Who is subsidising who: more on consultants vs Harney

PoleStar

Thought it would make more sense to start a new thread on this

I have seen the whole issue of private patients in public hospitals being mentioned a few times and the media and government portrayal is that the taxpayer is subsidising private care in public hospitals.

This is actually untrue, in fact its the opposite, private insurance is subsidising the public sector.

Let us consider a patient in a car crash taken to a public hospital such as Beaumont with a broken leg and has to be admitted.

Consider scenario number 1. Unemployed patient already receiving dole money from taxpayer, goes into hospital and gets treated. His contibution to his care: nil. Cost to taxpayer? Full cost of his in-patient care.

Now consider scenario 2. Patient with VHI. He attends Beaumont (as he is entitled to as he payes tax and has payed for the patient already in scenario 1!). He is admitted and treated in a public hospital which he has paid for with his taxes. However, the hospital gets an additional payment for his stay from VHI for his stay. I do understand that the consultant attending the patient will get an additional private fee, however, the hospital ends up getting more cash.

Who is subsidising who? Makes you think hey?

And, with currently 54% of the population having private health insurance and a proposed private income cap of 20% of clinical output, my maths tells me there is 34% paying private insurance, the payouts from which will go directly to who? MARY HARNEY.

Clever girl. She has just realised what many private investors have discovered i.e. that private healthcare is a lucrative business. I guess now she wants a bigger piece of the pie than already provided from the semi-state VHI!