Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Government to sell VHI

«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    "Prior to its sale the State is to make a substantial capital investment in VHI to help it attain the solvency levels"

    What a shower of crooks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,943 ✭✭✭smcgiff


    'At a briefing at Government Buildings, officials from the Department of Health said it did not expect premiums to change, or the 900 jobs at VHI to be affected.'

    Wow - did he say this with a straight face? How can they say that, will prices stay the same for the next 10 years - what a stupid thing to say.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    Hooray - NAMA for sick people.


    What the fcuk is wrong with this country that everything we do requires a capital injection - the whole thing is a poxy joke - scew up the private healthcare market with a ridiculous attempt at risk equalisation, when this doesn't work, introduce a levy, then we find out that the VHI is under capitalised - should have kept all that cash they wasted sponsoring Cul Camps for Kids - tossers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭omahaid


    To be honest, I'm not entirely keen in privatizing all of our private health insurance. Still nervous after selling Eircom...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,298 ✭✭✭laoisfan


    DidierMc wrote: »
    "Prior to its sale the State is to make a substantial capital investment in VHI to help it attain the solvency levels"

    Surely Quinn Healthcare & Vivas would be able to complain about this? What about EU?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,647 ✭✭✭MaceFace


    Not really surprising. They finally realised that they haven't a clue how to run an insurance company so they pay someone to take it off their hands.

    Why not close it down?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    Hooray - NAMA for sick people.


    What the fcuk is wrong with this country that everything we do requires a capital injection - the whole thing is a poxy joke - scew up the private healthcare market with a ridiculous attempt at risk equalisation, when this doesn't work, introduce a levy, then we find out that the VHI is under capitalised - should have kept all that cash they wasted sponsoring Cul Camps for Kids - tossers.

    VHI never had to maintain solvency levels because it was guaranteed by the state, this is not news. The cash injection will be reflected in the sales price when privatised.

    Risk equalisation is still going ahead, the privatisation is being done in co-junction with the introduction of risk equalisation.

    Not sure how much they are planning to raise from the sale but it's some more cash that we don't have to borrow.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,819 ✭✭✭dan_d


    Can someone please tell me where on earth the money is going to come from for this???
    I just don't understand how on earth we can still have access to these amounts of money after all that has happened.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    VHI never had to maintain solvency levels because it was guaranteed by the state, this is not news. The cash injection will be reflected in the sales price when privatised.

    Firstly, it's not really good business to have the VHI under capitalised, it should have been run as if it were capable of standing on it's own two feet - otherwise the state is just distorting the market.

    Secondly, the cash injection being reflected in the sale price is of little meaning we will just be putting it in to get it out.
    Scarab80 wrote: »
    Risk equalisation is still going ahead, the privatisation is being done in co-junction with the introduction of risk equalisation.

    I have doubts as to whether or not it will pass a legal challenege to be honest, I think it's a dubious proposition.
    Scarab80 wrote: »
    Not sure how much they are planning to raise from the sale but it's some more cash that we don't have to borrow.

    Had it been run properly in the first place it would be an additional income stream.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    dan_d wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me where on earth the money is going to come from for this???
    I just don't understand how on earth we can still have access to these amounts of money after all that has happened.

    Money can always be found somewhere when the rich need it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,103 ✭✭✭mathie


    dan_d wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me where on earth the money is going to come from for this???I just don't understand how on earth we can still have access to these amounts of money after all that has happened.

    Tax-payers pockets.
    They'll keep pushing, they know we're an apathetic bunch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    DidierMc wrote: »
    Money can always be found somewhere when the rich need it.

    Can you please explain this to me? It seems like a populist statement to me.
    Who are the rich people you're talking about?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ardmacha


    I have doubts as to whether or not it will pass a legal challenege to be honest, I think it's a dubious proposition.

    Risk equalisation is absolutely needed. No doubt the other companies will mount legal challenges to better hold on to their windfall profits, but there is nothing illegal about risk equalisation if it applies to everyone.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    Firstly, it's not really good business to have the VHI under capitalised, it should have been run as if it were capable of standing on it's own two feet - otherwise the state is just distorting the market.

    Perhaps and that is another good reason for privatisation...
    Secondly, the cash injection being reflected in the sale price is of little meaning we will just be putting it in to get it out.

    Exactly it's a non-issue.

    I have doubts as to whether or not it will pass a legal challenege to be honest, I think it's a dubious proposition.

    I don't see what the legal challenge will be, risk equalisation already operates in other European countries so it does not contravene EU law, i couldn't see anything in the constitution banning it either..

    Had it been run properly in the first place it would be an additional income stream.

