Should there be a charge for consultation in college health service?

fluppet

While nobody ever wants to have to start paying for something that used to be free, something clearly has to be done about the college health service - the waiting period for a non-emergency consultation is usually a week. There is also the risk that if a charge was imposed certain students might avoid going to the doctor even when necessary.

In my opinion a possible solution is to allow a certain number of free consultations per year, perhaps 2 or 3, and then imposing a small fee for further consultations. I would suggest keeping emergency consultations free (however if the doctor decides after the consultation that it was not an emergency case, a charge can be imposed to avoid abuse of the service).

Pet

I think €10 would be acceptable. I know several people who went in with the most unbelievably trivial things, just because it was free. I do like your idea of a set quota of free consultations, though this would create more paperwork for the staff.

I know it's a handy service to have, but as you said the waiting period is a bit ridiculous and something needs to be done. An appointment with a GP is usually about €40-€60 these days, so paying €5 or €10 in college is still very good.

However, I can't see the SU going for this, as it would make them less popular in the eyes of the students, even though it would probably benefit everyone longterm.

Edwardius

A few free visits a year would be a good idea. It'd probably stop those mental hypochondriac dolly birds that clog the place whenever I need to go in for an amputation or somethin. I'd say that, on average, most folk need to go once or twice a year. Havin to pay every time might discourage us lads as even the idea of seeking medical help doesn't appeal unless you left your eyeballs in your elbow joints or something, so the idea of using valuable beer money on something as trivial as healthcare is ridiculous. Or you could have serial offenders put down. That'd solve the problem. I've lost interest in this train of thought now. Bye.

Andrew 83

Free. The service's funding problems should be tackled by college seriously upping funding to it (instead of intentionally not doing so as is the case the last few years), not through charges.

shay_562

A few free consultations a year is a good idea. Charging is a bad idea - it discourages people from going, which is a bad thing. But equally, if people are abusing it, limiting the number of free consultations would help. My only question is if that's actually the problem - on average, how often do people go every year? And if it's a relatively low amount, then the problem lies elsewhere. Figures would help, but damn if I know where to find them.

Time Magazine

Yeah a couple free a year is a good compromise. It should not be totally free though. That just leads to abuse of the system and leaves the College vulnerable to cutbacks from bastard ministers (Martin, stand up there like a good man).

It's great that College provides a health service, I've used it a couple of times (or was it just the once?) myself, but it's really something that the State should be providing in the first place. There should a fully free health clinic on Pearse St or something. Here's the science:

Say if the College offered the service free and to cater for everyone needed to invest say, random figure off the top of my head, €1m per year. All it takes is another Martin Cullen in the education portfolio; budget cutbacks come and walah, we've either to cut the health service or demolish the Ussher library. That's not a choice the College should have to make because the State should be providing that health service in the first place.

College needs its independence and these days when it's really struggling to keep up academically it should focus on its raison d'etre. I assert that the Students' Union should be focusing on ensuring the Ussher doesn't have to be demolished in the first instance and, in doing this, also rally the government, perhaps through USI etc., to provide free health care for students seperately.

Edited: dots and crosses.

Pet

I assert that the Students' Union should be focusing on ensuring the Ussher doesn't have to be demolished in the first instance and, in doing this, also rally the government, perhaps through USI etc., to provide free health care for students seperately.

It's a great idea, but it would take about 15 years to get put into place. Seriously, look at the medical cards for old people débacle.

Time Magazine

That's why we need a new government

One with the social kindness of Andrew_83 and with the ballsy economics of me .

Vote FG/Lab .

shay_562

And the Greens!

*crickets*

Edwardius

Ibid wrote:

Vote FG/Lab .

I'll be ice skating in hell over rabbite's corpse before I do that.

Comhra....

The health centre should be free for everyone full stop. Yes the idea of a few free consultations a year sounds like a god idea and it might work for the majority of people but you can't put a quota on the amount of time someone gets sick. And what if they have a condition that needs a number of consultations? I got sick towards the end of second year with a stomach problem and had to go back to the doctor three or four times for check-ups etc. I wouldn't have been able to afford to get the help I needed if there was a charge.

Andrew is right college need to stop taking funds away from the health centre because we do pay for it already...reg fee! The cost of printing exam papers and administration does not go up every year and yet college are allocating more and more money to those areas (much more than the crrent rate of inflation). The health centre should be free to everyone full stop.

davork

We complain that funding is being 'witheld' from the medical center... college asks where the money will come from instead...

It's a no win game... college doesn't have enough money... we apparently do as we don't pay tuition fees like our fellow students in the UK...

we'll probably end up paying EUR 15, after having it 'negotiated' down from EUR 25. Checkups after an 'event' will probably be thrown in for 'free'

And I'd suggest this will happen regardless of which minister of whatever colour is sitting in the chair...

Where are you getting your college expense figures from Comhra?

I find it hard to believe that the college would allocate more money to an expense that does not rise..

A nominal fee on college consulatations, to me sounds like a good idea as it would create a disincentive to abuse the service.. ie run every time you get a sniffle or headache.

