Health System

JD_PN17

The health system has got me thinking a lot lately. I was wondering just how many doctors and nurses does the HSE actually need and what subcategories of medical professionals are needed, eg. doctor = pediatrician/obstetrician-gynaecologist/gp/etc... nurse = midwife/clinical, etc.

Where are we under resourced with regards to medical specialists.

Sam_Doyle

Very good topic to think about

Geuze

Happy reading.............

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/sha/systemofhealthaccounts2015/

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

https://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-at-a-Glance-2015-Key-Findings-IRELAND.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-Policy-in-Ireland-February-2016.pdf

johnnyskeleton

Geuze wrote: »

Happy reading.............

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/sha/systemofhealthaccounts2015/

http://www.oecd.org/health/health-data.htm

https://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-at-a-Glance-2015-Key-Findings-IRELAND.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/ireland/Health-Policy-in-Ireland-February-2016.pdf

Mod note:

As per charter no news dumps. Please provide summary and your own views

James Brown

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.

Laura Magahy appointed executive director of Slaintecare
Former director of Temple Bar Properties was also involved with the ‘Bertie Bowl’

The Government has approved the appointment of Laura Magahy as executive director of the Slaintecare programme office.

Ms Magahy is a former director of Temple Bar Properties and former project manager of the Irish Film Institute. She also led the project to relocate Temple Street children’s hospital to the Mater hospital site.

After leaving Temple Bar in 2000, she won a lucrative contract to provide executive services for the ill-fated “Bertie Bowl” – named after former taoiseach Bertie Ahern – and Sports Campus Ireland at Abbotstown.

Her consortium won a similar contract to develop the Digital Hub in Dublin’s Liberties area.

It is understood Minister for Health Simon Harris sought approval from Cabinet on Thursday morning for the appointment.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/laura-magahy-appointed-executive-director-of-slaintecare-1.3562840

Nothing To See Here



This afternoon.

Government Buildings, Dublin 2

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Minister for Health launch the Sláintecare Report and announce the appointment of Laura Magahy, formerly of Temple Bar Properties, as Executive Director of Slaintecare and Tom Keane as chairman of the Slaintecare Advisory Council.

The report of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Future of Healthcaret sets out a vision for the future of healthcare over a ten-year period.

But report author Social Democrat co-leader Roisin Shorthall said::

“Ms Laura Magahy is the managing director of a private sector company, and has been associated with a number of high profile and controversial projects.

It is also noteworthy that Ms Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services.

It is important that the Government now clarify how these commercial interests can be reconciled with Ms Magahy’s new role with Sláintecare and what her relationship with M.CO Projects will be.”

Of today’s launch. Ms Shorthall added:

“We are still waiting on the Government to agree their official response to the plan, despite it being promised before last Christmas”

https://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/07/12/nothing-to-see-here-41/

I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.





I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health after giving out about all the secret dodgy deals and favouritism for cronies from it.
Basically its like everything else IMO, the money needed just isn't there to get to the crux of the problems in the service.
A lot of it is top heavy management, unions making reform and restructuring virtually impossible and an organisation that has too much power now, virtually gone beyond political accountability except to lay blame for its own misgivings.
I wish any minister and govt with responsibility for the biggest monster in Ireland at present luck with getting this house in order!

Wanderer78

Current health service issues are probably unresolvable no matter who's in government, hard to know what to do now with it

Red_Wake

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

Wanderer78

Red_Wake wrote: »

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

of course this would help!:rolleyes:

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health after giving out about all the secret dodgy deals and favouritism for cronies from it.

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are to be loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.

Edward M wrote: »

Basically its like everything else IMO, the money needed just isn't there to get to the crux of the problems in the service.
A lot of it is top heavy management, unions making reform and restructuring virtually impossible and an organisation that has too much power now, virtually gone beyond political accountability except to lay blame for its own misgivings.
I wish any minister and govt with responsibility for the biggest monster in Ireland at present luck with getting this house in order!

This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.

It is also noteworthy that Ms Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services.

To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

Wanderer78

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are being loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.



This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.

To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

the assets of nama should have been placed into a more publicly guaranteed fund such as a sovereign wealth fund but.....

James Brown

Red_Wake wrote: »

Reduction of medical cards would reduce a lot of spurious pressure on the health system. At the very least make medical cards give subsidized healthcare rather than free healthcare. 


Massive amounts of appointments for medical card holders are wasted due to the patient not showing up. And they don't care at all because it doesn't cost them a penny.

Too busy leaving their taps running? Any proof or just makey uppy?

