> I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security.
I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support.
It would seem to make more sense to change this law as part of implementing that other law, if and when support for that could be built.
Otherwise, its kind of like abolishing a hypothetical law mandating certain minimum decency standards for owners treating slaves on the basis that slavery shouldn't exist in the first place without actually abolishing slavery.
I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support.
It would seem to make more sense to change this law as part of implementing that other law, if and when support for that could be built.
Otherwise, its kind of like abolishing a hypothetical law mandating certain minimum decency standards for owners treating slaves on the basis that slavery shouldn't exist in the first place without actually abolishing slavery.