Any 'good' public school will be full long before they get to the 'all other children' category. There are already good public schools in Dublin where parents queue (sometimes for days!) to get their child in if they are from outside the catchment area.
And the problem with making people pay the full economic cost is?
Here's how far we go. The State should provide a decent quality education, health service, etc. If that State service isn't good enough for you, then you are very welcome to provide your own service at the full economic cost. It doesn't stop anyone from buying the better service. It just means they have to pay for that service.
This is a very dangerous road to go down. Surely the roofer should have had proper safety provisions in place, so he shouldn't get anything. And any smoker who gets ill, they shouldn't get anything. And anyone who is a bit overweight or whose BMI is over 26, they shouldn't get anything. If you want to start playing the blame game, where does it stop?
What kind of protection are you expecting?
It's not about begrudgery. It really is an accident of birth. I know that many people work hard to build up their financial status, and fair play to them. But for two children, born on the same day in the same hospital, it is very much down to an accident of birth as to what level of healthcare they will get, and what level of education they will get, and whether they will walk into a nice cushy job in the family firm etc etc. There is no good reason why any child in Ireland should not get a basic decent education - and this is certainly not happening across the board today.
What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare.As it was pointed out by somebody else, it is unfair for tax paying parents who educate their children privately to be paying for the service they don't avail of. To me, the same should apply to healthcare if proper two-tier system existed. I personally wouldn't want to be paying somebody else's education or medical expenses if an opt-out was possible.
I didn't suggest that there was no place for personal responsibility. I simply pointed out some of the very practical difficulties of going down that road. Was the roofer unlucky, or careless? Is the doctor supposed to make that judgement before he provides treatment?So because there is always a different case scenario, no personal responsibility or accountability should exist? My example was to differentiate between a treatment given to basically a common criminal and a hard working, tax paying citizen who just got unlucky.
I understand your concern, and I'd share it to some degree. However, I'd imagine that (like in most aspects of life) an anonymous report is given a lot less weight than an attributable report. It's just too easy for anyone to use the anonymous report for a grudge.A link was provided to me to report somebody anonymously, which I did. I wasn't aware that you didn't have to provide any of your own deatails and that you wouldn't have to testify should the fraudster be brought to court. For a start, I wouldn't want my windows broken or my family terrorised.
You miss the point. The children concern didn't make the judgement that you describe. Yet they get to benefit from the better education or better healthcare of whatever. That's the accident of birth. For two kids born in the same ward in Holles St on the same day, one gets better education and better healthcare, and gets to live longer, and has a better chance of providing better education and better healthcare for their own children. What kind of system penalises one child for their accident of birth?=
You can call it an accident but to me it's a rather basic calculation. At least that's how it went in my family. You have as many children as you can feed, clothe, educate and generally provide for comfortably. Having five children while you live in a two bed house and on one minimum wage income is not an accident but selfishness and stupidity.
Such a system would work on an after the fact assessment. Treat them first - then bill them if a certain threshold of culpability was reached. There would have to be some sort of fair procedures element to it also - which would mean it could only be used where the costs of the fair procedure process were less than the gains of seeking to recoup costs.I didn't suggest that there was no place for personal responsibility. I simply pointed out some of the very practical difficulties of going down that road. Was the roofer unlucky, or careless? Is the doctor supposed to make that judgement before he provides treatment?
You miss the point. The children concern didn't make the judgement that you describe. Yet they get to benefit from the better education or better healthcare of whatever. That's the accident of birth. For two kids born in the same ward in Holles St on the same day, one gets better education and better healthcare, and gets to live longer, and has a better chance of providing better education and better healthcare for their own children. What kind of system penalises one child for their accident of birth?
no, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.
No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.
The assume a lot, all of it incorrect. I am simply saying people make choices.You seem to be assuming that if you don't sent your child to a private schol or attend the Blackrock clinic when ill the reason is because you are a feckless waster who prefers to spend the money on fags, booze and holidays. That is not the case!
