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

How does one challenge legislation?

Options
  • 18-01-2019 1:57pm
    #1
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭


    As the title says, how does one go about challenging legislation? Bit of background. I recently gave up cigarettes and a few other vices, so I need to concentrate my energy elsewhere. While most people would find a hobby, I knew if it's not something I had a genuine interest in, I wouldn't stick with it. I've 9 years experience as a Garda, so I know how to read legislation, and there is a piece of legislation that grinds me.

    Basically, I want to challenge the legislation that forces me to have maternity/child cover on my health insurance. I lodged a complaint with the HIA, and they are the ones who informed me of this lovely bit of legislation that forces everyone who has health insurance to have maternity/child cover, even if they are male, single and never intend on ever having children. It's to keep the costs down for those who need it, but I feel it's totally unfair.

    Yes, I know it won't be an easy thing, but it's something for me to focus on and I'll decided if it's worth my while pursuing. I'm not 100% on how I will approach it yet, as I don't even know how I'd go about initiating this, but if I had the basic information I can go from there and decide if it's worth my time.

    I'm not looking for judgement, just information. So if anyone has any insight into how someone challenges legislation of this type, I would be highly appreciative.

    Thanks in advance.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    You have two options.

    Option 1. Become a TD/ Lobby a TD to table a private members Bill. Chances of success- fairly nil.

    Option 2. Take a Court Case on the Basis that it is discriinatory and breaches your rights etc. Chances of Success. No idea. Lets say 30%. Cost- Easily €500,000 because it would be appealled by the Insurance companies all the way to the SC and Europe if required.

    I'd take up golf.


  • Options
    #3
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I'm not sure the insurers would care - they would probably like to be able to offer more customised policies in that area as they already do in others. It's the State that may appeal as it'd chip away at the community element of pricing further. This is already slightly bypassed by putting things older people want more on dearer policies


  • Options
    #4
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    I was hoping I could do it all myself, represent myself, etc. May not get anywhere, but it would highlight it at least.

    Cheers folks!


  • Options
    #5
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    you couldn't find anything better to do with your time and energy?
    Volunteering at a homeless shelter, Tidy Towns committee, taking up golf?

    The cost to you of providing this coverage is low, and the benefit to society is clear - otherwise people will get coverage that doesn't cover maternity, or addiction, or mental health, because they figure they'll never need it, and then, surprise surprise, they do need it.

    So if you take this on, and let's imagine you eventually succeed, who will benefit?
    You? No, because you will have spent more time and energy on it than you could possibly save.
    Society in general? No, because there are good reasons for minimum coverage to exist.


  • Options
    #6
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    RayCun wrote: »
    you couldn't find anything better to do with your time and energy?
    Volunteering at a homeless shelter, Tidy Towns committee, taking up golf?

    The cost to you of providing this coverage is low, and the benefit to society is clear - otherwise people will get coverage that doesn't cover maternity, or addiction, or mental health, because they figure they'll never need it, and then, surprise surprise, they do need it.

    So if you take this on, and let's imagine you eventually succeed, who will benefit?
    You? No, because you will have spent more time and energy on it than you could possibly save.
    Society in general? No, because there are good reasons for minimum coverage to exist.

    As I said, if I try something I don't really have an interest in, I won't keep it up. I've no interest in the 3 things you mentioned, so no point in doing them.

    And me, and other single people like me will benefit. Why should I have to pay for other peoples kids? I've no problem having cover for the other things you mentioned, addiction, mental health, etc, because that is stuff that i could eventually need. I never intend to need or want maternity or child benefit cover. And I find it's madness to have to pay for other people to have kids. It's bad enough I'm doing it through taxes (that's a different argument, and one that would most likely be in the unpopular opinions thread).

    I'm sick of paying for other people to have kids. It's 99.9% a personal choice, be it through trying or accidental. But I still have to pay. Imagine if everyone with kids had to pay for (yes i've made this up to prove a point) 'Single person cover', which is useless if you have kids but it's included to make it cheaper for single people with no kids. There'd be uproar. But not a peep for the single kidless people who have to fork out to cover everyone else's choice.

    It's something I feel very strongly on, because it was only introduced recently* enough. I would much rather the premium I pay to be channelled into something I would use, like dental or additional mental health cover. But no, i have to pay for maternity and child cover even though I don't want or need either.

