Peter Casey Minister for Health

Idbatterim

mickdw wrote: »

Have a look at the presidential election thread. Very similar comments when he was on 1 percent for the first week.
I'm fully expecting him to come up with a big common sense issue that gets the people with him.
A solid vote would be a success.

I don’t know. I mean the traveller one was a taboo subject that the media and politicians here won’t touch. I can’t think of anything else that similar that would result in a similar effect. Margaret cash maybe ? Those gaming the housing system? The sacred cows that nobody here touch !

Loafing Oaf

[QUOTE=mickdw;112339985
A solid vote would be a success.[/QUOTE]

How would it be a success? Do you think at 62 and super-wealthy he's in politics for the long haul? Guy gets nearly a quarter of votes in presidential and now can't get near a seat in his 'native' five-seat constituency. I'm not entirely convinced the Irish alt-right has discovered its Donal O'Trump...

mickdw

Captain Flaps wrote: »

So you're acknowledging that he's comepletely unelectable until he jumps on a single, push-button topic that will rile up enough people to take him out of a margin of error vote?

People are smarter than that. He did better than he should have in the PE because the president is a largely symbolic role and people liked the idea of having a blowhard who 'tells it like it is' in that position. Thats a long way away from wanting him in a position where he could have an effect on actual legislation.

Get real. Are all the TDs intellectuals who are worthy of their legislative powers? Clearly not yet they get elected time and again and do a job for their constituents.
I think it's outright laughable to suggest that people would hold the bar higher in terms of deeming a person suitable to be a TD compared to the office of President. After all, the majority of TDs wouldn't get themselves nominated for president never mind get elected.

I agree that he has not the background or the support team that would get him elected by normal route. I don't believe he would dispute that himself.
He caught everyone on the hop in the PE, no-one can argue that point.
I would personally carry him shoulder high through the streets if he was to campaign purely on the nonsense that is our welfare state. Most politicians cannot do that because the high levels of welfare recipients will mean they won't get elected.
Casey strongly coming out for the working person and taking aim at everyone from long term unemployed, single mothers not working, housing policy re giving city centre housing to unemployed etc would be a joy to watch and would return a respectable vote imo.
Of course you would have all the other politicians coming out against him even though they only wish they could agree with him similar to the PE

James Brown

mickdw wrote: »

Get real. Are all the TDs intellectuals who are worthy of their legislative powers? Clearly not yet they get elected time and again and do a job for their constituents.
I think it's outright laughable to suggest that people would hold the bar higher in terms of deeming a person suitable to be a TD compared to the office of President. After all, the majority of TDs wouldn't get themselves nominated for president never mind get elected.

I agree that he has not the background or the support team that would get him elected by normal route. I don't believe he would dispute that himself.
He caught everyone on the hop in the PE, no-one can argue that point.
I would personally carry him shoulder high through the streets if he was to campaign purely on the nonsense that is our welfare state. Most politicians cannot do that because the high levels of welfare recipients will mean they won't get elected.
Casey strongly coming out for the working person and taking aim at everyone from long term unemployed, single mothers not working, housing policy re giving city centre housing to unemployed etc would be a joy to watch and would return a respectable vote imo.
Of course you would have all the other politicians coming out against him even though they only wish they could agree with him similar to the PE

Your rhetoric is insulting to the Irish people.
How dare Casey use our democratic process for his own amusement.
Most politicians get found out but it's easy to see through Casey before the starting pistol.
He wants to be the big rich saviour of the little people in wee Ireland.

mickdw

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Your rhetoric is insulting to the Irish people.
How dare Casey use our democratic process for his own amusement.
Most politicians get found out but it's easy to see through Casey before the starting pistol.
He wants to be the big rich saviour of the little people in wee Ireland.

If he took exactly the line ive suggested, its hard to see that he wouldn't get a lot of votes. A protest vote maybe but a protest that is long needed. Insulting to some for sure, but I don't see too many hard workers being insulted when they pay through the nose for everything and welfare people don't. The all welfare families here are the ones taking the foreign holidays without fail.

LaFuton

mario was doing him on giftgrub this morning and later dempsey had to clarify to some listeners that it wasn't real

https://twitter.com/TodayFM/status/1220649564644020224?s=20

rossie1977

Even if he gets elected there is as much chance of Casey getting minister of health as there was Ming Flanagan getting minister of justice a few years ago

AndrewJRenko

mickdw wrote: »

Have a look at the presidential election thread. Very similar comments when he was on 1 percent for the first week.
I'm fully expecting him to come up with a big common sense issue that gets the people with him.
A solid vote would be a success.

A 'big common sense' issue? Maybe he should tell us that all Leitrim people are rapists and we need to build a wall? Or is there any other downtrodden group that he hasn't tried his 'divide and conquer' tactics on?