Say that on average people visit it four times a year, your total consultation fees would be less then an averag night out.. is that really pohibitively expensive?

Right_Side

Andrew 83 wrote:

Free. The service's funding problems should be tackled by college seriously upping funding to it (instead of intentionally not doing so as is the case the last few years), not through charges.

This is the problem with socialists, they want everything free but make no suggestion of how to pay for it!

You do understand that upping the funding to the health centre will just create a budget shortage elsewhere and then you'll be moaning saying how that should be free when people starting talking of introducing a charge on that.

E.g. Maybe they could afford free health centre visits if you had to pay for repeats like in other colleges. Would you agree with that? No of course you wouldn't... at the end of the day we are going to have to pay for the budget shortage whether it be openly through a direct fee on services or stealthily through increases in the registration fee.

I prefer paying on a service by service basis.. that way I am paying for what I need, rather then paying a general fee which is distributed over a wide range of programs..

Why should I, who has never actually used the health service on campus, pay for random hypos repeated visits?

On the flip side, I would also be willing to pay for new services such as Bloomberg, as asking for that service to be paid for out of a general fund is unfair on the 80% of students who would never use the service.

Right_Side

original_psycho wrote:

Why should I, who has never actually used the health service on campus, pay for random hypos repeated visits?

Excellent point.

Nietzschean

i've been to a doctor 3 times in the last 5 years, twice in the past 6months and i must say rather than the wait in the student health service i went to a GP outside college. So really do something to make the service decent, if that means paying 15 rather than the student rate of 40 in a GP fair nuff imo.

Andrew 83

original_psycho wrote:

Where are you getting your college expense figures from Comhra?

I find it hard to believe that the college would allocate more money to an expense that does not rise..

I can 100% guarantee that it is the case. The figures of how the registration fee is allocated are given to the SU every year. Two years ago when myself and Comhra were on SU Exec there was, not the first, massive increase in what she mentions and next to nothing increase in the health centre. It was seen as the college intentionally starving the health centre as funds so as to leave 'no choice' but to introduce fees. In this way college can eventually remove all funding so student visits are the only funding. They can then put the money elsehwere while students are left having to pay large monetary as well as physical expenses for illnesses which are hardly their fault. As usual it took place near the end of the year so it was difficult to have mass action against it.

The college every year ups these administration fees (the cost of having registration in the exam hall seems to massively rise every year at frankly implauible rates). This money should be going to the health centre.

original_psycho wrote:

I prefer paying on a service by service basis.. that way I am paying for what I need, rather then paying a general fee which is distributed over a wide range of programs...

Would you honestly rather a service where you pay for every handout in class before you are given, each time you use a society room, each time you sit an exam, each time you visit the Buttery, each time you go into the library etc? That is the logic of what you're saying. Some people due to either themselves or their course never use any of these but of course the cost is met by all.

Firstly, I would view Trinity as an academic centre, and not a health provider.

Therefore, if the money is going to academic purposes.. then why is that a problem?

In regard to the health center, why should a nominal fee not be imposed? As long as the fee is either less then or equal the going rate for medical services, what is the problem? And E10/15 is certainly under market rate, 70% under in fact. Why is Trinity obligated to pay for your medical bills? Why I am obligated to pay for your medical bills?

In regards to the buttery, I do pay a fee every time I go there.

However the library, handouts, etc; are academic resources that are intrinsic to the nature of the college, and a general fee is appropriate as all students equally partake in academic activities.

What I am saying is that that college has a duty to further your academic devlopment, and the primary reason why you are in college is to further you academic development. College funds therefore should be prioritised to further academic pursuits rather then personal services.

Any surpluses should then go to the college services, such as CSC, DUCAC, Health, etc to compliment there existing private funding, but not detract from the academic services.

original_psycho

original_psycho wrote:

Firstly, I would view Trinity as an academic centre, and not a health provider.

A lot of colleges have problems retaining their students. In order to retain students, and ensure that you, as a student, are able to function to your best, then it is reasonable for the college to assist you in this. It would be fantastic to separate your academic activities from the other part of your life, and fair dues to anyone who does it, but there are an unbelievable amount of people in college who get scared going into exams, who perhaps could have a medical condition which would cause them not to do the best in their exams.

Trinity provides certain supports for its students - the tutor system for example. This is there to help students with problems students might experience throughout the year. So, because students are human and have feelings and emotions, it is not necessarily easy to seperate the academic work a student does from their mental & physical health. Like everything, it is interlinked.

Therefore, if the money is going to academic purposes.. then why is that a problem?

In regard to the health center, why should a nominal fee not be imposed? As long as the fee is either less then or equal the going rate for medical services, what is the problem? And E10/15 is certainly under market rate, 70% under in fact. Why is Trinity obligated to pay for your medical bills? Why I am obligated to pay for your medical bills?

The present income level for grant assistance is set at c. 55,000. If (as was suggested in threads gone by) that those receiving a grant would receive a card allowing them free health care, can I ask what will happen to those students who are judged by their parents income who have just missed this benchmark? How would you find them? How would these students, whose parents may not have a large level (if any) disposable income be able to afford this? Finally, how would you avoid the situation of making a student decide between going for a visit to the doctor and eating?

