Off Topic Thread too point uh

swiwi_ wrote: »

It's a dentist's wetdream. That's all I'm saying.

NB: when did you last go the dentist

Dentists are just a conspiracy created by the foreigners to take our money, would never catch me in one of those, have you never seen Little Shop of Horrors!?

Bazzo

swiwi_ wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

These foreigners come to our country, insult our women, and then feck off to the next place. Ya bleedin mercenary

It's a dentist's wetdream. That's all I'm saying.

NB: when did you last go the dentist

That is pretty rank.

I go to the hygienist for a clean once a year. Aside from a couple of fillings I got from eating mountains of ****e as a young lad my teeth are in pretty good nick. I like straight, white teeth, but some Americans particularly tend to go overboard with the whitening and end up with a mouth you could use to steer ships clear of rocks...

swiwi_ wrote: »

Trust me TMO, if you have cancer, you definitely want at least the initial diagnosis and treatment plan made in a university hospital. There're plenty of figures showing better treatment outcomes.

But afterwards, I agree that Tx should be able to take place locally.

And OK, so you brush and floss well. My compliments.

Plenty of hospitals oversee treatments in other locations. I had a friend who was in a car accident and was in too serious a condition to be flown to Beaumont so the doctor there oversaw all his treatment over the phone, so to speak.

The point is they should have the facilities in the NW. They say the population is too small to justify it but there's an extraordinarily high percentage of people in the NW, Donegal in particular, who have cancer. I don't want to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat but people talk about the sheep up there showing sings of radiation from Chernobyl, it's not too far off the map to think it could have impacted in other ways too.

But anyway..... this is just one example of something that people should be getting worked up about to the same degree as they have about Irish Water. I'm sure if you talk to any number of other groups of people there are a lot of serious issues in other places that are being ignored too.

Teferi

Just saw Civil War. Captain America definitely has the strongest set of movies in the Marvel universe, really really good.

Made the mistake of Googling the ingredients of these tablets I take for migraines. One of them has a list of about 50 side effects including increased risk of death!

swiwi_ wrote: »

Anyway I remember staring at Shane Ross' election posters in Dundrum, and thinking those teeth are mustard coloured buddy.

His campaign against fluoride becomes more curious.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The point is they should have the facilities in the NW. They say the population is too small to justify it but there's an extraordinarily high percentage of people in the NW, Donegal in particular, who have cancer. I don't want to sound like I wear a tinfoil hat but people talk about the sheep up there showing sings of radiation from Chernobyl, it's not too far off the map to think it could have impacted in other ways too.

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

Jaysus the 6 counties are doing well on that map, fair play.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Jaysus the 6 counties are doing well on that map, fair play.

No fluoride in the water, don't ya know.

OldRio

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

It takes an hour just to get to the nearest hospital from our location. Heaven help anyone who gets poorly outside of doctors surgery times. Yet I can get a vet 24 hours a day if I have an emergency on the farm.

Buer wrote: »

They should but it's not realistic. There's a pot of money and Donegal simply cannot justify such a specialised facility. The statistics don't support the claim that Donegal has even above average percentage of people who have cancer.

http://www.ncri.ie/sites/ncri/files/maps/All%20Invasive%201994-2013.jpg

Whilst a treatment facility should absolutely be available within 1 hour of everyone in the country, it's not going to happen in my lifetime.

I'll leave the welfare of the sheep to someone more agriculturally minded!

Those stats are up to 2003. And it's not just for Donegal, it's for the NW. Parts of Sligo and Leitrim would be nearer to Donegal than they are to Galway.

The government have been promising a facility in Derry, our lot were supposed to co fund it and people from Donegal/Sligo etc. would be sent there instead of Galway but it doesn't appear to be making any progress.

And even if an actual treatment facility is too much to ask funding a bus service shouldn't be. They stopped providing any financial help to the people running the bus so now the people suffering from cancer have to raise the money themselves to keep it running. If you read the article I linked you'll see the government suggested they just use public transport instead, which basically means a 5 hour trip on Bus Eireann, non stop, which isn't possible for a lot of people.

But as a said this is just one specific example of the Government letting it's people down badly. Look at the new Children's Hospital and where it's being built to see how much consideration they give to anyone outside of Dublin.

And the original point was there are, in my opinion, a lot of things far more important than the water rates that people should be taking the Government to task over.

Synode

Yeah but water charges are directly forcing people to open their wallets. People care more about that than they do about other people having to get busses for cancer treatment. At least until something like that directly affects themself. Irish people just don't have a sense for the bigger picture

Synode wrote: »

Yeah but water charges are directly forcing people to open their wallets. People care more about that than they do about other people having to get busses for cancer treatment. At least until something like that directly affects themself. Irish people just don't have a sense for the bigger picture

That's it in a nutshell.

