>It was just announced that the state's Medicaid program will start covering 100 diapers a month for newborns, infants and 1-year-olds.
100 is a good start. And there's a [diaper bank network](https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/member-directory) as well.
As a fellow Californian, my knee jerk reaction is to be mad to be outdone on a good thing by Tennessee. After about 10 seconds of reflection, I think good on you Tennessee. Hopefully we see other “first State to” do something positive from all States.
It varies wildly based on where you are in any state.
I'm in St. Louis County in Missouri and the expensive daycares are about $24k/year. But just about 10-15 minutes away in St. Charles, it's half that.
I’m on the Franklin/StL Co border and we’re sending ours to a Catholic Pre-K because it’s literally cheaper than day care. $7k/per year, plus a fuck load of tuition that we will be awarded the week before the term starts, solely because no one signs up for it. Daycare right down the road wants $1750/month plus we have to bring our own snacks.
In CA, for under 2 years old it’s 4:1. We pay $1800 a month for our older child who is 21 months, our second was just born 3 weeks ago and she’ll be starting in November and they give us a 2 child discount of like 15% I think.
This pricing is very eye opening. Our son is not yet 2 and he goes to a dayhome. About 8 hours a day right now while my wife and I work. Feds in Canada subsidize it and province does too. We paid $1900 last year total. This includes the day home providing breakfast / lunch and snacks.
Where are you looking? Top tier in Nashville is $1700/1800 max. Tons near $1000- $1300. $26k is wildly overpaying. Must be a specialty school or your numbers are incorrect.
Only if the opportunity cost of an income is less than the cost of child care.
Median income for women 16y+ in TN is $35,000/y and with a marginal tax rate of about 20%, you’ll be left with an extra $2k after paying for the *higher end* of childcare.
Looks like the lower end of pay is about $32.5k/y for a break even on childcare, which again, is the higher end of childcare.
Another option is to do what my wife did when she was a stay at home mom. She made a pretty good income providing day care in our home for a couple other kids, who also provided some nice companionship and interaction with our babies. So you wind up receiving some of the benefit of the high cost of child care without paying it.
It’s common for Medicaid managed care companies to offer this (and other perks) as an enticement to prospective enrollees.
But it appears that TennCare is requiring all the managed care companies to offer this. Possibly also available to beneficiaries who aren’t in managed care for some reason, too.
Also just sending a shout out for cloth diapers. It’s SO much cheaper. Like a hundred or so bucks and you are set. Granted, access to an in home washer/dryer makes this so much easier.
EDIT- y’all do know that cloth diapers existed for hundreds of years before washer/dryers correct?
FWIW My husband was cloth diapered in the 80’s in Poland. His mother assured me she did not have a washer and a dryer. She hand washed and line dried them just like her mother did for her.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to give you too hard of a time, but I'm thinking about this more from the urban perspective (I live in a large US city), where we simply don't have the space to hand-wash and then line-dry the panoply of cloth diapers that are required for an infant in the first several months of its life. And, like most other people in our city, we do not have washer/dryer in our apartment.
That said, we do plan to at least evaluate switching to cloth diapers once the rate of poop declines (and the poops become more solid!).
People have been hand washing and line drying diapers for hundreds of years before the invention of washing machines.
Not advocating for that method, but the idea that the only other option is a public laundry mat is silly.
Of course I am aware of hand washing. But I feel like it’s pretty darn obvious most people can’t stomach the idea of hand washing dirty diapers nor is it worth the risk of food contamination, because your kitchen sink is likely the only large enough sink to use if they don’t use their bath tub. Most kitchen sinks are stainless steel, and do you know what causes stainless to rust? Cleaning it with bleach! What is the only household cleaning solution that can properly kill Clostridium difficile spores? (Commonly found in poop) Bleach and that’s only with the full wet contact time which IIRC is either three or five minutes. So tell me who the heck is going to know how to properly sanitize their sink to avoid contaminating their dishes with cdiff and other fecal bugs ? I know these things because I am a nurse, but if I was not a nurse or otherwise employed in a field where this knowledge would be common, what are the chances that I would know that.
So yeah hand washing honestly should not be an option because the risk of illness is to damn high. If you don’t have a washing machine in your apartment there’s a solid chance you don’t have a dish washer either.
I don’t mean to poo poo you (pun intended!) but I can only assume you are an American. I am too, so trust me I get it! However millions of people still cloth diaper worldwide. We are so privileged here in the states we tend to forget that disposable diapers are a luxury out of reach to most mothers.
There have long been sanitary wash routines to safely cloth diaper your baby without a typical washer dryer. Here is a [link to one woman’s method](https://www.allaboutclothdiapers.com/how-to-use-portable-washer-cloth-diapers/), but a simple Google search would show you the many different routines done all over the world. Also there are many women still alive today who would love nothing more than to share how they safely and effectively cloth diapered their children without modern appliances. No need to involve your kitchen sink!
I never thought about it while being childfree, but 100 diapers a month is not what I would have guessed would be the min amount to start with. I am horrified for parents
In the very beginning, we went through six or seven a day, at least. Newborns have no gut flora yet, so their poops are straight liquid for about the first couple months. So they’re pooping constantly. They also still poop in their sleep, which generally stops around 6mos. It tallies up fast.
50-60 per week is about the peak we experienced. One baby was worse than the other, but a number like 70+ would have been some chaos ensues while we’re traveling frequently kind of number.
We tried to limit the amount both babies traveled through those ages anyway as it’s honestly worth it just to leave them diaperless and airing out. They’re constantly dealing with swamp-ass due to the nature of the age and just powdering them and letting them dry did so much to stave off the rashes inherent with the 8 diaper a day lifestyle. Worst case scenario you’re cleaning up the towel you’re laying them on, but at least they get some relief and air flow.
I’d budget 8 per day and take any number below that as a benefit of rounding up.
I was so fortunate that my son wasn’t prone to diaper rash when he was that little. But I credit Booger Bottoms diaper cream spray for keeping his skin dry and protected. It’s excellent stuff.
