Liz McManus - Patrionising Politician

ateam

Did anyone see Prime Time tonight? Mary Harney and Liz McManus were on talking about health. Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks? I remember a couple of years ago during a referendum debate on the Late Late, she advised voters that if they didn't understand or know what the referendum was about, just to simply vote no. So instead of explaining what the referendum was about, she encouraged the ignorant to remain ignorant and simply to vote no.

On a related issue, Labour's health policy came under serious pressure tonight from Harney. The co-location scheme is practical and if Labour put an objective hat on, they would agree with it.

Villain

Well I think I would describe her tone as relaxed and calm, compared to Mary Harney who seemed quite annoyed.

aequinoctium

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

stepbar

Eh, Liz Mc Manus is a PD...... who are in Government, Yes?

ateam

stepbar wrote:

Eh, Liz Mc Manus is a PD...... who are in Government, Yes?

That's Liz O'Donnell.

county

aequinoctium wrote:

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

what a silly point,so FF/PD should be in government from now till eternity? because no one else has a clue

aequinoctium

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_McManus

liz mcmanus is the labour spokesperson on health

aequinoctium

the point is that they cannot claim incompetence or draw up a perfect solution when they do not know what the job is like first hand...it's very demanding and the pressure is enormous.

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

Time Magazine

aequinoctium wrote:

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

Not with the current Ceann Comhairle it's not!

county

aequinoctium wrote:

the point is that they cannot claim incompetence or draw up a perfect solution when they do not know what the job is like first hand...it's very demanding and the pressure is enormous.

it's easy to shout from across the dáil

thats like saying you should never take a promotion because you wont be able for it

aequinoctium

touché

gandalf

aequinoctium wrote:

mcmanus and labour have no idea what it is like to run a government. it has been far too long since they were in charge. they have no point of reference!

Well after 10 years its obvious that FF and the PD's haven't a clue how to deliver government either. I could list everything again but I already have on numerous threads.

Its pretty pathetic if this is the best argument you can give for return of the Government.

stepbar

ateam wrote:

That's Liz O'Donnell.

Yes, my bad.

aequinoctium

it's no argument to return a government...it's just that mcmanus shouldn't be patronising

gandalf

and Bertie should take better care of his finances.....:rolleyes:

FlutterinBantam

I have been listening to Liz Mcmanus for some time and based on my hearings,the woman should never be let next or near to a Health Service.

She never ever gives a straight answer to a straight question.

it's all waffle and contusion.

We all know that we would love to be treated well at A&E with no waiting times, no trollies,no bed capacity.

Are we prepared to bankrupt the country to achieve that????

Thats what would happen if we carry on without he neccessary reforms in the HSE at every level.

Liz Mcmanus is NOT the person in my opinion, most fitted to reform the HSE ....not by a long chalk.

InFront

Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks?

She talks convincingly with certainty and vision, and backs everything she says with statistics, is that what you call patronising? It made Harney look bad, if that's what you mean.

Harney just sat there angrily mumbling the same old tired phrases she always uses. She was a good Minister for Enterprise once upon a time, that will be her greatest legacy. Leaving that department turned out to be a major personal political failure on her behalf. It's very unlikely that - whatever way the dust settles - the PDs will be propping up the next Government. I don't believe Harney will be Minister for Health this time next June. For her personally, it must be sad to leave Health in such an undignified mess, but that's not the opposition's fault.

So no, McManus was not patronising. She was putting hard facts to the Minister, and truths that no doubt are hard for her to swallow.

Chakar

I watched the programme and to be honest she dodged every hard question that Miriam O'Callaghan had for her regarding how they were going to deliver on the hospital beds etc. She used emotive language talking how we deserve the best healthcare and how co-location was for profit etc. When she was talking about the current government failures in health, she totally overdid it with anedotes and the like.

Also her tone of voice was undoubtedly patronising along with her raised eyebrows.

InFront

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

Time Magazine

Chakar wrote:

..raised eyebrows.

Reason enough to maintain the current government?

TCM

Did anyone see Prime Time tonight? Mary Harney and Liz McManus were on talking about health. Does anyone else think that McManus comes across as so patrionising in the way she speaks?

I did not think her patronising/condescending in the least. I actually thought that she was calm, assertive and did not allow Mary Harney to bully and browbeat her into submission. Excellent performance!