But again you wonder why they didn't kick up a fuss about the USC or property tax. Even now why not say okay, we'll pay for the water we use but we demand the property tax is scrapped. It just baffles me what people choose to get worked up about.

CatFromHue

The USC was at a time when our country was falling apart right in front of our eyes so was easier to stomach.

Felix Jones is God

Abolish USC, Keep taking the payments and give it to Irish water, those who are already paying can afford to keep on doing so

CatFromHue wrote: »

The USC was at a time when our country was falling apart right in front of our eyes so was easier to stomach.

Yeah, I hear that argument a lot about the water charges, it's the straw that broke the camel's back, and fair enough, but the overall issue is money coming out of our pockets. So why has no politician been brave enough to suggest we keep the water charges and get rid of property tax. I'm fairly sure we can't actually do away with the water charges because we signed up to an EU policy on conservation of water so why do people insist on flogging a dead horse? I'd have been far more inclined to vote for a party that said they wanted to get rid of property tax or USC than one promising to do the impossible with the water.

Anyway... getting a bit too political now. So..... cats?

CatFromHue

the defence and reason of the water charges has been pathetic at best.

from what I saw the non TD's put up the best reasoning, Colm McCarthy and some lad from a water discussion group.

to me it's a no brainer of a charge

Podge_irl

CatFromHue wrote: »

the defence and reason of the water charges has been pathetic at best.

from what I saw the non TD's put up the best reasoning, Colm McCarthy and some lad from a water discussion group.

to me it's a no brainer of a charge

I guess the difference between it and the USC is that it is money coming out of your pocket which maybe feels worse than money deducted before you ever see it.

But yeah, as far as I'm concerned it's no different from an ESB charge. Even those in favour of it would presumably agree the whole thing has been handled cack-handedly.

Anyway...running my first marathon tomorrow. Was already nervous and now Geneva has decided now is the perfect time to hit summer so will be over 20 degrees while running. Balls.

Zzippy

Good luck Podge!

Team Podge

errlloyd

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

errlloyd wrote: »

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

Water rates shouldn't be flat rate though.

errlloyd wrote: »

The difference between usc and water chargers is one is a flat rate and one is a percentage of income.

Michael O Leary and I pay the same water tax. We pay vastly different USC.

Water charges are based on consumption, or should be! USC is not.

pickarooney

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Water rates shouldn't be flat rate though.

Sparkling?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I'd have been far more inclined to vote for a party that said they wanted to get rid of property tax or USC than one promising to do the impossible with the water.

Anyway... getting a bit too political now. So..... cats?

The funny thing is, abolishing the USC is far more unlikely than water. The tax revenue take in 2015 was €46.5bn. USC brings in around €4bn. It's simply not feasible to discard with the USC now without years of planning. Our economy would be plunged into crisis overnight if we lost 10% of our tax revenue.

The likes of the AAA campaigned for slashing the USC to the tune of €2bn. Complete nonsense. I was impressed with Stephen Donnelly who called a spade a spade on the matter and highlighted that the eradication of the USC was fantasy stuff.

Buer wrote: »

The funny thing is, abolishing the USC is far more unlikely than water. The tax revenue take in 2015 was €46.5bn. USC brings in around €4bn. It's simply not feasible to discard with the USC now without years of planning. Our economy would be plunged into crisis overnight if we lost 10% of our tax revenue.

My understanding of the water charges is that they literally cannot be abolished. We agreed to introducing them way back in the early 2000's as part of an EU directive to monitor and reduce waste of water. The government kept putting off introducing them until the bailout happened and then we were "forced" to, which worked out well because everyone now associates them with the IMF and Angela Merkel and what have you.

The best solution, in my opinion, to the water issue is to switch the bloody meters on and to make people pay for what they're using.

Bazzo

Metering water usage and paying something towards upkeep of the infrastructure has always made sense to me and I've never had a problem with it, but the manner in which the government went about implementing it was such an astounding display of incompetence(to be generous) that it was doomed from day 1.

errlloyd

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Water charges are based on consumption, or should be! USC is not.

I agree completely. It should be metered, that's the point. Even if it was though it'd still be a tax that his low income earners harder (proportionally) than usc.

At the moment water is paid for out of the exchequer, which basically means 10 percent of the population pay 80 of it and 50 percent pay almost nothing. By changing it to water metres they're massively shifting the cost for water from weathier families to poorer ones. The reason why middle class people are cool with water chargers is becuase if you're a high earner paying for them this way effectively saves you money (assuming the extra revenue comes back to you in the shape of the usc cut everyone is so fond of suggesting).