The wording of both referendums is too vague for anyone with half a brain to vote yes to. You’d need to be off your head to trust this lot,
Very interesting read. I need to hear more on this before I make up my mind but I’m leaning No at the moment. I think they’ve arsed up the wording. It’s harrowing to read people’s battles. My son is autistic, dealing with the HSE has been laughable and frustrating. Thankfully we’ve got enough resources to fund privately what the state has failed to provide and my boy is doing well. But I feel for anyone in the same boat waiting on HSE appointments or school places. I practically had to run a political campaign level of admin to get him a school place. Oddly enough a government minister and his wife talked me through the steps. Which leads me to believe that HSE is such a shit show, no one can fix it.
Carers have been propping up the health care system for years with little or no recognition.
If anything I feel the new wording weakens their position and the states responsibility to support them.
I’m inclined to vote No but willing to keep listening to the arguments.
Sixteen cross-departmental meetings with 64 pages of notes regarding possible impacts on tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowances, laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers and you’re not allowed know what was discussed because it might affect the “integrity and viability of these referendums.”
Anyone voting in favour of these amendments without knowing what’s in those notes needs to give their heads an aul’ wobble.
I don’t know, I’m thinking support for the provision of care is better than support to stay at home. Support to stay at home doesn’t actually encompass any sort of support with the work of care. Surely it does shift the focus somewhat, from ensuring a single female carer can stay at home to a broader framework of support with the provision of care. I would prefer something stronger, or to delete the article altogether, but I think maybe it’s just about better than leaving it as is.
The wording does nothing. Anything we could potentially get put into law due to those changes is already easily put into law right now. The wording doesnt even give a proper foothold for a constitutional challenge to a lack of legal protections for carers. The whole thing will not help us in any way shape or form so I like most carers I know will be voting no as a nice big “fuck you” to the government.
6 comments
The wording of both referendums is too vague for anyone with half a brain to vote yes to. You’d need to be off your head to trust this lot,
Very interesting read. I need to hear more on this before I make up my mind but I’m leaning No at the moment. I think they’ve arsed up the wording. It’s harrowing to read people’s battles. My son is autistic, dealing with the HSE has been laughable and frustrating. Thankfully we’ve got enough resources to fund privately what the state has failed to provide and my boy is doing well. But I feel for anyone in the same boat waiting on HSE appointments or school places. I practically had to run a political campaign level of admin to get him a school place. Oddly enough a government minister and his wife talked me through the steps. Which leads me to believe that HSE is such a shit show, no one can fix it.
Carers have been propping up the health care system for years with little or no recognition.
If anything I feel the new wording weakens their position and the states responsibility to support them.
I’m inclined to vote No but willing to keep listening to the arguments.
Sixteen cross-departmental meetings with 64 pages of notes regarding possible impacts on tax laws, social welfare laws, pension laws, allocation of family assets, alimony and allowances, laws in relation to family reunification for asylum seekers and you’re not allowed know what was discussed because it might affect the “integrity and viability of these referendums.”
Anyone voting in favour of these amendments without knowing what’s in those notes needs to give their heads an aul’ wobble.
I don’t know, I’m thinking support for the provision of care is better than support to stay at home. Support to stay at home doesn’t actually encompass any sort of support with the work of care. Surely it does shift the focus somewhat, from ensuring a single female carer can stay at home to a broader framework of support with the provision of care. I would prefer something stronger, or to delete the article altogether, but I think maybe it’s just about better than leaving it as is.
The wording does nothing. Anything we could potentially get put into law due to those changes is already easily put into law right now. The wording doesnt even give a proper foothold for a constitutional challenge to a lack of legal protections for carers. The whole thing will not help us in any way shape or form so I like most carers I know will be voting no as a nice big “fuck you” to the government.