And personally I have no problem with allowing the portion of the registration fee I'll be paying to help those students who need it.

In regards to the buttery, I do pay a fee every time I go there.

However the library, handouts, etc; are academic resources that are intrinsic to the nature of the college, and a general fee is appropriate as all students equally partake in academic activities.

What I am saying is that that college has a duty to further your academic devlopment, and the primary reason why you are in college is to further you academic development. College funds therefore should be prioritised to further academic pursuits rather then personal services.

As I said above, it is impossible to seperate your academic development from outside factors. If you don't believe me, consider a death in a family of someone who is about to take an exam.

Any surpluses should then go to the college services, such as CSC, DUCAC, Health, etc to compliment there existing private funding, but not detract from the academic services.

I have to take the cynical line here - money is squeezed out of every orifice these days in college, so I don't think so.

This was a bit of a tangent, but meh all the same.

Comhra....

original_psycho wrote:

Where are you getting your college expense figures from Comhra?

I picked them randomly out of my head because I thought it would be funny... no as Andrew said I sat on exec two years ago and I've seen the figures and I've compared them to the year before and surprise surprise the difference is startlingly large.

I find it hard to believe that the college would allocate more money to an expense that does not rise..

You are very naieve!

A nominal fee on college consulatations, to me sounds like a good idea as it would create a disincentive to abuse the service.. ie run every time you get a sniffle or headache.

Well some of us get grants and work our asses off during the summer, at the weekends and in the evenings so that we can afford to go to college! I can't afford to pay ten euro when I need to go to the doctor, why should I have to choose between dinner and my health?

When was the last time you were actually in the health centre? You seem to have it in your head that it is full of perfectly healthy people. Maybe you should go and talk to Dr Thomas about these ideas that college is full of "hypos", maybe you should bring ten euro with you incase he charges you for waesting his time!

Say that on average people visit it four times a year, your total consultation fees would be less then an averag night out.. is that really pohibitively expensive?

I'm sorry but not all of us can afford to spend about 40euro on a night out. Maybe you can afford to pay for healthcare, cool, well done fair play! But maybe you should think about the people who aren't as lucky as yourself? You might be surprised how many students in college wouldn't be able to afford health care if a fee was imposed.

Hope you are well!

Comhra....

By the way rate of STIs in Ireland is rising so maybe we should all keep an extra tenner in our wallets next to the emergency condom just incase we have to go the sexual health clinic in the health centre.

Endymion

original_psycho wrote:

Firstly, I would view Trinity as an academic centre, and not a health provider.

Therefore, if the money is going to academic purposes.. then why is that a problem?

In regard to the health center, why should a nominal fee not be imposed? As long as the fee is either less then or equal the going rate for medical services, what is the problem? And E10/15 is certainly under market rate, 70% under in fact. Why is Trinity obligated to pay for your medical bills? Why I am obligated to pay for your medical bills?

In regards to the buttery, I do pay a fee every time I go there.

However the library, handouts, etc; are academic resources that are intrinsic to the nature of the college, and a general fee is appropriate as all students equally partake in academic activities.

What I am saying is that that college has a duty to further your academic devlopment, and the primary reason why you are in college is to further you academic development. College funds therefore should be prioritised to further academic pursuits rather then personal services.

Any surpluses should then go to the college services, such as CSC, DUCAC, Health, etc to compliment there existing private funding, but not detract from the academic services.

Why are junkies given methadone and free needles?

Comhra

Comhra wrote:

I picked them randomly out of my head because I thought it would be funny... no as Andrew said I sat on exec two years ago and I've seen the figures and I've compared them to the year before and surprise surprise the difference is startlingly large.

You are very naieve!

Well some of us get grants and work our asses off during the summer, at the weekends and in the evenings so that we can afford to go to college! I can't afford to pay ten euro when I need to go to the doctor, why should I have to choose between dinner and my health?

When was the last time you were actually in the health centre? You seem to have it in your head that it is full of perfectly healthy people. Maybe you should go and talk to Dr Thomas about these ideas that college is full of "hypos", maybe you should bring ten euro with you incase he charges you for waesting his time!



I'm sorry but not all of us can afford to spend about 40euro on a night out. Maybe you can afford to pay for healthcare, cool, well done fair play! But maybe you should think about the people who aren't as lucky as yourself? You might be surprised how many students in college wouldn't be able to afford health care if a fee was imposed.

Hope you are well!

I don't really want to get into a long argument

Just for the record - I don't drink so I don't blow E40 a night on nights out, and I work about 70hours a week over the summer to pay for my year during college.

I probably am naieve, but I work as a consultant for Non Profits in the US and while they may not always get the best deal, I have not really come across increased wanton spending on fixed costs, and if this was the case, there usually is some form of an explantion, what is more common is incompetence in the form of people buying the same item twice... but while incompetent, it still has a valid (if flawed) reason.

The normal rate for a doctors visit is E50, plus then the price of medication - a E10 charge is good value, you are saving 40 quid a visit

And if your sick your not really hungry anyway so you have the E10 left over!

