude...his price is "PER WEEK...PER KID"....you're quoting 250 a MONTH per kid. ....


I screwed up too. We took the kids one day a week (for about two months), and it was about two years ago. Our price was per week as well ;)
 
2014-02-07 05:46:42 PM

madgonad: I really hate to White Knight these a-holes but there is a reason for this.


While I understand the reasoning, I don't think that makes it okay to essentially throw out all the rules.
They could increase the child : caregiver ratio to  help alleviate expenses, but allowing one, maybe two people to keep 20 or 30 kids at a time?  That's a ridiculously unsafe situation.
 
2014-02-07 05:47:09 PM

Cymbal: It boggles the mind that we have public schools but no public daycare.


There is Head Start, which IMHO could be expanded to take even younger children. The beauty of Head Start is that it's not just for the kids; the parents get case worker visits with a "goal" set for each term, whether that be "get your GED" or "get a job" or (I'm not making this one up, my Mom was a case worker for Head Start for years) "get your bathroom fixed". My mom actually obtained a grant for one of her kid's parents, whose toilet had apparently not worked for nearly a decade, to have her toilet fixed so the family could go indoors.

Head Start is a great social program that provides real help to poor people. Expanding it might solve some of the day care issues in this and other states.
 
2014-02-07 05:47:21 PM

satanorsanta: I wish daycare was that cheap around here (Boston).  My wife is due in July and we are looking at $1600-$2000 per month once she goes back to work.  But we can do that because we both have good jobs and we still come out way ahead.


Keep looking. Also, it gets cheaper quickly once your kid 'graduates' to 'neglect' (gets into toddler age and the law requires fewer caregivers per infant)
 
2014-02-07 05:49:58 PM

ox45tallboy: why do I need an EXIT sign at the obvious front door that people just came in? Why do I need a third person on staff when I only have six kids?


Why was the regulation implemented in the first place? It may seem ridiculous, but it never seems to enter the discussion why such a regulation was put forth to begin with. The reason couldn't have been ridiculous, or we wouldn't have the regulation.

An EXIT sign means you most definitely can exit the building, and a simple beacon as such could be a lifesaver in a frantic or dangerous situation such as a fire. A third person at all times might something like needed a third to watch the children in case one worker is incapacitated and another needs to seek help.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking people dream up these regulations for shiats and giggles. Like I said before:

Sergeant Grumbles: Because it's never "This regulation is too strict. Here is a change that would loosen this restriction while still maintaining the spirit of the regulation."
It's ALWAYS "These regulations are too onerous. Let's get rid of all of them."

 
2014-02-07 05:50:09 PM

Gawdzila: They could increase the child : caregiver ratio to  help alleviate expenses, but allowing one, maybe two people to keep 20 or 30 kids at a time?  That's a ridiculously unsafe situation.


caffeinatedthoughts.com



/do not approve
 
2014-02-07 05:51:56 PM

ox45tallboy: Head Start is a great social program that provides real help to poor people. Expanding it might solve some of the day care issues in this and other states.


Unfortunately, GOP is all over guttting Head Start. It's a useless program in their eyes.
 
2014-02-07 05:53:15 PM

ox45tallboy: Gawdzila: They could increase the child : caregiver ratio to  help alleviate expenses, but allowing one, maybe two people to keep 20 or 30 kids at a time?  That's a ridiculously unsafe situation.

[caffeinatedthoughts.com image 541x630]

/do not approve


FFS is a vagina not a clown car!
 
2014-02-07 05:55:38 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Why was the regulation implemented in the first place? It may seem ridiculous, but it never seems to enter the discussion why such a regulation was put forth to begin with. The reason couldn't have been ridiculous, or we wouldn't have the regulation.

An EXIT sign means you most definitely can exit the building, and a simple beacon as such could be a lifesaver in a frantic or dangerous situation such as a fire. A third person at all times might something like needed a third to watch the children in case one worker is incapacitated and another needs to seek help.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking people dream up these regulations for shiats and giggles. Like I said before:


Hey, once again, I'm not saying I condone this guy's point of view AT ALL. I'm just saying I understand it. And I'm in favor of people complying with these regulations via state grants to help make their homes/facilities compliant with them, not doing away with a regulation because it doesn't "seem" necessary in one particular situation.

