Unpopular decisions aren't necessarily right.

I find it odd that government representatives appear to believe that the mere fact that a decision is unpopular is somehow proof of how right and appropriate it is. A wrong decision can be unpopular just as easily as a right one,. A popular decision is equally likely to be wrong or right. There is no intrinsic link between the two concepts. Either a decision is right or it is wrong. Revelling in the unpopularity as some marker that you're on the right course is all kinds of dense.

And let's face it the recent government decisions on medical cards, on class sizes, on cervical cancer vaccines are just plain wrong. Oddly enough a subsequent decision on the medical cards for the over 70s that the same amount of money would be paid by the state to doctors for treating people over 70s irrespective of their reasons for qualifying for the card is a correct decision. And while it is likely to be unpopular with doctors the government are due some credit for making it. Even if they've been damn slow to get around to it.

Possibly solution to the over 70s Medical Card mess

I'm talking out of turn here, but if anyone is interested in a practical solution to the over 70s medical card fiasco, there's my tuppence worth.

I might be asking a rather obvious question here but if the GPs charge the state €640 (the figure itself isn't really relevant at the moment) for giving people over 70 a level of card consistent with a medical card then shouldn't it be possible to set a number of bands of support and tailor the subvention from the state towards that 640 annualised figure that would relate to your income (we could look to factor in assets too but that would be really messy to administrate).

So let everyone under 17K (or whatever the annualised figure for the minimum wage is) per annum get 100% of that GP yearly charge paid by the state,
those between 17K and the average industry wage gets 75% of the figure paid by the state and pays 25% themselves (which at 100 odd quid for as many visits as you like isn't very bad value.)
Those at the 130% of the average industry wage pay 50%
those at 150% of the AIW pay 75% and
those on pensions over twice the AIW can pay the full whack or pay per visit.

I wonder if anyone will take the idea up, I've also no idea how much it would save. But this is the sort of pragmatic idea that our politics lacks. I believe that the government has acted in bad faith by removing the cover, but it also acted badly by providing the cover in such a profligate manner by giving the cover to all and sundry irrespective of income or wealth. I've long believed that the all or nothing status of the medical card is just plain wrong.

Perhaps someone from the department of finance might look to run the numbers...