More universal benefits

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Betsy Og

Registered User
Messages
447
sigh, I thought we were going away from that whole area on the basis that it costs too much and leads to a) excess demand & b) higher taxes somewhere along the line.

I'm all for helping those who cannot afford it, or for kids with serious conditions, but what's the betting every little Sarah & Conor will clog up the waiting rooms with sniffles.

Are the twin principles of 'give only to those in genuine need' and 'dont unnecessarily increase the burden on working people' that abhorrent that we seem to run from them the whole time. Like the way that pensioners, even if they are rolling in cash, must be given every free benefit going.

Taxes are severe, why are we racking up more future headaches!!??

As someone would has voted FG I think this is a bit of a cheap electioneering scam. Maybe its a necessity to help out Labour but overall I think its the wrong way to go. Of course the administration that reverses it will be accused of literally taking the lolipop out of kids mouths.

Have we learned anything at all you wonder...................
 
Betsy Og said:
sigh, I thought we were going away from that whole area on the basis that it costs too much and leads to a) excess demand & b) higher taxes somewhere along the line.

I'm all for helping those who cannot afford it, or for kids with serious conditions, but what's the betting every little Sarah & Conor will clog up the waiting rooms with sniffles.

Are the twin principles of 'give only to those in genuine need' and 'dont unnecessarily increase the burden on working people' that abhorrent that we seem to run from them the whole time. Like the way that pensioners, even if they are rolling in cash, must be given every free benefit going.

Taxes are severe, why are we racking up more future headaches!!??

As someone would has voted FG I think this is a bit of a cheap electioneering scam. Maybe its a necessity to help out Labour but overall I think its the wrong way to go. Of course the administration that reverses it will be accused of literally taking the lolipop out of kids mouths.

Have we learned anything at all you wonder...................
Click to expand...

I have come to the conclusion that most budget decisions are made to best serve our elected elite rather than those that elected them.
 
Betsy Og said:
sigh, I thought we were going away from that whole area on the basis that it costs too much and leads to a) excess demand & b) higher taxes somewhere along the line.

I'm all for helping those who cannot afford it, or for kids with serious conditions, but what's the betting every little Sarah & Conor will clog up the waiting rooms with sniffles.

Are the twin principles of 'give only to those in genuine need' and 'dont unnecessarily increase the burden on working people' that abhorrent that we seem to run from them the whole time. Like the way that pensioners, even if they are rolling in cash, must be given every free benefit going.

Taxes are severe, why are we racking up more future headaches!!??

As someone would has voted FG I think this is a bit of a cheap electioneering scam. Maybe its a necessity to help out Labour but overall I think its the wrong way to go. Of course the administration that reverses it will be accused of literally taking the lolipop out of kids mouths.

Have we learned anything at all you wonder...................
Click to expand...

I agree completely; universal benefits are a bad idea.

As if the idea wasn't bad enough the government have announced that they are doing it before they have negotiated the costs with the GP's. That's like going into a car dealership, walking up the salesperson, and saying "I'm going to buy that car, there's no way I'm leaving here without it." ... "Now, how much will you charge me for it?"
 
Purple said:
As if the idea wasn't bad enough the government have announced that they are doing it before they have negotiated the costs with the GP's.
Click to expand...

How else do you expect the government to be able to say in 18 months time, "we are cutting the cost of payments to GPs thus saving millions (while getting us re-elected in the process)"
 
It's a strange one alright. I might have been otherwise enaged; however before last week I had not even heard of the need for this.

I agree with Betsy Og though. I can see toddlers filling the limited available space in the GP surgery from now on.

And all this when the health budget is a couple of hundred million in the red.
 
As a mother of a 3 year old, I can tell you I only go to the GP if I need too, I would never take the health of my child lightly. Mothers start to know their own kids and are v. good judges of when its time to visit GP.


The idea of sitting in my GPs - if I know my child is not "ill" would not interest me at all. THE WAIT - is horrendous. I would not be willing to do that for nothing.
 
sulo said:
As a mother of a 3 year old, I can tell you I only go to the GP if I need too, I would never take the health of my child lightly. Mothers start to know their own kids and are v. good judges of when its time to visit GP.


The idea of sitting in my GPs - if I know my child is not "ill" would not interest me at all. THE WAIT - is horrendous. I would not be willing to do that for nothing.
Click to expand...

