What's more important?

PH01

I'm amazed that over the last few months the media has been more focused upon the coming smoking ban in pubs rather than the reform of the health service.

Anyone want to speculate the reasons why?

Imposter

Why does one have to be more important than the other in order to get covered?

I think the ban will have the effect down the line of taking some of the current pressures off the health system. In that way I think both are important and cannot clearly be seperated or one given priority over the other.

[edit] as for why the media are doing this is that it's obviously something the general public want to hear about as it'll effect them more (in the short term at least).

Originally posted by Imposter
Why does one have to be more important than the other in order to get covered?

I think the ban will have the effect down the line of taking some of the current pressures off the health system. In that way I think both are important and cannot clearly be seperated or one given priority over the other.

[edit] as for why the media are doing this is that it's obviously something the general public want to hear about as it'll effect them more (in the short term at least).

I would agree entirely.
For once a government or a minister is being forthright in doing something the most tangeable benefits of which might be years after he has retired, whilst at the same time causing vocal uproar from vested greedy interests...
Thats actually entirely unselfish , I have to blink and pinch myself that it is FF that are spearheading this good move!

and people are complaining, the mind boggles

mm

PH01

Yeah, I would agree that both are important, but I feel that the reform of the health service is far more important than a smoking ban in the pubs.
The smoking ban in pubs, which I agree with, is a trivial matter and it doesn't compare with the impact of the reform of the health service.
The reform of the health service will be a couple of time more benefitial to the health of the nation than any old media grabbing honey pot like a ban on smoking.

Like what is the Health Minister going to pick on next when he should be reforming the Health Service?

Imposter

Originally posted by PH01
Yeah, I would agree that both are important, but I feel that the reform of the health service is far more important than a smoking ban in the pubs.
The smoking ban in pubs, which I agree with, is a trivial matter and it doesn't compare with the impact of the reform of the health service.
The reform of the health service will be a couple of time more benefitial to the health of the nation than any old media grabbing honey pot like a ban on smoking.

Agreed but the media functions only if it gets viewers/readers. Like it or not more people are more concerned with the smoking ban at the moment.

The majority of people have no interest in politics and things which don't impinge on their everyday lives. The smpking ban will and the reforms of the health system won't (in as visible a way).

Add to this the general uproar being caused by publicans and smokers and there's a conflict. Everyone (I would imagine) agrees that the health service needs to be reformed. Most only want to hear that something is being done and again that these reforms are done. They've no interest in how it's done, as such(to quote Cyril Farrell!:) ). Conflict sells.

Like what is the Health Minister going to pick on next when he should be reforming the Health Service? [/B]

I don't think that's fair. I think he's trying to do his job. Reforming the health service is only part of that. A very important part but still only a part. Aren't these reforms being held up with investigations and surveys into what exactly needs to be done? To me that's doing something about the problem, even if it will take years (or decades) at the current pace.

Sparks

For once a government or a minister is being forthright in doing something the most tangeable benefits of which might be years after he has retired, whilst at the same time causing vocal uproar from vested greedy interests...

Well, almost. The load on the health system would be reduced if he banned tobacco outright, not if he just restricts when you can smoke the stuff. But tobacco companies have deep pockets...

Frank Grimes

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, almost. The load on the health system would be reduced if he banned tobacco outright, not if he just restricts when you can smoke the stuff. But tobacco companies have deep pockets...

I would think it's more to do with the money they get in tax revenue from cigarette sales rather than anything to do with the tobacco companies.

mr_angry

Originally posted by PH01
Like what is the Health Minister going to pick on next when he should be reforming the Health Service?

I presume the Minister is capable of multi-tasking, and can still devote time to reforming the health service (which is a long, long process) aswell as arguing the case for the smoking ban.

The irony of it all is the legislation went through the Dail without opposotion from ANY party. Now, after its all done and dusted, some Kerry publicans are saying "Hold on a minute, we don't want to go through with this". Well, I say tough sh*t. That'll teach you to keep an eye on the current affairs of your "money-grabbing, honey-pot" profession. I for one am looking forward to paying yet more extortionate prices for a pint in clean, fresh air.

If anything, you should be blaming the media for their reliance on this story. IMHO the Minister hasn't done anything wrong.