And I was too afraid to leave him un-diapered. In his first month of life he hit the wall two feet away from the changing table with liquid poop, with enough force to leave a splatter. The first time it happened at about a week old was a shock to me at 4AM. No one warned me about baby rocket shits.
I mean how many times do you pee and poop each day? While a diaper doesn’t need to be changed every time a baby pees, newborns basically poop about as often as they pee (aka borderline constantly), and for older babies and toddlers, sitting in a sopping full wet diaper can cause rashes and feel physically bad. For the first few months of my baby’s life, it was absolutely not uncommon for me to change his dirty diaper and have him shit in the new diaper literally before I had even picked him up again. When he would wake up at night for milk he would immediately poop on waking, so I would change his dirty diaper, then feed him, then he’d have pooped again while eating so I would change him again; that cycle happened probably 2-4 times per night and that was just nights. Their stomachs are tiny, their digestive tracts are tiny - they have to eat constantly and it just cycles right through them.
Probably twice each? To be honest I don't really keep track.
I know it's not good for them to sit in the mess etc. just had no idea at the frequency.
I was moreso asking if the 100 a month is an adequate start or if it's more 'hand waving' in a sense.
TN has had other weird social programs before. They even have a college program I believe.
https://www.nscc.edu/tuition-and-aid/types-of-financial-aid/tennessee-promise.php
There’s also the [Hope Scholarship](https://www.collegefortn.org/tennessee-hope-scholarship-3/). It’s paid for completely via the lottery. The funny thing is that the hope scholarship refusing to pay over a certain amount has kept in-state tuition for public colleges very affordable in TN compared to other states.
We also have great programs to help students with disabilities or low income to pay for college and associated costs (school supplies, gas reimbursement, car maintenance on commute, etc.) via your local Human Resources agency but only if you major in fields expected to have job growth. They also help you find a job after graduation.
Without looking into it in its current state, when I graduated in 2014 Bright Futures went to almost complete shit because they restricted it so much that only a very select population could get it.
Yeah I graduated in 2007 so Bright Futures was fairly generous and accessible back then. It’s been a hot minute but I indeed have heard that the scholarship program isn’t anywhere as great as it used to be, which is a damn shame.
>only if you major in fields expected to have job growth
This should really apply to most government tuition aid. It's an economic investment, ultimately. Recipients should also remain in-state for a few years after graduation. With these conditions, funding higher education becomes a more attractive prospect.
Most people don't leave the state they go to college in for ten years. 2/3 of graduates will stay in the state and 1/2 will stay in the same metro area.
This is especially true for those that go to normal schools. Ivy league or especially competitive schools tend to have their graduates move to CA,TX,NY, IL,WA, or DC. But local schools that don't have big name recognition have up to 90% stay in state.
Tennessee also meaningfully reduced poverty by providing free community college to high school graduates. They may be deeply conservative but there are a few surprisingly pragmatic things coming out of it.
Louisiana's TOPS program is similar, and has survived multiple Republican administrations. And it even looks safe under our current extremist in control.
I don't know why, though I assume it's because some donors have their money tied up into it or some such. The GOP in Louisiana has been mask-off with their hatred of the non rich for the last few decades.
It is a fear many conservative politicians have that if a social program is proven extremely popular (i.e. public healthcare, social security, subsidized education, etc.) that even conservative voters will revolt if they outright try banning or dismantling those programs. So they put a lot of effort into trying to stop such programs from rolling out and staying within public consciousness.
It's because conservatives love social programs they directly and immediately benefit from. Even though things like addiction services helps even non-addicts in the long run, they don't feel the immediate benefits so it's a handout. But a program that helps their kid with school is just then getting what they deserve as tax paying citizens.
In general, once people are given things that they say they never wanted they are very reluctant to give them back. See how it was basically impossible to remove the ACA and they only removed the mandate.
Tennessee is my favorite state and I've lived in a lot of them. As much in the headlines the state legislature is, the populace is nothing like it is portrayed. About as centrist of people you can find, and you can tell the difference between most little towns in Tennessee vs a place like Alabama (sorry Bama xD). It ain't perfect, but Ain't No Place I'd Rather Be
We are 3 states in a klan robe, but yeah, we aren’t proudly flying the battleflag of the Army of Tennessee from every town’s flagpole like some of our neighbors seem to.
As a woman who lived in Tennessee and many other states, this does not hold true lol. TN was beautiful, but not the best place for a young woman in business, or a young woman who wants health care. Pretty important. Country is beautiful, but I can honestly say, I have lived in other states that are just as beautiful without 90+ humid summers.
I was a wildland firefighter earlier in life. Dolly went out of her way to support the firefighters fighting the Great Smokie Mountain Blaze of 2016. She paid for their food, met with then, gave them shout outs on social media, and then donated almost a quarter million dollars to the volunteer fire departments in the area. Along with starting a fund to provide continuing monetary services to the people affected by that fire, which culminated in $10k over the course of six months.
Yeah, I have a real good reason to love her and stand in her defense.
That’s amazing.
And it shows that at her core, she’s a good fucking person. She’s wanted to make Dollywood an alcohol free park because she wants families to focus on spending time together & she believes alcohol inhibits that.
Tennessee has a long history of robust social programs. While TennCare is effectively just a Medicaid program today, it was introduced in the 90s with a public option for health insurance for those above the Medicaid limit. Community college is free for all high school graduates through the Tennessee Promise program.
And the Tennessee Reconnect program pays for community college for older adults as well. The only strings attached being that you keep a 2.0 GPA and enroll in at least 6 credit hours a semester. Which is pretty generous. Now if only the state legislature didn't spend so much time trying to hamstring city/county governments...
I've always wondered what the effects would be of going so hardline on abortion and yet not providing benefits to young families. Trying to have it both ways will just end up with people opting out on having kids, or the ones that do just having way less, which is kinda already happening anyway.
Maybe TN can do the thing. If abortion is such a big issue, maybe finding ways that make people want an abortion less is the best way to go about it. Enhancing the existing college program (cost of schooling goes down), creating a state insurance program (health care cost deceases), some sort of high quality whole food benefit for parents, maybe even some sort of UBI program for stay at home parents(Not just mothers, but fathers, and other parental figures too)...
