Ban TD's having Private Health Insurance

ihateusernames · 17-05-2012 2:10am #1

Just an idea,

Would we be better off if we our TD's actually experienced the issues the majority of the population suffer.

For example, should Minister O'Reilly be allowed private health insurance? (I dont know for definate if he does have PHI but I'd be 99% sure he does) Would it not give the public confidence if he used the systems and healthcare he is defending constantly.

Should the minister for education educate his children in public schools?

Now i have absolutly no problem with people who have levels of income which allow them to avail of private schooling and healthcare, they earn the money they can spend it how they see fit. But as an idea should elected representatives not be made to use public services as part of the job to experience the inadequacies of the departments and then be in a better position to improve/criticise or comment on it?

antoobrien · 17-05-2012 11:28am

Why bother, they can pay for their treatments private anyhow.

seamus · 17-05-2012 11:47am

They're public servants, not public slaves. I fail to see how violating their right to spend their money however they please is in any way productive.

Statistician · 17-05-2012 11:59am

seamus wrote: »

They're public servants, not public slaves. I fail to see how violating their right to spend their money however they please is in any way productive.

Up to the average industrial wage could be considered their money. In my opinion anything above that is theft, including 'unvouched expenses', gold plated pensions etc, etc, etc, etc.... Now this is just my opinion of course.

Padraig Mor · 17-05-2012 12:26pm

ihateusernames wrote: »

Just an idea,

Would we be better off if we our TD's actually experienced the issues the majority of the population suffer.

?

I was under the impression the majority of people in the country have private health insurance.

Suryavarman · 17-05-2012 2:05pm

seamus wrote: »

They're public servants, not public slaves. I fail to see how violating their right to spend their money however they please is in any way productive.

If they were forced to use the public sector instead of the private sector they would have a greater incentive to improve public services.

This move wouldn't really be violating their rights at all, politicians are free to leave their job at anytime.

Kinski · 17-05-2012 2:28pm

Padraig Mor wrote: »

I was under the impression the majority of people in the country have private health insurance.

According to the Health Minister, 46.6% are covered by private insurance.

Chuck Stone · 17-05-2012 2:32pm

How about linking their pay and pensions with the performance of the country too while we're at it?

Heck, how about all public and civil servants having their pay and pensions linked to how the public fare?

christmas2012 · 17-05-2012 2:35pm

you can be assured its all coming out of the public pocket for private privledges

JustinDee · 17-05-2012 3:07pm

ihateusernames wrote: »

Just an idea,

Would we be better off if we our TD's actually experienced the issues the majority of the population suffer.

For example, should Minister O'Reilly be allowed private health insurance? (I dont know for definate if he does have PHI but I'd be 99% sure he does) Would it not give the public confidence if he used the systems and healthcare he is defending constantly.

Should the minister for education educate his children in public schools?

Now i have absolutly no problem with people who have levels of income which allow them to avail of private schooling and healthcare, they earn the money they can spend it how they see fit. But as an idea should elected representatives not be made to use public services as part of the job to experience the inadequacies of the departments and then be in a better position to improve/criticise or comment on it?

None of your business what someone spends their own income on. if you want to dictate who spends what of their own money then try North Korea.

Kinski · 17-05-2012 3:37pm

JustinDee wrote: »

None of your business what someone spends their own income on. if you want to dictate who spends what of their own money then try North Korea.

You must be unfamiliar with the concept of a "conflict of interest." If, for example, a TD who opposes the abolishment of tax breaks for landlords also happens to have a large portfolio of rental properties, then "what they spend their income on" most definitely is the the public's business.

While what the OP suggests is not so much about conflicts of interest, as Minister for Health, James Reilly has to stand over the quality of the public healthcare system. What does it say about his confidence in that system if he's unwilling to use it himself?

Permabear · 17-05-2012 3:47pm

This post has been deleted.

JustinDee · 17-05-2012 3:55pm

Kinski wrote: »

While what the OP suggests is not so much about conflicts of interest, as Minister for Health, James Reilly has to stand over the quality of the public healthcare system. What does it say about his confidence in that system if he's unwilling to use it himself?

It takes a special brand of begrudgery to find someone presiding over a public health service as being obliged somehow to make avail of that public service despite being able to afford private.
I suppose all transport department personnel should take the bus? No public servant should be using any private facility?

The Minister you mention isn't claiming that public health service is better than private. He is saying it is of quality. Entirely different.

Suryavarman · 17-05-2012 4:05pm

JustinDee wrote: »

It takes a special brand of begrudgery to find someone presiding over a public health service as being obliged somehow to make avail of that public service despite being able to afford private.
I suppose all transport department personnel should take the bus? No public servant should be using any private facility?