Eric Cartman

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Current health service issues are probably unresolvable no matter who's in government, hard to know what to do now with it

move over to a private model where companies tender to operate hospitals at a fixed cost. Solves all the middle management bloat and ridiculous over bureaucratisation of the whole thing.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Listen Ed, NAMA monies are to be loaned to private developers at rates more favourable than financial institutions are willing to offer. These are for private builds. I have issue with that and think the money could be used else where. Now that might be within the realms of tin foil hat or conspiracy theory for you for some reason, but I'll leave you ponder that one.



This is an empty vague comment, which like your comment above ignores my point of concern regarding vested private interest taking the reins on a relatively new health policy body. If you've no concern or comment, I'm not sure what your point really is.



To me, bringing in private vested interests to over see tax payer money, is not a great idea and may lead to decisions being made not being in the best interest of the tax payer.

Fair enough.
Do you think the taxpayer is getting value for money now?

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

Fair enough.
Do you think the taxpayer is getting value for money now?

No.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

move over to a private model where companies tender to operate hospitals at a fixed cost. Solves all the middle management bloat and ridiculous over bureaucratisation of the whole thing.

But we already do. M.CO Projects ltd have been involved in consulting on numerous Hospital projects since before Kenny's tenure. Not putting blame at their door, but things have steadily worsened.
Then look at medical specialists/consultants, who cause long waiting lists by putting their private practise above the public.
We can't blame private business looking to further their private business.

The thing is none of the HSE problems are new. Are numerous governments unable or unwilling to tackle it? Shouldn't we look to getting in willing representation rather than the throw money at it and kick it down the road policy, before looking to self interested private parties? Which goes back to my concern all of this 'throw your hands up' at health is a move towards justifying privatisation, furthered by the appointments mentioned in the Slaintecare article quoted above.

Anita Blow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Too busy leaving their taps running? Any proof or just makey uppy?

Based on a small Dublin-based study, 84% of DNAs (Didn't Attend) were medical card-holders. Anecdotally from my own experience in an outpatient department, most DNAs were also medical card holders.

I'm not at all using this a stick to beat medical card holders with, but it is a problem and we should try do something to fix it.

James Brown

Anita Blow wrote: »

Based on a small Dublin-based study, 84% of DNAs (Didn't Attend) were medical card-holders. Anecdotally from my own experience in an outpatient department, most DNAs were also medical card holders.

I'm not at all using this a stick to beat medical card holders with, but it is a problem and we should try do something to fix it.

So 84% of the 5.6% of patients who didn't turn up were Medical Card holders, in that clinic. Fair enough....

James Brown

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jesus - yer man never shuts up about NAMA, but has yet to make a coherent point about it. What on Earth does NAMA have to do with the health system?

Agreed. Was not I. (FYI: my point on NAMA is laid out in the comment you quoted).

Edward M wrote: »

You would be Matt.
Like everything else its a wonder you didn't suggest nama monies be reinvested in health ...

So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Agreed. Was not I. (FYI: my point on NAMA is laid out in the comment you quoted).



So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

If you look at our 2 tier health service, its already semi private anyway IMO unless you have a medical card.
I pay for any medical services I require, thankfully not a lot so far.
I think if you look at what you're posting, if anything could be made of it, then perhaps cronyism or favouritism is what the case could be made for.
No govt here would plan to privatise the health service, like the water charges but maybe even worse would be the outcome I think.
I think personally you are reading too much into this appointment.

Miina

Brilliant two part documentary on BBC recently celebrities do the NHS, worth a watch on this topic. Ireland has always followed the English health system.

Nitrogan

There's too few people paying for too many, like most things.

It's a bit of a myth I'm sure but the notion that generations of families could live more comfortably than 99% of the world's population, on welfare in Ireland, without ever even trying to contribute to society is entirely plausible.

The population is aging. The burden on tax payers is growing but the demand for broader and more expensive health care grows at an even greater rate.

Apart from letting too many people gouge the system if we spend too much of our limited resources saving unhealthy non-contributing citizens for a few years until their next medical episode, we'll run out of money needed to invest in future taxpayers.

That is a callous way of putting it but we're getting to the stage that with enough effort/expenditure you can prolong a life by years even if the quality of it is terrible.

This is not an easy thing to say because like everyone I have people close to me who depend on these resources, and I'll be there myself someday.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

If you look at our 2 tier health service, its already semi private anyway IMO unless you have a medical card.
I pay for any medical services I require, thankfully not a lot so far.
I think if you look at what you're posting, if anything could be made of it, then perhaps cronyism or favouritism is what the case could be made for.
No govt here would plan to privatise the health service, like the water charges but maybe even worse would be the outcome I think.
I think personally you are reading too much into this appointment.