As far as why that EXIT sign is mandatory? Yes, I know exactly the reason that regulation is there.

twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com



And I wholeheartedly approve of the regulation. When I was a kid, my parents were houseparents in a group home for abused and neglected kids, so I understand the awkwardness imposed on some facilities that makes them seem less like a "home". I still say it's worth it.
 
2014-02-07 05:57:34 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Are they bring back Lawn Darts?!?


kids in my neighborhood had a great game, throwing them straight up and getting them to stick in the ground as close to their feet as possible.  Two of them did.
 
2014-02-07 06:03:02 PM

ox45tallboy: Cymbal: It boggles the mind that we have public schools but no public daycare.

There is Head Start, which IMHO could be expanded to take even younger children. The beauty of Head Start is that it's not just for the kids; the parents get case worker visits with a "goal" set for each term, whether that be "get your GED" or "get a job" or (I'm not making this one up, my Mom was a case worker for Head Start for years) "get your bathroom fixed". My mom actually obtained a grant for one of her kid's parents, whose toilet had apparently not worked for nearly a decade, to have her toilet fixed so the family could go indoors.

Head Start is a great social program that provides real help to poor people. Expanding it might solve some of the day care issues in this and other states.


Head Start is great but it's only for poor folks and has a stigma attached to it as well.

Public daycare is the only viable solution that helps everyone from poor single moms to middle class families who want to have more than one kid.
 
2014-02-07 06:09:50 PM

Darth_Lukecash: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Are they bring back Lawn Darts?!?


I still remember trying to describe that skit in a 9th grade class and losing my composure. It was the phrase "Johnny Human Torch" that did it. "Invisible Pedestrian" didn't help.
 
2014-02-07 06:11:14 PM

ox45tallboy: Hey, once again, I'm not saying I condone this guy's point of view AT ALL. I'm just saying I understand it.


Apologies. It's so easy to fall prey to derp, and "this sounds ridiculous" is seemingly reasonable when you don't think about the reasoning behind it. You take the dishwasher requirement away and 40 kids get botulism from milk glasses that never get properly cleaned. Then the cycle startes over...
 
2014-02-07 06:19:58 PM

Cymbal: Head Start is great but it's only for poor folks and has a stigma attached to it as well.

Public daycare is the only viable solution that helps everyone from poor single moms to middle class families who want to have more than one kid.


So reduce the stigma. Make it available to everyone regardless of income, in the same way that people are advocating expanding Medicare or Medicaid to cover everyone. You can still have case workers assigned to every single family, even those not in need of anything, with the goal being "keep doing what you're doing". Then again, people who aren't hurting for anything might not be aware that there are government programs available to help them open a small business or get more education if they wish.

If the upper class is intent on keeping wages so low that dual income is necessary for every lower-class, and even middle-class family to survive, then they are obligated to return the excessive profits back to the people they are screwing.
 
2014-02-07 06:20:23 PM

Karac: He said his constituents tell him that unlicensed facilities can provide just as decent care as licensed facilities.

Really, that's what your constituents tell you?  Do you happen to know this: "A recent Post-Dispatch investigation found all but six of 56 child care deaths in Missouri from 2007 through July 2011 occurred in unlicensed home day cares."?

Your constituents are ill-informed and you apparently lack the stones to educate them about the safety of their offspring.


To be fair, most of his constituents probably do think the Post-Dispatch is nothing but a bunch of commie lib propaganda.
 
2014-02-07 06:27:50 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Apologies. It's so easy to fall prey to derp, and "this sounds ridiculous" is seemingly reasonable when you don't think about the reasoning behind it. You take the dishwasher requirement away and 40 kids get botulism from milk glasses that never get properly cleaned. Then the cycle startes over...


But when the facility serves only the 8-oz milk cartons with disposable straws, how likely is this to occur? But then, the first time that the milk guy misses a run and one of the workers runs to the grocery store for a few gallons, then you have a problem. So you make it a blanket requirement in order that the facility have this flexibility. Use state grants to help bring facilities into compliance, and provide better training.