    And I do agree with minimum cover, but it should only apply to something that everyone benefits from, not just those who decide to have sex and produce children. It's BS.

    *In the grand scheme of things


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,944 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Potential-Monke wrote: »

    I'm sick of paying for other people to have kids. It's 99.9% a personal choice, be it through trying or accidental.I don't want or need either.

    You will find that people who have kids (and other groups within society) are contributing towards some aspect of your lifestyle that doesn't affect or benefit them


  • Options
    #8
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    You will find that people who have kids (and other groups within society) are contributing towards some aspect of your lifestyle that doesn't affect or benefit them

    Please detail this for me, because I can't think of anything else that I may use that people with kids wouldn't. Everything else on my policy can be used by people with or without kids. Except maternity/child benefit, which can only be used by people who are pregnant/have kids.


  • Options
    #9
    RayCun
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    You don't understand the concept of insurance.

    You might pay health insurance for the next 20 years, never see a doctor, and die in a plane crash - all that money wasted!

    Or you might develop a chronic condition that costs far more to treat than you will ever pay - in which case everyone is footing your bill.

    Or - and hold on to your hat here - in five years time your life could be completely different, and suddenly you find yourself thinking that child and maternity cover are really great ideas. People change. Shocking, but true.


    In any case, in 50 years time when you are on your deathbed looking back, are you really going to think that fighting against the inclusion of maternity/child benefits in the minimum healthcare coverage was a great use of your life, and left the world in a better place than you found it? Or will you think of it as a selfish and pointless waste of time?


  • Options
    #10
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    Look, I understand, having children is not easy, but I find it absolutely crazy that I have to pay to keep costs down for everyone else. Children are, mainly, a choice, be it planned or unplanned, the effort was put in and the kid is the result. I'm deliberately avoiding these situations to ensure I don't have kids, because I don't want them, and the older I'm getting, the less I want them. I'm 35 so not some kid who recently got a job with benefits and doesn't want to pay for kids. I've led my life towards not having them, and while I have 0 choice when it comes to how the Government spend my tax money (i'm totally against child benefit also, but again, another thread), I believe I should have a choice when it comes to my own personal health insurance.

    Kids are expensive, they're a life altering decision/conclusion, and that is part of my reason for never wanting them. Why should I have to pay extra on my policy, or have benefits that I will never use, so that people who make this choice can get it cheaper? Why is there no responsibility on the people to ensure they can provide before having a kid? I also understand that circumstances can change, but this is something parents should plan for. Nope. Yet again, people who don't want anything to do with this process have to pay to cover for people who don't plan. That's how I feel, that won't change, and I believe I should have the right to exclude child/maternity cover if I want, but I can't because the Government have decided I should pay regardless.

    And yes, this is not a popular opinion, and very few people would admit to being the same because I know, right now, the people fighting with me over wanting to do this think I'm some kind of animal, or i have no heart, blah blah. It's ok in modern times to identify as whatever gender you want, but if you don't like/want kids, there's something wrong with you.
    RayCun wrote: »
    You don't understand the concept of insurance.

    I do understand, I may never use the benefits at all, hopefully as that means I'm healthy. But I'm being forced to pay for something I never will want. My mind will not change on not having kids. If it hasn't changed by now, it never will. Take that as you will, but my feelings are getting stronger. Unlike everything else on my policy, I've no issue if I never use them. But I know I will never use the kids/maternity one. I can add and remove other stuff as much as I like, and I agree on having basic cover for all the benefits that people use, such as mental health, etc, but having kids is a choice, not a result of circumstances. I shouldn't have to pay for other peoples choices.

    And before anyone says it, I actively avoid sex to ensure I don't have kids. Shocking as that may be, sex is not the be all and end all of life.


  • Options
    #11
    Dingle_berry
    Registered Users Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Dingle_berry


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Please detail this for me, because I can't think of anything else that I may use that people with kids wouldn't. Everything else on my policy can be used by people with or without kids. Except maternity/child benefit, which can only be used by people who are pregnant/have kids.

