Should the Fair Deal scheme be social insurance, rather than means-tested social assistance?

There is no charge for inpatients in a public hospital. Charges were abolished about 18 months ago.

There is a charge for the ED, unless referred by a GP or a medical card holder.
 
I don’t think the state can actually afford to provide care for all the elderly folks that want it. It was an observation that hospital care isn’t means tested and no one is demanding that you pay for it if you have means.

But we don’t apply the same rules to other forms of care.

Nor do we apply it to education, up to third level. Obviously that’s good for society.

I am actually in two minds about the fairness of the fair deal. But we (the country ) don’t have unlimited resources here so we have to ration services and rationing it to those that can’t pay seems the only way. But I do think it should be altered and extended to allow care in their own homes. Or perhaps in someone else’s home.
We were told that if mum or dad moved into my home we’d have to start the application for home help care again, which is daft, they’d have the same needs. Albeit in a different address.
Now that might not be accurate. I haven’t looked into it as it’s not happening.
 
Annieindublin said:
I don’t think the state can actually afford to provide care for all the elderly folks that want it.
Click to expand...
And that's the crux of it. Not charging for it would place a cost burden on the young, as a cohort those who can least afford it and remove it from the elderly, as a cohort those who can most afford it.

They are talking about removing the requirement for carers allowance to be means tested. That's a really stupid idea and another burden being placed on the young.

Annieindublin said:
Nor do we apply it to education, up to third level. Obviously that’s good for society.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that. I'm not comfortable with people on very low incomes paying for my children to go to college.
 
You misunderstood me, I think it’s good that we don’t means test access to primary and secondary level education.

You can leave school at 16 so perhaps senior cycle should be means tested? Make the rich pay? Make it free for lower income families.

I don’t think that should happen btw.

Given the high level of state funds in third level I think people on low incomes do subsidise the wealthy at uni. But education is a good thing for the nation in general and it’s getting expensive enough IMO.
 
I’m not so sure about means testing the carers allowance. Lots of middle income families can’t afford to have one wage earner quit to mind someone with zero income.

If I could get carers allowance, and associated PRSI credits I might quit work and mind my parents. I can’t afford that. So the HSE will keep paying agencies thousands to do send people along 3 times a day. Not the smartest move for the state.
 
Annieindublin said:
If I could get carers allowance, and associated PRSI credits I might quit work and mind my parents.
Click to expand...

Carer's Benefit is the PRSI-based social insurance carers payment. I believe it lasts for a year.

Carer's Allowance is the means-tested parallel social assistance scheme.
 
Steven Barrett said:
Or should we increase taxes on those who are currently working, who are also paying large mortgages and paying for childcare, so the elderly can be looked after even more than they currently are?
Click to expand...
No reason to tax people working. Just tax all the elderly to pay for that fraction of the elderly that need care. Means-testing is never a good idea.
 
Nermal said:
No reason to tax people working. Just tax all the elderly to pay for that fraction of the elderly that need care. Means-testing is never a good idea.
Click to expand...
Not clear why you would only tax the elderly. The relevant distinction here is not between young and old; it's between those who are at present infirm enough to require residential care and those who are not.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Yes! If equivalent care is given to people without means free of charge, which it is.

Simply it’s a tax on being wealthy and unable to care for yourself because if you’re poor and unable to care for yourself you don’t pay
Click to expand...
I pay for my own home. There is a new estate built right beside me where they were given their home by the council. Is owning your own home a tax? We have a social safety net in this country where those who can afford it pay for those who can't. If you don't agree, you can always move to Dubai where there's no taxes and no social safety net.

The care home system we have it quite fair and avoids putting an unnecessary burden on the State. You pay for it if you can afford it. If you can't afford it or run out of money, the State will step in. If you own your own home, they will take a portion of the value of the property, but it is limited to 3 years.
 
Nermal said:
No reason to tax people working. Just tax all the elderly to pay for that fraction of the elderly that need care.
Click to expand...
Not everyone needs a nursing home. And how would the tax work? Would you tax people who just have the State pension? Or those with private pensions...another tax on the wealthy...
Nermal said:
Means-testing is never a good idea.
Click to expand...
If you don't qualify for the contributory State pension, you get no income and have to beg or work in your old age? Or you can't afford to live anywhere? Out on the street with you!! There are so many benefits provided in this State for those who are on a low income. Yes, it needs a lot of improvement and is exploited by some but having a social safety net is a good thing.
 
TomEdison said:
Not clear why you would only tax the elderly. The relevant distinction here is not between young and old; it's between those who are at present infirm enough to require residential care and those who are not.
Click to expand...
This issue is a symptom of the current taxation system that over taxes work and under taxes wealth. It can't be fixed in isolation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top