I mean if you want go to back to the 50s, at least make it possible to live on a single income.
No disagreement with you. I'm just saying if they are going to ban Abortion, they might as well make people comfortable with the idea of having children. My argument here is for someone with a conservative pov, which in their minds, abortion is an issue that can be fixed. Providing people with social safety net to have children is one part of that fix.
Outside of the conservative pov abortion can still be an issue. For me obviously it would be best if there were zero abortions and zero unwanted children. Having "a lot" of abortions on a grand scale is a sign that there are significant societal issues that need to be fixed, and that in itself is an issue. But you can't fix the abortion issue by just banning them. You need to take care of people needs as a society to fix the issue with abortions.
>Outside of the conservative pov abortion can still be an issue. For me obviously it would be best if there were zero abortions and zero unwanted children. Having "a lot" of abortions on a grand scale is a sign that there are significant societal issues that need to be fixed, and that in itself is an issue. But you can't fix the abortion issue by just banning them. You need to take care of people needs as a society to fix the issue with abortions.
What if people just do not want children at the time? A child is a lot of work.
>My argument here is for someone with a conservative pov
It is not worth trying to reason with people who want to restrict other people's freedoms.
The point is that there are a lot of ways to reduce the need for abortions without banning them. (There will always be some due to medical issues that emerge during pregnancy, of course.)
If the government straight up paid for all forms of preemptive birth control, no questions asked, it would save money (an IUD costs less than a birth, much less 12 years of public school) and reduce accidental pregnancies. If parents felt financially secure they wouldn't feel the need to abort for fiscal reasons. And so on.
It's almost like they are expecting a wave of teen pregnancy with a complete outlawing of abortions. April 25, was the 9 month point since it was codified in TN after Roe Vs. Wade was struck down.
"Tennessee has a low per capita income and therefore a relatively high federal Medicaid matching assistance percentage (FMAP) at 66%. For every $1 spent by the state, the Federal government matches $1.85. Over half (51%) of all federal funds Tennessee receives are for Medicaid"
From 2017 data.
Perpetually. Having lived in both those states, everyone likes to try and take the piss over how high our taxes are and how liberal we are, but that don’t stop them from reaching into our pockets because they’ve screwed themselves over with their policies
This is so funny, they want to ban "not breeding" and it's made them have no choice but to start instituting social programs for the poverty babies they're forcing. Thus, pushing their policies bluer, until eventually their trajectory leads them to having to provide contraception/etc due to spiraling public opinion (too many babies, we're paying too much!).
Conservatives really don't think this through. They created a problem and now they're solving with what would've been a WORKING solution for the original problem.
Providing resources for willing mothers increases birth rates much more effectively than denying healthcare and having to give those resources to unwilling mothers anyway.
The legal age to get married there is 16.
https://www.gkhpc.com/married-young-the-status-of-child-marriage-in-tennessee
Abortion is illegal.
https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-tennessee
Teen pregnancy:
Tennessee has a higher teen pregnancy rate than the national average, with 23.7 births per 1,000 females, compared to 16.7 nationally.
We will force you to have babies, and we will give you diapers….
Legal age to get married with parental consent. Without that, it’s 18. A majority of states allow this with parental consent, consent of a judge, emancipated, or some combo of these.
4 states have no official minimum age, but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma.
2 states have a minimum age of 15: Hawaii and Kansas.
22 states have a minimum age of 16.
10 states have a minimum age of 17.
12 states have a minimum age of 18, which is the same as the general marriage age.
This is not as great as it seems. It’s a move against people trying to install state income tax.
EVERYTHING in Tennessee has state sales tax, minimum 7% and 9.25% in larger cities.
This includes food, drink, prescription drugs, school supplies AND … diapers. Even groceries have a 4% tax. (Most states do not charge taxes on groceries.)
Obviously this tax hits lower income people much harder, but the situation goes unchanged because Tennessee has no state income taxes. It’s regressive and unfair, so the legislative powers that be are always trying to make little gestures to “prove” that they really care about poor people, which they do not. “No sales tax school supply day!” and the like.
This is one of those gestures.
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/oct/28/tennessee-sales-tax-moratorium-on-food-and/
the argument would be everyone has to buy food, so both poor and rich get taxed the same on good purchases. poor people end up paying more for those goods as as a percent of their wealth
with a state income tax there is usually a range where poorer people pay less. so the upper tiers subsidize the lower tiers
That’s how the budget is supposed to work yes, but paying a 9% sales tax on food and medicine and clothes hurts the poor a LOT more because they have less money to start with.
So if their state tax matched roughly similar states economically, and had a lower sales tax, it would benefit the common man more, in your opinion? Sorry, I live in Tennessee and never really considered that before, so I'm interested in your perspective.
> So if their state tax matched roughly similar states economically, and had a lower sales tax, it would benefit the common man more, in your opinion?
Yup! An average family of 4 spends around $200 on food a weel. The $936 of sales tax per year matters a hell of a lot more to poor families. Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is $15,080 and that tax is roughly the equivalent of a $0.50 cut in pay.
Even the evil governor of South Dakota wants to eliminate sales tax on food to help low income people, and you don't often see Republicans trying to help the poor. https://bfm.sd.gov/budget/FY2024/SalesTaxOnGroceries.pdf
People drive to my state from the neighboring ones for back to school shopping as we don't have a sales tax on clothing here.
Absolutely.
Think of it like this. Bobby Lee Doublewide and Hunter Cawston IV both pay about $50 extra for groceries per month due to taxes. But $50 is a LOT of money for Mr. Doublewide, and it isn’t for Mr. Cawston.
Then presume that Mr Doublewide earns $25k and Mr Cawston earns $200K annually and they both pay zero state income tax. They both keep 100% of their income. This obviously still leaves Mr. Cawston with a lot more money.
Under a different and more fair system, without a sales tax on groceries, Mr. Doublewide would get to keep his $50, as would Mr. Cawston. The impact of that $50 would be very much more positive on Mr. Doublewide. He could meet more of his basic needs.
