Do you get the same treatment.

RainyDay · 22-08-2013 12:03pm

anncoates wrote: »

It shouldn't be that hard to provide a functioning health service for only 4 million plus people considering the amount of funding put into the HSE

We're somewhere around 37th place on this international table of health spending, below most of our European counterparts.

http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/indicator_static_graph.php?indicatorId=SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS&multiplier=1&iround=2&graphTitle=&top_ten=all&top_ten_sel=all&regions=1w&year=2010

allibastor · 22-08-2013 3:38pm

Hootanany wrote: »

If you have Health Insurance or if you don't.Just wondering?

I did both, You get seen an aweful lot quicker private. but then everything little thing is an added payout, 60 euro doctor who then refers you to 150-200 consultant to say the exact same thing the doc said.

Same treatment though, but you have a better choice in where to go. I was private before and got to chose nenagh hospital for a scan, waitied three days to get it done. went public and had to have the same scan in limerick and waitied 4 months for a place.

Hootanany · 22-08-2013 5:08pm

So why can't it all be the same. Im worried about the waiting times for diagnosis. Surely this long wait has and must have caused "death's"?

RainyDay · 22-08-2013 6:00pm

Hootanany wrote: »

So why can't it all be the same. Im worried about the waiting times for diagnosis. Surely this long wait has and must have caused "death's"?

Yes, it has; http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1016/94803-health/

Femme_Fatale · 22-08-2013 10:39pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Nobody "deserves" sub-standard treatment, but the sub-standard public healthcare is not the fault of those who opt for private healthcare.

Also, and I believe I made this point before, some people make sacrifices in other areas of their lives to pay their private HC (my parents are nearly crippled - pardon the pun- paying theirs) while some others are happy to moan about a two tier system but unwilling to make the same sacrifices.

What do you suggest is done? Force people to stop paying health insurance? How will that help? Less money going into the system but still the same amount of people in it? Make them pay anyway but put them on public waiting lists?

I don't suggest any of the above. I was just saying that when it comes to something as crucial as healthcare, even though it's essentially correct that paying extra should yield better returns (although it definitely doesn't always apply) I don't agree with the attitude that people with more money "deserve" better healthcare. I'm not looking for a communist state, just a health system on a more level playing field would be the ideal.

fasttalkerchat · 22-08-2013 11:37pm

Holiday health insurance is good value (€20 per year). VHI is worthless because even if you have a mediacal condition you still pay to see a GP and still wait in the same queue for treatment.

IrishEyes19 · 23-08-2013 12:28am

At the end of the day I'm not going to gripe and moan about the health service. I agree its a mess sometimes, but its the fat cats in the government and board of directors that contribute to that. Anyone who has had the unfortunate privilege of having people close to them work in the A&E's at weekends or deal with terminal patients and terrible accidents won't deny the exhausting and dedicated amount of work doctors, nurses, consultants, and other health care workers put in, only to be abused verbally and physically either by patients themselves, families of the above or internet and general moaners.

Having had a parent who worked in A&E until they retired, I cant help but admire a lot of the employees. It's not a career I would enter into lightly. If you want to tackle the unreasonable prices, and waiting lists, ect. ask the government and executives and directors. The ordinary men and women arent to blame here.

Would I go private over public. I would. I'd rather die in a bed than in a trolley. 200 euros wont be any use to me if Im dead anyway, so let it be somewhere comfortable for gods sake. :rolleyes:

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 10:10am

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

VHI is worthless because even if you have a mediacal condition you still pay to see a GP and still wait in the same queue for treatment.

Eh, no you don't 'wait in the same queue'.

Hootanany · 23-08-2013 10:23am

But it is ethically wrong to put Public patients on trolleys and private patients straight into beds?

deadeye187 · 23-08-2013 10:25am

With health Insurance you get fast treatment....the doctors are the same just your fast tracked!

Health Ins is a must! imo

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 10:26am

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't suggest any of the above. I was just saying that when it comes to something as crucial as healthcare, even though it's essentially correct that paying extra should yield better returns (although it definitely doesn't always apply) I don't agree with the attitude that people with more money "deserve" better healthcare. I'm not looking for a communist state, just a health system on a more level playing field would be the ideal.

I dont think anyone "deserves better healthcare" regardless of how much or how little they have, but stopping people from paying for private health insurance will not fix the public system.

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 10:30am

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont think anyone "deserves better healthcare" regardless of how much or how little they have, but stopping people from paying for private health insurance will not fix the public system.

Stopping the subsidy of private health care through tax relief might be a good start. Starting to charge the full economic cost of private rooms in public hospitals might be a good start.

