Howya Mary. I see the nephew took the medical card off you

[ChairmanMiah]

We are meant to live in a republic but universal benefits and the right to them seems to have gone by the board


http://www.fiannafail.ie/images/portraits/60.jpg


Discuss ...

[Actin The Sham]

We are meant to live in a republic but universal benefits and the right to them seems to have gone by the board


Discuss ...

I thought a republic meant democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent with an elected President as head of state rather than a hereditary monarch.

Universal Benefits have nothing to do with the status of the country, vis-a-vis Dictatorship, Monarchy, Principality, or Republic.




Universal benefits are a result of government policy rather than the type of country one lives in. The US is a Republic, and China calls itself "The Peoples Republic Of China."

Both are at extremely opposite sides of the political spectrum.

[ChairmanMiah]

I thought a republic meant democracy: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent with an elected President as head of state rather than a hereditary monarch.

Universal Benefits have nothing to do with the status of the country, vis-a-vis Dictatorship, Monarchy, Principality, or Republic.

Universal benefits are a result of government policy rather than the type of country one lives in ...

I hear ya but was using the term "republic" in a looser sense. You see, we have defined republicanism/republic in this country in a very specific way. For example, when the first Dáil assembled, apart from the Declaration of Indpendence, they passed the Democratic Programme, an oft forgotten document, which stated:

We affirm the duty of every man and woman to give allegiance and service to the Commonwealth, and declare it is the duty of the Nation to assure that every citizen shall have opportunity to spend his or her strength and faculties in the service of the people. In return for willing service, we, in the name of the Republic, declare the right of every citizen to an adequate share of the produce of the Nation's labour.

It shall be the first duty of the Government of the Republic to make provision for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the children, to secure that no child shall suffer hunger or cold from lack of food, clothing, or shelter, but that all shall be provided with the means and facilities requisite for their proper education and training as Citizens of a Free and Gaelic Ireland.

The Irish Republic fully realises the necessity of abolishing the present odious, degrading and foreign Poor Law System, substituting therefor a sympathetic native scheme for the care of the Nation's aged and infirm, who shall not be regarded as a burden, but rather entitled to the Nation's gratitude and consideration. Likewise it shall be the duty of the Republic to take such measures as will safeguard the health of the people and ensure the physical as well as the moral well-being of the Nation.

So universal benefits have been intertwined in our definition of republic/republicanism
Hence the FFers love calling themselves The Republican Party ...

[Lamps]

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "Universal Benefits".

Should health actually be one? I'm not so sure.

A millionaires kids get the same free primary education the same as some skint family's. At the same time, the primary schools are forced to fundraise to get things like computers, rattraps and roofs fixed.

It comes down to this govt having no bollocks

[ChairmanMiah]

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "Universal Benefits".

Should health actually be one? I'm not so sure.

A millionaires kids get the same free primary education the same as some skint family's. At the same time, the primary schools are forced to fundraise to get things like computers, rattraps and roofs fixed.

It comes down to this govt having no bollocks

Seriously when was the last time you saw/heard of a millionaire's kids going to the same school as some skint family's ... ;)

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/468xAny/k/u/h/Getty_Eton_ready.jpg

[Lamps]

Seriously when was the last time you saw/heard of a millionaire's kids going to the same school as some skint family's ... ;)

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/Pictures/468xAny/k/u/h/Getty_Eton_ready.jpg

I'm talking about primary school education

[Professor Piehead]

I suppose it all depends on what you mean by "Universal Benefits".

Should health actually be one? I'm not so sure.

A millionaires kids get the same free primary education the same as some skint family's. At the same time, the primary schools are forced to fundraise to get things like computers, rattraps and roofs fixed.

It comes down to this govt having no bollocks

I've thought about that to. Yes, I think it should. The over 70's who can afford to pay for their health care, have, in the vast majority of cases, worked hard all their lives. They've paid a lot more into the system than the feckless, lazy and stupid. Why, after paying out a large portion of their earnings (remember what the rates used to be) should they not get their health care provided for them?

Isn't it the least that should be done for those that dragged the country from it's belly to it's knees?

[Lamps]

I've thought about that to. Yes, I think it should. The over 70's who can afford to pay for their health care, have, in the vast majority of cases, worked hard all their lives. They've paid a lot more into the system than the feckless, lazy and stupid. Why, after paying out a large portion of their earnings (remember what the rates used to be) should they not get their health care provided for them?

Isn't it the least that should be done for those that dragged the country from it's belly to it's knees?

