Time to close the health service

mountainyman

The state spends 8 billion a year on 'health' is it time to take the nuclear option and close the health service?

Mena

And then?

mountainyman

We save 8 billion. Not to mention the associated savings on education and pensions.

ejmaztec

I thought that it had already closed.

sceptre

What are you planning on doing with the sick people then?

(and why has it taken four replies for someone to ask that...)

Mena

mountainyman wrote: »

We save 8 billion. Not to mention the associated savings on education and pensions.

But what do we do then with no hospitals etc? Ship all the sick people to the UK? Or do you just mean to close the administrative section of the HSE?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, I assumed that was the intention, it's the only reasonably rational interpretation. My question still stands.

cabra64

i think raising the price of cigarettes could combat the big hole that is the health bill. A significant % of the cost comes from treating dieases caused by fags. Its win win. Less people smoking = less cost = money (also lifes btw) saved.
Seriously tho employing loads of managers and general admin staff is pure pants. Only doctors nurses and actually medically trained people should by doing the doctoring end and should be offered long contracts and then PROVEN successful people to manage and direct the monster that is the HSE. Three year contract to these people and if there's an improvement then another three years. No improvement = new contract.

mountainyman

Mena wrote: »

But what do we do then with no hospitals etc? Ship all the sick people to the UK? Or do you just mean to close the administrative section of the HSE?

They can sort out their own problems. They can pay for private healthcare or go to the UK or get better on their own or die.

mountainyman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Surely if the state abandons all health spending entrepreneurs will step into the breach?

gurramok

No need to close it. There needs to be a root branch review of wage costs in the service and the slashing of a needless army of HSE admins.

Neglecting the sick who are poor is not on.

Mena

mountainyman wrote: »

They can sort out their own problems. They can pay for private healthcare or go to the UK or get better on their own or die.

Hmm, I've first hand experience of exactly this type of system. It's not pretty. As crap as the HSE is, I'd take it over nothing any time of the day.

mountainyman

cabra64 wrote: »

i think raising the price of cigarettes could combat the big hole that is the health bill. A significant % of the cost comes from treating dieases caused by fags. Its win win. Less people smoking = less cost = money (also lifes btw) saved.
Seriously tho employing loads of managers and general admin staff is pure pants. Only doctors nurses and actually medically trained people should by doing the doctoring end and should be offered long contracts and then PROVEN successful people to manage and direct the monster that is the HSE. Three year contract to these people and if there's an improvement then another three years. No improvement = new contract.

Getting rid of (state run) oncology services would save way more money.

Mena

mountainyman wrote: »

Surely if the state abandons all health spending entrepreneurs will step into the breach?

They might.

Quick story. Friend of my dad's was involved in a car accident, a serious one. Ambulance got him to the hospital, but they would not touch him until he could show proof of his health insurance. He of course, being unconscious, could not, so the wife was contacted. By the time she got their with the proof he had died.

I'd be very careful asking for a privatised system.

mountainyman

Mena wrote: »

Hmm, I've first hand experience of exactly this type of system. It's not pretty. As crap as the HSE is, I'd take it over nothing any time of the day.

Some doctors would volunteer a day a week for nothing. Some wouldn't. This isn't India everyone in Ireland can afford to go to the doctor.

Serenity Now!

sceptre wrote: »

Oh, I assumed that was the intention, it's the only reasonably rational interpretation. My question still stands.

If you're in an accident, better have your creidt card or cheque book handy then...
The health service is supposed to be accessible to all. It is a social necessity and responsibility of this country's govt to run. Privatised healthcare especially if only choice available will polarise accessibility to people who need it.
Not everybody can afford private health care.

mountainyman

gurramok wrote: »

No need to close it. There needs to be a root branch review of wage costs in the service and the slashing of a needless army of HSE admins.

Neglecting the sick who are poor is not on.

Why not. Why are they poor and sick?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's four years to an election by the time the next election rolls around we'll all haev our health care sorted out and the don't have cares will be disporportionaltely don't votes.

sceptre

mountainyman wrote: »

Surely if the state abandons all health spending entrepreneurs will step into the breach?

Even if so, that's why I asked my question. Narrowing it down a little (and gurramok already touched on this), what might you be planning on doing with the sick people who can't afford to pay for treatment when they're sick?

You need something specific as an answer, a "maybe" won't cut it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

cabra64

Mena wrote: »

They might.

Quick story. Friend of my dad's was involved in a car accident, a serious one. Ambulance got him to the hospital, but they would not touch him until he could show proof of his health insurance. He of course, being unconscious, could not, so the wife was contacted. By the time she got their with the proof he had died.

I'd be very careful asking for a privatised system.

What! your saying so everyone without Private health insurance in serious traffic accidents dies!? Hardly. Im 100% sure that medical ppl were not just standing around waiting for the wife to turn up. If a person with or without insurance could have been saved he would have been. Hypocratic Law of being a doctor-help sick/dying person.

mountainyman

sceptre wrote: »

Even if so, that's why I asked my question. Narrowing it down a little (and gurramok already touched on this), what might you be planning on doing with the sick people who can't afford to pay for treatment when they're sick?

You need something specific as an answer, a "maybe" won't cut it.

Some of them will get better on their own.
Some of them will get help from charities.
Some of them won't get better.

gurramok

Are you trolling or just being heartless?

A society needs to take care of its less off, its called social responsibilty. Guess when you lose your job and cannot afford healthcare, one of those 3 options you listed will apply.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

gurramok wrote: »

Are you trolling or just being heartless?

A society needs to take care of its less off, its called social responsibilty. Guess when you lose your job and cannot afford healthcare, one of those 3 options you listed will apply.