Chakar

InFront wrote:

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

Mary Harney made a number of points about co-location. The principles of co-location as Harney said, is to build private hospitals on public land that is leased to the private healthcare companies involved. This would have the effect of improving public healthcare in the long run if implemented across the country. In the future it would lead to people not feeling that they have to actually take out private health insurance.

The plan is to deliver more hospital beds at a lower cost to the taxpayer and in the quickest possible time. The coalition's plan to deliver 2,300 hospital beds within 100 days is not possible nor in five years time. It hasn't been done before and it won't now or in the future.

DadaKopf

InFront wrote:

I think the most useful point Mcmanus made about co-location was that everybody is entitled to a public bed. The reason why so many people have private health insurance is that they feel they need it. If you were to hypothetically remove that need by providing public hospital care to private medical standards, then you would abolish that need.

What do you get then?

A swing back to public health dependency. And not enough hospital beds, not enough resources, patients on trolleys, hospital bugs, lack of specialist care units! The policy contradicts itself. Better off with the Coalition plan imo.

The reality is, InFront, that health is going to become an increasingly huge part of public expenditure as our society ages. How are we to pay for that? No party, FF, PD, FG, Labour, Greens (maybe SF) will tell us that if we want it, we'll have to pay for it.

I'm a Labour voter, but even I was disappointed with McManus tonight. I think health is simply too important to us all to politicise. If the solution to the problem is about being pragmatic, then we need a different approach that really does tackle the systemic problems we face.

For the record, I'm in favour of 100% universal health insurance, but the richer should pay more. I think the only way we can achieve this is through systemic revolution in the health sector, which can only be achieved through a major, unprecedented cross-party initiative, or through insulating health from politics for a limited period (long enough to take it out of party policy-planning cycles). The alternative is privatisation, which will destroy any sense of fairness in Irish society. We already have apalling national health statistics.

I think, ultimately, if people want a top-class health service, politicians are going to have to take leadership in admitting that it'll cost through the nose. At the same time, they have to tackle the apalling level of bad value for money (consultants, prices set by drugs companies, administrative burden).

I'm intruiged by co-location. It seems a sensible, pragmatic solution. But I see how it would be open to abuse, with hospitals favouring paying customers rather than 'freebies'. I don't think the a free market health system is compatible with a public health system. Though I would like more independent statistics about the idea from independent sources.

God,threads like these drain me.
Tit for tat party hacking...

I saw tonights exchange on prime time.Both of them had good points to make.
Harney ignoring the bad and mcmanus ignoring the good.
For the record McManus does have a smarmy smile.It's not a good presentational style as it comes across cocky.
Other than that she's well able to make her point.

DadaKopf

DadaKopf wrote:

The reality is, InFront, that health is going to become an increasingly huge part of public expenditure as our society ages. How are we to pay for that? No party, FF, PD, FG, Labour, Greens (maybe SF) will tell us that if we want it, we'll have to pay for it.

I'm a Labour voter, but even I was disappointed with McManus tonight. I think health is simply too important to us all to politicise. If the solution to the problem is about being pragmatic, then we need a different approach that really does tackle the systemic problems we face.

For the record, I'm in favour of 100% universal health insurance, but the richer should pay more. I think the only way we can achieve this is through systemic revolution in the health sector, which can only be achieved through a major, unprecedented cross-party initiative, or through insulating health from politics for a limited period (long enough to take it out of party policy-planning cycles). The alternative is privatisation, which will destroy any sense of fairness in Irish society. We already have apalling national health statistics.

I think, ultimately, if people want a top-class health service, politicians are going to have to take leadership in admitting that it'll cost through the nose. At the same time, they have to tackle the apalling level of bad value for money (consultants, prices set by drugs companies, administrative burden).

I'm intruiged by co-location. It seems a sensible, pragmatic solution. But I see how it would be open to abuse, with hospitals favouring paying customers rather than 'freebies'. I don't think the a free market health system is compatible with a public health system. Though I would like more independent statistics about the idea from independent sources.

Yes, it sounds good in principle. But, with this government's track record, I don't have any faith that it would work out this way. I really have no confidence that the moribund FF/PD coalition can do anything for the country.

I mean, how crazy can a country be when fairly substantiated corruption allegations against a prime minister results in a 2% increase in support? I need to get out of here.