The Minister you mention isn't claiming that public health service is better than private. He is saying it is of quality. Entirely different.

It isn't begrudgery at all. It would be begrudgery if people were advocating everybody should be banned from using private healthcare instead of just politicians. This kind of practice is common in the private sector, when was the last time the CEO of the Volkswagen Group was seen driving a Mercedes or the CEO of Apple was seen using an Android smartphone or Windows computer? Why shouldn't voters demand that government politicians use the services that they are in charge of?

It must be mentioned to the credit of the current government that they are planning on moving our healthcare system to one were everyone has insurance.

creedp · 17-05-2012 4:30pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Naturally as we all know public bad, private good! Its great how there have been no scandals in privately provided healthcare in Ireland or elsewhere in the world. We also know that the market is ideally suited to provide social services such as healthcare as the only incentive for private providers is quality of care! I'm certainly not saying the current model is without fault but to advocate tossing it completely aside and let the market reign is a little reckless I would think.

serfboard · 17-05-2012 4:36pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

More "private-sector-good-public-sector-bad" simplistic nonsense.

Like the ad on the radio at the moment that says Hospital X's Emergency Department is now open more hours - "Monday to Saturday 9AM to 6PM". And what are we supposed to do outside these hours? Well, ye can F**k off to the public sector. Why? 'Cos we won't do the out-of-hours stuff, because it costs too much. Or ask yourself what happens to patients who get sick when their cherry-picking private hospital f**ks up on an operation, or the patient deteriorates post-op to the point where they are too sick to look after? They simply throw them into the back of an ambulance and send them to the public hospital, where they have expensive things like ICUs.

"Patient choice" is the kind of garbage spoken by people who have no clue what they're talking about. Good luck trying to get proper healthcare out-of-hours for a really sick person in your super-duper privatised world.

KyussBishop · 17-05-2012 6:02pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There's little conclusive evidence in the case of education, that private is an improvement over public, and there are studies even specifically in the case of Ireland showing the opposite for specific subjects:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.1541

No matter what way you setup private schools, the cost as a percentage of income is always going to fall disproportionately on the poor, and it removes the guarantee of education for all.
Also, you won't get rid of the unions in a switchover to private education, they would still be there.

As for public health: I don't know what is the best method for alleviating the issues there, as I don't know enough about the system, but abolishing it outright and forcing people to go private and take out insurance, would create a system like in the US where peoples can be financially ruined if they need an expensive operation but couldn't afford insurance.

There's little evidence that it would get less expensive, or that there would be better value for money there.

Lapin · 17-05-2012 6:07pm

I don't get your logic OP.

Why should a TD who can afford healthcare take the place on a waiting list ahead of someone who can't ?

creedp · 17-05-2012 6:17pm

Lapin wrote: »

I don't get your logic OP.

Why should a TD who can afford healthcare take the place on a waiting list ahead of someone who can't ?

The problem with the Irish public health system is that private patients are treated predominantly by private consultant (who are paid a salary by the taxpayer to work in a public hospital and then earn a private wage to treat private patients in the same hospital while their public patients experience long waiting times for the same service - where else would you get it!) in public hospitals so privately insured patients crowd out public patients in public hoispitals. This idea that privately insured patients actually reduce pressure in the public system is simply not true.

KyussBishop · 17-05-2012 6:18pm

When it comes to education, health and such, the general trend of those arguing for complete privatization is to ignore any and all negative effects of that (indeed, denying there are any negative effects), particularly when it is shown how it will lead to people who can't afford completely privatized systems falling off the bottom end.

There is almost always silence or denial when confronted with these issues, and then when the topic comes up again they make the same arguments ignoring those same issues; effectively, many of the people arguing for this stuff don't care about the negative social effects, but stay silent on acknowledging that.

It's tacitly acknowledged through ignoring the inevitable societal issues presented, but never directly, so it really makes me wonder what the reasons are why it still seems, to those people, worth the societal costs of switching over.

ihateusernames · 17-05-2012 6:21pm

Lapin wrote: »

I don't get your logic OP.

Why should a TD who can afford healthcare take the place on a waiting list ahead of someone who can't ?

Simply to give the public confidence in the service he is trying to improve. The minister can talk as much as he likes about how he is improving the service and people will believe he doing nothing more than spouting PR nonsense. However, if he can turn around and say he uses the service himself, was in an A&E unit himself with a family member or something it would give the public a better impression of the service when the man in charge uses it.

ihateusernames · 17-05-2012 6:30pm

Folks, i did not want this to turn into a public sector/private sector debate. Thats beside the point. And BTW in a public servant myself and have had any concept or idea turned into public/private so many times and its not at all what im talking about.

