From Mr C. Micallef
I recently started a heated discussion among a group of mature adults regarding people who inflict self-harm, such as smokers and alcoholics, and whether they should continue to receive treatment (social benefits) without doing their part first by quitting their addictive habit.
Abroad, where health systems are primarily run on personal health insurances, such companies literally put you at a disadvantage if you are unhealthy by demanding higher premiums.
Due to the quality of life, with all the temptations that exist, I genuinely think that we should not categorise healthy people with the intentionally unhealthy ones because to remain tobacco free and to abstain from binge drinking deserves a reward! However, after listening to Tom, Dick and Harry, I was finally persuaded that we should not penalise these victims of society…
On the other hand, however, my pension reform ideas are formulated purely on the basis of fairness for all, thus condemning discrimination against young people. Strangely however, I was still criticised by the same people who are supposed to be all out against any form of discrimination. Is it because they will be lucky enough to be partially or fully exempted from the proposed reform?
Is there any merit in simply being in the late forties or fifties age brackets? Is there any doubt that I am not going to reach this age, someday? Not only that, but probably by the time I am 50, the retirement might be raised to the ripe old age of 70!
Why should the retirement age at 65 only target those who are 45 and under? Isn’t this supposed to be a national problem? I understand that such a change cannot be implemented overnight, but on the other hand there is no need for it to take 20 years to be gradually increased to its final target of 65 for all! Imagine, a new government is elected to power, is not returned again, and we still see everybody retiring at 61! In other words, not even half a dozen people would have legally (as opposed to voluntarily) ended their working careers at just 62 years of age in five years time! This is ridiculous! Just to say that we have addressed a problem, that’s all!
Is there any valid reason why members of the armed forces and the police corps are completely exempted from shouldering an additional four years of this national burden as well? I understand that these people, who have inferior working conditions and rights compared to the rest us, should not retire at the same age we do, but it is not fair either that I have to work till I am 65 so that they can happily retire at 45, or even before!
The irony is that our government has already, for the second time, publicly invited retired soldiers and policemen to return to work in order to cope with the ever-increasing problem of the invasion of illegal immigrants! In the UK, military service is 35 years and the normal retirement age for police constables and sergeants is 55.
Carmel Micallef
FGURA