You contradict yourself a little here.
I think the current move could be used to cut out the middleman, customer model.
If privatised there would need to be concessions made for the poor, (I'm including working tax payers on low income). So why not chip away at various areas until it's essentially semi private? Unlike IW, instead of a charge, simply use tax monies and pay private concerns to run it. This gives government someone to point a finger at if anything goes awry or things become worse and bypasses the user pays model. Just a thought.

Personally, we need to have politicians and their underlings held 100% accountable. Bringing in private concerns with private objectives may not be in the public interest.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.





I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

Let me see. You believe that the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health, and you evidence is one appointment of one person to one position.

Right. Is this a serious position you are putting forward?

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

So Freud, what's your take on "...Magahy’s company, M.CO Projects ltd, has a commercial relationship with the HSE, where for example, it was paid an estimated €2.2m in 2016 by the HSE for consultancy and support services."? Same company involved in the Bertie Bowl. Does it look more like a move towards privatising?

eh....not even remotely. It looks like a public body using a consultancy service which, I hate to break to you, is incredibly common.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You contradict yourself a little here.
I think the current move could be used to cut out the middleman, customer model.
If privatised there would need to be concessions made for the poor, (I'm including working tax payers on low income). So why not chip away at various areas until it's essentially semi private? Unlike IW, instead of a charge, simply use tax monies and pay private concerns to run it. This gives government someone to point a finger at if anything goes awry or things become worse and bypasses the user pays model. Just a thought.

Personally, we need to have politicians and their underlings held 100% accountable. Bringing in private concerns with private objectives may not be in the public interest.

I know, I did refer to a 2 tier service.
I don't know how to overcome this personally, but unless you completely nationalise health then it will continue.
I do see your point insofar as public health hospitals being used for private patients thus leaving less space for public patients and leaving longer waiting lists for treatments.
But I don't see an agenda of total privatisation of the,service though.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

Let me see. You believe that the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health, and you evidence is one appointment of one person to one position.

Right. Is this a serious position you are putting forward?

No. Did you read my post?

This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise.

Hardly the level of ISIS scaremongering...

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

eh....not even remotely. It looks like a public body using a consultancy service which, I hate to break to you, is incredibly common.

Eh, I thought the idea was bringing in private consultants would help the health service the government is either unwilling or unable to tackle themselves? So eh, these folk have been involved for decades and I hear very common, so this doesn't seem to be working.
This particular lady has a private company that does business with the HSE, that's a conflict of interest right there IMO.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Eh, I thought the idea was bringing in private consultants would help the health service the government is either unwilling or unable to tackle themselves? So eh, these folk have been involved for decades and I hear very common, so this doesn't seem to be working.

I don't really understand this. My point was nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of these consultants. Your contention that the use of them has something to do with a path towards privatisation is flat out incorrect.

I'm not really seeing the conflict of interest angle either to be honest.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't really understand this. My point was nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of these consultants. Your contention that the use of them has something to do with a path towards privatisation is flat out incorrect.

I'm not really seeing the conflict of interest angle either to be honest.

Using private companies to oversee ever increasing sections of the health service is how one might go about privatisation.
As regards the conflict of interest, a private individual hired to assist in overseeing the roll out of health policy is also heavily involved with a company the health service has/does do business with. That's your conflict of interest right there.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Using private companies to oversee ever increasing sections of the health service is how one might go about privatisation.
As regards the conflict of interest, a private individual hired to assist in overseeing the roll out of health policy is also heavily involved with a company the health service has/does do business with. That's your conflict of interest right there.

Using consultancy services still has nothing to do with privatization though, which was your original assertion. All public bodies the world over use external expertise at times.

Why? Her company has provided consultancy services to the HSE in the past. So what? What exactly is the conflict that may arise from this? You haven't actually outlined any potential conflict whatsoever. Being in charge of selecting which consultancy service to use for a project when you also own a consultancy service is a conflict of interest. Having previously provided services to the HSE and then having a job in the HSE is not in and of itself a conflict. What scenario do you see where this conflict will arise?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Did you read my post?

Hardly the level of ISIS scaremongering...

I did read your post, and there was nothing substantive to it. You were suggesting because one private company had won one contract, that there was a secret agenda to privatise the health service. Did I miss something?

Red_Wake

blanch152 wrote: »

Matt Barrett wrote: »

No. Did you read my post?

Hardly the level of ISIS scaremongering...