Idbatterim wrote: »

I don’t know. I mean the traveller one was a taboo subject that the media and politicians here won’t touch. I can’t think of anything else that similar that would result in a similar effect. Margaret cash maybe ? Those gaming the housing system? The sacred cows that nobody here touch !

Nobody except the Sunday Independent, the Irish Independent, the Irish Mail, Newstalk?

jmayo wrote: »

They have recently managed amongst other things to dig a massive hole in the ground to pour billions into and are still trying to tell us it will be the best children's hospital in the world.
And yes I know you are a huge proponent of the totally unsuitable site.
Why do I wonder what is your vested interest in that?
Care to remind when that was meant to be coming on stream ?

I'm not so much a proponent of the site as a proponent of getting people who know a bit about running hospitals to make decisions on the site, instead of getting lads who saw a great meme on Facebook and are now convinced that they know something about building hospitals.

But tell me, how long would you have deferred the tendering for the build to allow a detailed design that would allow a fixed price contract to be put in place, with the contractor bearing all risks (and therefore pricing all risks into the initial contract)?

jmayo wrote: »

And to add to that wastage we have other projects such as National Broadband plan, Irish Water, and a whole litany of half ar**ed over budge and over time projects down through the years.
The only ones that appeared to have worked out somewhat were the motorways, well apart from the M50.

You seem to have forgotten that the most senior civil servant in the country advised the politicians that the National Broadband Plan didn't represent value for money, but the politicians (including the Minister of Finance, he being from a business background) overruled him and went ahead.

But apart from that 'litany', why don't you look at the tens of thousands of public sector projects that happened quietly, under the radar, without any scandal or newspaper headlines, just new buildings, new services, new IT systems provided every week and every month without drama. Have a look at those and let me know what you think.

jmayo wrote: »

You know maybe it is about time we started letting the country be run by hard nosed business people.
Hell they might even believe in increasing the service to the customer (i.e. the citizens) and getting value for money for the owners (i.e. the taxpayers).

Wouldn't that be a novel concept as opposed to shyte services that have literally and often figuratively cost an arm and a leg. :rolleyes:

Your not so 'novel' concept seems to have missed the fact that public services aren't commercial services. It's easy to get value for money in the commercial world. It's not quite so easy when you have to provide universal services on a non-commercial basis. It's a bit of a different world really.

I'm not sure why you think that putting a soccer ref into a rugby match would be a great new positive development.

jmayo wrote: »

Well we tried getting civil servants/public servants and politicians, primarily with public sector backgrounds, to run the country and they managed to run it into the ground or blow billions with often scant return or value.

They have recently managed amongst other things to dig a massive hole in the ground to pour billions into and are still trying to tell us it will be the best children's hospital in the world.
And yes I know you are a huge proponent of the totally unsuitable site.
Why do I wonder what is your vested interest in that?
Care to remind when that was meant to be coming on stream ?

And to add to that wastage we have other projects such as National Broadband plan, Irish Water, and a whole litany of half ar**ed over budge and over time projects down through the years.
The only ones that appeared to have worked out somewhat were the motorways, well apart from the M50.

You know maybe it is about time we started letting the country be run by hard nosed business people.
Hell they might even believe in increasing the service to the customer (i.e. the citizens) and getting value for money for the owners (i.e. the taxpayers).

Wouldn't that be a novel concept as opposed to shyte services that have literally and often figuratively cost an arm and a leg. :rolleyes:

Loafing Oaf

LaFuton wrote: »

mario was doing him on giftgrub this morning and later dempsey had to clarify to some listeners that it wasn't real

https://twitter.com/TodayFM/status/1220649564644020224?s=20

I can't believe that:eek:





Mario's PC much more articulate and coherent than the real thing...

pinkyeye

LaFuton wrote: »

mario was doing him on giftgrub this morning and later dempsey had to clarify to some listeners that it wasn't real

https://twitter.com/TodayFM/status/1220649564644020224?s=20

That is hilarious, you would definitely believe it's him like. :D

mickdw

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A 'big common sense' issue? Maybe he should tell us that all Leitrim people are rapists and we need to build a wall? Or is there any other downtrodden group that he hasn't tried his 'divide and conquer' tactics .