And what meal are you buying that costs E10 anyway?? Shop in Tesco! that will stretch that money into enough food for two days!

Joking aside - my opinion is that the college is there for primarily academic purposes, and that the lions share of funding should go to that. Especially as college is free, so you are already up on your British and American counterparts.

You could also argue that accomodation is more important then the health service as without that you under large handicap yet would you start paying for others accomodation fees?? The same goes for transport, would you pay for my luas ticket? Or even a proportion of it?? Probably not and I don't feel inclined to pay for yours.. Why should I pay for your health fees? I don't expect you to pay for mine..

I did not know that Trinity gave away free needles and methodone...

I presume you mean why does the government give away these items.

Why not? The government, unlike Trinity is responsible for the overall welfare of its citizens. Also drug treatment has a positive effect on society - mainly increased welfare through less crime, is that a bad thing?

Myth

Myth wrote:

A lot of colleges have problems retaining their students. In order to retain students, and ensure that you, as a student, are able to function to your best, then it is reasonable for the college to assist you in this. It would be fantastic to separate your academic activities from the other part of your life, and fair dues to anyone who does it, but there are an unbelievable amount of people in college who get scared going into exams, who perhaps could have a medical condition which would cause them not to do the best in their exams.

Trinity provides certain supports for its students - the tutor system for example. This is there to help students with problems students might experience throughout the year. So, because students are human and have feelings and emotions, it is not necessarily easy to seperate the academic work a student does from their mental & physical health. Like everything, it is interlinked.



The present income level for grant assistance is set at c. 55,000. If (as was suggested in threads gone by) that those receiving a grant would receive a card allowing them free health care, can I ask what will happen to those students who are judged by their parents income who have just missed this benchmark? How would you find them? How would these students, whose parents may not have a large level (if any) disposable income be able to afford this? Finally, how would you avoid the situation of making a student decide between going for a visit to the doctor and eating?

And personally I have no problem with allowing the portion of the registration fee I'll be paying to help those students who need it.



As I said above, it is impossible to seperate your academic development from outside factors. If you don't believe me, consider a death in a family of someone who is about to take an exam.



I have to take the cynical line here - money is squeezed out of every orifice these days in college, so I don't think so.

This was a bit of a tangent, but meh all the same.

Sorry - missed your post at first.

I don't see the connection between the health service, student couselling and the tutor system;

I like the tutor system and have no problem paying for it, again as I mentioned before it is a service that everyone uses and academic in nature. Same for the counselling program. Although I have never used it, it's nice to know its there and providing a direct academic benefit to students and helping to carry out the primary goal of the college.

I am against paying for somebody elses health fees, when they do not have to contribute towards it!

Say student X gets an STi, why do I have to pay cause he wouldn't use a condom! Why does he deserve that money more then a new lecturer? Or more funding to the History or English department?

Charitable funding here in the US is often done on the matching principle, where you raise Y amount, and this the same amount is then given to you by the government. This is a fair system as you get back what you worked for and earned. And while it is unreasonable to expect students to stump up 50% (E25) of a consultation, E10 (20%) is, in my opinon, a fair figure.

I would be happier to fund the health service if I knew that at the person recieving the benefit was also contributing a fair amount.

Also please see above posts re Accom. etc.

Andrew 83

I've always wondered how people 'abuse' the health centre.

I remember when Steph ran for election she had a figures for what percentage of students were aware of the health centre and what percentage had used it. While I don't remember the figures (if anyone has her manifesto it was in there), they were exceptionally low. That more people are using it should be seen as a good thing, and fair play to Steph for raising awareness. Instead we hear that the service is now being 'abused'.

Endymion

original_psycho wrote:

I presume you mean why does the government give away these items.

Why not? The government, unlike Trinity is responsible for the overall welfare of its citizens. Also drug treatment has a positive effect on society - mainly increased welfare through less crime, is that a bad thing?

It's the goverment that largely funds trinity's health service (though not directly) and even if it wasn't, whats the difference between your "fee's" and your taxes?

There are those that would disagree with you in regard to the goverment being responsible for your overall welfare, in much the same way you disagree with people who believe trinity is (in some small way) responsible for the student bodies overall welfare.

Drug treatment has a possitive effect on society, but likewise so does preventing sickness before it spreads. In the long run that saves money even if you have people coming in over and over again (which btw would happen regardless of a fees). How much will an STI outbreak cost?

I really think you should decide if your problem is with there being a free service, or if it's with people abusing a free service.

I have absolutley no proof about this but it probably falls under the 80/20 rule..

You might have a small contingent of people who clog up the system with unnecessary, repeated visits.. that, to me anyway, constitutes as abuse

Where's Enda?? I want to hear his take on this!

Endymion

original_psycho wrote:

I am against paying for somebody elses health fees, when they do not have to contribute towards it!

Well thats the system we have in ireland. Beside you'r not paying any more toward that health service then the student in question. he or she pays a fee also.

Say student X gets an STi, why do I have to pay cause he wouldn't use a condom! Why does he deserve that money more then a new lecturer? Or more funding to the History or English department?

