The post you are reporting:
Facebook?!
If this is now a conduit for our democratic expression, then I think that we are on a worrying trajectory: #lazypolitics
'Insurance' - is this all politicians can offer in response to any 'burden' on the state. So by taking the cost away from the state, it can then be wasted elsewhere, such enforcing such schemes are being provided. How good any insurance is, is based purely on one thing, how good your cover is. And how good your cover is, is once again largely dependent on how much you can afford. So in the same way as the proposals the more affluent can command more provision. Remember everyone: people with money are much better.
I remember as a kid, being told what the Sun fire insurance plaques signified and being horrified. The way things are going, Conservative 'insurance' is going to take us back in time once more. Perhaps we could apply these principles to the army or the police.
"Sorry Sir, we're not going to prosecute the man who burgled your house because your 'police insurance' doesn't cover it.
I strongly believe that having children is a massive decision that should not be taken lightly and finance has to be a part of this. That being said, money is not the key factor - we only have to look at celebrity culture (who require no maternity/paternity rights) to see poor parenting.
Having children is a wonderful thing, giving people hope and so much joy. It is a part of what drives many people, as a part of being human. People don't have a baby to bunk off work and get paid as Keith would suggest - I think it very telling that he also views it as sickness!
Once again this is a policy that promotes 'survival of the richest' not the fittest.
How should we decide who is fit to have children and suitably support them?
Perhaps prospective parents could take a test...on Facebook?