Reasonable or not

A fairer society is a good thing, however we are never going to make society fair that's impossible.

The way I see it Health care should be the same for everyone and accesses should be the same, however if I choose to pay for a private room and menu with a choice of meals and more luxurious surroundings while having my illness taken care of that's fine. Remember the only thing my money is buying me is more luxurious surroundings not quicker accesses.

Everyone should have accesses to some very basic accommodation, however if you have the to money to live in a mansion in Ballsbridge go for it.

Fee paying education as long as the fee paying school does not use the fees to provide a better pupil teacher ratio or to employ extra sports coaches in other words as the teaching numbers and facilities are the same it the choice of the parents where they send their child to school, that goes both ways as well if a DEIS school can offer after school food/ activities/supervised study for a 5 euros a week then fee paying school are entitled to do the same.

A society that values( not worships wealth ) wealth both public and private is a good thing IMO a society that provides equal opportunities but doesn't try to engineer equal outcomes.

Is that fair and reasonable.

snubbleste

What strange notions.

The_Valeyard

mariaalice wrote: »

A fairer society is a good thing, however we are never going to make society fair that's impossible.

The way I see it Health care should be the same for everyone and accesses should be the same, however if I choose to pay for a private room and menu with a choice of meals and more luxurious surroundings while having my illness taken care of that's fine. Remember the only thing my money is buying me is more luxurious surroundings not quicker accesses.

Everyone should have accesses to some very basic accommodation, however if you have the to money to live in a mansion in Ballsbridge go for it.

Fee paying education as long as the fee paying school does not use the fees to provide a better pupil teacher ratio or to employ extra sports coaches in other words as the teaching numbers and facilities are the same it the choice of the parents where they send their child to school, that goes both ways as well if a DEIS school can offer after school food/ activities/supervised study for a 5 euros a week then fee paying school are entitled to do the same.

A society that values( not worships wealth ) wealth both public and private is a good thing IMO a society that provides equal opportunities but doesn't try to engineer equal outcomes.

Is that fair and reasonable.

Write your own college essay!!! :P :P

The_Valeyard

The_Valeyard wrote: »

Write your own college essay!!! :P :P

Its just my musing after the yes vote and realising absolute fairness is not possible and is a ridiculous thing to strive for.

Akrasia

The thought experiment that decides whether something is fair is pretty simple

You take the system as it currently is, and imagine that you are in a situation where you could be randomly assigned to live under the economic conditions of any random citizen.

Would you be happy that there is a reasonable chance that you would do better, or worse than your current situation

Would you be happy that you would have equal opportunity to improve your economic circumstances?

Anyone who makes policy decisions should be expected to also live with the consequences of those decisions themselves. It's not fair or reasonable for a minister with private healthcare and private schooling for their kids, to be voting to reduce the public education and health budget because these decisions will only affect other people.

The problem with private education and healthcare is that it allows people of wealth and influence to escape from the public health and education system that the vast majority of people are expected to live with

If there was no private healthcare, then you can bet that the wealthy would insist on a better standard of public hospital and might be prepared to pay higher taxes to pay for it

If there was no private education, then the rich and the powerful would not be insulated from the decisions that they make regarding education funding

I know abort John Rawls theory of justice and while I mostly agree with it, it does have some holes.

Remember I said a health care with the exact same accesses and facilities what you choose to pay for is privacy and more luxurious surroundings NOT more doctors nurses and facilities.

I guarantee you hat you could double the teacher ration in some fee paying schools and provide a state of the art non fee paying school with fantastic facilities and you would still get parent opting for the fee paying school.

Akrasia

mariaalice wrote: »

I know abort John Rawls theory of justice and while I mostly agree with it, it does have some holes.

Remember I said a health care with the exact same accesses and facilities what you choose to pay for is privacy and more luxurious surroundings NOT more doctors nurses and facilities.

I guarantee you that you could double the teacher ration in some fee paying schools and provide a state of the art non fee paying school with fantastic facilities and you would still get parent opting for the fee paying school.

Obviously, the fewer benefits there are to going private, the less harmful they are to the social fabric, but the idea behind private social services for the wealthy is to build a level of insulation around the wealthy so that they don't have to endure the same conditions as the general public.

I think social services should be commonly funded and democratically accountable, so that if a wealthy person wants to have good social services, he/she should have to campaign for good social services for all, rather than the self serving 'screw everyone else, i've got health insurance' model of social policy.

jank

Akrasia wrote: »

If there was no private education, then the rich and the powerful would not be insulated from the decisions that they make regarding education funding

Eh wha? The state (via bureaucrats/politicians with a nice cut going to the unions) allocate education funding via taxes, the rich don't 'decide' that at all.