I'm simply saying that the public might have a little more confidence in a service when the man in charge uses it. I always gets on my nerves when the minister says along the lines of "thigns will be better/we are putting in measures etc etc etc........." and then doesnt have enough confidence in his own measures to use the service himself.

As one person gave the example, would you trust the head of BMW after a scandle about a particular model having bad breaks saying the problem was minor and affected only a small number of cars blah blah blah and then drive off in an Audi?

And to the person who said judging by my logic the tds should use the bus/dart/luas............i never suggested that, Im specifically talking about healthcare.

ihateusernames · 17-05-2012 6:37pm

seamus wrote: »

They're public servants, not public slaves. I fail to see how violating their right to spend their money however they please is in any way productive.

im a public servant too, i do not consider anyone working in the public service to be slaves. Anyone who can afford PHI, get it if you want, that was not my point.

Im simply suggesting the man in charge of an organisation where he is constantly defending its structures and systems should use it himself and show that he has faith in the same system/structures.

Your totally misread my post and in my opinion you thought i was another person trying to bash public servants.....i wasnt so chill

sarumite · 17-05-2012 6:40pm

Personally I think this is a wholly unreasonable suggestion. Reilly has been given a reduced budget, limit scope for staff reductions/recruitment. He is not selling you a product and trying to convince you that its the best thing in the world. He is trying to manage a state run health care system with all the problems it entails.

juan.kerr · 17-05-2012 6:48pm

A politician would never experience the same level of service as a member of the public. TD turns up, within a few minutes a member of staff recognises him/her and immediately a bed or doctor miraculously becomes available.

Permabear · 17-05-2012 8:50pm

This post has been deleted.

Thoie · 17-05-2012 9:11pm

The theory sounds nice, but as others have said, I'm uncomfortable about dictating what people may or may not buy.

If I was going to force anyone to do it though, I'd opt for the senior management of the HSE, rather than the politicians who will be gone again in a few years.

Even without dictating what people spend their money on, what I'd really like to see is 3 or 4 of the senior HSE managers hit a busy A&E on a Friday night, and then get "mirror treatment" of some randomly picked patients.

So, they sit in the waiting area until "their" patient is called. If their patient is sent back to the waiting area, they have to go back too. If their patient is stuck on a trolley in a corridor, unable to move, the managers are also placed on a trolley for the same duration (with a chamber pot if needs be), and they're not allowed go back to normal life until the patient is either admitted to a ward, or discharged.

They may have as many visitors to accompany them as any other patient (which, the last time I was in A&E was none).

KyussBishop · 17-05-2012 9:35pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Nobody argued, as far as I can tell, that everyone should be forced to use the public health care system, just that it should be available to those that can't afford private.

Everyone can see and acknowledges the problems with the public system, you don't acknowledge the problems a 100% private system would create.
I assume (from comparison to the US system, and past forum discussions) you advocate switching over to it 100% despite those problems, and the problems it would create would be felt most by those that don't have the money to afford it, and who (judging by the US) may be left in massive debt if they sustain a serious injury without being able to afford insurance.

It ignores the social costs like they don't matter, promoting a system which would be extremely harsh for a number of people, and saying that's worth it.

It's the opposite extreme basically; rather than everyone being forced to use public even when they may have the monetary means to afford more expensive and potentially life-saving treatment, everyone would be forced to use private whether they can afford it or not and face serious debt if they sustain a serious injury.

Permabear · 17-05-2012 10:06pm

This post has been deleted.

Chuck Stone · 18-05-2012 2:01am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How do the costs compare with the outcomes?

Also a cursory look over the study below has the US in the same company as France, Australia and Canada all of which have robust public systems (from memory).

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers.

The lowest cancer survival rates for all four cancers were found in Algeria

Source

Thoie · 18-05-2012 10:38am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How about we go 50/50 - 2 HSE senior management, and 2 union heads for the initial shadowing trial?

The only problem is that the unions would probably see it as proof that we need to hire 5 million more staff.

gaffer91 · 18-05-2012 1:21pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I was under the impression that government subsidies in the US were one of the factors leading leading to the astronomical third level fees in third level education over there? Surely the same thing could happen over here in 2nd level if government did the same?

SeanW · 18-05-2012 4:25pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Hammer, Nail, Head!

matthew8 · 18-05-2012 7:20pm

Absolutely not. It's a policy skewed towards the left. It's basically forcing TDs to have a more left wing bias in healthcare. It's the same reason I oppose the up coming treaty, which basically outlaws Keynesian economics (I'm no Keynesian either).

Ban TD's having Private Health Insurance

Comments