Should politicans and their families be banned from accessing private education, healthcare and other services where a public option exists?

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
Should politicans and their families be banned from accessing private education, healthcare and other services where a public option exists?

I was reading an article about how GOP congressmen voted for an amendment that would protect the health care benefits for themselves and their staff, while states would be allowed to waiver for private citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

On the left and closer to home many prominent politicans send their kids to fee paying schools.

I think the rationale behind such a policy would be to ensure that politicans would then have a personal interest in making sure these services were tip-top.
Ministers sent children to 'elitist' private schools - Independent.ie


So do posters think this is a good idea or is it populist nonsense?

Maybe the mods could set up a poll?
 


Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
I was reading an article about how GOP congressmen voted for an amendment that would protect the health care benefits for themselves and their staff, while states would be allowed to waiver for private citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

On the left and closer to home many prominent politicans send their kids to fee paying schools.

I think the rationale behind such a policy would be to ensure that politicans would then have a personal interest in making sure these services were tip-top.
Ministers sent children to 'elitist' private schools - Independent.ie


So do posters think this is a good idea or is it populist nonsense?

Maybe the mods could set up a poll?
So in effect what you're asking is whether we should legislate so as to restrict certain members of society from spending their disposable income in whatever way they may wish to.

Maybe while we're at it, we could bring in legislation banning male TDs from buying or wearing pink shirts and t-shirts!
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
So in effect what you're asking is whether we should legislate so as to restrict certain members of society from spending their disposable income in whatever way they may wish to.

Maybe while we're at it, we could bring in legislation banning male TDs from buying or wearing pink shirts and t-shirts!
To the first question, yes. To the second, Dáil standing order should suffice.
 

Angler

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,600
I was reading an article about how GOP congressmen voted for an amendment that would protect the health care benefits for themselves and their staff, while states would be allowed to waiver for private citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

On the left and closer to home many prominent politicans send their kids to fee paying schools.

I think the rationale behind such a policy would be to ensure that politicans would then have a personal interest in making sure these services were tip-top.
Ministers sent children to 'elitist' private schools - Independent.ie


So do posters think this is a good idea or is it populist nonsense?

Maybe the mods could set up a poll?
No , but when they canvas your vote tell them straight why you won't support them . I do it , and they don't like .
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
No , but when they canvas your vote tell them straight why you won't support them . I do it , and they don't like .
Sure that's an option, but I see this idea less as means of punishment and more as a way of improving services.
 

Angler

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
1,600
Sure that's an option, but I see this idea less as means of punishment and more as a way of improving services.
I know what you're saying and am sympathetic to the idea , indeed it could be expanded to include relatives running for " family seats " .
However , it's a free country , just deselect them though the ballot box , stronger medicine is not an option unfortunately .
 

Mushroom

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
15,474
I was reading an article about how GOP congressmen voted for an amendment that would protect the health care benefits for themselves and their staff, while states would be allowed to waiver for private citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

On the left and closer to home many prominent politicans send their kids to fee paying schools.

I think the rationale behind such a policy would be to ensure that politicans would then have a personal interest in making sure these services were tip-top.
Ministers sent children to 'elitist' private schools - Independent.ie


So do posters think this is a good idea or is it populist nonsense?

Maybe the mods could set up a poll?


You do realise that what you are advocating is a new form of political interference in the areas of health, education and other areas (including housing?). There is no guarantee whatsoever that the outcomes of such interventions would all be positive or universal.
 
Last edited:

wombat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
32,989
If private fee paying schools are abolished, where will future socialist leaders come from?
 

mossyman

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
4,948
If private fee paying schools are abolished, where will future socialist leaders come from?
From better public schools.
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
You do realise that what you are advocating is a new form political interference in the areas of health, education and other areas (including housing?). There is no guarantee whatsoever that the outcomes of such interventions would all be positive or universal.
Yes, rights are context specific and relational. The overall benefit might outweigh the disadvantages to a relatively small group of people. Yes we don't know if would work but you can that about every new policy.
 

Plebian

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
9,254
A nonsense idea, maybe voters should actually think for themselves about the lifestyle sympathies of their chosen politician and vote accordingly.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,846
The purpose of private schools is not to provide a better education, because you would be surprised how dull it can be, but to create a caste in society who just assume they are better and network with other members, in a long daisy chain of you mount me, I mount you.
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
A nonsense idea, maybe voters should actually think for themselves about the lifestyle sympathies of their chosen politician and vote accordingly.
I don't think any party will be adopting the policy anytime soon, however i think its an interesting idea worth debating as a means of discussing issues like inequality and the provision of services.

Saying that it wouldn't happen has some validity but i am more interested in why people such an idea would be good or bad from an ethical point of view.
 
Last edited:

reg11

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
Messages
3,183
The purpose of private schools is not to provide a better education, because you would be surprised how dull it can be, but to create a caste in society who just assume they are better and network with other members, in a long daisy chain of you mount me, I mount you.
I think that's how it worked up to fairly recently but it has been ruined by the confidence surge in general in the younger generation. Very very few young people these days are going to think of themselves as inferior to their age cohorts who're attending exclusive schools. That probably explains how such schools are more and more populated by kids whose parents are aspiring in the old sense whilst those types who used to attend more and more realise that the world/country has moved on.
 

Dimples 77

Duplicate Account
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
19,060
So in effect what you're asking is whether we should legislate so as to restrict certain members of society from spending their disposable income in whatever way they may wish to.

Maybe while we're at it, we could bring in legislation banning male TDs from buying or wearing pink shirts and t-shirts!
Yes.

Think of it as one of the sacrifices involved in what is often described as "being in public service".

Too often these people have an attitude of "do as I say, not as I do" when it comes to the services that they claim to be in the business of providing. They get paid so well that they end up with enough disposable income to be able to buy their families out of having to make do with the public services that they provide, and that the public has no other option than to use, as members of the public don't have matching levels of disposable income.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
I was reading an article about how GOP congressmen voted for an amendment that would protect the health care benefits for themselves and their staff, while states would be allowed to waiver for private citizens.

http://www.vox.com/2017/4/25/15429982/gop-exemption-ahca-amendment

On the left and closer to home many prominent politicans send their kids to fee paying schools.

I think the rationale behind such a policy would be to ensure that politicans would then have a personal interest in making sure these services were tip-top.
Ministers sent children to 'elitist' private schools - Independent.ie


So do posters think this is a good idea or is it populist nonsense?

Maybe the mods could set up a poll?
If voters dont fire politicians who behave like this, there is little chance any law restricting this behaviour would pass.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top