Balmed Out

Why would anyone pay for fee paying education then?

Utopian pipe dream stuff with no economic hope of working out. Though the Soviet Union came close.

Maguined

That depends on whether you consider restricting some peoples freedoms is fair and reasonable. For schools it is not simply a matter of teacher and pupil ratio but also of the quality of teacher. A private school can offer to pay higher wages thereby attracting the best teachers. If a private school has more funding and so wants to pay a better teacher more money to work for them and that teacher wants to accept the higher salary and better conditions do you consider it fair and reasonable to remove that choice and make it illegal?

Maguined

Maguined wrote: »

That depends on whether you consider restricting some peoples freedoms is fair and reasonable. For schools it is not simply a matter of teacher and pupil ratio but also of the quality of teacher. A private school can offer to pay higher wages thereby attracting the best teachers. If a private school has more funding and so wants to pay a better teacher more money to work for them and that teacher wants to accept the higher salary and better conditions do you consider it fair and reasonable to remove that choice and make it illegal?

Yes I do.. I am all for reasonable free choice so have no issue with fee paying schools in general they don't pay teachers more in fee paying schools in Ireland and as long as the fees are not used to provide a lower teacher pupil ration in the fee paying school or to employ more sport coaches so there is no advantage in facilities in the fee paying school thats fair and as I said I know of DEIS school providing after school activities/food/supervised study to all years for 5 euro a week.

Balmed Out

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes I do.. I am all for reasonable free choice so have no issue with fee paying schools in general they don't pay teachers more in fee paying schools in Ireland and as long as the fees are not used to provide a lower teacher pupil ration in the fee paying school or to employ more sport coaches so there is no advantage in facilities in the fee paying school that fair and as I said I know of DEIS school providing after school activities/food/supervised study to all years for 5 euro a week.

But if they don't pay teachers better they cant attract better teachers, they wouldn't be allowed more favorable teacher to pupil ratios and they wouldn't be allowed better facilities, why would anybody pay?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I think this country needs to give more back to the people who are contributing or have contributed a reasonable amount.
Healthcare across the board should be easily accessible for everybody - but how do you regulate it so as it's not abused? My own doctor surgery takes a lot of patients with medical cards, and all the time, you see the same faces in there each time you're there.
You need to call 3 or 4 days in advance for an appointment because they're so busy. I have no idea how you're supposed to foresee that far in advance that you're going to be ill but there have been times I've really needed to see a doctor and found it impossible to get an appointment. I eventually gave up and paid the little bit extra to see the out of hours doctor who sent me straight to a+e because the infection had gone completely through me and I needed anti biotics through an IV.

And yet when you do sit in the doctors you'll see the same people constantly, so they're clearly the ones who can foresee when they need to come back. Should people with medical cards have a maximum amount of visits to the doctors per year?

So - if you're willing to pay for a better service, it should be available.

Same with education. If you're okay with your child in a public school, that's great and we do have a good education system but if you can afford to put your child in a class where there's a less amount of students to each teacher, they get more 1 on 1 time, the quality of the teachers are higher then absolutely that should be an option.

I don't think social housing should be put in prime locations. People with lower paying jobs who get out and work for a living and aren't entitled to assistance have to cut their cloth to their measure and live where they can afford. I don't see why the same principle does not apply to the unemployed.

People paying higher tax should receive higher child benefit,
People paying nothing and who have never paid anything should not be financially rewarded for having more kids they cannot afford.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the taxpayers should have to provide a basic right to services to the more vulnerable but they should not be prohibited from making life better for themselves either

blastman

mariaalice wrote: »

Its just my musing after the yes vote and realising absolute fairness is not possible

Agree

mariaalice wrote: »

and is a ridiculous thing to strive for.

Disagree

Maguined

mariaalice wrote: »

Yes I do.. I am all for reasonable free choice so have no issue with fee paying schools in general they don't pay teachers more in fee paying schools in Ireland and as long as the fees are not used to provide a lower teacher pupil ration in the fee paying school or to employ more sport coaches so there is no advantage in facilities in the fee paying school thats fair and as I said I know of DEIS school providing after school activities/food/supervised study to all years for 5 euro a week.

In general they don't but what if the school does? I repeated my leaving cert because I was a very lazy and unmotivated pupil. The difference in quality of teacher I experienced when repeating my leaving cert in a fee paying school was a real shock to me. The class size was only slightly smaller than my previous public school but it was the quality of the teacher that made all the difference.

