Our Social Welfare system

Nodin

kowloon wrote: »

I'd say if it's done it has more to do with breast cancer.

They do reductions over the water, I think, not sure about here.

MickySticks

They also pay for dog food.

Dudess

It's up to people what they spend the money on - it can't be policed - but if it's spent on Sky, holidays, internet etc, that's not the same as the DSW giving out payments specifically for those. If someone on benefits can afford all these things, it's likely they have another source of income. Someone on benefits alone cannot afford a lavish lifestyle, no matter what bullsh1t is made up about them. Basic maths dictates that.

Scruffles

MickySticks wrote: »

They also pay for dog food.

and not cat food?
that is ridiculous discrimination.
mogs;not dogs,thats how it shoud be.:pac:

ronano

Blazer wrote: »

Hopefully the 200,000 who were too lazy to get a job during boom years.
Those who were genuinely too sick to work though are excused but I've know several people who apparently were too sick to work yet was in the local pub and bookies every night.:mad:

stat for the 200,000 otherwise i call bs!

emo72

when you get a council house, you also get 1500 euro to furnish it? Is that correct? My oh works in a furniture shop and tells me this.

Monife

ronano wrote: »

stat for the 200,000 otherwise i call bs!

It is bs. It was more around the 80,000 - 90,000 figure, which is still shocking enough.

lividduck

They Dont pay for cars.
They dont pay for holidays.
They dont pay for dogfood
They dont pay for TV and broadband
They can and do make payments towards essential needs such as important appliances (Fridge/Cooker etc)
They can and do make payments for prams etc and also for exceptional needs such as at communion times.
They dont pay for cars.
Happy Freddie?

dvpower

lividduck wrote: »

Happy Freddie?

I doubt Freddie has ever been happy.

nlgbbbblth

Freddie

Don't believe any of those responses.

There's only one way you'll get a definitive answer.

Quit your job and sign on.

EGAR

MickySticks wrote: »

They also pay for dog food.

Bollocks, according to my friend who became unemployed last year after 18 years in the same job and who has 3 dogs the SWO told him to get rid of the dogs as they are a luxury!

Bullseye1

Dogs are a luxury?? The people in that department must be the dregs.

EGAR

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Dogs are a luxury?? The people in that department must be the dregs.

So he was told, there he was, after working for over 25 years the last 18 in the same job, paying taxes etc, he was told his three dogs were a luxury...

dxhound2005

EGAR wrote: »

So he was told, there he was, after working for over 25 years the last 18 in the same job, paying taxes etc, he was told his three dogs were a luxury...

How did his ownership of dogs become part of the conversation with Social Welfare?

ilovelamp2000

mikemac1 wrote: »

Yes, if you're waiting twelve months or so they have a fund set aside to purchase private treatment for you

That's been around for years, hardly a secret

National Treatment Purchase fund is the obvious and boring name afaik

It was nothing to do with the National Treatment Purchase fund, a social worker from the HSE obtained permission to spend HSE money for someone to undergo nerve conduction studies privately. This woman wasn't on a waiting list at all, she was told it would be at least a few months before the studies could be arranged publicly, and because of the way the health service rations treatment she would have been left waiting a long time, since her alleged injury was a fake one.

The social worker (employed by the HSE) also obtained funds from the HSE to pay for a solicitor for this woman to sue the HSE (because the alleged injury occured during medical treatment). Yeah, just in case you missed that the HSE were paying a solicitor to sue themselves.

Two sets of nerve conduction studies turned up nothing, all the medical opinions showed the injury was made up.

That social worker wasted a few thousand euro. Small change in the grand scheme of things but you can see where the waste is in the Health service budget when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Littlehorny

kowloon wrote: »

I'd say if it's done it has more to do with breast cancer.

Nope she had to wait a while, told her social worker she was depressed only a young woman too, was a bit of a problem child and she got the op for free.

Delancey

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How did his ownership of dogs become part of the conversation with Social Welfare?

By way of rebuttal of the old bullsh1t story that SW pay for pet food and vet bills ,thats how.

saa

gurramok wrote: »

It does not state what the 'once-off or exceptional needs' are, they are at the discretion of the CWO.(like the Communion grant) Hence it could be anything.

No they can't I have seen "the list" with all possible payments trust me its all basic, funeral and communion assistance is in the same bracket, surprised they don't pay for weddings as well ha.
Once off payments for basic kitchen necessities, a bed, wardrobe and table no sofa or electrical items (except for the kitchen) the stores won't sell you them with the cheque and you need receipts, don't forget social housing are unfurnished and usually give to people who don't have savings to furnish.
Theres a few odd things especially hospital comfort, other than that there are a few transport payments usually for people who have to travel to hospital who don't have the funds for buses, certainly not cars.

I know payments where you do not have to provide receipts or are restricted are used for unnecessary items, it would help stomp this out by having a dole/child benefit card but then I'd hate to be on the dole and have everything I buy watched even though I have nothing to hide.

Dudess

The education system and church are intrinsically linked, communion assistance isn't that off the wall.

Delancey

Dudess wrote: »

The education system and church are intrinsically linked, communion assistance isn't that off the wall.

.... and worth bearing in mind the Dept of SW recently announced a substantial cut in the Communion Grant.

Freddie59

Nodin wrote: »

Yep.

You ever found a form to fill out for a free car or holiday?



This is what you get for trying to be moderate in tone......

Allow me to clarify then, in precise terms - There are no free cars, holidays, satellite payments, broadband or mobile phones. You asked the question "do they exist" and I can say no, because you will be unable to find any reference to same on any Government website whatsoever. A cursory search would have shown that, but do you bother looking? No - sure why bother.....rabble rabble rabble is far more fun.

You stated "as far as I know" did you not?

Freddie59

lividduck wrote: »

They Dont pay for cars.
They dont pay for holidays.
They dont pay for dogfood
They dont pay for TV and broadband
They can and do make payments towards essential needs such as important appliances (Fridge/Cooker etc)
They can and do make payments for prams etc and also for exceptional needs such as at communion times.
They dont pay for cars.
Happy Freddie?

And you know this how?

EGAR

dxhound2005 wrote: »

How did his ownership of dogs become part of the conversation with Social Welfare?

He had to go to the SWO whilst they were processing his claim. There he was asked about his circumstances, kids, partner etc and he said, no kids just three dogs.

Pandora2

Dudess wrote: »

The education system and church are intrinsically linked, communion assistance isn't that off the wall.

This payment would have been introduced decades back when the majority of schoolchildren were Catholic, as Ireland became wealthier, and as communion/confirmation are considered obligatory for Catholic Children, it would have been extended to include children undertaking "sacraments" within other religions, as and when necessary, and if it was sought, they don't advertise! Hence it is "at the discretion" of the CWO.

Since this payment was introduced, just when would Bertie, populist that he was, think it was a good day to have a go at wee kids or the Church......or instructed any of his minions to take that measure? Never that's when!! This is the guy who paid budgetary social welfare increases six months early to sway an electorate. Don't rock the boat, don't ask the hard questions, and then the bubble burst....and now it is a talking point and imo must be phased out but, please put the blame where it lies......politicians introduced this measure for whatever their reasons, they left it in place thus far, people applied for the grant because it exists...I have yet to hear of a strong Catholic Ceremony Outfitter's Lobby;)

I have no doubt that the Church as an organisation may have had a word (vis a vis introducing this grant, wouldn't be too much of a stretch:rolleyes:) as I know many schools who do a roaring trade in 2nd Hand Communion dresses, donated by parents, such as myself.....I have in my time left 2 full outfits, shoes the lot in to the school after my own girls ceremonies and they were passed onto other children.....anonymously:)

ArtSmart

Freddie59 wrote: »

So asking out the waste of public money is to 'be a coward'?:rolleyes: we have a population of 4.5m - yet there are some SEVEN MILLION PPS numbers circulating. And as for a fairly weak group, that certainly is not case case with a sizable amount. There are many working people who are in a way weaker position, and get none of the benefits that the unemployed are entitled to.

It's late, so it might just be me, but what/who exactly are you ranting talking about?

what's the 7 million about?


I see you've posted a thread about a developer living the high life. Some might think you're covering your tracks. if not, sure, the world's a bitch, but your OP tone doesnt come across as one searching for justice or truth.


well its nearly Savage Eye time. back anon.

Pandora2

And you can opt to have any element of the Household Benefit Package paid in cash to facilitate the recipient shopping around service providers for the best deal and also to allow them to put the telephone portion towards a mobile rather than a landline as this is often more convenient for those in receipt of the Package.....The disabled, the elderly and Carer's so yes, they do in....... a very specific set of circumstances, provide a small amount, €24 per month ( probably gone down since then) if I remember correctly, toward mobile phones, instead of not as well as the landline allowance......this is not a secret...have a look at the website and look at the forms, it's all there, just lazy not to do the research imho... I have a great deal of professional experience as I worked in the field for a good number of years!!

Nodin

Freddie59 wrote: »

You stated "as far as I know" did you not?

...in regard to the discretionary payment. It sounded less harsh and didactic at the time. Why bother being less harsh? Why indeed.

Now - have you bothered to look into your own question yet? Have you found any forms or indications on the departments website?

Joko

Pandora2 wrote: »

And you can opt to have any element of the Household Benefit Package paid in cash to facilitate the recipient shopping around service providers for the best deal and also to allow them to put the telephone portion towards a mobile rather than a landline as this is often more convenient for those in receipt of the Package.....The disabled, the elderly and Carer's so yes, they do in....... a very specific set of circumstances, provide a small amount, €24 per month ( probably gone down since then) if I remember correctly, toward mobile phones, instead of not as well as the landline allowance......this is not a secret...have a look at the website and look at the forms, it's all there, just lazy not to do the research imho... I have a great deal of professional experience as I worked in the field for a good number of years!!

But no experience in punctuation.

Pandora2

Fair enough, I tend to adopt a conversational tone here.....why I'm not sure, just the way I roll...I'm surprised I even bothered to post, all the info contained in my posts is easily available to everyone!!

Anything to add, any point in my post you would like to dispute??.....In short, anything constructive or of value??

TwoShedsJackson

Freddie59 wrote: »

And you know this how?

How do you know they do? Have you found any forms on the site? You're the one claiming they pay for these things, it's up to you to back it up, if you can put the pitchfork down for long enough.

Ray Ray

EGAR wrote: »

Bollocks, according to my friend who became unemployed last year after 18 years in the same job and who has 3 dogs the SWO told him to get rid of the dogs as they are a luxury!

If he spoke to me like that he would be on the dole.. What a sad P@%ck

Millicent

Joko wrote: »

But no experience in punctuation.

But more experience than you in manners, it would appear.

laoch na mona

very few people want to be on social and it is no where near as good as people think
of course we have a flawed system but thats the governments fault