Cut backs for children with intellectual disabilities.

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
RTÉ News: Galway lobby group vows to fight HSE cutbacks

They played no part in the Financial crisis but now the families of children with intellectual disabilities will be forced to suffer.

I fully understand the reasons the HSE is forced to make cutbacks.

I am also aware today that upwards of 4,000 bank workers will likely lose their jobs in the coming weeks.

However, the Banking sector in Ireland must understand the pain that they are inflicting on the most vulnerable in our society.

The banks will return to profitability at some stage in the future but will they have a social conscience?

Will they feel any obligation towards these children?
 
Last edited:


meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
I fail to understand the connection between 4000 soon to be unemployed bank workers, and children with disabilities having their funds cut.

In fact, you've immediately compromised a potentially important thread with the above sh1tehawking.
 

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
I fail to understand the connection between 4000 soon to be unemployed bank workers, and children with disabilities having their funds cut.

In fact, you've immediately compromised a potentially important thread with the above sh1tehawking.
The banking sector turned this economy into a basket case by running this country like a giant monopoly boardgame.

The reason there has to be cuts made by the HSE is because our country is now bankrupt.

not a hard connection to make.
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,466
we can only spend what we earn.
NAMA is going to make a loss yet it can pay lawyers and accountants €400 an hour for 'advice'. €2.40 Billion set aside for lawyers and accountants.

Think about that as children are deliberately targeted.
 

ellie08

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
12,325
NAMA is going to make a loss yet it can pay lawyers and accountants €400 an hour for 'advice'. €2.40 Billion set aside for lawyers and accountants.

Think about that as children are deliberately targeted.
It is sick.
 

needle_too

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
918
Fianna Fail. Intellectual disabilities. Where to start?
 

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
we can only spend what we earn.
I understand that we have an enormous financial black hole in this country.
However, when you think of the shocking waste of Money that is going on in this country at the moment from the tribunal in Dublin Castle to Anglo Irish to NAMA-It's perverse.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
we can only spend what we earn.
You can justify anything with that mantra.

For instance, hypothetically, if you have a terrible car accident sometime soon with your family in the car also, and your loved one suffers delibitating injuries, when you go looking for respite care, carers facilities and state support, and fail to receive adequate care - my response to you will be 'sorry, we can only spend what we earn'. That will be tough but fair. You'll probably ap[preciate that on some level.

Now of course, I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. However, I do get the feeling that you have a rather large absence of empathy for people, and perhaps the only way you mght ever gain empathy would be to be put in their position.

I also understand from reading your posts, and even looking at your username that you're the man who isn't afraid to tell it like it is, to tell us stuff we don't want to hear, to be the devils advocate, the only voice of reason in a world thats tough, and unfair. To be tough, but fair.

However a pithy 'we can only spend what we earn' in response to a story about the most vulnerable in socierty getting flayed for the mistakes of their rulers seems to indicate that there probably isn't an awful lot else in your repetoire to produce. For instance, zero analysis of what we spend, how we spend it, what we earn, and how we earn it, and how valuable resources (i.e. money) can be diverted to assisting children with intellectual disabilities, who have no one to fight for them bar parents most likely at the end of their tether.

'We can only spend what we earn' indeed.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
Part of the problem here is the outsourcing of the provision of care to charities by the public sector. The charities have tended to run their services at much closer to an "at cost" basis than a public or private for profit operation might have done so they could extend the amount of service being provided considerably. In other words they tried to run with as little fat as possible.

Now that the money is less the public sector is seeking to get them to trim the non existent fat from what was a lean enough operation to begin with. You can see the same situation happening in Limerick with respite care for 65 families with an adult dependent with an intellectual disability being completely eliminated for the sake of saving just over 100K. That would be less than the salary of one of the senior administration people we didn't get rid of when the HSE was created from merging and supposedly rationalising the old health boards.
 

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
But...........when the banks become profitability.......won't they remember the vulnerable............

:rolleyes:
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,861
You can justify anything with that mantra.

For instance, hypothetically, if you have a terrible car accident sometime soon with your family in the car also, and your loved one suffers delibitating injuries, when you go looking for respite care, carers facilities and state support, and fail to receive adequate care - my response to you will be 'sorry, we can only spend what we earn'. That will be tough but fair. You'll probably ap[preciate that on some level.

Now of course, I sincerely hope that doesn't happen. However, I do get the feeling that you have a rather large absence of empathy for people, and perhaps the only way you mght ever gain empathy would be to be put in their position.

I also understand from reading your posts, and even looking at your username that you're the man who isn't afraid to tell it like it is, to tell us stuff we don't want to hear, to be the devils advocate, the only voice of reason in a world thats tough, and unfair. To be tough, but fair.

However a pithy 'we can only spend what we earn' in response to a story about the most vulnerable in socierty getting flayed for the mistakes of their rulers seems to indicate that there probably isn't an awful lot else in your repetoire to produce. For instance, zero analysis of what we spend, how we spend it, what we earn, and how we earn it, and how valuable resources (i.e. money) can be diverted to assisting children with intellectual disabilities, who have no one to fight for them bar parents most likely at the end of their tether.