I am inviting a thought experiment. I will always be able to afford healthcare. Also I look after my health.

mountainyman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What about people who don't want to get insurance?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sceptre

cabra64 wrote: »

Hypocratic Law of being a doctor-help sick/dying person.

You're misinterpreting what the Hippocratic oath says (it's an oath that many (not all) doctors take by the way, not a law). Or assuming you've never read it, it says nothing about having to step up and heal people - the guiding principle of the oath is not taking any action that causes harm. All legal precedent in the UK and Ireland is that doing nothing doesn't cause harm. It doesn't apply. And the oath isn't legally enforceable in any case. Barking up the wrong tree I'm afraid.

mountainyman wrote: »

Some of them will get better on their own.
Some of them will get help from charities.
Some of them won't get better.

Your proposal just entered the idiotic realm. We've moved on a little in social attitudes since the poorhouses and soup kitchens were something that people hoped for. With a proposal like that, even getting elected as dog catcher would only be a dream.

gurramok

What about people who cannot afford health insurance?

So you want an American style health insurance system?

donegalfella, how did Holland solve the problem of the poor not been able to afford their health system?

sovtek

mountainyman wrote: »

Surely if the state abandons all health spending entrepreneurs will step into the breach?

I take it that you are proposing a US style health service? If so then check out how much worse it is than the Irish one much less the rest of the first world.
Oh and it costs a hell of a lot more.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's rubbish. I don't say that people aren't dying in Ireland because of an inept and corrupt system but it hardly begs for a private system. In America I remember a stat that somewhere around 18,000 people die annually because they don't have access to health care.

sceptre

gurramok wrote: »

how did Holland solve the problem of the poor not been able to afford their health system?

The changes were made in 2006 and only changed things with regard to short term treatments (long-term treatments have been covered by their equivalent of PRSI since the late 60s and that continues). For those under a designated income threshold, the government gives them an extra allowance to ensure that they can pay. For everyone above the threshold, it's roughly half-covered by the employee, half by the employer with a small amount paid directly by the government. Children are paid for by the state. There used to be a no-claims discount but that was done away with last year.

cabra64

correction noted. I knew it wasn't a law but id momentarily forgotten how to spell oath!! the rest was news to me. I still don't believe they just let that man die in Mena's post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebigcheese22

mountainyman wrote: »

Some of them will get better on their own.
Some of them will get help from charities.
Some of them won't get better.

You're an awful person. I would go on a rant about how much of a selfish individual you are but you're not worth my time.

sceptre

thebigcheese22 wrote: »

You're an awful person. I would go on a rant about how much of a selfish individual you are but you're not worth my time.

Read the forum charter please, you're very close to the line there.

ejmaztec

mountainyman wrote: »

Some of them will get better on their own.
Some of them will get help from charities.
Some of them won't get better.

Sounds like the UK's NHS. Problem solved.

All we need now is an Irish Nye Bevan to persuade the "up themselves" consultants, doctors and surgeons to sign on the dotted line. We can then make certain that the admin staff total does not exceed 10% of the current one.

gaf1983

cabra64 wrote: »

i think raising the price of cigarettes could combat the big hole that is the health bill. A significant % of the cost comes from treating dieases caused by fags. Its win win. Less people smoking = less cost = money (also lifes btw) saved.

Good idea. Would you also propose raising the price of alcohol and junk food? Where do you draw the line?

cabra64 wrote: »

Seriously tho employing loads of managers and general admin staff is pure pants.

Surely someone has to type up the medical reports, organise appointments, prepare the accounts etc? Do you really think hospital administration staff sit around all day doing nothing?

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i dont believe this country is left leaning , nor do i believe it is right leaning , we are a deeply unidealogical people ,we are a very fickle people , we compain about waste by the goverment yet the majority of us were up in arms when the goverment tried to tackle the issue of one of the wealthiest demographics having medical cards , we believe thier are too many surplus to requirement pen pushers in the civil service yet we all have an aunty betty or cousin johnny who works in the local authority and we wont vote for jimmy FF TD if he gets the sack , we like to have it both ways , we dont like people who tell it like it is or who see things in black and white , hence the popularity of FF and in particular bertie aherne

main topic in hand , getting rid of the HSE and going straight for a fully privatised health care system would be simply an idealogical leap too far for this country

turgon

Its easily known the OP has never had a serious medical issue or been involved in an accident. Otherwise he would realize that the only concern you have is the hope that you will be able to get better, and that you wont be bankrupt after it. One shouldn't have to worry about whether or not you will be getting better, it should be taken for granted.

I would like to talk the OP in 20 or 30 years time. It would be an experiment in the definition of "turnaround" im sure.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

bmaxi

It is not clear from the OP's signature where he hails from but I suspect it may be Finchley.
While it may not be obvious these days, we do profess to live in a Christian society and as such are bound to look after those who cannot look after themselves.
I'm delighted for the OP, in that he doesn't have any worries about health or wealth but isn't there the slightest chance that he, or his forebears, may have received even the tiniest bit of help in their journey to this enviable position.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The big problem with implementing it here is that risk equalisation was quashed in the courts*. We can't do a multi company, flat charge mandatory insurance scheme without it and without such we couldn't run anything similar to the Dutch system.

It would be a far better option than our current mess and is really the only sensible way to have a privatised healthcare system (the US model is just not an option, which they themselves seem to strongly agree with given political machinations of the past two decades). The take home message is that a health system doesn't need to be public to ensure everyone has access.


*I'm still fuming over this. If there ever was something that was wanted by both the public and the politicians it was this. The only people who benefit from risk not being equalised are the shareholders of Vivas et al.

MrMicra

I think that doctors get paid too much. Especially the most senior doctors. But even so we need some sort of system. The alternative is to go back to Angela's Ashes style Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.