Participants in the Fair Deal Scheme should be obliged to rent out their houses

Just to be clear

If there is a good rational, as distinct from emotional, argument to explain why you should pay for my father's nursing home while he could pay for it himself, then I would certainly change my mind.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
They have already paid enough taxes. This might have some force if it were true. But it's not. One of the other posters has pointed out very articulately that the taxes were not designed to pay for nursing home care.
Click to expand...

If the 'argument from design' has any merit, it would mean that the government should not pay for nursing home care for any citizen. Fair Deal or no Fair Deal.
The government clearly therefore thinks that it is legitimate to use taxes to pay for nursing home care.

Therefore I return to the point that they have already paid taxes and when this is taken into the balance along with the significant contribution they are making under the Fair Deal scheme it is wrong to ask them for any more.
 
odyssey06 said:
it would mean that the government should not pay for nursing home care for any citizen. Fair Deal or no Fair Deal.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I don't follow that argument at all.

My argument is that the state should pay for nursing home care for those who need it and can't afford to pay for it.
They should not pay for nursing home care for people who can afford to pay for it.

By the way, one point which has had very little mention, is the extraordinarily generous tax relief on nursing home fees.

So even those whom I would refuse to allow into the Fair Deal Scheme would still be able to claim tax relief at their marginal rate on their fees.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I am sorry, but I don't follow that argument at all.
Click to expand...

I didn't follow the 'argument from design' either, but you seemed to think that "One of the other posters has pointed out very articulately that the taxes were not designed to pay for nursing home care."

In response, I am saying that if taxes were not designed to pay for nursing home care, why are some of my taxes being spent today on it???
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Just to be clear
If there is a good rational, as distinct from emotional, argument to explain why you should pay for my father's nursing home while he could pay for it himself, then I would certainly change my mind.
Click to expand...

Because the state considers nursing home care to be a legitimate subject of state funding.
We are not talking about funding expensive holidays.

It will fund in full the nursing home care of those who are unable to fund it themselves.
It will seek a fair contribution from those who have means in proportion to the extent of those means.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
One of the other posters has pointed out very articulately that the taxes were not designed to pay for nursing home care.
Click to expand...

Could you remind us what post or poster this was, Brendan? I am not sure what element of healthcare that taxes were designed to pay for ? Can you say or reference this ? I had thought the whole thing just developed piecemeal over the years, but maybe not. In other words were not taxes "designed" to pay for nursing home care just as much or as little as other elements of health care?

Did not the State from the start (or very early - I don't know the history) provide a form of nursing care publicly - initially the "County Homes" and subsequently public nursing homes through the Health Boards and then the HSE ? When these couldn't cope, those deemed in need of nursing care were re-directed to private nursing homes but could apply to the Health Boards for subvention. The funding for this was inadequate, the "means testing" almost totally arbitrary and the application of same seen widely as unfair.

Hence the arrival of Fair Deal which, as Slim pointed out, "was an innovative and compassionate scheme to assist people with end of life residential care".

Perhaps there should be a ring-fenced insurance (or tax) for health care generally. That is a different discussion. Tax for us effectively covers insurance for public healthcare. Nursing home care has always been part of healthcare. The fact that the HSE has largely farmed it out to private nursing homes in the past couple of decades is simply a financial matter - the private homes can provide it more cheaply than the public sector.

If you think we should only provide public health-care to people who pass (or fail) a means test - well I agree that is logically consistent but I don't agree with it. But there is no logical reason to single out nursing home care for the application of this principle. People who pay tax (our insurance) to cover the health service should, in my view, be able to avail of the service as much as those who pass/fail the means test.( Just as in education also - anyone can avail of public schooling).

Finally just to note, I thought there were many arguments of merit in the thread against your proposal (in that some of them may have been mine, perhaps colours my viewpoint slightly!). That you didn't accept them or agree with them is a separate matter. And I do not believe that anyone will be able to state an argument to make you change your mind as it is more an issue of ideology than logic (probably on both sides). I happen to believe in the principle of Fair Deal in the underlined quote from Slim above. I fully accept that the funding model needs to be reviewed to sustain this. I just think the piecemeal bit you propose here to be unworkable, quite arbitrary in practice,and punitive (in my opinion, of course). In short, contrary to Slim's principle.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Just to be clear

If there is a good rational, as distinct from emotional, argument to explain why you should pay for my father's nursing home while he could pay for it himself, then I would certainly change my mind.

Brendan
Click to expand...