'We can only spend what we earn' indeed.
Sentiment doesn't pay the bills. If you can put forward ideas to cut expenditure to 30bn then we will have the money to spend on the more caring things.

Of course, I don't want people to suffer, but we have to live within our means.
 
Last edited:

irish_bob

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
7,525
thier are areas where costs can be reduced regarding children with intelectual disabilities , when i was in primary school , kids with intelectual difficulties attended special schools , the same school ( i attended ) now has a special needs teacher for one child in the whole school , the school has 32 pupils in total , this is political correctnes gone crazy , it is completley unfeasable to bring what is effectivley a private tutor to one student and charge it to the tax payer
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
Sentiment doesn't pay the bills. If you can put forward ideas to cut expenditure to 30bn then we will have the money to spend on the moring caring things.

Of course, I don't want people to suffer, but we have to live within our means.
No one is talking about 'sentiment'. Nor is it about the 'more caring things' like we're talking about a fukking kitten farm.

We're talking about removing funding from the most very vulnerable in society, children with intellectual disabilities who are incapable of standing up for themselves, incapable of ever standing up for themselves, and who's only advocate will be parents at the very end of their tether.

This is not a nice to have. This is a need to have. This is the most important thing we can spend money on. This is not 'the more caring things'.

You say you don't want people to suffer - but your one line 'you can only spend what you earn' is an approval of the cutting of funds to the most vulnerable. Ergo, you don't care oif these people suffer. Do you admoit this is the case?

Don't try and dress this up as some sort of moral viewpoint based on fiscal prudence, or whatever else you feel like. Something thats tough, but fair.

Its completely vacuous, from a vacuous analysis of the situation.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
thier are areas where costs can be reduced regarding children with intelectual disabilities , when i was in primary school , kids with intelectual difficulties attended special schools , the same school ( i attended ) now has a special needs teacher for one child in the whole school , the school has 32 pupils in total , this is political correctnes gone crazy , it is completley unfeasable to bring what is effectivley a private tutor to one student and charge it to the tax payer
Hang on, you attended a school with only 32 pupils and you think it as the provision of the 1 tutor for one student that was the problem? Might I suggest that the school itself could have been gotten rid of and the children sent to a nearby school?
 

toughbutfair

Well-known member
Joined
May 28, 2009
Messages
9,861
No one is talking about 'sentiment'. Nor is it about the 'more caring things' like we're talking about a fukking kitten farm.

We're talking about removing funding from the most very vulnerable in society, children with intellectual disabilities who are incapable of standing up for themselves, incapable of ever standing up for themselves, and who's only advocate will be parents at the very end of their tether.

This is not a nice to have. This is a need to have. This is the most important thing we can spend money on. This is not 'the more caring things'.

You say you don't want people to suffer - but your one line 'you can only spend what you earn' is an approval of the cutting of funds to the most vulnerable. Ergo, you don't care oif these people suffer. Do you admoit this is the case?

Don't try and dress this up as some sort of moral viewpoint based on fiscal prudence, or whatever else you feel like. Something thats tough, but fair.

Its completely vacuous, from a vacuous analysis of the situation.
If you support a 1% increase in tax or to cut spending on x, and replace it with this - then fine.
 

Fides

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,425
Sentiment doesn't pay the bills. If you can put forward ideas to cut expenditure to 30bn then we will have the money to spend on the more caring things.

Of course, I don't want people to suffer, but we have to live within our means.
I'm a pragmatist too but you and I know there are plenty of areas that can be culled before hitting the most vunerable and society wouldn't miss them at all. What happened to reducing the number of government departments or government ministers. Let's take another slash at the ridiculous expenses TDs get even if they only live a few miles from the Dail. Time to take out those HSE middle managers, tax childrens allowance, means test the medical card for pensioners (I know one senior citizen who won't take one as he can afford his medical costs). Cut Fas budget, can anyone show the money they spend achieves anything at all? Amalgamate some of the quangos and reduce staff levels........ I'm an accountant, let me in there and I'll reduce spending on non essentials very quickly indeed.
 

Glucose

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
850
If you support a 1% increase in tax or to cut spending on x, and replace it with this - then fine.
I would gladly accepted a change in tax bands for instance if the money was used for children with intellectual disabilities and not NAMA lawyers.
 

meriwether

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
12,539
If you support a 1% increase in tax or to cut spending on x, and replace it with this - then fine.
I do. I favour any increase in tax or cut in spending that will divert resources to where it is needed most - and that is here. There is almost nothing more important thanm this issue. You name it - I'll tax it or cut it to pay for this.

However, its not really about me.

I'm very much trying to bring to your attention the vacuousness of your initial response, for fear that you mistake the paucity of your analysis and reliance on cliches to be 'tough but fair' analysis.

You demonstrated zero fairness. Change your username to 'toughandillthoughtout'. Or 'toughandcliched'. Or 'Ithinkimtoughbutfairbutinrealityitsworthlessbolliximspouting'.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top