    When have state entities ever been run properly?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,555 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    dan_d wrote: »
    Can someone please tell me where on earth the money is going to come from for this???
    Well tax the rich of course! Oh and the banks! It was all their fault anyway!!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    mathie wrote: »
    Tax-payers pockets.
    They'll keep pushing, they know we're an apathetic bunch.

    I'm a bit of a thicko when it comes to economics, but would the money not come from the ECB in the form of capital investment?
    It would be a short term loan from just before the sale and paid back after as soon as the sale is completed.

    Would that sound normal? Donegalfella? ei.sdraob?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    danman wrote: »
    Can you please explain this to me? It seems like a populist statement to me.
    Who are the rich people you're talking about?

    Whoever VHI is sold to. Some minister's mate no doubt.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    danman wrote: »
    I'm a bit of a thicko when it comes to economics, but would the money not come from the ECB in the form of capital investment?
    It would be a short term loan from just before the sale and paid back after as soon as the sale is completed.

    Would that sound normal? Donegalfella? ei.sdraob?

    The money could easily come from cash reserves, we've got about 23bn in cash reserves at the moment, shouldn't be a problem to divert a few hundred million to the VHI for a few months.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    DidierMc wrote: »
    Whoever VHI is sold to. Some minister's mate no doubt.

    Really, you really think that's possible?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    danman wrote: »
    Really, you really think that's possible?

    It's usually the case anytime we privatise anything. Privatisation is nothing but the asset stripping of the people and the handing over of control to unelected people.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    DidierMc wrote: »
    It's usually the case anytime we privatise anything. Privatisation is nothing but the asset stripping of the people and the handing over of control to unelected people.

    Are you somehow denied the right to buy shares?
    Was there some law enacted that I haven't heard of, that states only ministers friends can buy shares in a floated company?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,093 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    DidierMc wrote: »
    It's usually the case anytime we privatise anything. Privatisation is nothing but the asset stripping of the people and the handing over of control to unelected people.

    When did the VHI become an asset?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    danman wrote: »
    Are you somehow denied the right to buy shares?
    Was there some law enacted that I haven't heard of, that states only ministers friends can buy shares in a floated company?

    Yes I am denied the chance to buy shares, I'm not rich you see.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    marco_polo wrote: »
    When did the VHI become an asset?

    Well I'm more referring to the likes of Eircom, Aer Lingus etc

    But if we are going to put a bunch of money into VHI and then give it a bunch of capitalists then it sounds very worrying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 802 ✭✭✭Scarab80


    DidierMc wrote: »
    Yes I am denied the chance to buy shares, I'm not rich you see.

    You could pick up a share in Aviva for about €3.50 today if you want.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    You could pick up a share in Aviva for about €3.50 today if you want.

    I'm not a capitalist. I believe in healthcare being in control of the public not sharks out to make a quick buck.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    DidierMc wrote: »
    Yes I am denied the chance to buy shares, I'm not rich you see.

    Whether you're rich or not, makes no difference.

    Just because you don't have the money to buy shares, spent mean you don't have the right to buy them.

    Money makes money.

    It's a begrudging attitude that prevails in this country.
    A statement like "money will be found for the rich" warrants a rebuff.

    By the way, I'm not rich either. But I don't begrudge the right of those that can afford to buy shares.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,553 ✭✭✭Banned Account


    Scarab80 wrote: »
    Perhaps and that is another good reason for privatisation...

    Not disagreeing with you on this - just apalled that the state has been caught asleep at the wheel once more. Checks and balances anyone ...?

    Scarab80 wrote: »
    I don't see what the legal challenge will be, risk equalisation already operates in other European countries so it does not contravene EU law, i couldn't see anything in the constitution banning it either..

    There has been a failed challenge already to the Supreme Court and the ECJ, both of which failed, however, there is a distinct possibility that this may be re-visited in the event of privatisation and there will be a much stronger anti-trust element once the dominant player is in the hands of a private company and into the business of profiteering.

    I think it's a terrible commercial decision to penalise smaller players because the bigger player failed in attracting younger customers. Look at it another way, health insurace is voluntary, car insurace is optional. If older drivers were asked to pay an increased premium to subsidise younger drivers, what do you think would be the outcome?

    Once the equalisation begins, premiums will increase for all those who are not with VHI.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 219 ✭✭DidierMc


    danman wrote: »
    Whether you're rich or not, makes no difference.

    Just because you don't have the money to buy shares, spent mean you don't have the right to buy them.

    Money makes money.

    It's a begrudging attitude that prevails in this country.
    A statement like "money will be found for the rich" warrants a rebuff.

    By the way, I'm not rich either. But I don't begrudge the right of those that can afford to buy shares.

    Since when did buying shares becoming a right? Only scum buy shares in private healthcare firms.


Advertisement