HOUSE BILL: Baby Box Act (At Final Vote)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Atlasian Regional Senate
Passed 6-0 in the Atlasian Senate assembled
Be it resolved, X Senator PiT, PPT

Atlasian House of Representatives
Pending
[/quote]

Sponsor: Clyde1998
House Designation: HB 1126

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Members have 72 hours to commence posting questions and comments about this legislation.


I will also give as long for a sponsor to be forthcoming


This is a Senate originated bill being brought up in a regular slot in order to reduce the backlog.

[Vern]

I'm not sure if I am allow to post in this thread, and if so, please forgive me, I'm new But, I feel like it would be better to not give a baby box to all new borns, but just to the newborns of parents who can't afford the basic needs. I feel like it would be a waste of money to give one to newborns who's parents can afford them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

All of these threads are open to the public.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

My advocacy for this bill, crossposted from the Senate thread --

This was sponsored on behalf of a constituent.  I was pleased to sponsor this legislation, as the program outlined in this bill mirrors an old tradition in Finland, in which the state would provide expectant mothers with boxes that contained the items listed in this bill.  Finland was a poor country with high infant mortality at the time their government adopted this policy, but these figures improved rapidly over time, and it has been credited for Finland having one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

[Clyde1998]

I'll be happy to sponsor this as I proposed this bill.

[Clyde1998]

Re-posting the advocacy comments from the Senate thread:

This was sponsored on behalf of a constituent.  I was pleased to sponsor this legislation, as the program outlined in this bill mirrors an old tradition in Finland, in which the state would provide expectant mothers with boxes that contained the items listed in this bill.  Finland was a poor country with high infant mortality at the time their government adopted this policy, but these figures improved rapidly over time, and it has been credited for Finland having one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.

I will give Clyde the opportunity to advocate for this on his own behalf if he so chooses.

I thank the Senator for his sponsorship and support of this bill.

Baby Boxes provide families with the basic necessities for their child in the most important time in their development - most notably, the box itself can be used as a crib for the child. The scheme helps reduce the cost of childcare for parents, a particular help to the poorest in our society.

As the Senator says, the main purpose of the scheme is to help reduce infant mortality. Unfortunately, Atlasia has the fifth highest infant mortality rate among OECD countries and places just above Bosnia and Herzegovina in the global rankings. Finland, the inventors of the baby box, has the sixth lowest globally. While the box can't be accredited for this alone, it's a major component of Finland's healthcare and welfare system.

I believe that this scheme will be of major benefit to Atlasia and would start a decline in infant mortality rates across the country.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Representatives have 48 hours to object to clyde's assumption of sponsorship.

[OneJ]

There isn't a lot I can say that has already been stated. I think this bill is necessary to pass through. The evidence in Finland is not something to look past. I encourage the rest of my colleagues to take notice and see the benefits of it.

[Leinad]

I'm not sure if I am allow to post in this thread, and if so, please forgive me, I'm new But, I feel like it would be better to not give a baby box to all new borns, but just to the newborns of parents who can't afford the basic needs. I feel like it would be a waste of money to give one to newborns who's parents can afford them.

We're not going to ignore this, are we? Or are Laborite hearts set on subsidizing the Trumps of the world?

Someone remind me later and I can draw up an amendment if no one else has.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yea, I support the notion behind this, but I agree we should focus our resources on those who most need them.

[Vern]

Thank y'all for listening to my point!

[Clyde1998]

I'll make an amendment soon after deciding on a suitable cut off point for this.

[Leinad]

I'll make an amendment soon after deciding on a suitable cut off point for this.

Hmm...I wonder if there would be some way to make it a "sliding scale," or at least have different tiers, so it isn't an abrupt jump at an arbitrary line.

[Clyde1998]

I'll make an amendment soon after deciding on a suitable cut off point for this.

Hmm...I wonder if there would be some way to make it a "sliding scale," or at least have different tiers, so it isn't an abrupt jump at an arbitrary line.

Potentially. Perhaps have it as an item that people could purchase, with the sliding scale being the amount of discount that you get - ranging from paying full price (for the richest people) to free (for the poorest)? This would be able to be provided at hospitals, allowing it to be picked up straight away.

[LLR]

I'll make an amendment soon after deciding on a suitable cut off point for this.

Hmm...I wonder if there would be some way to make it a "sliding scale," or at least have different tiers, so it isn't an abrupt jump at an arbitrary line.

Potentially. Perhaps have it as an item that people could purchase, with the sliding scale being the amount of discount that you get - ranging from paying full price (for the richest people) to free (for the poorest)? This would be able to be provided at hospitals, allowing it to be picked up straight away.

But once you have people paying for it doesn't that kind of ruin the point?

[Clyde1998]

I'll make an amendment soon after deciding on a suitable cut off point for this.

Hmm...I wonder if there would be some way to make it a "sliding scale," or at least have different tiers, so it isn't an abrupt jump at an arbitrary line.

Potentially. Perhaps have it as an item that people could purchase, with the sliding scale being the amount of discount that you get - ranging from paying full price (for the richest people) to free (for the poorest)? This would be able to be provided at hospitals, allowing it to be picked up straight away.

But once you have people paying for it doesn't that kind of ruin the point?

Yeah, but it seems the only possible way of having a sliding scale. My preferred option is to have it open to everyone who wants one (ie. not means test it), but if this is only going to get passed with means testing, it seems that having a cut off point or some sort of scale like I suggested above are the only two options.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clyde is now sponsor of this bill.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

I think a cut off point would be best - not sure how one would implement a sliding scale. Maybe tie it to welfare eligibility?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sliding scale is not too hard, unless you get into one that has two variables, which is why Healthcare hasn't happened yet.

A single variable one (income) is much easier to craft.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Sliding scale is not too hard, unless you get into one that has two variables, which is why Healthcare hasn't happened yet.

A single variable one (income) is much easier to craft.

I get that but we're just talking about a box of supplies here... unless we are to take up Clyde's graded discount proposal, but as LLR stated it kind of ruins the point.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So does anyone want to offer amendments to the effect of the discussed matter?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This needs a new sponsor.

[JGibson]

I'm going to take over the sponsorship of this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

THIS NEEDS A SPONSOR!!!!!!