Dirk Gently

tbh they canceled each other out. Mc Manus succeeded in highlighting the failures of harneys ideology and her ability to work with health workers to resolve disputes but harney succeeded in pointing out that the alternative government would have to make cuts else where to fund their programme. I thought Liz hid behind the "I'll answer as an outsider, out of the loop" qualifier a bit too much. On the nurses dispute she said she would "hope" to be able to set a date and that nurses would have to stay within benchmarking so not a whole lot more than what harney is currently attempting to do. Maybe harney should have hammered that fact home more.

Conclusion from the debate was that yes, health has suffered badly under the current government but the coalition doesn't really have a solution either.

As for Liz patronising, I would tend to say she was calm and clear, a good delivery for TV, however If she spoke to me like that off the camera one to one I think I would find her tone patronising and I would make a point of purposely winding her up and seeing how long it would take before she snapped. Miriam looked great again tonight didn't she.

Chakar

Overall I would say Mary Harney won that debate. She answered every question Miriam had clearly and concisely. She rebutted McManus's claims on the health service very effectively. I would be disappointed if Harney didn't get back into government with the PD's or hopefully a FF Minister can pick up where she left off and continue the good work following her example.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

Mary Harney made a number of points about co-location...

Everybody knows what colocation means, and what you've just done is rehashed the definition. It's the inability to solve the problems that go along with it that people have issues with.

About 50% of people have private health insurance, most people with health insurance have it because we feel it's necessary. Nobody enjoys paying VHI fees, people who do so are not rich. Assuming for a minute that co-location is capable of providing world class health care, why on earth should we pay for private healthcare then?
Everyone will just go back to the public system until it swings back to the critical point where it can;t cope, and it simply fails to ever take off. How will colocation fix that?

How will co-location prevent private hospitals from picking and making a reputation for profitable work, and from acquiring the most talented consultants? Tell us.

Macy

Chakar wrote:

Overall I would say Mary Harney won that debate. She answered every question Miriam had clearly and concisely.

I would've said the opposite, with her bumbling and mumbling. Harney on the defensive resorting to the old FF ministerial tatic of trying to shout down McManus. I can see where people might think she's got a certain smugness, although personally thought she just came across as being calm and reasoned compared to Harney's bluster.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Floppybits

I hate the way all parties are playing politics with the health service. What I would like to see happening is that all parties come together with a way to tackle the problem that is health. All parties have some good ideas and some bad ones but its going to take someone with a pair of balls (excuse the language) to actually stand up and say that no one party or coalition is going to solve the problems in health. Health needs all parties and by that I mean each political party, the HSE (a disaster really), the medical profession and by that I mean doctors, nurses, consultants and who ever else I missed to come together and sort it out.

Unfortuantely for us though this will never happen as each party is only interested in their own ends and not what it best for the people of this country and for the health service of this country.

Chakar

InFront wrote:

About 50% of people have private health insurance, most people with health insurance have it because we feel it's necessary. Nobody enjoys paying VHI fees, people who do so are not rich. Assuming for a minute that co-location is capable of providing world class health care, why on earth should we pay for private healthcare then?

Everyone will just go back to the public system until it swings back to the critical point where it can't cope, and it simply fails to ever take off. How will colocation fix that?

It's logical that people won't just drop their private health insurance policies until they see a real improvement in the public healthcare system. Even then at that point there will still be a substantial minority on private health insurance policies and these people can continue to be treated in the private hospitals. For example I have private health insurance, I'm certainly not going to let it lapse so as to secure my personal health and well being. Basically the point I'm making is that, it comes down to choice. Mary Harney wants to improve the public healthcare system but she can't do that until she makes the private beds in hospitals free for public patients.

How will co-location prevent private hospitals from picking and making a reputation for profitable work, and from acquiring the most talented consultants? Tell us.

Mary Harney made it clear that the hospital management themselves will be deciding what departments will be put into the private hospitals. So it's not the private hospitals deciding what departments, they will transfer into their facility.

I hope that answers your questions Infront.

mountainyman

Actually she does seem patronising. She is smart and on top of her brief and has her proposals costed (which implies that FlutterinBantam is a fool or a knave-- I think I know which)

She seems patronising because she is really really posh. She is a very very privileged person and that comes across.

MM

FlutterinBantam

She was on a radio programme recently and was asked direct questions which required direct answers.

She flugged every one of them,no costings/no direct answer/just aspirations whichI have myself.

I might be a fool but I am not fooled by that lady .