Do you not think the current welfare setup is overcooked?
Anyone bar the recipients would have to agree so while it may be a divide and conquer tactic, and it would likely not get him elected, it would bring forward the realisation that for those who live to work the system as opposed to work, the welfare system is too generous versus what workers can afford.
I'm not saying the basic dole rate is too high. It's not but when you take a non working couple with 5 kids, Rent paid, free school transport, free doctor and prescription drugs, college grants, college fees, back to school grants, childminding costs for workers, it's a joke to be going to work.

end of the road

mickdw wrote: »

Do you not think the current welfare setup is overcooked?

not necessarily no

mickdw wrote: »

Anyone bar the recipients would have to agree so while it may be a divide and conquer tactic, and it would likely not get him elected, it would bring forward the realisation that for those who live to work the system as opposed to work, the welfare system is too generous versus what workers can afford.

i'm not a recipient and yet i completely disagree with that statement, so the first part of your sentence is not completely the case.
realistically for an individual to afford to pay for everything themselves out of that wellfare the wellfare would have to increase massively. people don't want that so the best way to insure supports are available is through government subsidy.

mickdw wrote: »

I'm not saying the basic dole rate is too high. It's not but when you take a non working couple with 5 kids, Rent paid, free school transport, free doctor and prescription drugs, college grants, college fees, back to school grants, childminding costs for workers, it's a joke to be going to work.

it's really not.
going to work can potentially lift your income substantially depending on where and what you work as, as it allows for potential promotion and one to possibly clime the income ladder. someone on wellfare will be on around the same all of their lives, with nothing major in terms of income increases, unless they start increasing their income via illegal means.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

mickdw wrote: »

Have a look at the presidential election thread. Very similar comments when he was on 1 percent for the first week.
I'm fully expecting him to come up with a big common sense issue that gets the people with him.
A solid vote would be a success.

Isn’t it kind of pathetic to have to grasp around for a populist issue to glom onto? Not a great strategy.

mickdw

end of the road wrote: »

not necessarily no

Fair enough - your opinion

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not a recipient and yet i completely disagree with that statement, so the first part of your sentence is not completely the case.
realistically for an individual to afford to pay for everything themselves out of that wellfare the wellfare would have to increase massively. people don't want that so the best way to insure supports are available is through government subsidy.

Ah come on, its completely skewed towards the unemployed. A worker on a salary that just takes them outside of all supports will have to house his family in what accommodation they can afford. A welfare recipient will be deemed to need x number of bedrooms purely based on number of kids. No 3 to a room for our non working citizens.
Worker cannot afford a house in Dublin, they move to meath or Kildare. Welfare recipient doesn't need to be anywhere near the city yet will hold out to be housed in the city and then call it a national disgrace when they cannot be accommodated with a forever home.
Welfare people seem to believe their human rights are being interfered with if they are ONLY given paid for private rented property because they may be asked to move on in a year or two and are for that reason are turning down offers until they get the council house. Working people rent a property, pay for it themselves and still face the prospect of having to move at the whim of a landlord. These lifetime welfare scroungers are not living in the real world.

end of the road wrote: »

it's really not.
going to work can potentially lift your income substantially depending on where and what you work as, as it allows for potential promotion and one to possibly clime the income ladder. someone on wellfare will be on around the same all of their lives, with nothing major in terms of income increases, unless they start increasing their income via illegal means.

The illegal means bit is an important factor but an argument for another day.
Yes you have a valid point that people can and do climb to a higher wage and welfare is rarely going to be as good as being a TD for example (unless you are an expert level player) however taking the normal bread and butter jobs such as nurses, factory workers etc, the majority don't increase hugely and most will spend their working lives trying to pay for everything and having nothing left while watching the no working couple go to every match in croke park, take the sun holiday every year and not have to worry about getting up in the morning.

AndrewJRenko

mickdw wrote: »

Do you not think the current welfare setup is overcooked?
Anyone bar the recipients would have to agree so while it may be a divide and conquer tactic, and it would likely not get him elected, it would bring forward the realisation that for those who live to work the system as opposed to work, the welfare system is too generous versus what workers can afford.
I'm not saying the basic dole rate is too high. It's not but when you take a non working couple with 5 kids, Rent paid, free school transport, free doctor and prescription drugs, college grants, college fees, back to school grants, childminding costs for workers, it's a joke to be going to work.

How about some of the big costs in the welfare setup, much of which go to the better off parts of society - the 2 billion on child benefit and the nearly 6 billion on state pensions - are they overcooked too?

mickdw

Yes, I don't belief Child benefit should be paid across the board however I don't believe it should be assessed using the current style means test which would only result in even poorer low way workers with no effect on welfare recipients.
Firstly means should be assessed as all income and benefits into a home including welfare income and HAP plus a market rate means figure added to those getting subsidised council housing, a value applied to medical card together with its associated benefits. Once a true and equally assessed means is known, real decisions can be made and Ive a strong feeling that the low wage workers would then be seen to be entitled to welfare.

State contributory pension Ive no issue with. People have paid into this and should be arguably a much bigger gap between it and the non contributory pension. If a higher level of prsi is needed to achieve that, it should be done.
State non contributory is about right. I don't think there is an major abuse of this. A single pensioner will find it hard to survive on it. A couple probably better off but no one getting rich on it and to be honest where there is abuse, a lot of assets get taken back by the state on death.

