[tallaght01]

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-n...s-1502090.html

Originally Posted by the irish times

The Tanaiste is putting pressure on doctors to reduce the amount of money they receive to provide healthcare for elderly medical card holders.

Mary Coughlan has indicated that if GPs were prepared to take less money, the Government could readdress the abolition of universal medical cards for the over 70s.

There has been uproar since the Government announced in the Budget on Tuesday that they would be scrapping the scheme, which automatically entitles every person over 70 to a medical card.

The Minister for Health issued modifications to scheme last night.

People on the State contributory pension will still qualify, and those over the threshold will receive either a GP-only card or a €400 annual payment, depending on their financial situation.

So, what do people reckon?

Should lawyers take less cash to prop up the crappy legal aid system?

Should junior doctors and nurses take less money so the government can improve the crappy hospital system?

Or is coughlan justified in what she's asking for?

My opnion: It's a crock of balls. She's paying private contracters. If you want to dictate how much private business people charge, then emply them.
Emply docs to work for the state, and provide free-at-the-point-of-entry care to the old, the less well-off and the very young via salaried public doctors.
Just my 2c though.

[2Scoops]

A completely transparent exercise in blame repositioning. If nothing else, it will be interesting to see how hard they push this and whether it will affect the equilibrium between public dislike of 'greedy politicians' versus 'rich doctors.'

[Bison]

It is very cynical for the government to try and renegotiate this GP agreement through the stress and emotion of old age pensioners worried about their health. They wouldn't have been "over a barrell" if they had actually put some thought into this first and hadn't used it as an election stunt just a few years ago.

I can't comment on whether the over 70's payment is an over/underpayment as I don't know the figures for average visits per year or GP workload for these patients, but the IMO should use this as opportunity to get the HSE to sit down to the overall GP contract negotiations they have been avoiding. They specifically need to address the lack of GP training places in my opinion.

Also, the IMO needs to show a bit of testicular fortitude in the face of these snide comments by politicians implying that if it wasn't for greedy doctors we would all be fine. Every time one is released they should have their own statement ready for the media, perhaps pointing out that if we didn't have such incompetents in senior positions we would all be fine.

[asdasd]

It's a crock of balls. She's paying private contracters. If you want to dictate how much private business people charge, then emply them.

consultancy is a cartel.

[tallaght01]

Originally Posted by asdasd

consultancy is a cartel.

She's talking about GPs.

[SomeDose]

I don't think the HSE could possibly sink any lower in my estimations these days. Pulling at public heart-strings is a favourite spin tactic of theirs. This smacks of the same machinations that Jabba and her HSE cronies tried to pull with the pharmacists earlier this year. They suddenly decided that they didn't like the price they were paying for GMS medicines (which the HSE themselves negotiated with manufacturers) and figured they could unilaterally change their contractual payments to private contractors without consultation. Recent court decisions have rightly deemed this action illegal, so I'd imagine the HSE will be very hesitant to attempt anything similar with GPs.

[tallaght01]

I just wrote a piece about it in the boards medics blog

[RobFowl]

just to give a bit of background. The IMO (GP's union) have been trying to renegotiate the whole GMS contract since early 2005 at least. The government has refused to meet to negotiate as it claims it cannot negotiate fees and charges with the IMO as a result of their comeptition act.
Interesting to she how quickly they change their stance whey political reality bites ! (ps am a GP and an IMO member so not totally unbiased, In my situation I would actually make more money if the present proposal goes through but I'm strongly against it, totally unfair to people who were promised free medical care and prescriptions by the same goverment who now claim thats its an unfair and inequitable system)

[sam34]

this is another cynical cheap shot by the government. very easy to blame those big bad greedy doctors. tbh, i wish the imo were a bit more vocal and came out and defended their members. as a union, i feel theyre very low profile.

[Heinrich]

Originally Posted by sam34

this is another cynical cheap shot by the government. very easy to blame those big bad greedy doctors. tbh, i wish the imo were a bit more vocal and came out and defended their members. as a union, i feel theyre very low profile.

If I may use a typical Dail buzzword "I won't take lessons" from overpaid, inept and cynical politicians...

[asdasd]

They suddenly decided that they didn't like the price they were paying for GMS medicines (which the HSE themselves negotiated with manufacturers) and figured they could unilaterally change their contractual payments to private contractors without consultation.

good for them. That has been a mainstay of the democratic party's agenda in the US for years - force the manufacturers to renegotiate on price.

The major cost of running the health service is Wages. The second major cost is drugs. Where did the 300% increase in costs go to?

[tallaght01]

Originally Posted by asdasd

The major cost of running the health service is Wages. The second major cost is drugs.

But that is ENTIRELY different to saying either are poor value for money, or should be reduced.

If the main cost to airlines was safety, we wouldn't be asking them to skimp on it when times are tough.

[metrovelvet]

The doctors should call on the tanaiste and tds to reduce their charges and take a pay cut.

[DrIndy]

What the OP is proposing is a universal primary care system like in the UK - this would in fact cost much more of government funding that our semi-private GP service we are all used to here as the government would need to stump it all up rather than sting middle income taxpayers with PAYE and then medical costs.

To also radically change the system would mean a few years of chaos and a massive capital program to build primary care centres properly as in the UK.

Its cheaper to take cheap shots. (comment is directed at the government not the OP )

[asdasd]

But that is ENTIRELY different to saying either are poor value for money, or should be reduced.

YOu are not proving that they are not either. the prices of drugs often reflects what government are willing to pay for.