LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksTrue but the rate has been set at 201 euros for a single and double for a couple.
True but the rate has been set at 201 euros for a single and double for a couple.
Time for the Irish Goverment to do the honorable thing and go. If thay have any honour left.
I'm inclined to agree. I'll admit this sounds like I'm wearing a tinfoil hat, but I actually think this whole controversy is nicely covering over what should be the real bone of contention - which is digging out the Construction Industry Federation in the guise of 'helping' First Time Buyers by lending them more money to buy houses. Basically, the State is using them to pump the property bubble just a little longer. If we really wanted to make housing more affordable we'd just let the price fall.Originally Posted by KingKane
As to Medical Cards for all over 70s, the idea was pure lunacy to begin with. Wealthy over 70s, with no mortgages and stable incomes, are better able to cover the costs of their medical expenses than the folk with young families, mortgages and possibly negative equity who are expected to pick up the tab for the wrinklies. This issue is a complete load of hot air.
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Tell that to the people on 212 non contrib and 5 from the uk = NO CARD....hot air me hole
I agree that the lack of detail around where exactly the 1.6 Billion is going to end up is of real concern. I've no issue per se with some pump priming of the economy generally, a bit of counter cyclical spending is fine by me. The problem is that what appears to be proposed is buying new but completed houses at the price the developer wants or needs to make a profit instead of starting now with new building (hence employing people now) at a cheaper price in places where the demand is greatest. The local authorities could look to build social housing for rental for those who can't possible get on the property ladder at all. One is a bailout, the other is pump priming. And considerably more of the skills used in house building can be relatively easier re-used in school building projects instead of road construction.
My mother said at the time that giving medical cards to all and sundry who were over 70 when children don't get it was all wrong. 'Sure it's the ones with children that really need it.' The problem for FF is that in the minds of many elderly people the question is What is next? Will the free travel go? the phone? the electric? The over 70s card should never have been given out but once given they created an expectation amongst people that it was one less thing to worry about and they planned accordingly. Cancelling their private insurances etc.
Last edited by KingKane; 16th October 2008 at 06:11 PM.
Dan Sullivan. I was back but we still couldn't all have a vote.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As I was saying......
I can't help thinking that this is not some elaborate manipulation of public perception but actually an inevitable climbdown (of €40, just announced, and I'd imagine more to come because that is not enough) on a budget cut that probably came about after a some civil servants put their heads together after a liquid lunch.
If you manage to express that thought coherently, I'll let you know if I see an merit in it.My Da had similar thoughts - simply saw no reason why he should be regarded as incapable of paying for his own GP services.In fairness, if they've the money to pay for all that why shouldn't they go. Certainly, the free travel could be reverted back to entitling them to travel on off-peak services only without any real hardship.
I think we have to start sorting between real problems and imaginary ones.I don't follow this logic - surely everyone gets free hospital services since the 1980s. All the Medical Card did was mean they got free GP visits too. I don't see a particular dependency between that and private health insurance - which, unless I'm gravely mistaken, doesn't usually cover GP services. (I don't doubt there's some product out there that covers them - but I'd suggest most wrinklies are in VHI schemes that don't.)
Hence, it would strike me that this claim of people cancelling their private hospital cover because Charlie McCreevey gave them free GP services is profoundly questionable. I haven't really seen the news today - is this particular spin growing legs?
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Agreed. The blanket over 70s card should not have been given out. It was another badly thought out political stunt.
I'm not trying to compare the elderly to toddlers, but has anybody else ever observed the following:
A toddler is playing happily. In a fit of madness you give it a lollipop, wait a while, and then try to take the lollipop off the child. Blue Murder will ensue.
I'm suprised Fianna Fail have exhibited such defective political nous.
.
Last edited by katy brock; 16th October 2008 at 08:40 PM. Reason: typos
@ Schuhart. The reason I started another thread (now closed) is because I wanted to share information on the VHI. Your perception, as stated on the other thread, that those who signed up to the VHI did so because because they wanted skip queues is dismissive. Many did so because of their perception that the public service is in ruin. Perhaps they were not as well informed as you obviously are. My thread was about those who want to switch back to VHI. This thread is about the possibility that the abolition of medical cards for everyone over 70 is an engineered stunt. If you didn't want to talk in stereo you didn't have to bother replying to my thread, it would have been fine really.
Sorry to be a pain, but that does actually compare them to toddlers. In fairness, its not the elderly that are making noise about this. Its just a load of people doing it on their behalf. Which is why I'm putting on my tinfoil hat and assuming it means FG don't want to draw attention to the bail-out of Tom Parlon's members.But hold on. That's effectively saying its right for FF to tiptoe around pretending that illusory problems are real. I don't agree. I think we need to point out when the Emperer has no clothes, and not be governed by Joe Duffy.I feel you are missing the point. The point is that the VHI schemes are basically about private hospital services. People have had access to public hospital services since (having googled) about 1991. This is set out hereHence, it is simply a fact that the only reason someone would have to retain VHI membership after 1991 would be if they wanted, in addition to their entitlment to free public hospital services, to be able to avail of private hospital care.New arrangements for eligibility for public hospital services were announced in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. ..... The principal changes are the abolition of the income limit for Category 2 eligibility, so that all patients will now be entitled to avail of consulant care as a public patient, and the introduction of restrictions on the access of private patients to public beds...... everyone, regardless of income, is already entitled to a public bed as a public patient, and this will not change. .....I would like to take this opportunity to refer to speculation in the past week that the new arrangements might lead to a substantial drop in VHI membership. There is no basis for this view. The new measures relate only to public beds, whereas virtually all of those joining VHI do so in order to have cover for private and semi-private beds. The VHI Board have confirmed to me that they have no reason to expect any significant fall in their membership, and this conclusion is also supported by independent research carried out by the ESRI.
Hence, the decision to give over 70s medical cards just meant they no longer had to pay for GP visits as, like everyone, they already had access to free hospital services. Hence, the idea that someone would surrender their VHI hospital cover because they now had free GP services seems like baloney.
This point seems very clear to me. I can't understand the difficulty in digesting it, but perhaps I'm not explaining it too well. That said, I really cannot see what is complicated about this point. VHI cover has damn all to do with GP services. Removal of medical cards has damn all to do with hospital services. Where's the room for misunderstanding this?
However, banks know they have a duty of care to their clients and I'm sure that this should prevent them lending irresponsibly.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote