Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Media drive for U-turn in carers respite budget measure

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    Folks, let's keep it civil - overly personal comments, in particular, are not welcome here.


  • Options
    #33
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Looking at the Sunday papers the backlash is more than just the media, several FG and Labour backbenchers are pushing to have the carers allowance cuts overturned. The weekend after a budget is always a difficult time for TD's since they have to go back to their constituancies and face their voters.
    They will have been inundated with email, phone calls and visits. The facebook pages of a few Labour TD's they are certainly getting a lot of flak over it. Hopefully the madness of these cuts will be recognised and they will be dropped.


  • Options
    #34
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    20Cent wrote: »
    Looking at the Sunday papers the backlash is more than just the media, ....

    The Sunday papers are media.


  • Options
    #35
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rodin wrote: »

    Not everyone has to share in the pain.

    I don't see why financial pain of the sort everyone is experiencing should not be shared.
    Rodin wrote: »
    To the poor worker complainging about his taxes going towards this, you'd pay more in taxes were the carer unable to look after the cared for, and instead foisted the person on the state who has a legal obligation to look after them.

    Not everyone has to share in the pain. Why on earth should a genuinely disabled person have to take an economic hit when they were never in a position to do anything about their own circumstances.

    Workers do pay taxes to help the vvulnerable and that is correct and proper. If the balance is continually tilted against the worker in the favour of benefits for social welfare people will have no incentive to work. that is the bottom line.


  • Options
    #36
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    It's unfair to criticise the media for jumping on the bandwagon to sell papers. The media is also the "fourth estate", and fulfils an essential role in holding Government to account, something it appears the electorate are incapable of.
    If it were the case that these cuts were being exaggerated in the press then there might be a case to answer but as far as I can see everything reported is factually correct.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,500 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    The Sunday papers are media.

    I think 20Cent means the political reaction amongst backbenchers.


  • Options
    #38
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    bmaxi wrote: »
    It's unfair to criticise the media for jumping on the bandwagon to sell papers. The media is also the "fourth estate", and fulfils an essential role in holding Government to account, something it appears the electorate are incapable of.

    If we follow this line we must also point out that the media had this role which you rightly identify, during the Celtic tiger. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their capabilities! I don't remember any full on media protest against the reliance on construction in the 2000's, certainly not with any voracity.


  • Options
    #39
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I think 20Cent means the political reaction amongst backbenchers.

    I understand this but it is still the choice of media to push this as a headline or put in on page 10. The backbenchers reaction is all to predictable giving the reporting of this from Wednesday onwards. Perhaps they are just performing their role but I am just querying it.


  • Options
    #40
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I understand this but it is still the choice of media to push this as a headline or put in on page 10. The backbenchers reaction is all to predictable giving the reporting of this from Wednesday onwards. Perhaps they are just performing their role but I am just querying it.

    Whats the query?
    Do you think the reaction is over the top?
    Ministers walking out of cabinet in protest, a backbencher revolt, the public outcry, all sounds like fronpage worthy news.


  • Options
    #41
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    If we follow this line we must also point out that the media had this role which you rightly identify, during the Celtic tiger. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their capabilities! I don't remember any full on media protest against the reliance on construction in the 2000's, certainly not with any voracity.

    Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    20Cent wrote: »
    Whats the query?
    Do you think the reaction is over the top?
    Ministers walking out of cabinet in protest, a backbencher revolt, the public outcry, all sounds like fronpage worthy news.

    Yes reaction is over the top IMHO, particularly given that this cut was leaked in the week before the budget day. In the context of the whole budget the reaction also seems disproportionate. Before the budget I was not aware that carers even got a break in this way. It is a good thing that they do.

    Would there be any support for replacing this cut to respite care with a general reduction to Social welfare rates paid to everyone. I would imagine that a small reduction in the general welfare rates would raise the same amount.


  • Options
    #43
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    bmaxi wrote: »
    Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?

    I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.


  • Options
    #44
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I don't see why financial pain of the sort everyone is experiencing should not be shared.



    Workers do pay taxes to help the vvulnerable and that is correct and proper. If the balance is continually tilted against the worker in the favour of benefits for social welfare people will have no incentive to work. that is the bottom line.

    If carers aren't helped, your pay packet will be lighter as more is taken to care for the most vulnerable by the state


  • Options
    #45
    tonidub72
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8 ✭tonidub72


    rodin wish more people thought like yourself my daughter has to be cared for 24/7 and someone else asked before about rates of carers i get 158 a week for two special needs kids dont think it would even cost 158 for one child to be cared for by the state for one night


  • Options
    #46
    bmaxi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,859 ✭✭✭bmaxi


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.
    No offence but what you'd call it is immaterial.


  • Options
    #47
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rodin wrote: »
    If carers aren't helped, your pay packet will be lighter as more is taken to care for the most vulnerable by the state

    Nobody has suggested that carers "aren't helped". Or indeed that they should not be helped. I stated this clearly:
    Before the budget I was not aware that carers even got a break in this way. It is a good thing that they do.


  • Options
    #48
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    bmaxi wrote: »
    Certainly there was concern in the media about the housing boom and the economy's dependence on it. Economists like David Mc Williams, writing in the press, voiced their concern on many occasions. Were these not among the people Bertie Ahern suggested should "top themselves"?
    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    I wouldnt call it full on protest or anything approaching it.
    bmaxi wrote: »
    No offence but what you'd call it is immaterial.

    Lost me?


  • Options
    #49
    Knine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Knine


    Godge wrote: »
    According to your figure, your total income from the state is €458 euro.

    You probably have a medical card and travel pass as well.

    The €458 euro translates into €23,900 a year approximately.

    I am not trying to be harsh but there are a lot of people out there working for that kind of money and paying tax, prsi and usc on those earnings to ensure that those payments can be made. They are the people who will have to pay more if the cuts are reversed. Is that fair?

    You do realise Godge that 23,900 for providing 24/7 care for a disabled child/adult is very little?
    That equipment/supplies which are not all provided are also very expensive as is extra heating/esb that many disabled people need.

    tonidub72 is actully working very hard to look after her children with special needs. There is no lunch break, no annual leave, no Christmas Holidays, Bank Holidays are the same as any other day. Often you get up in the morning after having very little sleep.
    The only other adults she may see are therapists and doctors.

    Give me a job any day.

    How do I know all the above? Well because I worked full time in an extremely well paid job but I had to give it up to become a full time Carer for very little money.

    Any one of those workers you are talking about could end up becoming a carer or indeed needing a carer themselves.

    This issue is not just for Carers but for everone as god only knows when you need these services yourself or end up having a child with a serious disability.


  • Options
    #50
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Knine wrote: »
    You do realise Godge that 23,900 for providing 24/7 care for a disabled child/adult is very little?

    How much should be paid?
    Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?


  • Options
    #51
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    How much should be paid?
    Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?

    This money goes to the carER not the carEE.

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly costeffective


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rodin wrote: »
    This money goes to the carER not the carEE.

    It is absolutely, overwhelmingly costeffective

    That is quite clear and nobody suggested otherwise, it is still money from welfare so my query was to see if other welfare payments to disabled or the blind for example should be at the same level.

    I don't think anyone suggested that it was not cost effective either.

    So again- How much should be paid?
    Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?


  • Options
    #53
    Knine
    Registered Users Posts: 3,761 ✭✭✭Knine


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That is quite clear and nobody suggested otherwise, it is still money from welfare so my query was to see if other welfare payments to disabled or the blind for example should be at the same level.

    I don't think anyone suggested that it was not cost effective either.

    So again- How much should be paid?
    Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?

    Well how much does it cost for a disabled/sick/Incapacitated person to be looked after in a residential care unit or in a hospital?

    No the same should not be given to all on welfare as the payment is to actully pay for the Carer so that they can adequately look after the patient. This means extra heating costs, extra ESB, equipment such as special clothing, car adaptions, diesel/petrol for appointments. In my own situation I would have 3/4 a week 30km there and back. There are often overnight stays in hospital. Medical Treatment abroad, private therapy and appointments.

    The waiting lists for specialist appointments can up to several years in Ireland!

    The problem facing Carers in this budget that have young families are that they have also been hit by the motor tax, new home tax, Child Benefit, Back to School, increased medical costs to just over 19 euro.

    It all really adds up.

    Meanwhile there are other payments that are completely untouched. Take for example the Foster allowance. It is from 325 per child per week, not means tested and non taxable. I know several people who foster 3 and more kids who are taking in a grand per week. How come one group of people are untouched and Carers are fleeced?

    A fair budget? I don't think so. The most vunerable in society have taken the pain - the disabled & the sick.


  • Options
    #54
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    That is quite clear and nobody suggested otherwise, it is still money from welfare so my query was to see if other welfare payments to disabled or the blind for example should be at the same level.

    I don't think anyone suggested that it was not cost effective either.

    So again- How much should be paid?
    Should same be given to all on welfare such as disabled, elderly,etc?

    I don't think you do get it.
    How can you compare a payment to someone who is blind/disabled with a payement to a carer who is presumably healthy?

    If a cared for person was to be put into the care of the state, the costs to the state would be 4+ full time jobs per week to look after that person.

    The concept is so simple.
    Caring for people in their own homes is saving this state a small fortune, and they should be helped in their capabilities to do that by a small allowance for a break.


  • Options
    #55
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Rodin wrote: »
    I don't think you do get it.
    How can you compare a payment to someone who is blind/disabled with a payement to a carer who is presumably healthy?

    If a cared for person was to be put into the care of the state, the costs to the state would be 4+ full time jobs per week to look after that person.

    The concept is so simple.
    Caring for people in their own homes is saving this state a small fortune, and they should be helped in their capabilities to do that by a small allowance for a break.

    If thats your view then how do you put a cost on anything. How do you put a cost on having a loved one care for a relative as against a stranger in some hospital or home. That seems like a means to avoid answering the question. Caring for a relative at home seems to me to be preferrable to relying on the state but not only for the financial benefit to the state, rather for the person in care but noting that does nothing for the point at hand.


  • Options
    #56
    Rodin
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Rodin


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    If thats your view then how do you put a cost on anything. How do you put a cost on having a loved one care for a relative as against a stranger in some hospital or home. That seems like a means to avoid answering the question. Caring for a relative at home seems to me to be preferrable to relying on the state but not only for the financial benefit to the state, rather for the person in care but noting that does nothing for the point at hand.

    Of course it's preferable to have a relative do it for personal reasons.

    There actually isn't a single reason why in the majority of cases the state should be doing the caring.

    But carers must be helped in providing this service, in order to help keep the caree at home.


  • Options
    #57
    Good loser
    Registered Users Posts: 3,198 ✭✭✭Good loser


    Rodin wrote: »
    Of course it's preferable to have a relative do it for personal reasons.

    There actually isn't a single reason why in the majority of cases the state should be doing the caring.

    But carers must be helped in providing this service, in order to help keep the caree at home.

    The only issue to debate is how much they should get.

    Nothing is surer than if the carers transferred the burden to State it could not handle the numbers.

    Also those that (presumably) cared most and continued to look after their loved ones would have to get even less money - because of less resources.

    Further if cuts now are prudent there will be more money available down the road i.e. next year. A lot of the budget savings pencilled in this year are iffy - in HSE and PS.

    Must remember too that all social welfare rates are irrational - plucked from a cabinet wall during the reign of Bertie. One number is no better than another.


Advertisement