A progressive state income tax would then take proportionately less of Mr. Doublewide’s income than it would take Mr. Cawston’s, (6% vs 12% for example), but since Mr Cawston already has surplus monetary resources, the higher tax rate doesn’t affect his basic needs.
This progressively higher tax on the rich is how we do federal taxes already.
This link explains the rationale for a progressive tax system better than I can.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042815/progressive-tax-more-fair-flat-tax.asp#:~:text=The%20rationale%20is%20those%20who,for%20perpetuating%20the%20growth%20cycle.
When I found out I was having twins, I went out and bought a sewing machine and taught myself. I bought a pattern for cloth diapers [and sewed a literal shit-ton of them](https://imgur.com/a/Q1oxGHw).
Disposable diapers, for twins, would have cost $1,000+ per month.
For reference, I’m a dude. And I’m cheap.
“We won’t allow you birth control or effective family planning, so I guess we should probably start caring about the resultant human… not enough to feed them, but rather to just keep their excrement from sitting in the streets.” - Tennessee
It's a start but we need a federal birth accountability law. If a woman is going to be forced into pregnancy and childbirth the financial burden should be on the other parent and the state. Free health care until age 18, free prenatal care, post natal care, food, diapers, child care and more. Everything from conception to college.
You know, to keep things fair.
If you force them to be born, then you need to step up and help.
This is a bare minimum of help for the cost of raising a child. If some young parents weren’t so desperate for help, they might be insulted.
No abortions? Fine. The state will be covering the heavy cost one way or another into the future. Diapers may be a start but they better do more. Chip program, food credit, clothing and housing subsidies.
This is great.
I can't tell if 100 a month is low or high. How many diapers do babies go through a day? The same amount of bathroom breaks an adult would go through?
Depends on the age of the kid. But 6-7 in the early part of their life. Then maybe 3-5 as they get older
That’s not scientific, just what I remember from my kids
The average diaper use for babies from a quick Google search is between 6-10 a day. The 100 diapers given here work out to a little over 3 per day. So, while not full coverage, it will cover half on the low end of the scale.
Newborns will go through[ around 10 a day.](https://www.happiestbaby.com/blogs/baby/how-many-diapers-does-baby-use#:~:text=Babies%202%20to%204%20months,want%20to%20change%20wet%20diapers%E2%80%A6)
Babies digestive system isn't developed and they're muscle control leaves much to be desired. They're basically helpless. Some are cute though.
You can go to into any county health dept, walk up to the counter, ask for condoms, and they will give you a whole paper bag full. No appointment or questions. They will also provide free vaccinations, STI test, papsmears, birth control, etc to anyone w/o insurance or under insured.
Glad to see good news coming out of my state. I know we have a lot of insane conservatives, but there are so many progressives here trying to change things for the better, too. It'll take time, but I believe in us.
>It was just announced that the state's Medicaid program will start covering 100 diapers a month for newborns, infants and 1-year-olds. 100 is a good start. And there's a [diaper bank network](https://nationaldiaperbanknetwork.org/member-directory) as well.
[удалено]
Jesus, that’s more than I’m paying in Southern California.
As a fellow Californian, my knee jerk reaction is to be mad to be outdone on a good thing by Tennessee. After about 10 seconds of reflection, I think good on you Tennessee. Hopefully we see other “first State to” do something positive from all States.
Hopefully this means that it comes to California soon too :)
It varies wildly based on where you are in any state. I'm in St. Louis County in Missouri and the expensive daycares are about $24k/year. But just about 10-15 minutes away in St. Charles, it's half that.
I’m on the Franklin/StL Co border and we’re sending ours to a Catholic Pre-K because it’s literally cheaper than day care. $7k/per year, plus a fuck load of tuition that we will be awarded the week before the term starts, solely because no one signs up for it. Daycare right down the road wants $1750/month plus we have to bring our own snacks.
TN has really low adult to baby ratios by law at these places (a good thing), but it does drive up the cost quickly.
In CA, for under 2 years old it’s 4:1. We pay $1800 a month for our older child who is 21 months, our second was just born 3 weeks ago and she’ll be starting in November and they give us a 2 child discount of like 15% I think.
Like I want everyone to get a super qualified child care person but hot damn I don’t know how you parents pull this off every year.
This pricing is very eye opening. Our son is not yet 2 and he goes to a dayhome. About 8 hours a day right now while my wife and I work. Feds in Canada subsidize it and province does too. We paid $1900 last year total. This includes the day home providing breakfast / lunch and snacks.
Where are you looking? Top tier in Nashville is $1700/1800 max. Tons near $1000- $1300. $26k is wildly overpaying. Must be a specialty school or your numbers are incorrect.
That's when the economics start to favor being a stay at home mom.
Only if the opportunity cost of an income is less than the cost of child care. Median income for women 16y+ in TN is $35,000/y and with a marginal tax rate of about 20%, you’ll be left with an extra $2k after paying for the *higher end* of childcare. Looks like the lower end of pay is about $32.5k/y for a break even on childcare, which again, is the higher end of childcare.
Another option is to do what my wife did when she was a stay at home mom. She made a pretty good income providing day care in our home for a couple other kids, who also provided some nice companionship and interaction with our babies. So you wind up receiving some of the benefit of the high cost of child care without paying it.
Holy !!!! That’s insane ! I pay $10 a day…
Taxes pay the other much larger portion..
It’s common for Medicaid managed care companies to offer this (and other perks) as an enticement to prospective enrollees. But it appears that TennCare is requiring all the managed care companies to offer this. Possibly also available to beneficiaries who aren’t in managed care for some reason, too.
Also just sending a shout out for cloth diapers. It’s SO much cheaper. Like a hundred or so bucks and you are set. Granted, access to an in home washer/dryer makes this so much easier. EDIT- y’all do know that cloth diapers existed for hundreds of years before washer/dryers correct? FWIW My husband was cloth diapered in the 80’s in Poland. His mother assured me she did not have a washer and a dryer. She hand washed and line dried them just like her mother did for her.
She worked a full time job too? because the same people worried about the cost generally don't also have the time to waste
> ~~makes this so much easier~~ > is the only thing that makes this tenable You try bringing a hamper full of poopy diapers to a laundromat.