Tiddlypeeps · 23-08-2013 10:33am

Hootanany wrote: »

But it is ethically wrong to put Public patients on trolleys and private patients straight into beds?

Why do you think it is ethically wrong?

Scenario 1: Two people enter a hospital at the same time and all of the public beds are occupied. One has health insurance so is given a private bed while the other is put on a trolley.

Scenario 2: Two people enter a hospital at the same time and all the beds are occupied. There is no such thing as private so the private beds don't exists. Both are put on trolleys.

One person having private care is not the cause of the second person being put on a trolley, if it was then that would be unethical. But it is not, so I don't think it is unethical.

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 11:11am

RainyDay wrote: »

Stopping the subsidy of private health care through tax relief might be a good start. Starting to charge the full economic cost of private rooms in public hospitals might be a good start.

Dont they charge a fortune for these rooms already?

Also, private health care customers pay tax too...and some of that goes towards the public system - I assume you'd be ok with their tax being reduced such that they are no longer subsidising the public system??

Stopping tax relief will force more people out of private insurance and into the public system. Real smart.

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 11:14am

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Why do you think it is ethically wrong?

Scenario 1: Two people enter a hospital at the same time and all of the public beds are occupied. One has health insurance so is given a private bed while the other is put on a trolley.

Scenario 2: Two people enter a hospital at the same time and all the beds are occupied. There is no such thing as private so the private beds don't exists. Both are put on trolleys.

One person having private care is not the cause of the second person being put on a trolley, if it was then that would be unethical. But it is not, so I don't think it is unethical.

This.

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 11:42am

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

One person having private care is not the cause of the second person being put on a trolley, if it was then that would be unethical. But it is not, so I don't think it is unethical.

If the first person's private bed is subsided by the taxpayer, that is taking up resources that would otherwise be available for the public service. So it is the cause of the second person being put on a trolley, not on a bed, so it is unethical.

BTW, I have private health insurance, but I hate this bloody system that means I HAVE to have private insurance to be able to protect my family.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Dont they charge a fortune for these rooms already?

They charge a small fortune, which is still not the full economic cost. Expect to pay a large fortune in the not too distant future.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Also, private health care customers pay tax too...and some of that goes towards the public system - I assume you'd be ok with their tax being reduced such that they are no longer subsidising the public system??

Nope, if they choose to pay extra for a nice room, that is their choice. The basic service should be funded for everybody, with no subsidies to those who want a fancy service.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Stopping tax relief will force more people out of private insurance and into the public system. Real smart.

We need to move to be more like the UK, where the NHS provides a quality service to about 90% of the population, and private healthcare is a luxury purchase for a minority 10%. Moving more people into public system will create public demand for a decent public system. THe private system is a cop-out.

COYW · 23-08-2013 12:02pm

RainyDay wrote: »

We need to move to be more like the UK, where the NHS provides a quality service to about 90% of the population, and private healthcare is a luxury purchase for a minority 10%. Moving more people into public system will create public demand for a decent public system. THe private system is a cop-out.

Such a system is not feasible in this country given our population and our tax intake.

Tiddlypeeps · 23-08-2013 12:25pm

RainyDay wrote: »

If the first person's private bed is subsided by the taxpayer, that is taking up resources that would otherwise be available for the public service.

They charge a small fortune, which is still not the full economic cost. Expect to pay a large fortune in the not too distant future.
.

Do you have a source for this, or a break down of costs involved?

I know a visit to a consultant costs about €200 which will be paid for by the individual or the insurance company. That visit is not subsidised by the public sector, the HSE doesn't pay the consultant an extra X% on top of that €200 for seeing to the private patient.

It might be different for rooms in a hospital, it's hard to say because there are so many tertiary costs to consider. A quick google search indicates the cost of a private room in a public hospital will set you back about €900 a night (correct me if thats way off), that's just for the room. I would like to see the break down of costs involved in keeping a person in a hospital overnight because if they really are over €900 then the HSE is much more inefficient than I originally thought.

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 12:26pm

COYW wrote: »

Such a system is not feasible in this country given our population and our tax intake.

So we'll incentive those who can well afford more tax to spend separately on private healthcare instead, and to hell with those who die while on a waiting list? Nice...

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 12:30pm

RainyDay wrote: »

If the first person's private bed is subsided by the taxpayer, that is taking up resources that would otherwise be available for the public service. So it is the cause of the second person being put on a trolley, not on a bed, so it is unethical.

But the person on private has paid for their right to a public bed anyway through their taxes - they are simply upgrading that right to a private one.

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 1:59pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But the person on private has paid for their right to a public bed anyway through their taxes - they are simply upgrading that right to a private one.

No, they're not. They're taking funds that should be used to provide a decent service for everybody who wants it to subsidise their bed, which they are getting at below full economic cost and with a tax relief subsidy.