Heinrich

FlutterinBantam wrote:

She was on a radio programme recently and was asked direct questions which required direct answers.

She flugged every one of them,no costings/no direct answer/just aspirations whichI have myself.

I might be a fool but I am not fooled by that lady .

And would you be fooled by Bertie's answers?

John_C

Floppybits wrote:

I hate the way all parties are playing politics with the health service. What I would like to see happening is that all parties come together with a way to tackle the problem that is health. All parties have some good ideas and some bad ones but its going to take someone with a pair of balls (excuse the language) to actually stand up and say that no one party or coalition is going to solve the problems in health. Health needs all parties and by that I mean each political party, the HSE (a disaster really), the medical profession and by that I mean doctors, nurses, consultants and who ever else I missed to come together and sort it out.

I know all the politicos here were probably watching Prime Time but did anyone watch The Panel on the other channel? They had a celebrity doctor on and asked him how to improve the health service. The answer he gave is basically what Floppybits said above, take it out of the politician's hands. Kind of like a HSE that works.

EamonnKeane

I remember a couple of years ago during a referendum debate on the Late Late, she advised voters that if they didn't understand or know what the referendum was about, just to simply vote no.

Sound advice, really. The European Constitution runs for an eye-melting 600 incomprehensible pages, it's unsurprising it was rejected.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

at that point there will still be a substantial minority on private health insurance policies

But that's exactly my point. If this policy of Harney's were to work, and the public hospitals were to become centres of excellence, anyone with private health insurance can just drop their policy and go public. This brings everyone back to square 1.

For example I have private health insurance, I'm certainly not going to let it lapse so as to secure my personal health and well being.

Nor should you. But if the health service improves dramatically, we're not going to need health insurance. I don't know about you, most people consider it a little bit on the er, expensive side. A huge chunk of people would go back to public health, that just reapplies the pressure on public hospitals, and health never takes off. Public hospital bed numbers would stay the same under the old government.
Under FG-Lab however, there are over 2000 more beds IN public hospitals as well as improved efficiency and resources FOR public hospitals.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

Mary Harney made it clear that the hospital management themselves will be deciding what departments will be put into the private hospitals

It's a private business, I don't think the public hospitals get a say in what they do. They certainly can't stop the most educated consultants, nurses, managers and healthcare professionals from walking across the car park to new employment either. Private hospitals would be in a position to offer better pay, clinical academic reputation and conditions.

Plus, you can't force them to do procedures that are too risky, specialised or unprofitable for them to want to do. Therefore you still get reliance on public hospitals for some specialist care, accompanied by static bed numbers.

Chakar

InFront wrote:

But that's exactly my point. If this policy of Harney's were to work, and the public hospitals were to become centres of excellence, anyone with private health insurance can just drop their policy and go public. This brings everyone back to square 1.

Yeah that's choice. As people go back to the public healthcare system, waiting lists would increase leading to a negative feedback resulting in people using private healthcare. The dynamics completely work out.

Under FG-Lab however, there are over 2000 more beds IN public hospitals as well as improved efficiency and resources FOR public hospitals.

They say they're going to deliver 460 beds every year, the equivalent of a major new hospital every year. That's not possible. As such the 2,300 hospital beds provided wouldn't happen. The current government has delivered 200 new beds every year. That's progress. The policy of co-location when completed will re-designate 1,000 new beds for public patients.

It's a private business, I don't think the public hospitals get a say in what they do. They certainly can't stop the most educated consultants, nurses, managers and healthcare professionals from walking across the car park to new employment either. Private hospitals would be in a position to offer better pay, clinical academic reputation and conditions.

Plus, you can't force them to do procedures that are too risky, specialised or unprofitable for them to want to do. Therefore you still get reliance on public hospitals for some specialist care, accompanied by static bed numbers.

The public hospitals will be deciding which beds should be re-designated as public beds. As it follows they will be deciding what departments should be transferred as a result with obvious regard to the opinions of the private healthcare providers. Of course private hospitals should be able to attract the best people for the job, however you have to remember the private hospitals number of beds, will form but a fraction of the Irish healthcare system of 13,700 beds.

lucernarian

I thought that she sounded much more capable to deal with the nurses' strike than any other politician I can think of. She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

ateam

EamonnKeane wrote:

Sound advice, really. The European Constitution runs for an eye-melting 600 incomprehensible pages, it's unsurprising it was rejected.