I've pretty much come to the same conclusion myself.

Its seems like a success penalty. In the grand scheme of things its not costing that much either. The govt use examples like Tony O Reilly as an example, but thats only spin. They are trying to squeeze the genuine lad who's got a second pension and maybe owns his own house.

[Professor Piehead]

I've pretty much come to the same conclusion myself.

Its seems like a success penalty. In the grand scheme of things its not costing that much either. The govt use examples like Tony O Reilly as an example, but thats only spin. They are trying to squeeze the genuine lad who's got a second pension and maybe owns his own house.

Bingo. An extra percentage on those earning over 200K, or something like that would have done the trick.

Instead, the baboons in government went for a balance the books, easy-peasy budget, no thought involved, no tackling the real problem of a bloated public sector, keep our paymasters happy at the expense of the people who can least afford it, that's all they did. Disgusting really.

[ChairmanMiah]

Bingo. An extra percentage on those earning over 200K, or something like that would have done the trick.

Instead, the baboons in government went for a balance the books, easy-peasy budget, no thought involved, no tackling the real problem of a bloated public sector, keep our paymasters happy at the expense of the people who can least afford it, that's all they did. Disgusting really.

Ah jaysus ... Baboons ... that's a bit harsh ... on Baboons

[Langer Dan]

Ah jaysus ... Baboons ... that's a bit harsh ... on Baboons


I know, a baboon would have delivered a far more structured and well thought out budget than the two fatheads...

We've to tighten our belts , I wonder could Lenihan and Cowen actually find a belt to accomodate their enormous girth.

[Some user]

I was against universal medical cards until I heard a woman on the radio last week saying that she and her husband worked hard all their lives, put money away for a pension, didn't drink or smoke and went on very few holidays. Meanwhile some of her neighbours were off on holidays or down the pub spending mad. Theyve got little income now but theyd get the medical card and she wouldnt as they were just over the threshold. She had a point and as somebody mentioned above it would penalise success.

I absolutely deplore the Tony O'Reilly argument. People like him make up a miniscule percentage of the population and is only used by Fianna Fáil to make their now crumbling argument more popular. As Eamon Gilmore said on Q&A last night the Tony O'Reilly's of this world should be dealt with by the tax system and not by the health system.

[Rebelred]

I know, a baboon would have delivered a far more structured and well thought out budget than the two fatheads...

We've to tighten our belts , I wonder could Lenihan and Cowen actually find a belt to accomodate their enormous girth.

Don't forget Dan, this budget is a patriotic call to action!

[tedobrien]

Bingo. An extra percentage on those earning over 200K, or something like that would have done the trick.

Instead, the baboons in government went for a balance the books, easy-peasy budget, no thought involved, no tackling the real problem of a bloated public sector, keep our paymasters happy at the expense of the people who can least afford it, that's all they did. Disgusting really.

I've heard this or a similar argument too many times in the past week.

What people don't seem to realise is that the projected government deficit next year is absolutely huge - 6% of GDP versus our stability pact limit/guideline of 3%.
This huge gap will not even begin to be bridged by any of the following usual suspects:
- levies on the banks (which might well drive down their share prices, make them insolvent and require the government to bail them out at huge cost)
- higher tax rates for the super-rich/ fat-cats/ whatever emotive term you're having yourself
- ending tax-exile status (almost impossible to practically do)
- cutting ministers' and TDs' salaries, expenses and state cars
- getting rid of all the state regulatory agencies

The reality is that 77% of current government spending goes on Social Welfare, Health and Education, so to argue that such a huge deficit can be reduced without cutbacks in all of these areas is unrealistic.

It seems to me that the over 70 medical card decision was based on a cost/benefit analysis - the costs were huge because of the greedy IMO 'Gold-card' deal, and the benefits were debatable, as there were clearly well-off people now using a system that was designed to cater for those in most economic need e.g. low-income families where parents were unable to afford doctors' fees for their children.

Also, can someone explain to me why a well-off 70 year-old has the 'right' to a medical card when a well-off 68 year-old doesn't? The introduction of the card was arbitrary and was based on no research or assessment of need, other than the need for Bertie to get re-elected at the time.

What we should really all be marching on the Dail about is your other point - the civil service and public sector have remained largely untouched in the budget, when this was the one area where savings could have been made with only a minor impact on overall services. Given the dire economic forecasts, if this isn't seriously tackled in the short temr, there's a lot worse to come further down the tracks.