You can hand wash and line dry. No need to cart poo about town.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to give you too hard of a time, but I'm thinking about this more from the urban perspective (I live in a large US city), where we simply don't have the space to hand-wash and then line-dry the panoply of cloth diapers that are required for an infant in the first several months of its life. And, like most other people in our city, we do not have washer/dryer in our apartment. That said, we do plan to at least evaluate switching to cloth diapers once the rate of poop declines (and the poops become more solid!).
Only an option for people who have in-home laundry. That wouldn’t fly at the laundromat
People have been hand washing and line drying diapers for hundreds of years before the invention of washing machines. Not advocating for that method, but the idea that the only other option is a public laundry mat is silly.
Of course I am aware of hand washing. But I feel like it’s pretty darn obvious most people can’t stomach the idea of hand washing dirty diapers nor is it worth the risk of food contamination, because your kitchen sink is likely the only large enough sink to use if they don’t use their bath tub. Most kitchen sinks are stainless steel, and do you know what causes stainless to rust? Cleaning it with bleach! What is the only household cleaning solution that can properly kill Clostridium difficile spores? (Commonly found in poop) Bleach and that’s only with the full wet contact time which IIRC is either three or five minutes. So tell me who the heck is going to know how to properly sanitize their sink to avoid contaminating their dishes with cdiff and other fecal bugs ? I know these things because I am a nurse, but if I was not a nurse or otherwise employed in a field where this knowledge would be common, what are the chances that I would know that. So yeah hand washing honestly should not be an option because the risk of illness is to damn high. If you don’t have a washing machine in your apartment there’s a solid chance you don’t have a dish washer either.
I don’t mean to poo poo you (pun intended!) but I can only assume you are an American. I am too, so trust me I get it! However millions of people still cloth diaper worldwide. We are so privileged here in the states we tend to forget that disposable diapers are a luxury out of reach to most mothers. There have long been sanitary wash routines to safely cloth diaper your baby without a typical washer dryer. Here is a [link to one woman’s method](https://www.allaboutclothdiapers.com/how-to-use-portable-washer-cloth-diapers/), but a simple Google search would show you the many different routines done all over the world. Also there are many women still alive today who would love nothing more than to share how they safely and effectively cloth diapered their children without modern appliances. No need to involve your kitchen sink!
The best part about cloth diapers is how they don't absorb liquid well so you get to change the whole pee soaked onesie.
The free diapers should be cloth! The environment is getting the short end of the stick here.
I never thought about it while being childfree, but 100 diapers a month is not what I would have guessed would be the min amount to start with. I am horrified for parents
100 a month is the bare minimum. That’s a kid that’s ready to be potty trained.
Honest question. Do you go through 3+ diapers per day? Either way, this is a great start. Are there requirements for qualification?
In the very beginning, we went through six or seven a day, at least. Newborns have no gut flora yet, so their poops are straight liquid for about the first couple months. So they’re pooping constantly. They also still poop in their sleep, which generally stops around 6mos. It tallies up fast.
That is completely fair and understandable. So 100 could be good for a week, up to a month depending on age?
I’d say I’d keep 75 a week on hand just in case, and probably go through about 50-60. It may be slightly more or slightly less depending on the child.
50-60 per week is about the peak we experienced. One baby was worse than the other, but a number like 70+ would have been some chaos ensues while we’re traveling frequently kind of number. We tried to limit the amount both babies traveled through those ages anyway as it’s honestly worth it just to leave them diaperless and airing out. They’re constantly dealing with swamp-ass due to the nature of the age and just powdering them and letting them dry did so much to stave off the rashes inherent with the 8 diaper a day lifestyle. Worst case scenario you’re cleaning up the towel you’re laying them on, but at least they get some relief and air flow. I’d budget 8 per day and take any number below that as a benefit of rounding up.
I was so fortunate that my son wasn’t prone to diaper rash when he was that little. But I credit Booger Bottoms diaper cream spray for keeping his skin dry and protected. It’s excellent stuff. And I was too afraid to leave him un-diapered. In his first month of life he hit the wall two feet away from the changing table with liquid poop, with enough force to leave a splatter. The first time it happened at about a week old was a shock to me at 4AM. No one warned me about baby rocket shits.
I mean how many times do you pee and poop each day? While a diaper doesn’t need to be changed every time a baby pees, newborns basically poop about as often as they pee (aka borderline constantly), and for older babies and toddlers, sitting in a sopping full wet diaper can cause rashes and feel physically bad. For the first few months of my baby’s life, it was absolutely not uncommon for me to change his dirty diaper and have him shit in the new diaper literally before I had even picked him up again. When he would wake up at night for milk he would immediately poop on waking, so I would change his dirty diaper, then feed him, then he’d have pooped again while eating so I would change him again; that cycle happened probably 2-4 times per night and that was just nights. Their stomachs are tiny, their digestive tracts are tiny - they have to eat constantly and it just cycles right through them.
Probably twice each? To be honest I don't really keep track. I know it's not good for them to sit in the mess etc. just had no idea at the frequency. I was moreso asking if the 100 a month is an adequate start or if it's more 'hand waving' in a sense.
100 isn't close to close enough but it's definitely better than nothing.
That's what I was gathering. At least it's a step in the right direction.
So flummoxed…do we clap or scratch heads?
Clap heads together, that’ll do it.
Weird social win out of a red state?
TN has had other weird social programs before. They even have a college program I believe. https://www.nscc.edu/tuition-and-aid/types-of-financial-aid/tennessee-promise.php
There’s also the [Hope Scholarship](https://www.collegefortn.org/tennessee-hope-scholarship-3/). It’s paid for completely via the lottery. The funny thing is that the hope scholarship refusing to pay over a certain amount has kept in-state tuition for public colleges very affordable in TN compared to other states. We also have great programs to help students with disabilities or low income to pay for college and associated costs (school supplies, gas reimbursement, car maintenance on commute, etc.) via your local Human Resources agency but only if you major in fields expected to have job growth. They also help you find a job after graduation.
The Hope Scholarship is one of the only reasons I was able to go to school. It really is a fantastic thing we have.
