If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Health In Pregnancy Grants
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6984122.stm
So where exactly is the money going to come from? What about before 29 weeks? Also, how is the Government meant to monitor whether or not the money is being spend on healthy food and not crap?
So where exactly is the money going to come from? What about before 29 weeks? Also, how is the Government meant to monitor whether or not the money is being spend on healthy food and not crap?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
ETA the spending could be restricted and monitored the same way milk is freely available to pregnant women and young children at the moment- by way of vouchers you can exchange at almost any shop up to a certain value in return for whatever the voucher is stamped as being for.
I could see it working. If the vouchers were stamped so that they correspond to the government's advised 5 a day to include a mix of citrus/antioxident/blah blah blah foods, supermarkets/shops could respond by creating packages with a couple of each of the seasonal fruit and veg and a bag of frozen/tinned veg- the market would be there and guaranteed, I mean who's going to let their vouchers sit in a draw when they can be getting great free food with them? Also, if you try and enjoy these foods in childhood, they will become a natural part of your food desires into adulthood. Parents feed their kids chips because they're cheap, quick easy, tasty, and what they know. The government could put some money where its mouth is over food guidlines and ensure that the next generation finds healthy food just as cheap, easy and tasty as chips are now.
I'm sure I'm being a bit romantic in how I see this working. I do think it's exciting though.
The idea in itself isn't all bad and it sounds like Katralla would do a far better job of coming up with a system that would have far greater long term effects than a one of cash system.
If we're really worried about where the money is coming from then could always cut child benefit slightly and make up the different with fruit/veg vouchers. Would guarentee that the child benefit was being spent on something to benefit the child!
Whatever though, id still sign up for a free £200
No no no, cutting child benefit would hit the poorest hardest, and make a significant loss of income to those on or below the breadline- who are also those most likely to be less well nourished and for whom the grant is targeted.
Maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough.
Not cut the overall total of child benefit, but to replace some of the money with equivalent vouchers for fruit/veg.
Like you've said, the ones who are tighest for money are the ones who are most often mal nourished and by giving it in voucher form it ensures that it's spent on something beneficial to the child/familys long term health
Which is why I'm against it. It would be better (like others have said) if vouchers were given out instead.
As would most people I expect.
There isn't any law or legislation that states the money must be spent on the child. It's up the individual to spend the money how they see fit. It's a common misconception that if someone spends the money on drugs/cigs/alcohol/clothes for themself that they're committing some kind of fraud.
Personally I think that anyone who wants to eat well when they're pregnant will do so regardless of this incentive.
I can understand and even agree with the reasoning behind this incentive but it will cost a fortune to implement, control and 'police'. It will be time consuming for those who have to administer it (at the moment the plan is that the Child Benefit Office would do this, and we have enough to do, despite only being a small benefit!) as well as for midwives who already complain (and rightly so!) at having to give out things such as Bounty Packs
I'm with Scary Monster on this one, if the govt. wants to implement something like this then it should be done in vouchers.
(Even if the child doesn't eat it all, having the stuff in the house is a good start!)
Could be sent out with the milk vouchers.
Now hands up who thinks we'd do a better job than the government!?
:thumb: I think they need to ask real people what their opinions are tbh. They're all for trying to do something to help, but this plan isn't well thought out at all!
I think it is pretty safe to say that the majority of pregnant women make the welfare of their unborn child and their own health a priority. Yes, a minority may smoke and drink but most take on board all the advice out there.
The plans have a good sentiment, but seem unworkable and very expensive. Also, if they want people to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, surely a bit of money every week would be more helpful. Unless they expect women to bulk buy frozen veg?
I agree. I'm no biology expert, but I'd guess that the time when most damage is done is the time when the baby is developing the most.
I agree with the sentiment, but we all know what this money's going to get spent on (not booze or fags), and it's not food. A £200 lump sum will go straight on prams, cots, and various other expensive things that a lot of people struggle to afford new. Not bad in itself, but not what the money's intended for.
The other main flaw is that people don't buy crap food because it's cheaper, they buy it because you can just shove it in the oven and come back in 20 minutes when it's cooked. And I don't think the late stages of pregnancy is exactly the time that most women will feel like starting cooking from scratch instead.
In some instances maybe. Does that mean that we shouldn't help anyone - including the non-smoking, teetotal, non-bingo players?
Don't we have a responsibility to give future generations a helpful start in life, or should we just ditch them now?
Indeed.
:yes:
:rolleyes: Not every pregnant woman is like that.
Which is why I agree with various peoples' suggestions of vouchers instead.
I think it's an excellent idea, and even though it may be spent on other things, I don't think that's the point. My name's Jesus Christ if all the DLA money people get is spent on care and mobility needs, for instance.
It doesn't work like that, of course it doesn't, but the principle is the same. I'm all in favour of a £200 grant to all new mothers, it would go some way to redressing the frankly awful maternity pay provisions in the UK.
Don't disagree with that, but I think that a £200 lump sum at 29 weeks isn't the best way to achieve what they claim to want to achieve. Fair enough if they said that it was to pay for initial costs of having a baby, but they didn't. All they need to do now is sort out the ridiculous cost of childcare.
I was under the impression that DLA is paid because a person fits certain criteria in their care needs, not in order to pay for those care needs.
http://www.bhas.org.uk/dla/index.shtml
So basically you're both right, it is to help with care etc costs, but you don't have to spend it on that.
Doesn't that depend what you class as 'care' though? And I'm sure quite a few people only get DLA (well, my brother does) and that's it, so I guess they don't have that much of a choice but to spend it on other stuff as well.
It is possible to get child care vouchers of some sort I think. And the cost isn't that 'ridiculous' when you think of all the stuff the staff have to do.
That's funny, because my sister works in child care, and she's never been rewarded especially well for all the stuff she has to do. You'd think she would be if high wages were the issue.
People on low incomes can get their childcare costs back if they're working, through the working tax credit system, providing they use a registered provider. So no further payment is needed for that.
If someone is only receiving DLA then either they're working, or they're not claiming everything they should be. DLA is not means-tested in any way, it's assessed according to disability. This is because the money is supposed to pay for the extra care and mobility needs that disabled people have, its not supposed to be a form of income.