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

Do you get the same treatment.

Options
12346»

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    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...

    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the tax system. We don't get a menu of services to pick and choose, and adjust our tax bill accordingly.

    We pay a decent level of tax, and we get a decent level of services. If we want something more than the decent level of services, we pay for it ourselves out of our after tax income.


  • Options
    #153
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    RainyDay wrote: »
    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the tax system. We don't get a menu of services to pick and choose, and adjust our tax bill accordingly.

    We pay a decent level of tax, and we get a decent level of services. If we want something more than the decent level of services, we pay for it ourselves out of our after tax income.


    Not at all, it's an intentionally simplistic argument to highlight the fact that we all pay for (and therefore are entitled to) a public bed and if you are going to stop "subsidising" private beds for those who choose to pay extra - why should their tax be used to subsidise public beds they will never use.


  • Options
    #154
    ulinbac
    Registered Users Posts: 707 ✭✭✭ulinbac


    anncoates wrote: »
    You're technically right and morally wrong.
    I'd hate for my views to be governed by the fact I can (thankfully) pay for things if required as that may not always be the case and if that happens, the system you cheerlead so much will have you out on the street.


    How will it have me out on the street? If not for the "system" of skipping queues and quick access I would be bed bound in pain and my father would probably not be here. Instead I'm working, earning a living and contributing!

    When it comes to my health and that of my family, I couldn't give a toss what I would have to do to make sure they get good health care and recover! Morals go out the window when it comes to something as important as the health of my family. Yes its not fair that everybody doesn't get the same treatment or drugs or bed, but that is life! I sacrifice a lot to pay my health insurance and I think anyone that does deserves better treatment than standard!!

    The "sub-standard" we have IS the standard. If you are lucky enough to be able to afford private healthcare then good. There will always be a 2 tiered system.

    For those saying you have the same access to consultants - not in all cases!


  • Options
    #155
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Not at all, it's an intentionally simplistic argument to highlight the fact that we all pay for (and therefore are entitled to) a public bed and if you are going to stop "subsidising" private beds for those who choose to pay extra - why should their tax be used to subsidise public beds they will never use.

    It's a nonsense arguement. If I choose NOT to use Dublin Bus, do I expect the state to subsidise my car? If I choose NOT to use the road network, , do I expect the state to subsidise my helicoptor.

    The difference is choice - if you choose not to use the basic service, that's your choice, and you pay for whatever other service you choose.
    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    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.

    Those private patients in public beds have skipped the queue. They have done so at the expense of public patients, who have paid for the tax relief on their private health insurance, and paid for the entire infrastructure of the hospital around them.

    Removing this subsidy is one step at rebalancing. Removing tax relief on health insurance will be the next step.


  • Options
    #156
    Tombo2001
    Registered Users Posts: 6,572 ✭✭✭Tombo2001


    Hootanany wrote: »
    But it is morally wrong to be told 9 months on public "open your wallet & I will see you on Thursday"


    Moral doesnt really come into it.

    Its a bit like a good English teacher saying, well for free you can be in a class of 30 kids and I can teach you that way, or for €100 an hour I can give you 1-1 classes.

    Except with the consultants its €200. And its for five minutes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    RainyDay wrote: »
    It's a nonsense arguement. If I choose NOT to use Dublin Bus, do I expect the state to subsidise my car? If I choose NOT to use the road network, , do I expect the state to subsidise my helicoptor.

    The difference is choice - if you choose not to use the basic service, that's your choice, and you pay for whatever other service you choose.



    Those private patients in public beds have skipped the queue. They have done so at the expense of public patients, who have paid for the tax relief on their private health insurance, and paid for the entire infrastructure of the hospital around them.

    Removing this subsidy is one step at rebalancing. Removing tax relief on health insurance will be the next step.

    Nonsense because you dont agree with it maybe?

    Oh and the analogy you put forward is wrong - the question should be - if you choose not to use Dublin bus...should you still be expected to pay the bus fare as well as for your taxi? Some of these poor people who have been skipped still have NTL/sky, foreign holidays, run multiple cars per household etc - things that some people who pay private insurance have sacrificed. My Dad is on the state pension - and he manages to pay his insurance premium. Let him skip away ;)

    I really dont think any of the steps you described above will in any way help the poor, put upon, skipped public system - you'd be better off seeking out some form of accountability from the HSE as to how exactly it is spending the money that's pumped into it.


  • Options
    #158
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RainyDay wrote: »
    It's a nonsense arguement. If I choose NOT to use Dublin Bus, do I expect the state to subsidise my car? If I choose NOT to use the road network, , do I expect the state to subsidise my helicoptor.

    The difference is choice - if you choose not to use the basic service, that's your choice, and you pay for whatever other service you choose.
    Your analogy is a bit flawed. You're basically saying that if the bus is free, but I choose to use my car because the bus is too busy, then I should also have to pay for the bus if/when I ever choose to use it.


  • Options
    #159
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    seamus wrote: »
    Your analogy is a bit flawed. You're basically saying that if the bus is free, but I choose to use my car because the bus is too busy, then I should also have to pay for the bus if/when I ever choose to use it.
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Nonsense because you dont agree with it maybe?

    Oh and the analogy you put forward is wrong - the question should be - if you choose not to use Dublin bus...should you still be expected to pay the bus fare as well as for your taxi? Some of these poor people who have been skipped still have NTL/sky, foreign holidays, run multiple cars per household etc - things that some people who pay private insurance have sacrificed. My Dad is on the state pension - and he manages to pay his insurance premium. Let him skip away ;)
    No, the analogy holds. The cost of a bus journey isn't covered by the ticket price. There is a huge subsidy given out of tax revenue to cover these costs. You're expecting someone to get some return or credit on this subsidy if they choose to travel by car.

    Or let's say I decide to drink only Perrier water - should I expect some large refund or credit from the Govt because I'm not drinking water?

    It's unreasonable. The Govt provides the basic service, and if you want something more, you pay the full economic cost of the extra service.


Advertisement