MDR

I presume the Minister is capable of multi-tasking, and can still devote time to reforming the health service (which is a long, long process) aswell as arguing the case for the smoking ban.

Funny I recently read an argument by Garret Fitzgerald that our current electoral arrangements make it very difficult for many ministers to do their jobs. They have to balance home, their ministry and their constituency.

The 'Speaker' (spelling in Irish ?) is at least guaranteed re-election when he neglects his constituent's when at the services of the house, however no such arrangement exists for ministers. When a minister is faced with competing allegiances, I suspect servicing his/her constituents will always win over his/her ministerial commitments, so as to ensure re-election.

One wonders how td's squeezed in county council commitments as well, before the ending of the dual mandate, I suppose the fact is, they probabily didn't ....

All very off topic I accept, and please don't hate bomb me, with meandering posts on how ministers, tds, county councillors et al, are a lazy shower etc ...

MDR

The load on the health system would be reduced if he banned tobacco outright, not if he just restricts when you can smoke the stuff. But tobacco companies have deep pockets...

It would also be electoral suicide, there is no need for conspirancy theories on this one, the act of completely banning something that so many people are addicted to, rather than promoting measures to encourage them to give up the habit, would be an act of electoral suicide, if not civil war ....

colster

I think the options are above are linked.
I think it's past time that we tackled the cause of the health service problem (unhealthy lifestyles) rather than the symptoms (long waiting lists and packed emergency rooms).
Banning smoking is a step in that direction.
Tackling fatty diets is next

MDR

where is alcohol consumption on this list ?

mr_angry

Probably a long way down the line, but just before "Replacement services for pub culture"

MDR

Replacement services for pub culture

bit of red herring that one, the areas I lived in, in France didn't have any more or less amenities available than my old neighborhood in North Dublin, (and my new one).

Originally posted by Sparks
Well, almost. The load on the health system would be reduced if he banned tobacco outright, not if he just restricts when you can smoke the stuff. But tobacco companies have deep pockets...

And so have the smokers...
/vat and excise

mr_angry

Originally posted by MDR
bit of red herring that one, the areas I lived in, in France didn't have any more or less amenities available than my old neighborhood in North Dublin, (and my new one).

Just because France isn't any better, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though, does it?

MDR

Just because France isn't any better, doesn't mean it shouldn't be done though, does it?

I don't really see what other facilities could be made available, (although i do accept the situation is different outside of Dublin), I have heard this lack of facilities argument before and I fail to see what facility that isn't being provided that is driving people to get locked every saturday night in its stead ...

mr_angry

Certainly there should be a lot more facilities for teenagers, especially from 8-12pm. The norm in this country is to start going clubbing regularly from the age of about 12 / 13. While I know drinking is prohibited at teenage discos, it does promote a certain kind of culture.

Thank God Dundalk got a decent Cinema / Bowling Alley / Swimming Pool in the last 5 years. Before all that, it was pub or nothing.

Actually, I'd say I spend less time in the pub now than I did when I was 17!

PH01

Originally posted by Imposter
Agreed but the media functions only if it gets viewers/readers. Like it or not more people are more concerned with the smoking ban at the moment.

The majority of people have no interest in politics and things which don't impinge on their everyday lives. The smpking ban will and the reforms of the health system won't (in as visible a way).

Add to this the general uproar being caused by publicans and smokers and there's a conflict. Everyone (I would imagine) agrees that the health service needs to be reformed. Most only want to hear that something is being done and again that these reforms are done. They've no interest in how it's done, as such(to quote Cyril Farrell!:) ). Conflict sells.

Yip, agree with you there. I'd like to see the meeja presenting the Brennan report in bit size chunck?

Originally posted by Imposter
I don't think that's fair. I think he's trying to do his job. Reforming the health service is only part of that. A very important part but still only a part. Aren't these reforms being held up with investigations and surveys into what exactly needs to be done? To me that's doing something about the problem, even if it will take years (or decades) at the current pace.

Absolutely. But why doesn't MM come out a say "...listen folks, this smoking ban is going ahead. Nothing is going to stop it happening. Get over it. I've got better things to be doing like reforming the Health Service" (gawd, I should be writing his speeches).

PH01

Originally posted by MDR
where is alcohol consumption on this list ?

I knew I forgot something