If you've ever cared for a kid, you know that there will be one minute when your back is turned and the kid does something kid-like, and if your lucky, it's merely expensive rather than dangerous. People who make these regulations understand that there will be a time when even caring for only 4 toddlers, a worker will have an emergency with one and not be looking directly at the other three. The idea behind these regulations is to minimize a risk that cannot be eliminated. Caring for 8 toddlers instead of 4 doubles the likelihood that one will have an emergency, and then you have 7 kids momentarily unsupervised instead of only three, more than doubling the risk factor that something bad will happen. Sure, a person can care for 8 kids for a week straight with nothing bad happening, but it's like driving them around without a car seat - you WILL eventually have an accident.
 
2014-02-07 06:31:20 PM

madgordy: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Are they bring back Lawn Darts?!?

kids in my neighborhood had a great game, throwing them straight up and getting them to stick in the ground as close to their feet as possible.  Two of them did.


Didn't less than 10 kids die from lawn darts? Why not ban automobiles, as more than 10 kids die a day from them!
 
2014-02-07 06:33:29 PM

StopLurkListen: mgshamster: The article says that Tue adult to child ratio can't be met. I wonder what the state requires and how far off the rural centers are. Out here in California, for infants and toddlers, it is one adult for every six children.

And trust me, when you have more than six toddlers and infants around, you need more than one person.

/Grew up in a day care center; mom ran one out of our home.

Maybe the rules changed recently, but the current ratio of caregiver:child varies by age of the child. Infants are definitely 4:1 but I dunno how mixed groups of infants and toddlers are dealt with

http://daycare.com/california/
Age of Children  Child:Staff ratio
6 weeks
4:1

9 months
4:1

18 months
6:1


Yeah. That's right. I was just using the toddler information, so I wasn't as accurate as I should have been. Just talked to my mom (my infant son attends her daycare center), and she's licensed for six, with a maximum of four infants. So she has four infants and two toddlers.
 
2014-02-07 06:33:33 PM

Karac: He said his constituents tell him that unlicensed facilities can provide just as decent care as licensed facilities.

Really, that's what your constituents tell you?  Do you happen to know this: "A recent Post-Dispatch investigation found all but six of 56 child care deaths in Missouri from 2007 through July 2011 occurred in unlicensed home day cares."?

Your constituents are ill-informed and you apparently lack the stones to educate them about the safety of their offspring.


Do we have any statistics on the number of children cared for in licensed vs. unlicensed day cares? If the unlicensed places took care of 20X the number of kids, wouldn't their ration of deaths be slightly lower? (I doubt this, I'm just wondering how much more unsafe the unlicensed facilities are than the licensed). Also, what about statistics regarding injuries, or disease infection? Are these available?
 
2014-02-07 06:39:07 PM

ox45tallboy: But when the facility serves only the 8-oz milk cartons with disposable straws, how likely is this to occur? But then, the first time that the milk guy misses a run and one of the workers runs to the grocery store for a few gallons, then you have a problem. So you make it a blanket requirement in order that the facility have this flexibility. Use state grants to help bring facilities into compliance, and provide better training.

If you've ever cared for a kid, you know that there will be one minute when your back is turned and the kid does something kid-like, and if your lucky, it's merely expensive rather than dangerous. People who make these regulations understand that there will be a time when even caring for only 4 toddlers, a worker will have an emergency with one and not be looking directly at the other three. The idea behind these regulations is to minimize a risk that cannot be eliminated. Caring for 8 toddlers instead of 4 doubles the likelihood that one will have an emergency, and then you have 7 kids momentarily unsupervised instead of only three, more than doubling the risk factor that something bad will happen. Sure, a person can care for 8 kids for a week straight with nothing bad happening, but it's like driving them around without a car seat - you WILL eventually have an accident.


MORE LIKE YOUR FACE WILL HAVE AN ACCIDENT!

Nah, we're on the same page. I just misread that part and thought you were on the side of lifting "ridiculous" regulation without giving thought to the why. It's easy enough to appear reasonable that way, but isn't actually a good argument.
 
2014-02-07 06:46:00 PM
officespam.chattablogs.com

Oblig.
 
