New Party: The Social Democrats.

Ireland's tax system is a bit of a disaster tbh

Simultaneously both excessively progressive and regressive

The third graph below shows the all-in tax rate (across income tax, USC, PRSI and VAT) for each of the ten income deciles. It takes into account earned income and transfers/benefits – which as I’ve stated before I believe should be treated as any other income source, to level the playing field between work and welfare.

This is a good way to try and find out which decile you fit into

http://www.publicpolicy.ie/where-do-you-fit-in/

Chips Lovell

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What we have in Ireland is comparable taxes coupled with gross institutional inefficiency and obscene wastage of public monies compounded by zero accountability.

We don't really. Comparing headline income tax rates is only part of the picture. Social security contributions play a massive role in financing the welfare state in other countries. If you compare Ireland with Sweden, you'll see they collect double what we do in social security.

We've a tendency to blame poor public services entirely on inefficiency and waste, but the reality is that they're often chronically underfunded compared to other countries.

Bannasidhe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Doesn't work in Ireland. Look how much money we shovel into the health service at present, and what do we get for it? Throwing more money at our current system isn't going to fix anything.

And continuing to hop on board the if it's not FF it must be FG marry-go-round sure ain't going to fix it. Both are part of the problem being too enmeshed in the system - which they created between them.

We need a government will the will to actually change how 'business' is done in Ireland, not issue platitudes about transparency and accountability while 'going forward' with the same old cronies in the same old quangos and the same old moving those caught asleep at the wheel to a different wheel to sleep behind.

I am not saying the SockDems will ever be that government, but I know FF/FG/LP will never be and I also know that Donnelly, Murphy and Shortall have a track record of standing against and exposing the endemic corruption in our current system.

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And continuing to hop on board the if it's not FF it must be FG marry-go-round sure ain't going to fix it. Both are part of the problem being too enmeshed in the system - which they created between them.

We need a government will the will to actually change how 'business' is done in Ireland, not issue platitudes about transparency and accountability while 'going forward' with the same old cronies in the same old quangos and the same old moving those caught asleep at the wheel to a different wheel to sleep behind.

I am not saying the SockDems will ever be that government, but I know FF/FG/LP will never be and I also know that Donnelly, Murphy and Shortall have a track record of standing against and exposing the endemic corruption in our current system.

Nobody is ever going to be able to change it until there is general agreement that it cannot go on any further. The majority of the foundation of this State needs to be scrapped and re-thought. The HSE and DSP in particular are a shambles and are not fit for purpose; the SocDems aren't going to fix this - why? Unions are far too powerful.

oscarBravo

I've been saying it for ages: if we want a better government, we're going to need a better electorate.

Bannasidhe

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

We don't really. Comparing headline income tax rates is only part of the picture. Social security contributions play a massive role in financing the welfare state in other countries. If you compare Ireland with Sweden, you'll see they collect double what we do in social security.

We've a tendency to blame poor public services entirely on inefficiency and waste, but the reality is that they're often chronically underfunded compared to other countries.

I work in a 'public service' - an Irish university which currently has more admin staff than teaching staff. We have whole departments that for large parts of the year essentially have nothing to do.

Take Exams for example. There is a whole dept of admin staff there - their main job is timetabling (a complex job yes but there they do have job specific software) and issuing results.
University wide exams occur twice a year - May/June and August repeats.
Exam papers are set within each individual school by the module lecturers who give them to the school secretary who sends them to an extern. When approved by the extern they are sent to the Exam dept who arranges printing and distribution. This dept arranges the storage of scripts for colection by the module lecturers who correct and input results on a spreadsheet which is given to the School secretary who uploads them to a secure central database. The School then holds an Academic Council which examines these results and verifies them before The Exam Dept issues the results to students.
The bulk of the work is done within each school by the lecturers and the secretary. Once the results have been issued there is nothing for the Exam Dept to do but plan the next years time-table... once they have been notified of what modules are on offer by each school.

Post-Grads have their own 'exams' dept - the students submits their near completed draft to their supervisor who will give permission for submission the three months, student/supervisor/School Head print off and sign a form which will go to PostGrad Exam Dept. In three months all going well, postgrad will submit to Exam Dept. Viva will be arranged by their School, School will determine if postgrad is successful. Exam Dept will be informed by the School and issue official notification.

Then we have a whole dept devoted to Admissions....

And another one for Fees...

And one for Graduations...