You’ve got a major chip on your shoulder. We moved our special needs son from the local public school to the local private school because a friend had done the same thing with great results. As it’s such a good school we also moved our other son. Before having direct contact with the school I presumed that standards would be lower, special needs would not be catered for and there would be a snobbish attitude from staff and parents. I was wrong on all counts. My daughters are in the local public school because it’s the best school in the area. We’ve had to make major changes at home to pay for the private school but if we do the groundwork now we may avoid spending a fortune on grinds when they are older. We still pay the full cost of sending our children to school (and then some) since we pay fully through our taxes and then again with fees.Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.
People choose private health insurance out of fear and because the people who run the public system do such a bad job.People choose private health insurance to jump ahead of people with public health access. At least with that money is the only consideration.
Such a system would work on an after the fact assessment. Treat them first - then bill them if a certain threshold of culpability was reached. There would have to be some sort of fair procedures element to it also - which would mean it could only be used where the costs of the fair procedure process were less than the gains of seeking to recoup costs.
If I were introducing such a system, I'd apply the existing Tort based negligence test. In fact one could probably tie the entire thing into the existing PIAB system. Lines are already drawn and use a reasonableness standard.And where are you going to set that threshold of culpability? Are smokers culpable? Are obese people culpable? Are speeding drivers culpable? Are unsafe workers culpable? Are parents who both carry the CF gene culpable for reproducing? Where are you going to draw the line?
Same thing that happens when a Court Judgement is given and the family is unable to recoup. I'd point out that there may be an issue of misuse of process by any body seeking to recoup costs from someone with no ability to pay.And what happens where (as is the case with most families) there is no real money available to be recouped?
Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background..
I would suggest that the current system does not have problems of the nature you suggest. You do not know the facts surrounding the case in question. If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.The current system of legal culpability has its own problems; http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=163435
If the Defendant involved feels hard done by, they can appeal or seek Judicial Review.
Lets get real here, people send their kids to private schools so they won't have to mix with the average Joe Soap who might live in council houses or in less affluent areas and who might speak with a "common" accent. Even if the average parent won the lotto in the morning and presented themselves to the local private school they would be refused admission because they wouldn't be considered to have the right background.
The country school would still exist as the voucher has to be handed in to a public school as well. However, if some teachers figured out a way to set up a school that would compete for those 14 kids then that would be a good thing; the kids and pat rents would not lose out, they simply have additional choices.Finally, how do you see your voucher plan operate in the rural areas where there is simply not the demand for multiple private schools? In this case would the parents simply use their vouchers to attend the local public schools anyway? Relations of our come to mind - they live in the North West and their child is attending a primary school with 14 kids!
Irish teachers are already among the highest paid in Europe. Are you suggesting that Irish teachers are not fully unionized? By those argumentations Ireland should have one of the best systems.If you want to model ourselves on the best education system in Europe, go to Finland. Very, very few private schools, just well trained and well paid fully unionised teachers who are given the freedom to do what they are good at - educate.
And how is supporting a two tier system negative for education in general?What is unfair is for the State to continue subsidising a two-tier system, whereby some people use the State subsidy to continue and deepen the considerable inequalities in education and healthcare.
Well said!!!No, you are missing the point. The parents of both children have access to the same state services. Both pay taxes to fund those services. You are proposing that the parents who choose to spend more of their income on their child's education rather that cigarettes or cars or holidays should be penalised, you want to force them to pay twice for the services the state provides.
The country school would still exist as the voucher has to be handed in to a public school as well. However, if some teachers figured out a way to set up a school that would compete for those 14 kids then that would be a good thing; the kids and pat rents would not lose out, they simply have additional choices.
Interestingly I suspect the same would apply if bus routes were privatised - the outer locations might not even be served.
The quality of bus services on the Cavan-Dublin route has plummeted since the law was used to push private coach operators off the route and give Bus Eireann a monopoly. Although the M3 motorway has been built in the meantime, it now takes longer for buses to travel to and from Cavan and Dublin than it did 25 years ago when three or four competitors plied the route.