So if someone gets Aids and can't afford treatment they should be just left to die. Doesn't make sense to me how you can justify that attitude. Especially with no knowledge of how someone came to contract the STI.

I would be happier to fund the health service if I knew that at the person recieving the benefit was also contributing a fair amount.

Do you even know how trinity college is funded or are you mouthing off? An irish person pays about one tenth the cost of their education, the rest is picked up by the state. You are not contributing any more to the health service then the guy with the STI. Why on earth do you think you are?

Now i trust you're happy.

Ps, as of this date have you actually contributed anything to the health service you're complaining about being free?

Firstly - what exactly do you think Trinity is? Some sort of uber-org that solves all problems? If you have a disease / virus like AIDS, you go to Hospital / specialist and then its a matter for the state and your medial insurance. Nothing what so ever to do with TCD or registration fees.

Secondly, you are missing the point somewhat; I don't care that we all pay and equal share towards health funding as it only benefits the few who use it.. also if you are sick, its your problem. You should pay for at least a part of the cost yourself and not ask for the money from other students.

I would rather that the money I pay to Trinity, go towards its lecturers and courses.. it is why I am here after all, to get an education.

Why do you expect everyone to share the burden of your medical bills? Especially when that money could be used to further their education

Andrew 83

original_psycho wrote:

I would rather that the money I pay to Trinity, go towards its lecturers and courses.. it is why I am here after all, to get an education.

Surely that is paid for by your fees, paid for by the government, not by the registration fee.

Surely more money going towards academic programs, or the support of academic programs is a positive

Comhra....

I think maybe you have missed some of the point that I and Andrew have been trying to make. Yes it would be fantastic if college was spending the reg fee on more lecturers, better facilities and our education but they don't. The funding for these things is received from other sources.

Each Irish student pays the reg fee to whatever college, university or third level institution they go to and it is that body who decides in what way to spend/break down these amounts.

Trinity gives a portion to student services; health centre, capitation, tutorial system etc. The rest goes under the mysterious heading "Administration" and "Examinations". Over the last few years the reg fee has gone up a phenominal amount but the health centre is still underfinanced in Trinity. The health centre don't want to charge students, the ethos on which it was started was to provide free health care for Trinity students.

Also I think you are a bit confused about paying other peoples medical bills. If I get sick in October and need to go to the health centre you are not going to receive an extra bill for the medical attention I need. We all pay the same amount towards the health centre and we are all entitled to use it when we need it.

original_psycho

original_psycho wrote:

Sorry - missed your post at first.

I don't see the connection between the health service, student couselling and the tutor system;

My basic point is that Trinity should be doing as much as it can to keep students in education.

Andrew, here you go:

http://www.geocities.com/stephanieforwelfare/

Endymion

original_psycho wrote:

Firstly - what exactly do you think Trinity is? Some sort of uber-org that solves all problems? If you have a disease / virus like AIDS, you go to Hospital / specialist and then its a matter for the state and your medial insurance. Nothing what so ever to do with TCD or registration fees.

First off TCD run and sti clinic. First off AIDS is an STI, First off people tend not to know they have aids. First off...first off... first off...

Secondly, you are missing the point somewhat; I don't care that we all pay and equal share towards health funding as it only benefits the few who use it.. also if you are sick, its your problem. You should pay for at least a part of the cost yourself and not ask for the money from other students.

You made a big feicing song and dance about been happier if you knew the person with using the service paid what you pay, they do. Now you say you don't care. You say they should pay part, they pay as muc has you do, what more can you ask.

I would rather that the money I pay to Trinity, go towards its lecturers and courses.. it is why I am here after all, to get an education.

The registration fee doesn't pay for lecturers. The goverment does. Maybe if you're a foreign students your fees do go towards research and other stuff, but lecturers are paid by the state, not you. You've no say. You're ignoring this point over and over and over again.

Why do you expect everyone to share the burden of your medical bills? Especially when that money could be used to further their education

Thats the system we live in. You get raped and beaten to death, why should I have my taxes spent on locking up your killer? You spread your legs and get pregnant, why should my taxes provided you with welfare. why... why... why... because thats the system we have here, of sharing the burdens of the few amoung the many. When something benefits the public in general, the public in general pay for it. Maintaining a healthly population of young people benefits everyone. Have you any idea how much someone with AIDS costs the state? a 10 euro test could prevent someone from spreading a deadly virus, how much is that worth. But, oh yea, why should you have the burden.

Surely more money going towards academic programs, or the support of academic programs is a positive

Jesus christ, you either see a problem with people lacking basic medical care or you don't. You're talking about billions on academic programs vs millions on student health. It really boggles an really sound slike yo uhave no experience with both irish society and college life.

Nietzschean

one of the sticking points for me in all this no one knows, where is all that money under the name of administration and exams going? if we need it to run the college/exams, then well fair enough, if its going to buy a summer home for the provost i'd rather student health other than that i would have recon'd health is a state thing not an academic body's.... if it was a company they'd outsourse the health care section anyway, probally right back to the government as they own most of the facilities for it in the country.

the whole argument of the many pay for the few i really don't care about, i'll have to pay taxes for many a year yet funding that system and it doesn't bother me. i would have just thought running an internal health care system inside the nation's capital which is ring'd with hospitals and doctors seems odd.

gilroyb

original_psycho wrote:

Surely more money going towards academic programs, or the support of academic programs is a positive

For some weird reason people tend to see keeping students alive and healthy as supporting the academic programs. The college gains by students considering it a community, and I certainly think it gains more than it spends from this community atmosphere.