Boggles

mickdw wrote: »

Yes, I don't belief Child benefit should be paid across the board however I don't believe it should be assessed using the current style means test which would only result in even poorer low way workers with no effect on welfare recipients.

There is no means test for child benefit, everyone is entitled to avail of it, it is a welfare payment.

I imagine a lot of families in this country across the board heavily depend on it.

If you are advocating Welfare on income and expenditure assessment, which isn't a bad idea, than the Social Protection budget would have to increase.

AndrewJRenko

mickdw wrote: »

Yes, I don't belief Child benefit should be paid across the board however I don't believe it should be assessed using the current style means test which would only result in even poorer low way workers with no effect on welfare recipients.
Firstly means should be assessed as all income and benefits into a home including welfare income and HAP plus a market rate means figure added to those getting subsidised council housing, a value applied to medical card together with its associated benefits. Once a true and equally assessed means is known, real decisions can be made and Ive a strong feeling that the low wage workers would then be seen to be entitled to welfare.

Will this new means test include all the generous tax reliefs availed of by the middle classes - pension tax relief, professional subscription tax reliefs, life insurance tax relief, health insurance tax relief, all the special 'investment' reliefs? And all the grants availed of by their businesses, all the Enterprise Ireland and LEO grants and University startup grants?

mickdw wrote: »

State contributory pension Ive no issue with. People have paid into this and should be arguably a much bigger gap between it and the non contributory pension. If a higher level of prsi is needed to achieve that, it should be done.
State non contributory is about right. I don't think there is an major abuse of this. A single pensioner will find it hard to survive on it. A couple probably better off but no one getting rich on it and to be honest where there is abuse, a lot of assets get taken back by the state on death.

The contributions people pay towards their contributory pension don't come within an asses roar of covering the costs involved.



Zero assets get taken back by the State on death.



Those who availed of the Fair Deal scheme may have repay a small, capped amount out of their estate, but that's it.

mickdw

Boggles wrote: »

There is no means test for child benefit, everyone is entitled to avail of it, it is a welfare payment.

I imagine a lot of families in this country across the board heavily depend on it.

If you are advocating Welfare on income and expenditure assessment, which isn't a bad idea, than the Social Protection budget would have to increase.

I'm aware of that. My point was that if there is means test to come in, it should be a fair test that takes all income into account. It should be after tax income that it is based on to equate with the welfare people and should also be balanced to take careful account of all the benefits people are getting. I'm all for such a means test.

mickdw

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Will this new means test include all the generous tax reliefs availed of by the middle classes - pension tax relief, professional subscription tax reliefs, life insurance tax relief, health insurance tax relief, all the special 'investment' reliefs? And all the grants availed of by their businesses, all the Enterprise Ireland and LEO grants and University startup grants?






The contributions people pay towards their contributory pension don't come within an asses roar of covering the costs involved.



Zero assets get taken back by the State on death.



Those who availed of the Fair Deal scheme may have repay a small, capped amount out of their estate, but that's it.

Yes I believe any means test should take into account any personal income or gains from tax breaks etc as you describe. Business grants - no as they are to promote jobs etc and are not a personal profit.
're contributory pension, fair enough. It should still be increased then to help make the contributory payment more ahead of non contributory - it might promote will to work if you could look forward to a better state pension.

I don't agree 're assets getting taken back. Numerous cases here before fair deal or anything else where farmers didn't declare assets and wrongly obtained state pension. On death, huge chunk of money taken from estate.

Boggles

mickdw wrote: »

I'm aware of that. My point was that if there is means test to come in, it should be a fair test that takes all income into account. It should be after tax income that it is based on to equate with the welfare people and should also be balanced to take careful account of all the benefits people are getting. I'm all for such a means test.

I think you are just focused on "welfare people" without thinking your proposal through.

I agree though Welfare should be based on need, so not only should your income be assessed so should your expenditure (to a point).

It's what Welfare states do, it's extremely extremely expensive though.

We'd have to increase taxes or find oil.

mickdw

Boggles wrote: »

I think you are just focused on "welfare people" without thinking your proposal through.

I agree though Welfare should be based on need, so not only should your income be assessed so should your expenditure (to a point).

It's what Welfare states do, it's extremely extremely expensive though.

We'd have to increase taxes or find oil.

I don't follow but all Im talking about is fairness to all people. Assess means equally.
If you assess means of a worker as his actual cash income from which everything needs to be paid for, is it fair to assess means of a welfare recipient excluding everything that is then available free. Its clearly not fair and as much as there is a huge fear over a pensions timebomb, if government continue to make welfare more attractive, it will be a welfare collapse we will be looking at.
Im not favouring more welfare by giving money to workers. Im favouring fairness which would see some workers entitled to welfare and also see huge reductions in payments to non workers by firstly capping household income from welfare - There was one case in court where the judge questioned the income to one traveller family and asked how much the Taoiseach earned. Its complete madness.