And a separate one for 'Bursaries and Scholarships' - although the majority of such awards are actually 'in-house' within the different schools and are administrated by them separately.

And the Student Experience (with a very very well paid 'vice-president').

Tell me that is efficient.

The bulk of the business end of a university - i.e. teaching/module design/research/exams/correcting is carried out within each individual School by the teaching staff and a very small number of secretaries - yet there are whole departments of full time staff tasked with... admin...

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I work in a 'public service' - an Irish university which currently has more admin staff than teaching staff. We have whole departments that for large parts of the year essentially have nothing to do.

Take Exams for example. There is a whole dept of admin staff there - their main job is timetabling (a complex job yes but there they do have job specific software) and issuing results.
University wide exams occur twice a year - May/June and August repeats.
Exam papers are set within each individual school by the module lecturers who give them to the school secretary who sends them to an extern. When approved by the extern they are sent to the Exam dept who arranges printing and distribution. This dept arranges the storage of scripts for colection by the module lecturers who correct and input results on a spreadsheet which is given to the School secretary who uploads them to a secure central database. The School then holds an Academic Council which examines these results and verifies them before The Exam Dept issues the results to students.
The bulk of the work is done within each school by the lecturers and the secretary. Once the results have been issued there is nothing for the Exam Dept to do but plan the next years time-table... once they have been notified of what modules are on offer by each school.

Post-Grads have their own 'exams' dept - the students submits their near completed draft to their supervisor who will give permission for submission the three months, student/supervisor/School Head print off and sign a form which will go to PostGrad Exam Dept. In three months all going well, postgrad will submit to Exam Dept. Viva will be arranged by their School, School will determine if postgrad is successful. Exam Dept will be informed by the School and issue official notification.

Then we have a whole dept devoted to Admissions....

And another one for Fees...

And one for Graduations...

And a separate one for 'Bursaries and Scholarships' - although the majority of such awards are actually 'in-house' within the different schools and are administrated by them separately.

And the Student Experience (with a very very well paid 'vice-president').

Tell me that is efficient.

The bulk of the business end of a university - i.e. teaching/module design/research/exams/correcting is carried out within each individual School by the teaching staff and a very small number of secretaries - yet there are whole departments of full time staff tasked with... admin...

The solution to that issue is State subsidised private universities.

Bannasidhe

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Nobody is ever going to be able to change it until there is general agreement that it cannot go on any further. The majority of the foundation of this State needs to be scrapped and re-thought. The HSE and DSP in particular are a shambles and are not fit for purpose; the SocDems aren't going to fix this - why? Unions are far too powerful.

I agree completely - the whole root and branch is a shambles but do we do nothing at all and stay on the merry-go-round?

Because that seem to be the alternative.

Blaming the Unions is a bit of a cop-out to be honest. They don't write legislation, award contracts, set up quangos etc. Governments made this mess - the unions helped, so did employers, contractors, developers, bankers, legal profession etc etc but ultimately the fault lies with government and the if it's not FF it must be FG mentality of the electorate. If we can break that - it's a start. We have to start somewhere...

FreudianSlippers

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I agree completely - the whole root and branch is a shambles but do we do nothing at all and stay on the merry-go-round?

Because that seem to be the alternative.

Blaming the Unions is a bit of a cop-out to be honest. They don't write legislation, award contracts, set up quangos etc. Governments made this mess - the unions helped, so did employers, contractors, developers, bankers, legal profession etc etc but ultimately the fault lies with government and the if it's not FF it must be FG mentality of the electorate. If we can break that - it's a start. We have to start somewhere...

The government needs to scrap the HSE and DSP and start over - they need to do the same thing with the tax system as well, but that's an aside - could you imagine the union response to a scrapping and re-thinking of the HSE and DSP?

That's why nothing is done; government's job is to stay in power... any party that attempted to do a root and branch reform of the country and its systems would be destroyed and you'd have the likes of the AAA, SF, etc. sitting there criticising decisions from the sidelines in order to score points.

Patser

Not a great performance from Shorthall in the Newstalk breakfast show. Ivan had representatives in from Renua, A of Independents as well, and was asking them.what differentiated them, what was their core value.

He asked Shorthall what 1 thing would the SDs not compromise on in offered power in a coalition. Her response was vague, refusing to give a single issue and instead saying they wanted to drive political and social reforms. Again without stating what that meant. When pushed by Ivan for what they'd do for power in Govt she said they weren't concerned with Govt and were instead more focused on building a party that offered an alternative in the future.

