Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
Universality?
Read more about: Social Policy
The Irish Times has a very good editorial today. The implications of universality.
At its heart are two very different ways of delivering State benefits and services. One way is to make those services - health, education, and welfare benefits - universally available. The other is to target them at those who are most in need and let those who can do so look after themselves.
What we seem to have learned in the last two weeks is that the Government favours the second of these approaches while the public is wedded to the first.
It certainly does seem much of the governments approach is about targetting rather then Universality but have been terrible at trying to create this. Certainly scatter guns attacks on pensioners does not help with the creation of the nesscarry dialogue on the two choices of welfare model. But that is one of the questions I have for people. How would we as a nation have this converesation? Having a ideological barren political landscape does not make the prospect of an election creating this dialogue. So what?
We Irish, we really are a mass of contradictions. We want a paternalistic government (of the benevolent kind who’ll pick us up and kiss us better whenever we fall flat on our arse through our own stupidity) and yet we want government to leave us alone and stay out of our lives. We want all services free at point of use; but we don’t want to pay any taxes to secure them. We want lots of laws to make the other guy behave himself; but not laws that impinge in any way on our personal right to make individual decisions, like for example, our propensity to get behind the wheel of a car when we’re plastered. We want to continue believing that we’re the second richest country in the world, us celtic tigers and our cubs, whose native genius and achievement of the greatyest economic miracle in the hsitory of the human race should be celebrated across the globe, rather than acknowledge that what we believe about ourselves was always a fantasy based on the celebration of greed and a property bubble. We want to be ‘world leaders’ in every field, because we’re destined to be of course, irrespective of talent or the lack of it, or any issues of size and scale. We want to be a shining example of moral purism, by banning abortion for example, but happy enough to have several thousand Irish women head for Europe or the UK every year to avail of their services at a net cost to those countries’ healthcare systems. We want to be at the ‘heart of Europe’, yet reject a European reform treaty because someone might close down our local hospital in Ballymagash or threaten to take our medical card away or because we just don’t like those other Europeans much; they’re far too good looking, anyway, most of them. We want our politicians to echo our fondest beliefs about ourselves and keep our rights and our entitlements foremost amongst their considerations; including our right to ring them up on Christmas day and demand they come out to fix our bunged up drains; then despise them for showing lack of leadership. We want to present ourselves as responsible citizens, yet think and behave as irresponsibly as we see fit. In short, we want to have our cake and eat it too.
Cedar Lounge blog has quite a good piece on Universality of child benefit
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/budget-day-so-lets-see-if-they-slim-state-provision-because-after-all-the-market-has-been-such-a-success/
All too true, Veronica, all too true.
The Labour leader, Eamon Gilmore, was in Mayo last week and used the visit to set out his stall on universality. I don’t think the speech got much coverage, so I’ve takent he liberty of including an edited version of it here.
I do not believe that there is another democracy in the western world in which the leader of a political party would get away with committing his party and his country in this way without a scrap of analysis(beyond the usual political mudslinging of course with FF cast as the ‘New Victorians’) as to its affordability, how it should be financed; whether it is justifiable or even equitable or in the interests of society as a whole. But this is now the new ‘battleground of Irish politics’, according to Eamon.
Extract from Eamon Gilmore Speech, 31 October 2008:
“Universality is not an abstract notion - it is a statement of who we are as a people.
“Universality means that those over 70 should have a medical card, not just because it will save the taxpayer money in the long-run (which it will), and not because of any charitable impulse. They should have it, because health care is a basic human need and a basic human right, and because of the value that we place on each and every member of our community…
Universality is based on the idea that there are certain things in life that are necessary to human existence, human dignity and human flourishing. They are and should be available on an equal basis, as of right, to all members of the community. With those rights comes the responsibility to contribute to the cost of providing these services through fair taxation…
“Universalism is about having a vision of a community of free and flourishing individuals, bound to each other by a common bond. Labour believes in universalism, because there are some areas of life, where we find the best for each of us in promoting the common good.
“Education and health are clear examples. Education taps the potential with which each of us has been endowed. It is a core human need, and it should be available to all as of right. That logic applies with equal rigour from pre-school to university. No-one should set a boundary to the flourishing of mind and spirit that education makes possible.
“That is why Labour has long advocated free pre-school education for every child. That proposal was attacked before the last election by Brian Lenihan, who, as Minister for Children, said that it ’smacked of universalism’. We heartily agree!
“And I make no apology for Labour’s commitment to free third level education. Universities do have a vital role in industrial policy, but why should students be taxed to pay for it? If third level education confers a benefit on the individual, which it does, then let them contribute to the cost through a fair system of taxation. Meanwhile, society will benefit through enhanced third level participation.
“Similarly, in health, Labour is committed to a system of universal health insurance that would provide this vital service on a common basis. Indeed, such a system is the only way that we can drive the kind of changes that the health service so desperately needs.
“I am regularly asked why a party of the left should want to give anything to Mrs X, or Mr Y, both identifiably wealthy individuals. In reality, the number of those individuals is small, and collecting money from them through the tax system is a lot more efficient than the cost of means testing. The idea, for example, of means testing every person over 70 to find the 5% who don’t qualify for a medical card is ultimately wasteful. It appears that the only place where the Government believes in promoting employment is in the means testing industry.
“In fact, universal provision ensures that those on middle and higher incomes have a stake in maintaining high standards of public services.
Here then is the new battle ground of Irish politics. The workhouse mentality of the New Victorians is reaching further and deeper. The Labour Party will ensure that the values of equality, solidarity and human dignity stand in their way
Oh dear, here we go again. The original question was ‘how can we discuss….’ assuming, I presume, it is time to have that discussion. We all know the problem, the question is what is the potential solution?
Ok, Ok, it is politics, but we have never had any serious discussion on what we can manage, or to be more honest, what we should manage to do. I’m sick of hearing ‘we are a small open economy’ - yes, we are, but did we ever discuss that? Small open economies nowadays are the ones exposed to global greed, with unregulated banking, and precious little in the tank to react to it. Add to that our committment to the € (like it or not we’re there for the long haul) and our wriggle room on the universality issue is VERY limited.
So, in the immediate future, we cannot have universality, we can hardly have ‘in case of need’ provision.
So, we need to apportion. In the case of the pensioners medical card matter, only for those who don’t have private medical cover, in the case of social housing, priority for the unemployed, handicapped, and others in need, then the rest, on the basis of requirements. Unlikely? of course, but why? because our pols of all persuasions won’t hold the discussion. I have a lot of time for gilmore but the post above shows the problem, he cannot get any press room for even his flowery ‘part of our heritage’ guff, so what hope for a serious discussion?
When did you last hear a pol say ‘we can only afford this’ so that’s what we’re having? no, we get ‘we will do x and y and z and we’ll pay for it by a and b and c - the punter only hears the first part…..
Sorry, forgot to add that the cedarlounge piece is indeed interesting - to the academic community, but almost unreadable, and consequently unread to/by the political community.
The discussion must be on the basis of what we need/what we can afford; not based on an analysis of whether we have passed the means test era…. we can never ‘pass’ an era, we can decide what we want to do with what we have, and how we can do it.
“Universality means that those over 70 should have a medical card, not just because it will save the taxpayer money in the long-run (which it will), and not because of any charitable impulse.”
Eh, no. Universality means if you’re under 70 you get one.
Universal health care is a pull on direct investment in Canada because US companies locating there only have to pay for “top-up” health coverage rather than everything down to the basics as in the US. I haven’t had to use my Ontario Health Card in my four years of being entitled to it but am glad I have it.