This was actually about the abortion referendum.

ateam

To_be_confirmed wrote:

I thought that she sounded much more capable to deal with the nurses' strike than any other politician I can think of. She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

Why can't she give a date now?

delta_bravo

To_be_confirmed wrote:

She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

Brian Lenihan didnt seem to be waffling to me. He was pretty blunt and honest in his answers that they wont back down. Fine Gael dont seem too keen on meeting the demands either

InFront

Chakar wrote:

As people go back to the public healthcare system, waiting lists would increase leading to a negative feedback resulting in people using private healthcare.

Look: "customer" growth is the best indicator of success, right. Now when the hundred of thousands of ordinary (not rich) people stay on private health insurance it means the public health system is not the world class system of excellence being promised; that it is shoddy. Unless you're saying we all enjoy giving VHI money for giggles.
The reason the private health insurance won't budge is that a swing back to public health care would cancels out any potential progress. Neither move. This is a negative feedback loop. The new load cancels out the benefit in tandem with market (patient) growth. No new beds.

They say they're going to deliver 460 beds every year, the equivalent of a major new hospital every year. That's not possible.

Ridiculous, PD propaganda. Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

Wicklow Boy

I thought that Liz McManus did ok on TV last night but she still was avoiding the hard questions. I think that Mary Harney's point that everyone should received medical care not on whether they are public or private but on medical need. Her attempt to deal with the consultants is just that.
My big worry today is hearing from the nurses conference that both ENda K and Liz McManus would give in to the nurses 35 hour week within a short time frame, early next year is total capitulation and means they have no guts to run the helath service and for that reason alone I now cannot vote for either party.
That attitude would bankrupt the health service in order to get them into power.

Can i put this question to Liz Mc Manus, what are her proposals to deal with the the huge strain put on the health service put by alcohol attendees in our casualty units. Should we penalise them. Does she support mandatory breath testing after accidents as this would help reduce road carnage and the number of people in hospital.

Chakar

InFront wrote:

Look: "customer" growth is the best indicator of success, right. Now when the hundred of thousands of ordinary (not rich) people stay on private health insurance it means the public health system is not the world class system of excellence being promised; that it is shoddy. Unless you're saying we all enjoy giving VHI money for giggles.
The reason the private health insurance won't budge is that a swing back to public health care would cancels out any potential progress. Neither move. This is a negative feedback loop. The new load cancels out the benefit in tandem with market (patient) growth.

The movement of people within the healthcare system is more dynamic than that. I know, I mentioned negative feedback but I took it to mean in this case, the movement of people between the public and private hospitals.

Ridiculous, PD propaganda. Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

So how are they going to deliver 2,300 hospital beds? Extensions? Build new hospitals? I don't think they can do it in the next five years from 2007. They're seriously lacking in specifics.

Wicklow Boy

Wicklow Boy wrote:

My big worry today is hearing from the nurses conference that both ENda K and Liz McManus would give in to the nurses 35 hour week within a short time frame, early next year is total capitulation and means they have no guts to run the helath service and for that reason alone I now cannot vote for either party.
That attitude would bankrupt the health service in order to get them into power.

I couldnt believe what I hear Kenny and McManus at today at that nurses conference.
Are they that desperate for power now that Kenny is turning into a Yes man altogether!
Very bad form.They should have remained neutral on the issue and let the machinery thats there deal with the issue.

Much as I'd like to see a change in government for the sake of a rest and giving the others a chance to do better maybe...if I see any more of that kind of stuff I too would have to reconsider my vote.
Theres no point in changing a government if after a short while into it, you have every tom dick and harry union in the country looking for crazy pay rises.That surely would leave the economy in tatters.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

InFront

InFront wrote:

Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

Vocations to the nuns have dropped a tad since then though.

ateam

Tristrame wrote:

I couldnt believe what I hear Kenny and McManus at today at that nurses conference.
Are they that desperate for power now that Kenny is turning into a Yes man altogether!
Very bad form.They should have remained neutral on the issue and let the machinery thats there deal with the issue.

Much as I'd like to see a change in government for the sake of a rest and giving the others a chance to do better maybe...if I see any more of that kind of stuff I too would have to reconsider my vote.
Theres no point in changing a government if after a short while into it, you have every tom dick and harry union in the country looking for crazy pay rises.That surely would leave the economy in tatters.

Yes Kenny saying what the nurses wanted to hear. I suspect many nurses are aware of his tactic to get votes.