Mála Poist

Health and taxes

A Chairde,

I would like to address a common misconception, carefully nurtured by Government and establishment media, that raising government revenue through taxes on the rich is an answer to the ills of inequality in our society.

It is naïve to the point of inanity to think that higher government revenue, or higher spending on services, will put all things right, As the media constantly inform us, people don't want to pay more taxes. And can you blame them when you look how taxes are spent?

As it is, there is no scarcity of government revenue. But tinkering with taxes alone is only a cul de sac.

Take the example of health expenditure. The Dublin Government already spends €11.4 billion on funding health service for the roughly four million people who live in the 26 Counties.

In addition, patients visiting their doctors spend €40 per visit, and must pay another €40 at least per prescription, with an additional cost for an overnight stay in a hospital bed. Along with the taxes people pay, they then have to pay huge annual sums to VHI and BUPA, simply because the state-provided health care system is hopelessly inefficient and grossly wasteful. In effect, they are paying twice for health care.

Meanwhile, the state runs a disgraceful system for nurses, demanding they work a two-shift system and expected junior doctors to work 72-hour shifts until recently, when the EU insisted that doctor hours must be reduced.

At the same time, the state refuses to recognise qualifications and certification of nurses who have worked and trained abroad, but recruitment agencies are paid €4,000 for each nurse that they recruit into a job.

Dig just a little into the reality of the health service and you discover inequality, wastefulness, improprieties, and the rich who can afford to get instant treatment, none of which is primarily dedicated to the efficient provision of health in our society.

One simple glaring example of malign incompetence is a health board waiting for a building naming committee to meet several times to agree a name for a new building before it can open, keeping critically ill patients at risk and on trolleys.

The health boards and the Department run a system which, ultimately, is accountable to no one. To throw money at such a system is simply to misspend the hard earned money of those who work.

It is not the answer.

It is very understandable if a majority of the people do not want to pay more in taxes to fund this pantomime of incompetence and inefficiency. It is a change of government that is urgently needed — across all of Ireland, to a government wedded to equality and human rights, and committed to asking and listening to those who work in the health service, those who suffer as would-be 'consumers' what they think is wrong, and how to put it right — not to fruitless changes, up or down, in taxation and spending.

It is a charade played out by those who like to only pretend they care about the sick and beaten down. We should be no part of that charade.

We should not fall for the populist slogans of the day — the catch cries of the clown — talking of spending more here and there — it is of no significance. Let's at least talk sense and not dissemble our republican politics to propose populist lies, high sounding aspirations and other nonsense as solutions to the real needs of those people who cannot afford any health care, any child care, any private education, or even accommodation.

We're not trying to run that system for them — we're trying to change it.

Damian McGenity.

Religion and nationality don't mix

A Chairde,

I was recently reading a copy of the Sunday Independent in which I saw several mentions of a shady group called the Reform Movement.

It would appear to me to be some fifth columnist British lickspittle group whose whole intentions are to try and reintroduce religious discord into the 26 Counties by riling up Irish Protestants. There was one article by the handlers' favourite, Eoghan Harris, which was an attempt to try and make out that Protestants in Ireland are really all British and that those who are calling themselves Irish are merely afraid to open up and be British.

I find this sort of journalism appaling and disgusting, and it can only lead to religious hatred being opened up once again — something which Dr Mansergh, who advises Fianna Fáil, said was part of Harris's agenda.

I hate the use of religious terminology to describe the communities in the Northeast. I only refer to people as coming from the British community or as Irish citizens. This allows Protestants who want to be apart of a proper country the ability to term themselves as Irish. I think religion should never be used to describe nationality.

Ireland's mainstream media is truly rotten to the core when it allows articles like that to be printed. The British imperialists brought in religious discrimination to prop up their administration in Ireland with the Penal Laws. Why are we today helping to keep those differences alive by using the words of division to describe what we are?

I'm Irish, Protestant and proud.

James Collins,

Dulwich, London.

Nixon and Uruguay

A Chairde,

Thanks for the very interesting article on the Uruguayan elections in last week's An Phoblacht. I am aware that is very difficult to give a comprehensive overview of a country in the limited space of an article but I feel that the following details will explain why the Uruguayans are so delighted with the victory of the Frente Amplio.

Newly declassified documents detail the Nixon administration's broad-gauged efforts to prevent a victory by the leftist Frente Amplio in the Uruguayan presidential elections of 1971. A document from the Nixon collection at the National Archives revealed that during a meeting with then British Prime Minister Edward Heath, President Nixon admitted, "Brazil helped rig the Uruguayan elections".

The documents show that the US was concerned that leftist groups not succeed in Uruguay as they had in Chile the previous year, with the election of Socialist candidate Salvador Allende. Several of the memos report conversations with the Brazilian President and Richard Nixon mentions Brazil's help in influencing Uruguay's elections. Henry Kissinger highlights Garrastazu Médici's support of the "Nixon Doctrine" in Latin America. Under the doctrine, a nation like Brazil was to be a surrogate regional power acting in US interests.

Since the mid-1960s, Uruguay, known then as the "Switzerland of Latin America", had seen its exemplary democratic tradition and high standard of living decay in the face of a crumbling economy, government corruption and social upheaval. The crisis quickly escalated into a violent conflict in 1970. As US-trained officers came to occupy key positions in the police, torture became routine.

The US Government considered traditionally democratic Uruguay to be a role model for Latin America. In mid-1971, Washington's main goal for Uruguay was "to lessen the threat of a political takeover by the Frente", which was then perceived as a greater threat than the Tupamaro guerrillas.

Uruguay held its elections on 28 November 1971. Frente Amplio leaders complained of US- and Brazilian-supported harassment of its candidates and campaign. In 1972, the rightist Colorado party winner gave a free hand in the counterinsurgency effort to the military. The military crushed the Tupamaros guerrillas, then repressed university students and labour unions, as well as the political opposition. US security assistance to Uruguay, then dubbed a "prison state" ,continued uninterrupted until 1977.

For more information look at http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB71/

Peter O'Connor.

Cearnóg na gCainteoirí

A Chairde,

I would like to thank all those who took part in the Speakers' Square 'Focus on the Environment' on 31 October in Temple Bar Square, Dublin. It reinstalled my faith in campaigners' ability to face the public with their convictions. It was highly charged from the moment speakers began to the moment they finished.

Information only known to a select few was shared to the attentive public and debate was often sparked by intelligent heckling.

Speakers' Square continues every Sunday from 2.30pm till 6.30pm; willing participants may continue to use the square as a means of informing the public, as part of a campaign or simply to start a good argument.

There are three platforms at present on the square, which can be used by any group who would wish to make use of one for an hour or more.

Rossa Ó Snodaigh,

Dublin 8.

PS, With the help of Green Party Councillor Niall Ó Brollacháin and Sinn Féin Cllr Daniel Callanan, Galway City now has a Speakers' Corner, which takes place every Sunday from 2.30pm until 5.30pm outside St Nicholas' Church, just off Shop Street.