Andrew 83

Nietzschean wrote:

i would have recon'd health is a state thing not an academic body's....

Well you are right but as there is not currently wholely public health care with private health care removed entirely, a free health service in college is essential until that time comes.

Carnivore

Carnivore wrote:

original_psycho wrote:

Firstly - what exactly do you think Trinity is? Some sort of uber-org that solves all problems? If you have a disease / virus like AIDS, you go to Hospital / specialist and then its a matter for the state and your medial insurance. Nothing what so ever to do with TCD or registration fees.

First off TCD run and sti clinic. First off AIDS is an STI, First off people tend not to know they have aids. First off...first off... first off...




You made a big feicing song and dance about been happier if you knew the person with using the service paid what you pay, they do. Now you say you don't care. You say they should pay part, they pay as muc has you do, what more can you ask.



The registration fee doesn't pay for lecturers. The goverment does. Maybe if you're a foreign students your fees do go towards research and other stuff, but lecturers are paid by the state, not you. You've no say. You're ignoring this point over and over and over again.



Thats the system we live in. You get raped and beaten to death, why should I have my taxes spent on locking up your killer? You spread your legs and get pregnant, why should my taxes provided you with welfare. why... why... why... because thats the system we have here, of sharing the burdens of the few amoung the many. When something benefits the public in general, the public in general pay for it. Maintaining a healthly population of young people benefits everyone. Have you any idea how much someone with AIDS costs the state? a 10 euro test could prevent someone from spreading a deadly virus, how much is that worth. But, oh yea, why should you have the burden.



Jesus christ, you either see a problem with people lacking basic medical care or you don't. You're talking about billions on academic programs vs millions on student health. It really boggles an really sound slike yo uhave no experience with both irish society and college life.

Right, I'm not getting bogged down in an argument over this, if you want I can continue this weekend when I have a bit more time..

I'm going to outline my view on this; if you don't agree with it, fine. I don't really care anyway. I just have had nothing to do at work for that last two days. Now I do.

The health service is an extra service provided by Trinity, it should not be regarded as the core service of Trinity, which is education.

For those who say that Health is intrinsic to education - it is, but so are clothes, food, social life, accomodation and a lot of other items which you do not expect other people to pay for. Health is no different - and the proposed E10 fee per visit is only a fifth of the market value. I don't see students demanding that the price of clothes, food, transport or accomodation should be subsidised from the registration fee?

The STi clinic will only help people with STi's, is it that wrong that these people should be expected foot at least 20% of the bill themselves?? If you were too cheap or lazy to carry a condom, why do I have to pay?? (I know that not all STis are caused by that, but some are, and it pisses me off paying for them)
Like I said before, its your problem and a personal one, not an academic one. In my view, that does not entitle you to be fully comped by other students.

The health clinic as is not used by a large proportion of students, according to Steff and as no one has countered that claim, it seems to be true. Therefore again, why should all students have to pay for the treatment of a non academic related personal problem of the minority?? Is 20% of the bill really to much to ask for??

The government pays for lecturers salaries, but your fee goes to course expenses - the more of the fee that goes to a course, the more resources the course can afford which should improve the qualilty of the course. This beneifts all students as all students take courses. This is also achieving the primary aim of the college; academic development.

In relation to your quote 'Thats the system we live in' - that refers to the role of government, whose duty is to maintain societies welfare. It is their problem when you are sick, on drugs, have been robbed, etc. The AIDS test (or lack thereof) and the spreading of the virus is their problem, not a college one. The aim of college is to educate you, not to provide you with free or cheap healthcare or solve the international AIDS problem. Thats the governments job.. go talk to them

You would not go into a butchers shop and demand free health care, so why do it in Trinity? You seem to expect Trinity to take care of your personal problems, paid for by your peers? Why should we?

And the argument that we all pay the same is crap - we should not have to, you, as a consumer should pay for non academic or non-course related expenses.

'lacking basic health care'? Since when? The whole argument is over a service which provides basic health care.. so we are not lacking it.

Also, while I appreciate that you are not satisfied with the level of national health care, that is not Trinity's problem nor the problem of the college health service. Like is said earlier, go talk to your TD. These billion dollar academic expenditures are national issues, not Trinity ones.

My tax payments are made to help solve such problems. But I do not accept that my college fees should as well, they should be primarily focused on furthering students academic development

gilroyb

gilroyb wrote:

For some weird reason people tend to see keeping students alive and healthy as supporting the academic programs. The college gains by students considering it a community, and I certainly think it gains more than it spends from this community atmosphere.

Thats not Trinity's problem.. it is a government one, and as such why should Trinity do it for free?

gilroyb

original_psycho wrote:

Thats not Trinity's problem.. it is a government one, and as such why should they Trinity then do it for free?