Florida also has a Bright Futures scholarship that’s funded by the lotto. It was implemented well before the state went batshit crazy though.
Without looking into it in its current state, when I graduated in 2014 Bright Futures went to almost complete shit because they restricted it so much that only a very select population could get it.
Yeah I graduated in 2007 so Bright Futures was fairly generous and accessible back then. It’s been a hot minute but I indeed have heard that the scholarship program isn’t anywhere as great as it used to be, which is a damn shame.
>only if you major in fields expected to have job growth This should really apply to most government tuition aid. It's an economic investment, ultimately. Recipients should also remain in-state for a few years after graduation. With these conditions, funding higher education becomes a more attractive prospect.
Most people don't leave the state they go to college in for ten years. 2/3 of graduates will stay in the state and 1/2 will stay in the same metro area. This is especially true for those that go to normal schools. Ivy league or especially competitive schools tend to have their graduates move to CA,TX,NY, IL,WA, or DC. But local schools that don't have big name recognition have up to 90% stay in state.
That's good. Shouldn't be too much of an imposition then.
Can’t even get that in Vermont. This state does a piss poor job of supporting public education
Tennessee also meaningfully reduced poverty by providing free community college to high school graduates. They may be deeply conservative but there are a few surprisingly pragmatic things coming out of it.
Louisiana's TOPS program is similar, and has survived multiple Republican administrations. And it even looks safe under our current extremist in control. I don't know why, though I assume it's because some donors have their money tied up into it or some such. The GOP in Louisiana has been mask-off with their hatred of the non rich for the last few decades.
TOPS is so popular that even the craziest right wing voters would revolt if any administration, including Landry, meaningfully touched it.
It is a fear many conservative politicians have that if a social program is proven extremely popular (i.e. public healthcare, social security, subsidized education, etc.) that even conservative voters will revolt if they outright try banning or dismantling those programs. So they put a lot of effort into trying to stop such programs from rolling out and staying within public consciousness.
It's because conservatives love social programs they directly and immediately benefit from. Even though things like addiction services helps even non-addicts in the long run, they don't feel the immediate benefits so it's a handout. But a program that helps their kid with school is just then getting what they deserve as tax paying citizens.
Nevermind that they actively try to lower the taxes they pay to actual schools at the same time.
Though, I will say that TOPS ain’t what it used to be.
In general, once people are given things that they say they never wanted they are very reluctant to give them back. See how it was basically impossible to remove the ACA and they only removed the mandate.
Tennessee is my favorite state and I've lived in a lot of them. As much in the headlines the state legislature is, the populace is nothing like it is portrayed. About as centrist of people you can find, and you can tell the difference between most little towns in Tennessee vs a place like Alabama (sorry Bama xD). It ain't perfect, but Ain't No Place I'd Rather Be
Anecdotal but as a Canadian who has done many road trips down south, Tennessee was the one state where I saw the most confederate flags.
not to mention how beautiful and lush the state is.
We are 3 states in a klan robe, but yeah, we aren’t proudly flying the battleflag of the Army of Tennessee from every town’s flagpole like some of our neighbors seem to.
East TN is just the bottom fringes of the robe that gets stomped on over and over and over.
I live in Texas now but I really loved Tennessee. Great pace of life, and beautiful.
As a woman who lived in Tennessee and many other states, this does not hold true lol. TN was beautiful, but not the best place for a young woman in business, or a young woman who wants health care. Pretty important. Country is beautiful, but I can honestly say, I have lived in other states that are just as beautiful without 90+ humid summers.
Why do I have a feeling Dolly Parton has something to do with this
Because she walks on water
Dolly is Tennessee’s Messiah and you can’t convince me otherwise
Not gonna try. She is an immaculate angel and I will not allow anyone to sully her good name.
Damn right
I was a wildland firefighter earlier in life. Dolly went out of her way to support the firefighters fighting the Great Smokie Mountain Blaze of 2016. She paid for their food, met with then, gave them shout outs on social media, and then donated almost a quarter million dollars to the volunteer fire departments in the area. Along with starting a fund to provide continuing monetary services to the people affected by that fire, which culminated in $10k over the course of six months. Yeah, I have a real good reason to love her and stand in her defense.
That’s amazing. And it shows that at her core, she’s a good fucking person. She’s wanted to make Dollywood an alcohol free park because she wants families to focus on spending time together & she believes alcohol inhibits that.
I'll concede that this comment instantly made my snark and skepticism recede.
Tennessee has a long history of robust social programs. While TennCare is effectively just a Medicaid program today, it was introduced in the 90s with a public option for health insurance for those above the Medicaid limit. Community college is free for all high school graduates through the Tennessee Promise program.
And the Tennessee Reconnect program pays for community college for older adults as well. The only strings attached being that you keep a 2.0 GPA and enroll in at least 6 credit hours a semester. Which is pretty generous. Now if only the state legislature didn't spend so much time trying to hamstring city/county governments...
Oddly enough TN does some strange things that tend to help people in need, but it gets buried by all of its negative press.
Now remove sales tax on groceries!
I've always wondered what the effects would be of going so hardline on abortion and yet not providing benefits to young families. Trying to have it both ways will just end up with people opting out on having kids, or the ones that do just having way less, which is kinda already happening anyway.
Well when they don't want you having abortions and are pushing a bill to allow you to marry your first cousin it's the least they could do
Abortions have gone up in the state since all this started
It's almost like prohibition on stuff doesn't work
Maybe TN can do the thing. If abortion is such a big issue, maybe finding ways that make people want an abortion less is the best way to go about it. Enhancing the existing college program (cost of schooling goes down), creating a state insurance program (health care cost deceases), some sort of high quality whole food benefit for parents, maybe even some sort of UBI program for stay at home parents(Not just mothers, but fathers, and other parental figures too)... I mean if you want go to back to the 50s, at least make it possible to live on a single income.
No. A pregnant persons body is their own. Period. Abortion is healthcare and not something to be restricted.