That to me smacks of, we like being opposition, as we can propose away, criticise away but don't want responsibility.

In.contrast Billy Timmins of Renua said they'd jump at the chance to enter Govt and influence the future. (Unfortunately I left car soon after so missed rest of debate)

Chips Lovell

I didn't say inefficiencies didn't exist, just that they aren't solely to blame.

Baggy Trousers

I have great respect for Murphy and Donnelly so it's great to see this new party.
The electorate need to see alternatives like this or we'll continue to get the same weak self serving governments.

Bannasidhe

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I didn't say inefficiencies didn't exist, just that they aren't solely to blame.

I didn't say they were solely to blame either. I said they exist, and in some cases in the public sector they are the norm - we have a raft of 'managers' and 'administrators' who are not needed and/or frankly not up to the job yet we still have them while at the same time lacking nurses, doctors, teachers, lecturers, radiologists, SNAs because there isn't enough money in the budget... it's grotesque.

We seem to have some bizarre fetish in this country for appointing layers and layer of needless administration/middle management while failing to ensure we have the people who do the jobs these administrators are meant to 'support'.

My OH works in the private sector - in an Irish retail outfit aimed at the DIY/Construction sector. Frankly, I am amazed this lot are still open. They have no searchable stock system, they have only the vaguest idea of what stock they have despite days spent 'stocktaking' every month, - what they really lack is proper management. The (mostly minimum wage) shop floor staff have an encyclopedic knowledge of stock and prices kept in their heads - and they are hemorrhaging staff so that knowledge is lost. The shop's manager is doing his best with his hands tied by middle management - chosen by length of service not capacity for the job and the higher ups are interested only in the bottom line on a spreadsheet seemingly oblivious that their bottom line would be a lot better if they invested in a proper computer system and acted to retain the staff who know what they are doing.
OH had an interview for another job, she told her area manager - he asked what she wanted to stay - she said one full Saturday off a month like the rest of the staff (she works 6 days - two of those being half days) and the pay review she was promised would happen 4 months ago. The reaction was a rant about people 'swanning off' on half days, that turning up for work 6 mornings a week is not actually working 6 days, how good he was for giving her the job in the first place (she has years of experience, has computerised her section, organised the warehouse for her section and brings in a minimum of 10 k a week in sales and she only 'does' bathrooms' - not plumbing - bathroom suites etc)... then Area manager took the week off to celebrate his daughters 21st... OH was offered the job she went for but would prefer to stay given all the work she has put in - no area manager available to discuss it with - he is off 'toasting his grown up baby girl's head' for the week. If Cork had beaten Kerry he wouldn't have been seen for two weeks.

Her last place was worse - there the 'manager' didn't know how to send an email never mind input stock. He also didn't know how to do the banking... all he seemed to be able to do was print out and laminate signs... they since closed but only because they had 'forgotten' to reimbursement their 'neighbour' in a shared unit for 7 years and were being sued by their 'neighbour'. When the store open they had made a deal that neighbour would pay the rates and they would pay him back - they 'forgot'..

If inefficiencies like this exist in the private sector where there is the ultimate accountability - closure, imagine what is happening in the public sector!

That is one of the problems we need to tackle. Not the only one. But an important one.

Lack of transparency is another.
Lack of accountability is in there too.
Enforcement of regulation would be most excellent, as would streamlining many of processes to reduce the often Kafkaesque levels of needless paperwork and red tape.

My brother once tried to open a factory in the Gaelteacht as a sister factory to one he has in Milan. When he bought the Milan one he didn't speak Italian, refused point blank to give anyone the normal payoffs, battled through seeming impossible planning laws and managed, against the odds, to stay open making his factory the only one left outside China making this particular product.
When it came to the Gaelteacht factory he admitted defeat - he came to the conclusion that while the Italians may make you jump through hoops, hoops which will go away immediately if brown envelopes make there way to the right people- something he still refuses to do which that just means it takes twice as long with a lot more paperwork and legal fees - it is still possible.

In Ireland he felt that it was endless obstacles designed to put him off - one example is he was told by an official that he would need to be able to speak Irish to open a factory in a Gaelteacht - my brother wrote to this official in Irish asking for that to be put in writing... the official couldn't read Irish and basically ignored the letter.
He was them quietly advised that he 'needed' to get the local TD 'on board'...
Asked if he was a member of any particular political party...
Invited to play golf with local worthies...