The atmosphere among Trinity students is in no way the governments problem. What academic improvement is provided by The Hist, the Phil, or the other numerous societies. Even worse, think of all that money wasted on sports clubs. What's even worse again, these clubs are the very groups that cause a large part of the injuries the health service have to deal with.

If you want a pure educational experience, I'm sure there are plenty of establishments around you can pay to attend, rather than wasting your time with this government funded communist paradise.

I don't like being portrayed as anti-everything but acadmics and if you read my posts you will see that i am not.

I have a problem paying of the health service because the end user gets it for free.. i have no problem supporting the service (or any service) as long as the one who benefits pays a fee for what they are getting. Otherwise the system is open for abuse by a few people at the cost of the majority. Think about how many baulk during the wait for the doctor?

If you wany physio on campus, you pay a fee.. same with food.. same with teaching.. then why not for health?

Apologies if that had become obscured

Endymion

The health service is an extra service provided by Trinity, it should not be regarded as the core service of Trinity, which is education.

No one is saying it’s the core service, but can’t trinity be about more then one thing?


For those who say that Health is intrinsic to education - it is, but so are clothes, food, social life, accomodation and a lot of other items which you do not expect other people to pay for. Health is no different - and the proposed E10 fee per visit is only a fifth of the market value. I don't see students demanding that the price of clothes, food, transport or accomodation should be subsidised from the registration fee?

Cloths – Not an issue
Food – Food is subsidised.
Social life – Allot of money is feed into Social activities in trinity, look at the csc thread.
Accommodation – Government grants where needed, and provided by trinity.

You talk about a 10 euro fee, but that’s still a massive subsidy which you seem to have a problem with. You’re still going to be subsidising someone else’s health care. Btw how much of your registration fee is subsidising health care? Is any of it?

The STi clinic will only help people with STi's, is it that wrong that these people should be expected foot at least 20% of the bill themselves?? If you were too cheap or lazy to carry a condom, why do I have to pay?? (I know that not all STis are caused by that, but some are, and it pisses me off paying for them)
Like I said before, its your problem and a personal one, not an academic one. In my view, that does not entitle you to be fully comped by other students.

Sti clinics prevents the spread of STI’s, if you don’t see how that benefits society theres no point talking to you. Now you’ve come up with this “at least 20% of the bill”. You realise that it’s only the consult which is free right? The threatment isn’t? For all you know they do pay 20% of the bill. Do you even know what you pay for? Have you paid anything in fact?

Also great generalisation there about contracting STI’s and the bull**** “I know some arn’t caused by that”, I didn’t realise I was dealing with someone who never ****s up or makes a mistake. Responsible people get STI checks at least one a year, regardless of whether or not they practice safer sex


The health clinic as is not used by a large proportion of students, according to Steff and as no one has countered that claim, it seems to be true. Therefore again, why should all students have to pay for the treatment of a non academic related personal problem of the minority?? Is 20% of the bill really to much to ask for??

The government pays for lecturers salaries, but your fee goes to course expenses - the more of the fee that goes to a course, the more resources the course can afford which should improve the qualilty of the course. This beneifts all students as all students take courses. This is also achieving the primary aim of the college; academic development.

Got yea, so college funds shouldn’t be spent on something unless all students benifit. I look forward to the hist being disbanded as I don’t benifit from them. Along with the arts faculties.

You would not go into a butchers shop and demand free health care, so why do it in Trinity? You seem to expect Trinity to take care of your personal problems, paid for by your peers? Why should we?

And the argument that we all pay the same is crap - we should not have to, you, as a consumer should pay for non academic or non-course related expenses.

It strikes me reading the above, why should a butcher be paying for your education, there’s as much justification for that, as him paying for your health care. You realise trinity is a public university right? You sound American, as such you will be paying a few grand in fees, but realise this, all the facilities you will benefit from are paid, at the very least in part, for by the government and people of this country.

Look - the point is,

Why can't you pay for use of service that will only benefit you?

Food is not subsidised by college, and college subsidies are the issues here.
Cloths? Why not an issue? Again they are not subsidised by college.
Accomodation? Not subsidised by college

The Hist, Phil, CSC societies, DUCAC sports clubs, you pay for them each time you use a service - ie you pay a members fee to use the GMB, you pay for use of the pool tables etc.

By paying for these services, even a small fee ensures there is no abuse. And a person who uses them a lot, pays a lot and doesn't end up raising the overall fee.

That is my problem - you demand a free service. Why?

Endymion

The society fee is there to stop societies abusing the CSC. If societies where allowed to give free membership, many would. Its a token amounth it that in no way pays for the runing of the societies.

1) I don't demand a free service. I think its a great idea that it's free, and I'm thankfull it's there, as I know I'm lucky to have the oppertunity to use a free clinic on campus. Theres a difference between this and demanding something

2) "Why can't you pay for use of service that will only benefit you?", Well that really sums up this difference of opinion. I don't see it as only benefiting me. I've used the service a grand total of once. I see the larger benifits of ensuring a healthy student body. Yes some people abuse the service, but some people "abuse" free education as well, I don't hear people calling for an end to that.

