Is he wearing pants?

(Also, I assume this means he is not dead, which I had sort of assumed he was, without actually thinking about it. And now to Google.)

There are pants and no dead bodies.

The phrase "net of the subsidy" is what throws me. See if the premium does not include the subsidy, than the program seems more fair because non-subsidized enrollees don't get penalized by the increased costs in subsidization. However, it doesn't reflect the true cost of the program either.

I think the idea would be like college tuition and scholarships?--if all 100 students paid $5K a semester, you'd get $500K. Or you could say tuition is $10K, and give half the students full ride scholarships. And then you'd still get $500K.

Right, so logically you'd say that the school estimate cost including scholarships. But I'm not sure this program is trying to do that.

I intended to have kids when I got married, but we didn't live in a place or situation that would have made kid-having anything other than a burden. Hubby kept hinting about kids, but he didn't push the point to crisis. I said that if we weren't in a situation where kids wouldn't make life difficult by the time I was thirty, then I didn't intend to have kids. By the time I hit thirty, I was pretty much convinced that kids weren't going to be part of my world. People kept saying "Oh, the Lord will provide, you could always go on welfare, that's why they make foodstamps, etc." However, there are few days that go by when I don't think Diety that I decided to forego reproduction.

The environmental reasons figure into why the SO & I have chosen (to date) not to have children.

But it's certainly not the only reason, and probably the personal ones trump that. Up until now, we've been vagabonds, and have chosen a lot of nontraditional paths for our lives. I would not have wanted to try to care for an infant, for example, during the time when I regularly didn't have power or water. For the SO & I, that was a choice we could make for ourselves, but one we did not wish to make for any putative children.

Our lives are changing right now, so we'll see if the relative stability of our new lifestyle changes any of our attitudes.

The bit that amuses me is that we used to have lots of childless couple friends; those who had not yet had kids. Then for a while it was really difficult, because most of our friends had kids, and their lives were just so different from ours. But now we're hitting the point where our friends' kids are out of the house already. So we may be hitting the point of less societal pressure again, where people just assume we've already had kids.

Albee quote:

"Writing should be useful. If it can't instruct people a little bit more about the responsibilities of consciousness there's no point in doing it."

Interesting. Two issues come to mind: What are the "responsibilities of consciousness" (nice phrase) and what does he mean by consciousness? (which maybe is just me, as I've been reading about that lately).

So we may be hitting the point of less societal pressure again, where people just assume we've already had kids.

That's where I'm at now. Most women my age in Utah are grand-mothers, and any remaining kids at home are probably young teenagers. Ten years ago I was regularly asked how many kids I have, but I don't get that nearly as much now. I get the occasional "how many grandchildren do you have?" but I can answer that honestly with "2", because there are a couple who call me grandma.

I am sure you can match the table to the chairs, Consuela.

Kids -only when I was 12 did I think it was a great idea. For me, I was only interested in having kids if Dad was going to be around and taking a full partnership in the project. I know me and my own level of tolerance fo r need - and I know I 'd do better if I had full back up. ( I did date one guy who thought abortion was wrong, but when I proposed that he take full responsibility for hypothetical child, he blanched.) But anyway, if I had a partner that was strongly interested in having kids - I probably would have had them. but ,no regrets for not having them

and yes, environmental factors play a part of how I feel. but not the deciding factor.

When I was a girl I thought I would have lots of kids, then I met DH#1 and he would have been an awful parent so we chose not to have children. That was never a decision I regretted in that relationship. A dozen years later I divorced and married DH#2 who would have been the best dad ever and we planned on having children. Didn't happen. When I married final DH we planned to have children. We both came from large families and he was father material for sure. Since I was getting older we started with the baby making right away.

It wasn't so much a personal decision as how it fit in with my relationship. Being an older parent is odd at times. Most of my friends are a decade or two younger than me now because we are doing the same stuff.

I'm a blind optimist in the face of certain disaster, so the parenting decision was strictly personal with no regard for the world issues.

It was a factor for me in why adoption was a first choice. I have never really had an interest in being pregnant and I think zero population growth is one of the most over looked world issues, but I also absolutely wanted at least one child. Adoption works for me with those beliefs for my life.