None of this was 'official' - it was all nods and winks and 'sure that's how we do things here'.

In the end he decided that the Italians want people to do business and hopefully grease a few palms along the way.
The Irish want credit for doing nothing while placing every possible 'invisible' obstacle in your way if you won't play ball or have the 'right' credentials.

We need a cultural shift -one small step would be to not keep electing the same cocks to sit on top of the same pile of dung.

The SockDems represent a desire for change and by god I want change.

Chips Lovell

Is there any stats on the ratio of academic to admin staff and how it compares to other European countries?

Bannasidhe

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Is there any stats on the ratio of academic to admin staff and how it compares to other European countries?

No idea tbh.

I only know about my own workplace because a former head of School made it his business to find out through FOI and wasn't backward about broadcasting the information.
He has since taken early retirement as his position became untenable and the whole School suffered due to subsequent 'cutbacks' ( we 'lost' three Chairs [professorships] for example*) - we could no longer afford to do photocopies never mind employ tutors so lecturers were expected to take that on in addition to normal duties and dire threats were issued to undertake more research and publications or there would be further 'cutbacks'... sure who needs sleep anyway


*Might not seem like a big deal to those who are not familiar with how the business of Academia works but professors are our star players. They are the names that attract the foreign students and therefore money. They are the ones who get media attention and therefore free publicity. They are also an indicator of the 'status' of the School. When I began we had several professors who were international 'stars' in their fields - now, although we have 'senior lecturers' of a similar standing the fact that they do not have the title 'professor' diminishes their standing and the standing of the School - indeed the University as a whole.
It's petty politics.
That cultural thing again.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The government needs to scrap the HSE and DSP and start over - they need to do the same thing with the tax system as well, but that's an aside - could you imagine the union response to a scrapping and re-thinking of the HSE and DSP?

That's why nothing is done; government's job is to stay in power... any party that attempted to do a root and branch reform of the country and its systems would be destroyed and you'd have the likes of the AAA, SF, etc. sitting there criticising decisions from the sidelines in order to score points.

Exactly - There is huge inertia there and as long as we have coalition governments there isn't a chance of serious change happening...

What's required is a single party government with a significant majority that can drive through the changes without needing to worry about keeping a jnr partner happy..

Without question , Labours presence in the current government has hampered progress on reform..I find it funny that people view Labour as "traitors" etc. etc. when they've done everything in their power to protect their traditional voters...

The Unions in this country exert far to much influence over public policy than they should - The 1st step in any serious reform has to be the removal of that undue influence...

Bannasidhe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Exactly - There is huge inertia there and as long as we have coalition governments there isn't a chance of serious change happening...

What's required is a single party government with a significant majority that can drive through the changes without needing to worry about keeping a jnr partner happy..

Without question , Labours presence in the current government has hampered progress on reform..I find it funny that people view Labour as "traitors" etc. etc. when they've done everything in their power to protect their traditional voters...

The Unions in this country exert far to much influence over public policy than they should - The 1st step in any serious reform has to be the removal of that undue influence...

You cannot seriously be suggesting that a FG government 'unhampered' by Labour would introduce sweeping reforms...

Quin_Dub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You cannot seriously be suggesting that a FG government 'unhampered' by Labour would introduce sweeping reforms...

No , not Sweeping , but they would have done a better version of the Croke Park/Haddington road agreements without Labour being there - I firmly believe that they would have gotten more reforms through.

All current parties are too close to the unions in some way or other, certainly Labour and FF are way too close to them.

I don't see any of the current political groups being fully unencumbered of the unions , it's hard to see how to break that control in the current landscape.

Having said that I do think that the Unions themselves have weakened their long-term position by throwing the younger staff under the bus to protect the older/more tenured members.. That's going to come back to bite them eventually.

Bannasidhe

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No , not Sweeping , but they would have done a better version of the Croke Park/Haddington road agreements without Labour being there - I firmly believe that they would have gotten more reforms through.

All current parties are too close to the unions in some way or other, certainly Labour and FF are way too close to them.

I don't see any of the current political groups being fully unencumbered of the unions , it's hard to see how to break that control in the current landscape.

Having said that I do think that the Unions themselves have weakened their long-term position by throwing the younger staff under the bus to protect the older/more tenured members.. That's going to come back to bite them eventually.

I see no will at all within FG to institute anything remotely resembling an actual reform - they are too tied to the business classes who are as much as fault as any union.