What has emotions got to do with morality?. As a society we have a moral obligation to look after our vulnerable people. it's got nothing to do with money, it is the difference between right and wrong. I would not want to see Ireland turn into the kind of society you are proposing

I used to enjoy AAM, enjoy giving and getting advice on a range issues. However I am so angry at this thread that I am turning my back on AAM and will participate no more.. I believe your ego and media profile has overruled your heart and I want nothing else to do with this heartless soulless forum
 
I genuinely believe Brendan, your head/heart is trying to do the right thing, but there is so much more wrong with this Country and how it has been managed, that it seems like more Political slap dash to give the impression your doing something, about a genuine crisis by targeting the week and vulnerable.

Having also had someone close to me entering a nursing home, I can tell you it was wonderful to be able to return to his family home where in his lucid moments, normality returned even if only for a short while.

I do agree with you that it is a shame to see perfectly good properties lying idle, but can you blame people for not wanting to get involved with letting. Legislation has made being a LL toxic, when you have to hope they don't wreck the place, pay their rent or sue you without any repercussions, it's a joke, and you want to put folk through that!!

I don't know if you have Shane Ross on speed dial, but it does sound typical of a knee jerk solution while the real under lying problems continue.
 

Can you make a rational un-emotional argument as to why the state should be providing nursing home care for any of its citizens?

A purely rational argument could be made that anyone who has gone into a nursing home with Dementia or Alzheimers and isn't coming out should just be euthanized. There is no purely rational argument that can be made against that without straying into the realm of emotions, values, morality, practicalities etc.
We could ask everybody at 40 to declare a living will. If you are in that situation do you want to (a) be euthanized so that you can pass on your inheritance or (b) do you want to place all your assets at the disposal of the state to take care of you until the end of your natural life?
I think we could have a lot of people opting for (a), especially those who think they will have significant assets to pass onto children.

There are reports that in Eskimo\Inuit cultures, that old people who felt they were becoming a burden walk out into the blizzard never to return; or the rest of the community decides for them and moves camp overnight leaving them behind. There's a word for it... Senicide.
What's the rational argument as to why that cultural mechanism is wrong???
Are the interests of that society rational?

Want to solve the housing crisis? Fine, bring in communal barrack style accomodation as long as it is safe, warm and hygenic.
There is no rational reason for people to be attached to the concept of having (either via owning it or renting) their own property, or bedroom for that matter. Once upon a time it was felt that one room was enough for a family; now more than 2 kids in a bedroom is forbidden and undignified. What changed? And was it rational?

So this argument doesn't come down to rationality. It comes down to values.
People place value on having their own space.
People place value on providing nursing home care so that those living out their end of days can do so in comfort and with dignity and without stress.
People on this thread have placed value on allowing people in nursing homes to retain control of their homes, to avoid a situation where they are left with nothing because of health issues - because they feel that that it would cause stress and be an affront to their dignity.
Unless we agree on the values we cannot have a rational argument about how to maximise the realisation of those values.
We can rationally work out the calculations for the person in this scenario as to whether the Fair Deal makes financial sense for them to sign up, because we agree on the value of money to them.

The challenge is not to convince people of the rationality of your proposal, but why they should assign a higher priority \ more importance to the values that you think it realises; than the alternatives.

I would further add that if people feel there is a trade off going on, or one value is overriding another, you will have to explain why this particular trade off is necessary \ essential. In this scenario they will point out that there are alternatives - compelling developers to build on zoned land, permitting bedsits, permitting taller buildings, reducing the number of people coming to RPZs - that have no trade offs or lesser tradeoffs, as far as they are concerned.
Why should we put people through X, when we can do Y instead?
 
Last edited:
@Daddyman,
I think your wrong to turn your back and say you will walk away.

That's the easy way out.
You have contributed well to many issues on AAM and rightly or wrongly anyone who posts, is entitled to defend their beliefs, and with that in mind, I would hope you re-consider.

I differ completely on this particular issue, but, have to hand to him for standing his ground and responding to every arrow that has been fired at him.
 
Last edited:
thedaddyman said:
As a society we have a moral obligation to look after our vulnerable people
Click to expand...

And I agree 100% with you. But people who can afford to pay their own nursing home fees are not financially vulnerable.

Go back and look at the thread. One of the main criticisms of my suggestion was that this would reward people who never bought their own house and so could not contribute to the costs of their nursing home care. I replied that we should pay for these people.

Just to be clear:
I am prepared to pay increased taxes to pay for nursing home care for those who can't pay for it themselves.
I am not prepared to pay increased taxes for people who can pay for it themselves, so that their children will inherit the house tax-free.

If you want to call that heartless and soulless. Fine.