Even if you go ahead with your restrictions on private schools how far are you willing to restrict peoples choices to attain your more fair society? Are private tutors going to be banned as well to prevent unfairness after school with direct one to one teaching? Is home schooling now banned? Some people argue that all boys or all girls schools give those children an academic advantage because they are not distracted by the opposite sex during their teenage years when hormones are flying but it can be a disadvantage socially due to interacting with the opposite sex at that age of development. Would this academic advantage also be unfair?

I think your motives are fair but the restrictions you would have to place on people and removing their freedom of choice goes beyond reasonable and would only end up being very negative.

silverfeather

The advantage of capitalism is to enhance productivity while the advantage of socialism is to mitigate risks.

If government is committed to both then they can work in harmony; however if you start using capitalism to mitigate risks or socialism to enhance productivity things go awry.

The very fact that insurance companies exist is proof there is demand for socialist protection from risk because insurance is socialism for an exclusive population.



My Dad is in HR now but he started with the Unions, now he negotiates with unions. He always told me the reason unions traditionally were so ballsy and tough was because they had to fight so hard historically to get anywhere. Take 1950's Ireland and working and living conditions etc. Those at THAT time were not caused by laziness generally but lack of job security and poor industrial relations at the time. My Dad's PHD was on industrial relations from the era during which he grew up. Lemass introduced new ideas on how to manage the economy and how to reform the country’s relationship with the world. His ideas and influence transformed economic policy and had a profound influence on the role of trade unions in the formulation of public policy. Then in the 1970's Lynch brought about the trade union movement into the decision making process as a way of ensuring economic stability. Generally whenever trade unions are left out of decision making processes completely there is economic decline. When they have too much influence again there is a stagnation. The answer to this in this country was social partnerships. Even the self described 'most right wing man in the country' Constantine Gurgiev..(bit of a nut job economist but does great euro vision commentary!) admits Ireland does social partnerships well historically. They can be used to help tax efficiency and tax equity. But they can become a burden if they get the unions too much into the corridor of power.


I have no issues with rich people or people wanting to get rich or passing their wealth on to their progeny the economy needs them. They also need the regulation of an impartial govt for their own good. I have no issue with them going to better schools or better doctors they can drink golden from golden goblets. So long as everyone gets SOME type of doctor.

Neither side will ever feel the situation is totally fair. That is the sign it is fair.

There are certain things you take out of the private sector. There are somethings that thrive in the private sector like creativity etc.

My dad left school at 14 and studied and worked full time and paid tax all his life but got cancer just after they stopped giving automatic medical cards to cancer patients. He had insurance the clinic he went to stopped carrying that insurer half way through his treatment and he had to go outside of the county. They took him knowing that this would be the case prior they just wanted what they could get. THAT IS WRONG.

I have nothing against wealth or wealthy people. I am sure some of them are fine people. I hate apathy.The economy needs them but it needs everyone else too.

It is a balance of restriction and freedom of capitalism of social products that most modern nations follow even in the US for example.

Freedom of choice within sensible laws.

silverfeather

Restricting private schools would only further damage state schools in keeping the standard of education lower by the way. Same goes for technology.

The basics should be taken out of the private sector and social programs used. But those programs also need the private sector and the private sector needs that risk mitigation. And it's basic decency.

It does not have to unreasonably mitigate freedoms. And remember if the referee is truly fair neither side unfairly dominates.

silverfeather

mariaalice wrote: »

A fairer society is a good thing, however we are never going to make society fair that's impossible.

The way I see it Health care should be the same for everyone and accesses should be the same, however if I choose to pay for a private room and menu with a choice of meals and more luxurious surroundings while having my illness taken care of that's fine. Remember the only thing my money is buying me is more luxurious surroundings not quicker accesses.

Everyone should have accesses to some very basic accommodation, however if you have the to money to live in a mansion in Ballsbridge go for it.

Fee paying education as long as the fee paying school does not use the fees to provide a better pupil teacher ratio or to employ extra sports coaches in other words as the teaching numbers and facilities are the same it the choice of the parents where they send their child to school, that goes both ways as well if a DEIS school can offer after school food/ activities/supervised study for a 5 euros a week then fee paying school are entitled to do the same.

A society that values( not worships wealth ) wealth both public and private is a good thing IMO a society that provides equal opportunities but doesn't try to engineer equal outcomes.

Is that fair and reasonable.

Little simplistic but it sounds fair. You should read my Dad's thesis :-P