2014-02-07 06:49:02 PM

rzrwiresunrise: To be fair, every parent has the opportunity to choose another daycare service if they're dissatisfied with the service. The daycares that don't improve their service will go out of business. That's how the free market works. Who needs the government breathing down the necks of these entrepreneurs, who are putting themselves out there and making an honest buck, imposing rules and regulations that these small business owners will eventually come up with themselves in order to provide the best possible service for their customers?


Obviously, if a daycare service misplaces a child, the parents can simply use another daycare service when they have their next child.  Everybody wins!
 
2014-02-07 06:49:54 PM

Goimir: Didn't less than 10 kids die from lawn darts? Why not ban automobiles, as more than 10 kids die a day from them!


When performing a cost/benefit analysis, it is often helpful to look at the benefit as well as the cost.
 
2014-02-07 06:50:10 PM

ox45tallboy: Gawdzila: They could increase the child : caregiver ratio to  help alleviate expenses, but allowing one, maybe two people to keep 20 or 30 kids at a time?  That's a ridiculously unsafe situation.

[caffeinatedthoughts.com image 541x630]

/do not approve


The mom in the back row is able to appear taller by standing on her uterus.
 
2014-02-07 07:03:54 PM

ox45tallboy: Gawdzila: They could increase the child : caregiver ratio to  help alleviate expenses, but allowing one, maybe two people to keep 20 or 30 kids at a time?  That's a ridiculously unsafe situation.

[caffeinatedthoughts.com image 541x630]

/do not approve


Every time I see that picture, all I can think is that each of the successive kids after about 5 were just dropping out of her snatch.  I can't believe that the muscles would have had time to recuperate after having that many spawn.

/Hot dog in hallway, you know the drill
 
2014-02-07 07:37:25 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Because it's never "This regulation is too strict. Here is a change that would loosen this restriction while still maintaining the spirit of the regulation."
It's ALWAYS "These regulations are too onerous. Let's get rid of all of them."


Well yeah.

You wouldn't want COMPROMISE or something, would you?
 
2014-02-07 07:38:51 PM
Killing kids? Is he a Dem that is Pro Partial Birth Abortions?  DNRTFA
 
2014-02-07 08:01:40 PM
FFS, this is why Missouri is such a damn embarrassment of a state.
 
2014-02-07 08:05:02 PM

Saiga410: I do enjoy the retort in TFA though.  We need to tighten up the regulations that these people are already not complying with.


Drug War-like logic detected.
 
2014-02-07 09:11:07 PM

BMFPitt: Saiga410: I do enjoy the retort in TFA though.  We need to tighten up the regulations that these people are already not complying with.

Drug War-like logic detected.


Exactly. We need to look at the bigger picture here. Should we be focused on compliance with regulations, or on making sure kids are kept in a safe environment? If altering some regulations makes it easier to comply with others, and day care centers less likely to operate without oversight, then let's do that. Or, we could help the day care centers become compliant with the regulations to begin with. Just like with the drug war - the problem with drugs isn't the drugs themselves, it's everything else that comes along with both drug addiction and illegality. Make some drugs legal to eliminate the latter, then offer help to addicts to eliminate the former. You're actually addressing the real issue, and it winds up costing less.

This could go on for tons of issues right now, like health care. I really want to do bad things to people that suggest everyone needs "health insurance". No, they don't. No one needs health insurance. People need health care. By trying to get people health insurance instead of focusing on providing health care, you're forgetting what the real issue is that we need to focus on, and you're bringing in an extra layer of bureaucracy that requires work (and pay) and adds precisely nothing to providing health care to people who need it.

So for this stuff, let's look at the best, most cost-effective ways of providing children with a safe environment. Consider raising the minimum wage so that single parents can afford to pay more for day care, or dual-parent households can afford to have one parent stay home; that solves the problem rather nicely without introducing a lot of other regulations. Or we could raise taxes on those most profiting from the artificially cheap labor, and use that money to provide either public day cares or help bring private day cares into compliance.

The problem needs addressing, and it will likely cost rich people money to do so. Maybe the rich can pick up an extra shift every week to make up the difference.
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report