As a father of 4 kids, including a 4 year old, I disagree. Many parents (children don't just have mothers you know) are very over-protective and bring their children to the GP for minor issues. Many get aggressive when the GP won't give them an antibiotic for a viral infection. This is a really stupid idea which will cost the state much more than planned and will take resources away from those who really need them.
 
Betsy Og said:
sigh, I thought we were going away from that whole area on the basis that it costs too much and leads to a) excess demand & b) higher taxes somewhere along the line.

I'm all for helping those who cannot afford it, or for kids with serious conditions, but what's the betting every little Sarah & Conor will clog up the waiting rooms with sniffles.

Are the twin principles of 'give only to those in genuine need' and 'dont unnecessarily increase the burden on working people' that abhorrent that we seem to run from them the whole time. Like the way that pensioners, even if they are rolling in cash, must be given every free benefit going.

Taxes are severe, why are we racking up more future headaches!!??

As someone would has voted FG I think this is a bit of a cheap electioneering scam. Maybe its a necessity to help out Labour but overall I think its the wrong way to go. Of course the administration that reverses it will be accused of literally taking the lolipop out of kids mouths.

Have we learned anything at all you wonder...................
Click to expand...


Agree. As it stands if you are unemployed or on low income you already have the Medical card or the GP card. If you are earning a good salary then do you really need this - I am all for helping those who need it, but at what expense?

Universal payments are a lazy way of dealing with real issues, they don't even appear to have costed this or informed Doctors.

Expensive political stunt in my opinion.
 
commonsense said:
Agree. As it stands if you are unemployed or on low income you already have the Medical card or the GP card. If you are earning a good salary then do you really need this - I am all for helping those who need it, but at what expense?

Universal payments are a lazy way of dealing with real issues, they don't even appear to have costed this or informed Doctors.

Expensive political stunt in my opinion.
Click to expand...

With Labour at 6% they had to do something!
 
Purple said:
With Labour at 6% they had to do something!
Click to expand...

I was actually going to say that this seemed like a desperate last minute "sweetie" for Labour. It will be seen for what it is though.

Giving "free" healthcare to a group that are "probably" the healthiest group while taking away from those in need is shameful.
 
I can forsee a raft of children suffering from serious conditions facing a massive drop in care as their GP card will run out after their 5th birthday.

This card should be a serious illness card, not an age related one.
 
This universal medical card for 5 and under is something that is just plain wrong. A medical card should follow an illness, be for someone who HAS to go to the doctor lots due to serious bad health. This turns me off Fianna Gael and I think it's a stunt of some sort. It reminds me of when FF gave out the money ( can't rem how much) to under 5's---that was a bad idea and so is this.
 
Guinea pig said:
I can forsee a raft of children suffering from serious conditions facing a massive drop in care as their GP card will run out after their 5th birthday.

This card should be a serious illness card, not an age related one.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It'S lazy lawmaking and makes little to no sense.

I have 2 children one with an illness. The one without an illness is two and a half and has never been to the doctor but is now eligible, his sibling is less fortunate and at 7 we will still be forking out for his GP visits as always.
 
Agree. My husband suffers from a serious heart conditon which requires at least a monthly trip to doc for bloods and the maximum in medicines. Up to this year he has gotten a medical card on needs grounds although we are outside the income threshold. This year we still do not know what is happening. It has been extended a month at a time.

Knowing my husband he would neglect his health if our budget was stretched to pay this extra €200 a month approx in healthcare costs if he loses the card. My kids and I rarely need to attend the doctor on the other hand and so do not mind we do not have a card as would only need to pay out on an ad-hoc basis.
 
Guinea pig said:
I can forsee a raft of children suffering from serious conditions facing a massive drop in care as their GP card will run out after their 5th birthday.

This card should be a serious illness card, not an age related one.
Click to expand...


This was how it was supposed to be. I've heard some nonsense that this was deemed undoable for legal or constitutional reasons so they applied the measure to children under 5.
 
commonsense said:
Giving "free" healthcare to a group that are "probably" the healthiest group while taking away from those in need is shameful.
Click to expand...

Young children tend to get all sorts of bugs as they build up their immune system. Usually when they come to age 5 they don't think to get sick as often than when they were babies and toddlers. In the UK where there is a national health service free at the point of contact I don't see a notable amount of school going children clogging up the GP surgeries, lots of babies and toddlers but not older children.
 
to purple etc;

Suggest be careful when you deride universal benefits.
eg;
1. National Schooling.
2. Hospital Care.

In any Society it is a good thing to have some Universal Rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top