Brendan
 
LS400 said:
, but it does sound typical of a knee jerk solution while the real under lying problems continue.
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out to someone else who suggested that, most of my posts are ill thought out, knee jerk solutions.

Look - come up with real, logical, objections to my proposal. Instead of just hurling insults.

Brendan
 
odyssey06 said:
Can you make a rational un-emotional argument as to why the state should be providing nursing home care for any of its citizens?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I will say it yes again. We are a society. We should pay for the nursing home care for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves.

We should not pay for those who can.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Absolutely. I will say it yes again. We are a society. We should pay for the nursing home care for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves. We should not pay for those who can.
Click to expand...

"We are a society" is not a rational argument.
You are not making a rational argument here or even attempting to make one.
You are appealing to values.

We should not take away everything from people to pay for their healthcare - whether that's cancer treatment or nursing home care.
That is as rational an argument as the one you have just made.

If anything over the course of the discussion, my opposition to this proposal has crystallised and solidified.
I'll be clear.
I totally oppose this proposal and if any political party even shows signs of seriously considering it, I will not vote for them.
I think it is a proposal without any merit whatsoever, I think in fact it is a toxic proposal of negative merit.
It distracts attention away from the real causes of the housing crisis and the real solutions to the housing crisis and any real attempt to reform the Fair Deal scheme or our social security in general.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Absolutely. I will say it yes again. We are a society. We should pay for the nursing home care for those who can't afford to pay for it themselves.

We should not pay for those who can.
Click to expand...
Brendan Burgess said:
Look - come up with real, logical, objections to my proposal. Instead of just hurling insults.
Click to expand...

odyssey06 was making the point, I believe, that you have not provide a logical argument for singling out nursing home fees from other health fees.

We have a system of paying for nursing home called "Fair Deal". People who can pay pay towards it do so (in way that, by and large, they do not for hospital care). The system is imperfect and in need of reform. I haven't seen any argument against that. Everyone, here at least, seems to object to your proposal.

Leaving that specific point aside. You insist that your proposal is logical, rational, etc. Up to a point it is. But it is not based on logic - it is based on an ideological value - you are not prepared to pay your taxes towards nursing home fees who could pay it for themselves (including from their PPR*). I repeat, that is a value/ideology.I do not think it is a a particularly communitarian value, but that comes from my value system. There is no point demanding logical arguments to convince you to change your value system.

However, many here have advanced what are, in my opinion, very valid arguments based on their value systems, logic and emotional intelligence. You have dismissed or ignored many of these arguments (presumably because you reject the ideology rather than the argument, but I don't know). When dealing with real people (rather than, say, the storage of spare parts) I would be a lot more concerned about people who do not display emotion than those who do.

* EDIT : Not just from their PPR but the rental income (or imputed value) of their property while they are in nursing home care. You did not say so explicitly but deducing "logically" from your ideology I assume you would want them to exhaust all the value from their PPR before you would be willing to contribute from your taxes. Even if you didn't ,the "logic" of the ideology would lead inexorably to it. And from their to where ?
 
Last edited:
Early Riser said:
However, many here have advanced what are, in my opinion, very valid arguments based on their value systems, logic and emotional intelligence.
Click to expand...

Hi8 Early Riser, I will repeat some of the arguments used.

"There are lots of empty houses and we are doing nothing about them, so we should do nothing about these. (We should do something about all empty houses.)
Denis O'Brien's house is empty. So what? We are not paying for his accommodation elsewhere.
This is barbaric - name calling isn't arguing
It would be politically unpopular - never a reason for not doing what is right
Some houses can't be let because of where they are and the condition they are in - fine rent out the houses which can be.
The government caused the housing crisis - not the people who are being encouraged to leave empty houses.
"Do you have kids Brendan?" - completely irrelevant as you show immediately with "If you dont, then I can see your argument, because if I didnt have kids, I would be in your camp." Whether you have kids or parents should not be relevant. (Mind you, it's the closest I have got to anyone agreeing with me.) You might like or dislike a particular proposal as a result, but we are arguing about what is good for society not what is good for you or for me.
It wouldn't be practical. Who would rent out the house?
You are picking on the old and the vulnerable. I also pick on the young and the vulnerable who are on Jobseekers Allowance when I call for that to be cut.
The family home is sacrosanct."

I think you start with certain values and then work logically from there.

I don't think any of the above are based on values. That is the point I am making.

I start with the value that we should look after those who can't provide for themselves and work from there. But we should not pay for people who can afford to pay for themselves.