    Those children that you're helping to pay for (mainly through taxes going into schooling etc) are the future tax payers. The tax that they will pay in the future is the only thing that will fund the healthcare system you will need in later years. As well the tax paid by them will be what funds your pension. It's called living in a society.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Dingle_berry
    Registered Users Posts: 885 ✭✭✭Dingle_berry


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Please detail this for me, because I can't think of anything else that I may use that people with kids wouldn't. Everything else on my policy can be used by people with or without kids. Except maternity/child benefit, which can only be used by people who are pregnant/have kids.

    Those children that you're helping to pay for (mainly through taxes going into schooling etc) are the future tax payers. The tax that they will pay in the future is the only thing that will fund the healthcare system you will need in later years. As well the tax paid by them will be what funds your pension. It's called living in a society.


  • Options
    #13
    Potential-Monke
    Registered Users Posts: 13,834 ✭✭✭✭Potential-Monke


    OSI wrote: »
    Err... By obtaining health insurance that provides coverage, they have in fact already planned for such an event and expense, no?

    My chances of getting stabbed with a syringe by a junkie are next to zero, and I don't plan on having unprotected sex with strangers so coverage for the likes of HIV or Hepatitis infection are of no concern to me, but I still have to pay to cover it in case some poor Garda manages to get in a scuffle with a junkie and gets himself pricked with an infected needle.

    You're 100% sure some junkie won't try to rob you and threaten you with a needle while walking through a city? It has happened, and continues to happen.

    Look, it doesn't matter, as I said in my first post, I'm looking for advice, not judgement. Thank you all for the information. I'm unfollowing now.


  • Options
    #14
    EdgeCase
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,471 ✭✭✭EdgeCase


    I don't have kids myself, but I also don't buy this notion that we're all tiny nuclear families that are entirely independent of each other. We're not some US-right wing fantasy of noble hunters fending for ourselves in the forrest. We are an incredibly social species and live in very complex and deeply interconnected societies.

    I am quite happy to contribute towards things like the education and welfare of other people's kids via my taxes and so on and also all the social infrastructure like health, welfare and public services that help the place run.

    I benefited from people's pooling of resources to fund schools, health, university education and so on and I don't begrudge doing that for the next generation, or indeed myself, should I ever decided to make more use of those kinds of things.

    Those people who are growing up now, are going to be the people who'll be running society when I'm older too. So it's even in my own self-interest to ensure they're well supported, well-educated and capable.

    Having kids is a choice, but it's also an essential function of keeping us all going. It's certainly not some kind of luxury.


  • Options
    #15
    Reati
    Registered Users Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭Reati


    Simple question first.

    What is your argument to why this legislation should be overturned? I'm serious. We put you in front of committee today and they say go. What is it you would say to convince them (and I don't like paying for it isn't a runner :))


  • Options
    #16
    Bicycle
    Registered Users Posts: 798 ✭✭✭Bicycle


    If you want to challenge the legislation yourself, then why not invest your time in studying law part time. Get yourself a qualification.

    Where you are working at the moment, will be of huge benefit to your studies (I know several ex Gardai who went that route). And at the end of the day, you will have a range of options.

    It might even assist you getting a promotion within the force.


  • Options
    #17
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Should point out that the private maternity born kids are by virtue of that private route effectively reducing costs for (or even cross-subsidising, if the private maternity ward in a public hospital is run properly for profit) public births so you're cutting the cost to the exchequer and hence your tax liability... so unless you have a ideological issue with a two tier health system entirely, its slightly counter-productive to argue against it; and if you have that viewpoint you would usually be in favour of public cover for everything. Which you pay for.

    Personally I do have an issue with the entire idea of a two-tier health system but its what we're stuck with, so I have insurance.


  • Options
    #18
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Reati wrote: »
    Simple question first.

    What is your argument to why this legislation should be overturned? I'm serious. We put you in front of committee today and they say go. What is it you would say to convince them (and I don't like paying for it isn't a runner :))

    I think as a consumer he should have a say in what service he's paying for.

    If you just wanted a phone line, would you accept having to get broadband from a provider?

    Op already said he's unhappy with the tax situation , but accepts it to some degree. But like him, I don't understand why a guy would need maternity/ pregnancy cover at all. We don't carry the baby.


  • Options
    #19
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    I presume the OP has quantified the cost of the Maternity cover? The max Benefit is about 8k, Which is small beans as a hospital bill.
    The first plan I looked up costs 340 for a child, including the maternity benefit, so I'd say the maternity benefit cost is 20-30...