Or is IW an example of how FG will 'reform' - a disaster of a not a quango it's really a private company that happens to be getting millions of public money?

Is the LP responsible for all that legislation being guillotined at well? Would FG, if alone, actually debate legislation?

I don't believe that for a second.


ALL the current parties are tied to vested interests whose interests are put before the welfare of the citizenry as a whole.

We need new parties. Not platitudes and false promises from the old ones who keeping doing the same things.

oscarBravo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

What's required is a single party government with a significant majority...

...that's not bothered about getting re-elected.

I think that IW is a superb example of what happens in coalition set-ups, when the general premise and worth of something is utterly bastardised due to the pandering to others' influences.

The Labour influence => IW signs the LAs staff up for 5 years. Zero chance of efficiency gains for some time.
The FG influence => Making a hames of the procurement process, lacking visibility and now a massively turgid PR nightmare.
The 'Having to stay elected' / populism over pragmatism influence => This absolute nonsense of capped charges and a grant/bribe in an attempt to reduce the effects of the charges to appease those who shouted loudest.

No matter what happens, that final element (Populism > Pragmatism) is a disastrously expensive and endemic issue that we (electorates) will suffer from.

Quin_Dub

oscarBravo wrote: »

...that's not bothered about getting re-elected.

Indeed, or has such a large majority that it can ride out the storm...

Hence it's very difficult to see the path to that happening...

Perhaps the unions will continue to sabotage themselves by putting the interests of older members ahead of the newer intake leading to their longer term dissolution..

Union membership is in steady decline.. down to ~16% in the Private sector. It's even declining in the public sector down to 63% in 2014 . Overall it's well below 30% at this point, down from ~40% 10-12 years ago..

(see here)

Not sure what the tipping point is for when their influence is no longer deemed as important but we are surely getting close to that , certainly if the declines continue at their current rates..

Chips Lovell

This report from the HEA found that the breakdown between academic and support staff in Irish third level institutions was 54% to 46% in the 2011/12 academic year. That amounts to 52.8 support staff per 1,000 students.

We seem to be ahead of the UK anyway, who've more support staff than academics (51% to 49%). That corresponds to 87.6 support staff per 1,000 students.

How does that compare to international averages. According to these 2010 OECD figures (see table D2.4b), the EU average is 57.8 support staff per 1,000 students, although it's incomplete since a lot of countries, including the Nordics didn't provide figures.

Another indicator is the proportion of third level budgets spend on administrative salaries. These 2010 OECD figures (see table B6.2) find that Ireland spends 27.8% on compensation for non-teaching staff. The EU average was 26.2%. Of the Nordics who reported figures, Denmark spent 33.1%, Finland spend 29.2%.

What conclusions can we draw? If administrative bloat is a problem at Irish third level institutions, it would appear we aren't alone and it's much worse in some other countries.

jank

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I have no issue with higher taxes if I get free healthcare (few grand a year saved on Health insurance there for a start), or genuinely free education (parents/students would save an absolute fortune!)

No such thing as a free lunch. One gets 'free' healthcare in Australia. Free GP, public hospitals and so on. Yet, half the population has private health insurance because it offers a better choice, better care and better outcomes.
To pay for the 'free' health care there is a medicare levy of 2.0% of all income.
On top many will pay extra for private health insurance.

In total I would have paid the guts of $7,000 in medicare levy and private health insurance for myself and my partner. I can afford to pay the extra for health insurance because I am not screwed backwards in other income taxes that would be wasted in quangos, therefore I have the choice to put that money to my health insurance.

Its all mute anyway as we do not get value for money for our public services, so its a bit perplexing that one who would agree with that statement would also argue we should tax Irish people more (so long as its not them being taxed of course )

FreudianSlippers

jank wrote: »

No such thing as a free lunch. One gets 'free' healthcare in Australia. Free GP, public hospitals and so on. Yet, half the population has private health insurance because it offers a better choice, better care and better outcomes.
To pay for the 'free' health care there is a medicare levy of 2.0% of all income.
On top many will pay extra for private health insurance.

In total I would have paid the guts of $7,000 in medicare levy and private health insurance for myself and my partner. I can afford to pay the extra for health insurance because I am not screwed backwards in other income taxes that would be wasted in quangos, therefore I have the choice to put that money to my health insurance.

