TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I am agreeing with The Big Short, for a change, that the problem of population replacement is fundamental to our future economic well being.
Okay, but let's not falsely associate one as a solution for the other, thereby using such as issue as a justification for the State funding IVF.
Can I suggest cloning !So if the 'irresponsible' people should not have kids because they can't afford them, and the 'responsible ' people are having difficulty having kids, where are all the kids supposed to come from?
Since this seems to be about people like you; hard working, high tax paying people who put off having kids until a little later in life, maybe the fairest thing to do is allow everyone to claim back their medical expenses at the margin tax rates.just my 2 cents - my wife & I have gone through 6 unsuccessful IVF cycles. Did we pay for it ourselves- yes. Could we afford it?- yes- but this involved making financial sacrifices elsewhere. Do I feel that we should have gotten one or more of these cycles for free- no but from a selfish point of view we both have paid a large amount of tax over the last 15-20 years. Of course we get the benefit of public services etc. But we have private health insurance- neither of us (thankfully ) have been in the situation where we have had to draw JSA/JSB. Obviously we have never availed of childrens allowance. It just feels like when we could use a 'little' helping hand we were left high & dry. We did claim back 20% through the med 1 each time- if we had been able to claim back at our marginal rate of tax it would have been a great help. (I understand that claiming back at the marginal rate of tax with respect to IVF may not be fair to lower earners). It will be interesting to see the final detail of the proposals
Ok, a USC break as well. That means 50% funding. Most people would be happy with that.Or seeing as lower rates of fertility were identified in socio-economic groups such as those who delayed starting families in order to develop and establish careers (in turn generating wealth and paying taxes), and seeing as the trend in irish families is getting smaller and smaller, and acknowledging that the value of all investments, pensions and wealth can only be sustained by the emergence of future generations, then perhaps a bit more than a tax break?
What is this problem with population replacement? Ireland's family sizes stopped shrinking in the 1980s, have ticked up since then (according to the World Bank) and our population, before migration, has increased by 995,000 since 1985 (according to the CSO). We're on track to exceed 6.7m by 2046 (also from the CSO projections). The natural increase each year is more now (41.6k) than it was in the 1980s (32.8k) or 1990s (19.5k). Seems to me we are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We're among the fastest-growing populations in the developed world and we're suggesting this will help address this 'problem'?The single most important point in this and any other debate on the future of the economy.
What is this problem with population replacement? Ireland's family sizes stopped shrinking in the 1980s, have ticked up since then (according to the World Bank) and our population, before migration, has increased by 995,000 since 1985 (according to the CSO). We're on track to exceed 6.7m by 2046 (also from the CSO projections). The natural increase each year is more now (41.6k) than it was in the 1980s (32.8k) or 1990s (19.5k). Seems to me we are fixing a problem that doesn't exist. We're among the fastest-growing populations in the developed world and we're suggesting this will help address this 'problem'?
Hi BS, the fertility rate in Ireland is here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IEIt's a fair point if figures are correct, and in truth, it was my understanding that the population was increasing. But it was also my understanding that families sizes were also reducing?
I, perhaps wrongly assumed, our population growth was down primarily to immigration.
On the other hand, applicants for IVF, facing huge costs should still, in my opinion be offered assistance where time is not on their side, and they have a proven track record of a reasonable healthy lifestyle.
The plot thickens...
Hi BS, the fertility rate in Ireland is here: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=IE
I have to revise what I said... the lowest fertility rate was in 1995, not 1985. Hasn't been over the supposed 'replacement rate' since 1990 but the native population has been rising since CSO records began: [broken link removed]
I'm sorry that providing statistics and correcting preconceptions about our population decline upsets you. Do you believe the State should be funding an increase in our fertility rates, given the evidence I've shared?You seem delighted with yourself gleefully throwing out stats about fertility rates, replacement rates and blah blah blah.
I don't really see the relevance of those things to this issue though, which is about what we as a society choose to say and do for couples who find themselves in a particular situation. I can tell you with absolute certainty that the rate of reproduction across the country as a whole never crossed my mind or my wife's when we were at our lowest.
If we repeal the 8th amendment, I would expect that women that currently have to travel to the UK for an abortion will be able to get them at home, under advice from the doctor they know and trust.Population growth means little in this discussion. If you want to take that macro view, you need to look the amount of workers to non-workers in the future not what the population will be. What are the expected changes to this in the event the 'repeal the 8th' passes ?
You're having a laugh, right? There is no way doctors will ever reduce their costs. There's no way IVF will ever cost 2-3k a cycle unless there is a significant change in technology and a more open market. This will be a licence to print money for the medical industry.if the government funded this, more couples would be able to undertake ivf, thus lowering the cost by the clinic. So, the govt would not be forking out anywhere next nor near 15k per cycle, more like 2-3k, if even.
I did walk the road, for a lot longer than you did.Unless you have walked this road, you don't have a clue.
They will indeed. Many other women will also have abortions.If we repeal the 8th amendment, I would expect that women that currently have to travel to the UK for an abortion will be able to get them at home, under advice from the doctor they know and trust.
I'm sorry that providing statistics and correcting preconceptions about our population decline upsets you. Do you believe the State should be funding an increase in our fertility rates, given the evidence I've shared?
You're having a laugh, right? There is no way doctors will ever reduce their costs. There's no way IVF will ever cost 2-3k a cycle unless there is a significant change in technology and a more open market. This will be a licence to print money for the medical industry.
They would need to tackle the closed shop that is the Irish Medical Industry. GP's refer their customers to the specialists they were in college with, specialists refer their customers to other specialists they were in college with.So if the government were to announce a policy of subsidised fertility treatment and invite tenders for what would inevitably become the majority market share of the industry, no-one, not even new entrants from U.K./EU would make competitive bids?
If the State is to fund IVF one of the qualifying conditions must be an age limit . . probably 35.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?