3) Fees won't stop the kind of "abuse" you talk about, you're deluded.

they might not stop it, but they would help reduce it, but thats my opinion

As to the membership fees - in a club im involved with, they did help pay for the running of the society as it covered a term and a half of social expenses. We also charged for entry to other social events, it stops abuse and helps maintain the society.

A more practical reason (for DUCAC anyway) is that your budget depends on the amount of members you have, and a nominal entry fee prevents clubs abusing that system (sound familiar?!!) - plus the max you can charge is E4/6 (one of the two)

punka

original_psycho wrote:

Food is not subsidised by college, and college subsidies are the issues here.

Buttery. Arts block cafe. Hamilton cafe. etc.

Accomodation? Not subsidised by college

Campus accomodation, while not subsidised, is kept as low as is financially possible by the Accomodation Office. I think €500 a month to live in a modern room bang in the city centre (possibly ensuite) is pretty good, tbh.

Crash

punka wrote:

Buttery. Arts block cafe. Hamilton cafe. etc.

beat me to that one.

fluppet

Carnivore wrote:

The society fee is there to stop societies abusing the CSC. If societies where allowed to give free membership, many would. Its a token amounth it that in no way pays for the runing of the societies.

... and how is paying Eur10 to go to the health centre different from this? It is a small fee to prevent abuse of the system that in no way pays for the running of the centre.

The discussion seems to have turned to one of whether the health service should be paid for by the college at all, as the college is an academic institution and not a health provider.

Taxation systems are designed to address some of the imbalances in wealth distribution - wealthy people pay more than poorer people. The net effect is that some of the richer people's money goes to the poorer people. Services such as the public health system are mainly used by the poorer people, but they are still mostly paid for by the richer people because the poorer people couldn't afford to pay for it on their own. I imagine that the health centre is paid for by the grant received by the college from the government (as opposed to being paid for out of the registration fee students pay), so it is paid for by all the taxpayers in the country, like the public health service. It is, in effect, an extension of the public health service; providing health care to those who could not pay for the full price themselves (i.e. students). It is, therefore, justified to be part of college and to be subsidised.

So while I agree with original_psycho that the main purpose of college is academic, I do not mind that some of the college's grant is diverted to this system as it is simply another level of the public health service that does serve a proper purpose and has a role in society.

I would like, therefore, to bring the discussion back to what I believe is the main problem with the health service, which is the waiting time.

I seem to recall a similar issue reported in the news a few years ago - asylum seekers didn't have to pay to go to A&E, and many of them were abusing this by presenting themselves regularly at A&E with minor issues. The result was they were in A&E far more times than their fair share (i.e. if they made-up 1% of the population, but they made-up 5% of the attendances at A&E <-- made-up figures), which was delaying others. If some disincentive was put in place (i.e. a small fee) to discourage them from going in all but serious cases, then this would be rectified.

What we really need are proper statistics on the usage of the health centre. If there are a small minority of students who go very regularly, I would consider that to be unfair usage of the system which should be countered with my suggested method (see opening post). If, however, this is not the case (i.e. there is a negligible number students going more than 2-3 times per year), then my suggestion would have no effect on the waiting time. In this case, I can only see two solutions - an increase in funding to the centre to increase its capacity, or a small fee levied on every visit to the health centre to reduce the number of students seeking consultations. I would certainly be in favour of the latter proposal, as nothing that is free is ever fully appreciated. If, after intruducing a small fee, there are still unacceptable delays in the service, and the doctors in the centre believe that the system is not being abused (i.e. students presenting with minor issues) then increased funding is the only solution.

If you have a genuine need to visit a doctor then a small fee would not discourage you from going.

Let's hope someone with useful statistics reads this thread and provides us with information that will make this discussion more than guessing the usage of the health centre.

gilroyb

First, I'd just like to say, I reread your posts original_psycho, and I think I've been too hard on you. Your earlier posts suggest a 'fair' payment as being a nominal payment, whereas your later posts gave the impression you were against Trinity using any significant funds for these services. If it is just a nominal fee you're advocating then I don't think our positions are that different at all.

In general I agree with such charges to try and ensure people don't abuse a free service. The problem with the Trinity health service seems to be not so much the five people ahead of you when you're waiting for your appointment, it's the fifty people who book appointments and never even turn up. The thing is, while a nominal fee will usually cut down on this sort of behaviour, it would also get rid of the moral guilt people feel in wasting these services. Some people would feel that since they're paying for the service (even though it's only a nominal €10), they have the right to use it as often as they would any other business. The only way to cut down on people making appointments they don't attend would be to have the fee paid when making the appointment. This would mean making an appointment over the phone would no longer be possible. Bringing in a nominal fee may mean that the usage by the original overusers would be lessened, but the unnecessary usage by the 'honest' users may well increase as they no longer feel any societal guilt about using the service more than they absolutely need to.

If the fee was too nominal it may well have the exact opposite effect to what was intended, along with bringing added administration and inconvenience. My posts on other topics show I'm a strong believer in incentives, but in this case I think that a fee would probably just be a weak economic incentive which would remove the current strong societal/moral incentive.