Its all mute anyway as we do not get value for money for our public services, so its a bit perplexing that one who would agree with that statement would also argue we should tax Irish people more (so long as its not them being taxed of course )

I fail to see how removing healthcare from taxation, allowing everyone to buy private health insurance and giving a tax credit for the cost of same isn't the best overall solution?

Muahahaha

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In Ireland he felt that it was endless obstacles designed to put him off - one example is he was told by an official that he would need to be able to speak Irish to open a factory in a Gaelteacht - my brother wrote to this official in Irish asking for that to be put in writing... the official couldn't read Irish and basically ignored the letter.
He was them quietly advised that he 'needed' to get the local TD 'on board'...
Asked if he was a member of any particular political party...
Invited to play golf with local worthies...

None of this was 'official' - it was all nods and winks and 'sure that's how we do things here'.

In the end he decided that the Italians want people to do business and hopefully grease a few palms along the way.
The Irish want credit for doing nothing while placing every possible 'invisible' obstacle in your way if you won't play ball or have the 'right' credentials.

That sounds like exactly the experience that the developer Tom Gilmartin had when he came home from the UK and wanted to invest in Ireland. Every gombeen politician he met along the way was trying to dip him for cash. The final straw for him was when Pee Flynn went on the Late Late insinuating that he and his wife "weren't well". All the man wanted to do was bring some of his UK success back to Ireland but he had parasites and leeches hanging out of him and eventually packed up again and went back to the UK.

creedp

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I fail to see how removing healthcare from taxation, allowing everyone to buy private health insurance and giving a tax credit for the cost of same isn't the best overall solution?

Presumably, therefore, this is the system in place in countries with high performing health systems? Although nothing is straight forward isn't it the principle underpinning health insurance in the USA, the country that spends more by far per GDP than any other country yet has a significant proportion of the population with no official health cover?

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

No such thing as a free lunch. One gets 'free' healthcare in Australia. Free GP, public hospitals and so on. Yet, half the population has private health insurance because it offers a better choice, better care and better outcomes.
To pay for the 'free' health care there is a medicare levy of 2.0% of all income.
On top many will pay extra for private health insurance.

In total I would have paid the guts of $7,000 in medicare levy and private health insurance for myself and my partner. I can afford to pay the extra for health insurance because I am not screwed backwards in other income taxes that would be wasted in quangos, therefore I have the choice to put that money to my health insurance.

Its all mute anyway as we do not get value for money for our public services, so its a bit perplexing that one who would agree with that statement would also argue we should tax Irish people more (so long as its not them being taxed of course )

Having availed of Australian 'free' healthcare I can vouch that it was a damn sight better then the health care I pay through the nose for in Ireland. I was diagnosed, admitted and treated the same day I arrived at Emergency.

In Ireland , due to a lack of 'beds'/'consultants/theatre staff', I was continually admitted and then discharged until the day I arrived in an ambulance about to go into liver failure and required a full emergency team to save my life.
If they had removed my gall bladder 7 months earlier when my G.P referred me I would have been saved 5 x 3 day stays in hospital over that 7 month period - and the HSE would have had that bed I was taking up.
I paid for each one of those stays. In money and pain and the delay nearly cost my life.
Just because you pay doesn't mean it works better - sometimes it just means it costs you more.

FreudianSlippers

creedp wrote: »

Presumably, therefore, this is the system in place in countries with high performing health systems? Although nothing is straight forward isn't it the principle underpinning health insurance in the USA, the country that spends more by far per GDP than any other country yet has a significant proportion of the population with no official health cover?

That is the system now in place in the US post-Obamacare. The uninsured rate is down to 11.4%:



This article (although slightly dated being from 2014) shows there are a few issues to work out, such as confusion over whether people need cover, confusion over incentives to help those who cannot afford it and cultural issues.



Over 33% of Hispanics are still uninsured (by far the largest uninsured group) for reasons ranging from low levels of Marketplace participation among this group and a delayed and poorly translated Spanish-language version of HealthCare.gov, to fears that sharing personal information could result in deportation of their family member or jeopardize their own legal status. (see: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/03/18/why-are-hispanics-slow-to-enroll-in-aca-coverage-insights-from-the-health-reform-monitoring-survey/ )

There is also an issue with the so-called "young invincibles":



There is no real reason that this figure will not decrease in the coming years to an effective near-full insured status between the Marketplace and Medicaid.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The solution to that issue is State subsidised private universities.

Or just a government which isn't willing to put up with such bullsh!t? It doesn't have to be private to have ethics, it just so happens that none of our current politicians seem to have any.