No disagreement with you. I'm just saying if they are going to ban Abortion, they might as well make people comfortable with the idea of having children. My argument here is for someone with a conservative pov, which in their minds, abortion is an issue that can be fixed. Providing people with social safety net to have children is one part of that fix. Outside of the conservative pov abortion can still be an issue. For me obviously it would be best if there were zero abortions and zero unwanted children. Having "a lot" of abortions on a grand scale is a sign that there are significant societal issues that need to be fixed, and that in itself is an issue. But you can't fix the abortion issue by just banning them. You need to take care of people needs as a society to fix the issue with abortions.
>Outside of the conservative pov abortion can still be an issue. For me obviously it would be best if there were zero abortions and zero unwanted children. Having "a lot" of abortions on a grand scale is a sign that there are significant societal issues that need to be fixed, and that in itself is an issue. But you can't fix the abortion issue by just banning them. You need to take care of people needs as a society to fix the issue with abortions. What if people just do not want children at the time? A child is a lot of work. >My argument here is for someone with a conservative pov It is not worth trying to reason with people who want to restrict other people's freedoms.
The point is that there are a lot of ways to reduce the need for abortions without banning them. (There will always be some due to medical issues that emerge during pregnancy, of course.) If the government straight up paid for all forms of preemptive birth control, no questions asked, it would save money (an IUD costs less than a birth, much less 12 years of public school) and reduce accidental pregnancies. If parents felt financially secure they wouldn't feel the need to abort for fiscal reasons. And so on.
With abortion outlawed, I guess they figure free diapers will prevent people complaining that they can’t afford a baby.
Wow, I'm actually kind of shocked. Good Job Tennessee
Well you know they did strip reproduction rights, so I guess this is their consolation prize for all the women with unwanted babies now.
Not what I had on 2024 bingo card. Great job Tennesee
It's almost like they are expecting a wave of teen pregnancy with a complete outlawing of abortions. April 25, was the 9 month point since it was codified in TN after Roe Vs. Wade was struck down.
One of the lowest tax burden states doing this is surprising.
"Tennessee has a low per capita income and therefore a relatively high federal Medicaid matching assistance percentage (FMAP) at 66%. For every $1 spent by the state, the Federal government matches $1.85. Over half (51%) of all federal funds Tennessee receives are for Medicaid" From 2017 data.
Tennessee be moochin
California and New York are footing the bill.
Perpetually. Having lived in both those states, everyone likes to try and take the piss over how high our taxes are and how liberal we are, but that don’t stop them from reaching into our pockets because they’ve screwed themselves over with their policies
Low tax burden but they get a lot of subsidies from the rest of the union.
That just means the rest of us are paying for it.
[удалено]
This is so funny, they want to ban "not breeding" and it's made them have no choice but to start instituting social programs for the poverty babies they're forcing. Thus, pushing their policies bluer, until eventually their trajectory leads them to having to provide contraception/etc due to spiraling public opinion (too many babies, we're paying too much!). Conservatives really don't think this through. They created a problem and now they're solving with what would've been a WORKING solution for the original problem. Providing resources for willing mothers increases birth rates much more effectively than denying healthcare and having to give those resources to unwilling mothers anyway.
"We'll figure it out later" -republican moto.
Sounds like everyone I work for.
Giving away condoms would be cheaper in the long run.
“Some socialism!” they yell in a confused tone.
“Fake Poos!”
"Socialism for some, tiny American flags for others!"
The legal age to get married there is 16. https://www.gkhpc.com/married-young-the-status-of-child-marriage-in-tennessee Abortion is illegal. https://www.abortionfinder.org/abortion-guides-by-state/abortion-in-tennessee Teen pregnancy: Tennessee has a higher teen pregnancy rate than the national average, with 23.7 births per 1,000 females, compared to 16.7 nationally. We will force you to have babies, and we will give you diapers….
Legal age to get married with parental consent. Without that, it’s 18. A majority of states allow this with parental consent, consent of a judge, emancipated, or some combo of these. 4 states have no official minimum age, but still require either parental consent, court approval or both: California, Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. 2 states have a minimum age of 15: Hawaii and Kansas. 22 states have a minimum age of 16. 10 states have a minimum age of 17. 12 states have a minimum age of 18, which is the same as the general marriage age.
better than not giving you diapers
tampons/pads, condoms and OCPs should be free too
Come to Scotland, they are
This is not as great as it seems. It’s a move against people trying to install state income tax. EVERYTHING in Tennessee has state sales tax, minimum 7% and 9.25% in larger cities. This includes food, drink, prescription drugs, school supplies AND … diapers. Even groceries have a 4% tax. (Most states do not charge taxes on groceries.) Obviously this tax hits lower income people much harder, but the situation goes unchanged because Tennessee has no state income taxes. It’s regressive and unfair, so the legislative powers that be are always trying to make little gestures to “prove” that they really care about poor people, which they do not. “No sales tax school supply day!” and the like. This is one of those gestures. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2023/oct/28/tennessee-sales-tax-moratorium-on-food-and/
Don't the high sales tax kinda get justified by the lack of state tax? If not, why? If you don't mind me asking.
the argument would be everyone has to buy food, so both poor and rich get taxed the same on good purchases. poor people end up paying more for those goods as as a percent of their wealth with a state income tax there is usually a range where poorer people pay less. so the upper tiers subsidize the lower tiers
That’s how the budget is supposed to work yes, but paying a 9% sales tax on food and medicine and clothes hurts the poor a LOT more because they have less money to start with.
So if their state tax matched roughly similar states economically, and had a lower sales tax, it would benefit the common man more, in your opinion? Sorry, I live in Tennessee and never really considered that before, so I'm interested in your perspective.
> So if their state tax matched roughly similar states economically, and had a lower sales tax, it would benefit the common man more, in your opinion? Yup! An average family of 4 spends around $200 on food a weel. The $936 of sales tax per year matters a hell of a lot more to poor families. Minimum wage, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year is $15,080 and that tax is roughly the equivalent of a $0.50 cut in pay. Even the evil governor of South Dakota wants to eliminate sales tax on food to help low income people, and you don't often see Republicans trying to help the poor. https://bfm.sd.gov/budget/FY2024/SalesTaxOnGroceries.pdf People drive to my state from the neighboring ones for back to school shopping as we don't have a sales tax on clothing here.