And they're skipping the queue.

It's a terrible system.

Tiddlypeeps · 23-08-2013 2:03pm

RainyDay wrote: »

No, they're not. They're taking funds that should be used to provide a decent service for everybody who wants it to subsidise their bed, which they are getting at below full economic cost and with a tax relief subsidy.

And they're skipping the queue.

It's a terrible system.

You seem to be deliberately ignoring my last post. Your entire premise relies on the idea that the HSE are subsidising private patients. Can you show any evidence that private patients are not covering their costs? Because the numbers don't seem to add up to me.

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 2:09pm

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

You seem to be deliberately ignoring my last post. Your entire premise relies on the idea that the HSE are subsidising private patients. Can you show any evidence that private patients are not covering their costs? Because the numbers don't seem to add up to me.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00186.asp

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-06-26a.631&m=1026

Now where's your numbers?

Tiddlypeeps · 23-08-2013 2:33pm

RainyDay wrote: »

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2011/11/24/00186.asp

http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2013-06-26a.631&m=1026

Now where's your numbers?

I must be missing something, both of those links are describing the issue as private patients only paying the standard charge for a room (which is subsidised) when there are no private or semi-private rooms available.

That hardly qualifies as all private care being subsidised by the HSE.

Why is this an issue anyway? They are paying for a service they didn't get, so why would they charge full price for it? The article clearly states in that scenario they still pay full price for consultations and what not.

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 2:44pm

RainyDay wrote: »

No, they're not. They're taking funds that should be used to provide a decent service for everybody who wants it to subsidise their bed, which they are getting at below full economic cost and with a tax relief subsidy.

And they're skipping the queue.

It's a terrible system.

er...at the risk of turning this into a pantomine...yes, they are. Unless you are going to argue that those paying health insurance are not paying tax. We are all entitled to treatment in a public healthcare system.

Insurance companies pay thousands for private treatment. Are you really trying to tell me this is below cost?? That it costs more to treat public patients? How does tax alone cover that??

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 4:11pm

You're missing the point folks. I'll get back when I have more time, but in the meantime, read this;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-cover-charges-to-rise-by-30-insurers-claim-1.1429637#

The taxpayer is subsidising private healthcare for the few.

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 4:31pm

RainyDay wrote: »

You're missing the point folks. I'll get back when I have more time, but in the meantime, read this;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-cover-charges-to-rise-by-30-insurers-claim-1.1429637#

The taxpayer is subsidising private healthcare for the few.

Are "taxpayers" and those paying "private healthcare" mutually exclusive? Is it beyond your powers of comprehension that those paying insurance are also paying tax? They are not availing of public beds - but are paying for them.

Where did the €1200 come from? Has anyone wondered why this figure is so high?

RainyDay · 23-08-2013 4:53pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Are "taxpayers" and those paying "private healthcare" mutually exclusive? Is it beyond your powers of comprehension that those paying insurance are also paying tax? They are not availing of public beds - but are paying for them.

Those paying private healthcare are a subset of taxpayers. They are getting a benefit that is paid for by ALL taxpayers. This subsidy has to stop.

OldNotWIse · 23-08-2013 5:00pm

RainyDay wrote: »

Those paying private healthcare are a subset of taxpayers. They are getting a benefit that is paid for by ALL taxpayers. This subsidy has to stop.

Well I'd like to see what would happen if the two systems were completely separated. So to be fair...no more tax from insurance customers could be pumped into the public system (since you have such a problem with subsidising, we wouldnt want private subsidising public either) and lets see how the private system will fare with tax from its paying customers being channelled into the private system as well as what they pay for their premiums and on the other side.....a public system that is run soley on tax (and lets not forget there will be a lot more people in this system who dont pay tax in the first place)

.....taps fingers and waits to see which system collapses first...

Tiddlypeeps · 23-08-2013 5:16pm

RainyDay wrote: »

You're missing the point folks. I'll get back when I have more time, but in the meantime, read this;

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/health-cover-charges-to-rise-by-30-insurers-claim-1.1429637#

The taxpayer is subsidising private healthcare for the few.

I addressed this already, that article says very little more than the one you linked to already. The change they are bringing in only covers the niche case where a private patient ends up in a public bed when no private ones are available. So in that scenario they are getting the exact same treatment with regards to their sleeping arrangements as a person who is in the public system, so they pay the same price. I'm don't feel particularly strongly about the change they are bringing in, I don't think it will raise premiums by nearly as much as the lobbyists are making out.

Either way how it currently works in no way backs up your argument that care of public patients is worse because of private patients, and even if it did it would be irrelevant because they are in the process of changing it.

Do you get the same treatment.

Comments