What happened in this thread is that people reacted so negatively to having their view of the world challenged that they went off into a spate of arguments of no value. Some Irish people can get irrational when it comes to anything to do with the home. Then add in an elderly person who has to go into a nursing home and the guilt (not justified) that their kids feel about it. And it has made a rational discussion very difficult.

I think if people sit back and reflect on it they might change their view.

Brendan
 
Vacant homes of the elderly should not be "incentivized" to rent them out. People who have paid their taxes throughout their working careers should see some return on them. What you are suggesting is that people who can afford to pay should. Using this principle then existing young people could decide why bother making any effort to purchase a house if you are at risk of losing it in the future should you need to avail of the Fair Deal scheme changes you appear to want. The possible result is more people wishing to avail of state funded housing. (I appreciate this is a bit of a stretch but it is still possible).

The housing crisis is one which the govt and previous govts have allowed evolve either by intent or not. The State is now trying to abdicate it responsibility to house those who need to be housed on the private sector while at the same time dictating every facet of the process. Landlords are running a business, houses that are lying vacant are doing so for a reason. Part of the current housing crisis is due in no small part to the measures imposed by the govt.

People are afraid to rent out properties because of the horror stories about rogue tenants etc. What other business model forces the supplier to continue providing a service even when they are not being paid. Tenants can stop paying rent and live in a property for months before they can be evicted.

The majority of people are decent and would be fair as both landlords and also as tenants, it is however the "bad apples" on both sides that make the headlines which ruin it for everybody else.

If you have an issue with the Fair Deal scheme then that's fair enough but deal with it separately.
 
Brendan, Thanks for getting back this time. I note that you selected one line from my post and based most of your response from that. You have ignored others. You have selected some quotes of an emotional nature (angry and/or distressed perhaps? did that surprise you?) from other posters and ignored all of the broader arguments. I suspect this is not deliberate. Like most of us, your antennae innately focus in on any "weak points" so that you underlying value system is protected.

Brendan Burgess said:
I start with the value that we should look after those who can't provide for themselves and work from there. But we should not pay for people who can afford to pay for themselves.
Click to expand...

I suggest that this would lead to an extremely two-tiered society. Those who pay in (taxes) but then get nothing in return versus those who get services free but don't/can't pay anything. A paying all class and an underclass. A sort of social apartheid.The worthy and the worthless, each resenting each other for opposite reasons. Would this be a good vision of society ? I don't think so but I assume you would disagree.

Brendan Burgess said:
Some Irish people can get irrational when it comes to anything to do with the home.
Click to expand...

Most people tend not to be very rational when when their basic values are challenged. Although if their conception of themselves is wrapped up in being highly rational they may get even more "rational" (in their own eyes) to defend their values.
 
Last edited:
The Fair Deal scheme comes under the aegis of the Department of Health, not the Department of Housing. The scheme was reviewed by the Department of Health two years ago and no recommendations were made that Fair Deal participants be required to rent out their homes to finance the scheme. So a lot of the debate here on the financing of the scheme by renting out the houses of those in nursing care, while interesting, is irrelevant from a health policy perspective. If renting out were such a good idea, why was this not recognized two years ago and included in the review? Furthermore the D/Health's review recommends rebalancing long term care funding to include a greater home care element. So the current proposals from the Department of Housing that the Fair Deal scheme be adjusted to encourage the use of the properties of those in nursing care for rental would go against the review's recommendations, if for no other reason than you can't have a home care element if you are renting out your property. http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Review-of-Nursing-Homes-Support-Scheme.pdf.

Interestingly the review noted that: “Farmers are transferring the farm and PPR to their adult child and retaining a 'right of residence' in the PPR for the remainder of their lives. In such cases the PPR is in the name of the son/daughter and cannot be included as an asset in the financial assessment - where the asset was transferred five years before applying for the scheme.” I don't know if this 'out' is available to the PAYE sector but presumably if a rental requirement were introduced it could be circumvented by a similar transfer deal. It also means that as things stand, one set of Fair Deal participants (i.e. farmers) would be outside any rental proposals as they have already transferred their farms within the family.

To some extent, I think the 'rent out your home if you are in Fair Deal' is a red herring. Minister Murphy's proposals concern 'vacant homes', and not just those of Fair Deal clients. Homes can be vacant for a wide variety of reasons and to put it bluntly owners are best placed to decide what they want to do with their own private property, be it vacant or otherwise. It is the slippery slope on the road to serfdom if the Government were to decide or put excessive pressure on home owners to rent out or otherwise dispose of their private property against their best interests. Basically, this is just a land grab with the Government or at least the Department of Housing thinking they know what's best for other persons' private property, leaving the owner to carry the risk.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register