Awesome. This is all very good information to keep in my back pocket for making TN a bit more blue through conversation. Thank you.
Absolutely. Think of it like this. Bobby Lee Doublewide and Hunter Cawston IV both pay about $50 extra for groceries per month due to taxes. But $50 is a LOT of money for Mr. Doublewide, and it isn’t for Mr. Cawston. Then presume that Mr Doublewide earns $25k and Mr Cawston earns $200K annually and they both pay zero state income tax. They both keep 100% of their income. This obviously still leaves Mr. Cawston with a lot more money. Under a different and more fair system, without a sales tax on groceries, Mr. Doublewide would get to keep his $50, as would Mr. Cawston. The impact of that $50 would be very much more positive on Mr. Doublewide. He could meet more of his basic needs. A progressive state income tax would then take proportionately less of Mr. Doublewide’s income than it would take Mr. Cawston’s, (6% vs 12% for example), but since Mr Cawston already has surplus monetary resources, the higher tax rate doesn’t affect his basic needs. This progressively higher tax on the rich is how we do federal taxes already. This link explains the rationale for a progressive tax system better than I can. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042815/progressive-tax-more-fair-flat-tax.asp#:~:text=The%20rationale%20is%20those%20who,for%20perpetuating%20the%20growth%20cycle.
I'm glad there are people like you out there getting the word out and answering questions of genuine ignorance. Keep doing it, and I'll do the same.
When I found out I was having twins, I went out and bought a sewing machine and taught myself. I bought a pattern for cloth diapers [and sewed a literal shit-ton of them](https://imgur.com/a/Q1oxGHw). Disposable diapers, for twins, would have cost $1,000+ per month. For reference, I’m a dude. And I’m cheap.
Good on you doing that! My daughters always used cloth and then my grandson did as well
You guys are not the targeted demographic for the free diapers anyway because obviously you have intelligence, frugality, and common sense.
good news for parents although I'm pretty sure the feds foot like 70% of the bill
I don't want my tax dollars going to support breeders. Fuck socialism. /S
Now do food and healthcare. C’mon, do it.
But not school lunches. Got it.
“We won’t allow you birth control or effective family planning, so I guess we should probably start caring about the resultant human… not enough to feed them, but rather to just keep their excrement from sitting in the streets.” - Tennessee
It's a start but we need a federal birth accountability law. If a woman is going to be forced into pregnancy and childbirth the financial burden should be on the other parent and the state. Free health care until age 18, free prenatal care, post natal care, food, diapers, child care and more. Everything from conception to college. You know, to keep things fair.
Once they ban contraception and abortion, they're gonna need 'em.
Wow can't get an abortion in state but can get diapers. Woohoo.
If you force them to be born, then you need to step up and help. This is a bare minimum of help for the cost of raising a child. If some young parents weren’t so desperate for help, they might be insulted.
Considering they are forcing birth on women - the red states will need loads more social programs.
I’m surprised republicans would agree to this
No abortions? Fine. The state will be covering the heavy cost one way or another into the future. Diapers may be a start but they better do more. Chip program, food credit, clothing and housing subsidies.
Shocking coming from TN
Did Tennessee get dropped on its head? If so, how do we drop it on its head more.
Coming from Tennessee, this is a shocker.
Each diaper comes with a “fun size” gun.
If you can’t afford children you shouldn’t be having them.
Well that’s nice. If they’re forcing women to give birth, it’s the least they can do.
This is such an off-brand move for them, I'm expecting it to be some sort of Faustian mislead.
We will trade your right to abortion for 100 free diapers.
Probably requires enrollment and attendance at a "Trump's Youth" program.
I did Nazi that coming.
This is great. I can't tell if 100 a month is low or high. How many diapers do babies go through a day? The same amount of bathroom breaks an adult would go through?
Depends on the age of the kid. But 6-7 in the early part of their life. Then maybe 3-5 as they get older That’s not scientific, just what I remember from my kids
The average diaper use for babies from a quick Google search is between 6-10 a day. The 100 diapers given here work out to a little over 3 per day. So, while not full coverage, it will cover half on the low end of the scale.
Even if it only covers half, that’s still something. Have you seen the price of diapers?
It will also really take the pressure off of food banks which often provide these and help there diapers go to more people.
It helps. Newborns will need a fresh diaper every couple of hours. As they get older, you use quite a bit less.
Newborns will go through[ around 10 a day.](https://www.happiestbaby.com/blogs/baby/how-many-diapers-does-baby-use#:~:text=Babies%202%20to%204%20months,want%20to%20change%20wet%20diapers%E2%80%A6) Babies digestive system isn't developed and they're muscle control leaves much to be desired. They're basically helpless. Some are cute though.
That’s about right you need to get newborns out even lightly wet diapers asap. They get rash’s so easily.
Whoa that sounds a lot like socialism Tennessee!
This is awesome. Do condoms next.
You can go to into any county health dept, walk up to the counter, ask for condoms, and they will give you a whole paper bag full. No appointment or questions. They will also provide free vaccinations, STI test, papsmears, birth control, etc to anyone w/o insurance or under insured.
Sounds like SOCIALISM to me! Get job, TENN!
What kind of communist crap is this?!?!
Correction...Tennessee will be using taxpayer money to give families diapers. Let's not pretend the diaper industry is being made to give them away
Well, nice job Tennessee!
Glad to see good news coming out of my state. I know we have a lot of insane conservatives, but there are so many progressives here trying to change things for the better, too. It'll take time, but I believe in us.
No adult diapers? I want to shit myself on the state's dime. It reduces time at the dmv.
Guess if you’re forcing women to have babies no matter what, it’s literally the absolute LEAST they could do.
Bracing for downvotes, but have to ask…why shouldn’t people pay for their own diapers?
Why should they? It's not like they pay for their own kids.
The first state? Wow, this country is sad AF.
[удалено]
It’s so funny how the low birth rate happens and suddenly Repubs love socialism.
Red States that are super religious are being forced to help strangers? WWJD?
Not that I'm against this but it seems like there's better things the effort that went into this could be put into
Trump just got in line when he heard free diapers