    If the OP doesn't want to pay for the maternity cover, he can just not buy health insurance, and put the money aside.

    He should be more het up about having to pay a levy because old people won't switch from vhi

    Or that the govt plans to introduce free contraception for those of us who dont want to live a life of abstinence


  • Options
    #20
    Azizur Rahman
    Registered Users Posts: 70 ✭✭Azizur Rahman


    OP,

    Don't forget about your child and spouse pension contributions every week on your payslip, I know it grinds my gears!


  • Options
    #21
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Potential-Monke wrote: »
    Basically, I want to challenge the legislation that forces me to have maternity/child cover on my health insurance.

    The legislation states the minumun cover for health insurance, if iti do not, the companies would excluide all the "expensive" conditions.

    Not sure if it practicle or desirable to personal the coverage requirements for the "different" variation that might be required. some conditions are only relevant for males, others are only relevant to females, I doubt if you would actually save money if you won.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    GerardKeating
    Registered Users Posts: 7,542 ✭✭✭GerardKeating


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    I don't understand why a guy would need maternity/ pregnancy cover at all. We don't carry the baby.

    Well, now that gender is starting to be more fluid or changable, your comment might not be true in the future.


  • Options
    #23
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,850 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Forgot to mention this at the time - there are "Corporate" equivalents to most plans that usually have the bare legal minimum maternity cover on them. All plans have to be available to anyone who wants them - my parents were (and may still be) on a teachers union negotiated plan that happened to be the best one for them as per the HIA comparison site despite not being teachers.

    The maternity cover on mine - some Laya Company plan that's not on their website - is marginal and certainly wouldn't have attracted you to go join the Mount Carmel Mums facebook page and pick your obstetrician from a brochure back when that was going (cost = thousands if not tens of thousands in the end) so they don't really have the same claims volume as plans that offer substantial cover; and as a result you don't pay for that.

    You may end up finding that you pay the same for enhanced cover in another area, or a lower excess for some services, or whatever; rather than a cheaper plan though.


  • Options
    #24
    prenom.surname
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭prenom.surname


    Hi Potenke-Monke,
    first of all I am not a solicitor but for my sins I have a similar tilting-at-the-windmills quest started on a different subject (would you believe it, even more controversial: ).
    So below is what I've gathered rightly or wrongly from my own "research". NB I have tried asking about a procedural issue on the legal advice ireland subreddit but I was kind of laughed at in terms of starting the whole endeavour so if nothing else the procedures could catch non legal people out.
    Basically to challenge legislation in Ireland one needs to first to take a case to the High Court, on some grounds. In terms of grounds, I'm not sure if there's some to do with incompatibility of different legislation, all I have seen is to do with challenging the constitutionality of legislation.
    While this is how it's referred to on the courts website, I think it can be addressed in terms of inconsistency of the specific legislation not just with the Irish Constitution, but also with the European Convention of Human Rights (as strictly Ireland is ...kind of? bound by it, whatever about enforceability).
    So in theory the process would be - raise the case with the High Court, assuming you lose but they don't completely laugh you out of court, and you get leave to appeal, it continues on to the Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme court, finally if you lose that you can take it to Strasbourg.
    Now substantively in terms of your grounds: if it's unconstitutionality and / or inconsistency with the ECHR, you need to find exactly which articles of the constitution and / or rights in the ECHR you think the legislation is inconsistent with.
    Then research if there has been precedent - challenges of that specific legislation, or even wider - challenges of other legislation under the same articles of the constitution and / or rights in the ECHR. For example if there was similar challenge of this legislation (and the plaintiff obviously lost), what was the judge's argument, and then think how would you challenge that.... Easy to guess, this can become a gargantuan task, additional to some court cases (Irish and ECHR) I've now read a 200 pg Irish PhD case, have trawled through EU website looking at the specifics in this (my) matter for each country (pretty useless as they're mostly all vague), am now going through a 400 pg French PhD paper.
    This is probably not even scratching the surface, I am so not a solicitor....

    Edit: Btw I used to work in Health Insurance, I've a very vague recollection that your point might have been litigated at some point, but can't recall if that was in Ireland or abroad...
    Edit2: feel free to pm me, though I do feel I've extinguished my knowledge here


Advertisement