I did read your post, and there was nothing substantive to it. You were suggesting because one private company had won one contract, that there was a secret agenda to privatise the health service. Did I miss something?

The immense paranoia about privatization is about it I'd say.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

Using consultancy services still has nothing to do with privatization though, which was your original assertion. All public bodies the world over use external expertise at times.

Why? Her company has provided consultancy services to the HSE in the past. So what? What exactly is the conflict that may arise from this? You haven't actually outlined any potential conflict whatsoever. Being in charge of selecting which consultancy service to use for a project when you also own a consultancy service is a conflict of interest. Having previously provided services to the HSE and then having a job in the HSE is not in and of itself a conflict. What scenario do you see where this conflict will arise?

It would certainly ease any moves in that direction.

It's possible she could recommend of put forward a company or other consultancy group for a contract, from which she or associates might benefit. That's a conflict of interest. I do not need to point out a fraud to speak on the possibility of one occurring due to a conflict of interest.

con·flict of in·ter·est

a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

It's about protecting the tax payer from decision not putting the tax payer first.

blanch152 wrote: »

I did read your post, and there was nothing substantive to it. You were suggesting because one private company had won one contract, that there was a secret agenda to privatise the health service. Did I miss something?

Yes you completely misunderstood. Nothing substantive to support your strawman, no. I said I believed there was a move to privatise at some point, (this is based on decades of unwillingness or less likely inability to tackle health) and things like those appointments didn't lead me to believe otherwise. I did not put it forward as proof of any 'conspiracy'. You fudged.

Red_Wake wrote: »

The immense paranoia about privatization is about it I'd say.

If you couldn't comprehend my post, sure, why not.
Just for clarity.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...
I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It would certainly ease any moves in that direction.

How? In what practical sense would this in any way ease the move to privatization? It is a glib, scare-mongering comment with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Using a consultancy service is simply standard business and government practice globally.

I do not need to point out a fraud to speak on the possibility of one occurring due to a conflict of interest.

No, but if you are going to suggest impropriety then it is incumbent upon you to detail exactly what that is. Will she, in her role, be selecting or involved in the selection process for consultancy services for the HSE that her own company might benefit from?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

It would certainly ease any moves in that direction.

It's possible she could recommend of put forward a company or other consultancy group for a contract, from which she or associates might benefit. That's a conflict of interest. I do not need to point out a fraud to speak on the possibility of one occurring due to a conflict of interest.

Any consultant could do that. There are conflicts of interest every single day in the public service, how could there not be?

When I worked in the public service, did you expect me to forget that I paid taxes, had children, used schools, hospitals and public transport. At any time, I could be in a position of making decisions on any of those. The only way to avoid conflicts of interest would be to pay each public servant making decisions €500,000 a year tax-free so that they would have no need of any state service.

Conflicts of interest are normal everyday occurrences, and there are processes for managing them.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

How? In what practical sense would this in any way ease the move to privatization? It is a glib, scare-mongering comment with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Using a consultancy service is simply standard business and government practice globally.



No, but if you are going to suggest impropriety then it is incumbent upon you to detail exactly what that is. Will she, in her role, be selecting or involved in the selection process for consultancy services for the HSE that her own company might benefit from?

You are missing a very subtle point, say I work in some aspect of healthcare I am also very involved in some organisations that brings me in the orbit of the decision makers in the HSE or politicians, this is not a bad thing it could have been voluntary work I am a super connector and know a lot of people.

Through osmoses, I have become aware of changes in policy towards privitisation, or I could be promoting a policy of privitisation. The next thing is I set up a private company myself, or I am appointed to the boards of various companies who are hoping to expand into the newly privatised services.

It's not fraud, but it is questionable because the only reason I have been appointed to the board of directors of the companies is because of my ability to guide them in the tendering process for the newly privitised services.

blanch152

mariaalice wrote: »

You are missing a very subtle point, say I work in some aspect of healthcare I am also very involved in some organisations that brings me in the orbit of the decision makers in the HSE or politicians, this is not a bad thing it could have been voluntary work I am a super connector and know a lot of people.

Through osmoses, I have become aware of changes in policy towards privitisation, or I could be promoting a policy of privitisation. The next thing is I set up a private company myself, or I am appointed to the boards of various companies who are hoping to expand into the newly privatised services.

It's not fraud, but it is questionable because the only reason I have been appointed to the board of directors of the companies is because of my ability to guide them in the tendering process for the newly privitised services.

And have you looked at the conflict of interest policies for employees in the health service to see how this is addressed?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/hrppg/code-of-standards-and-behaviour.html


For those in actual decision-making positions, there is ethics legislation as well:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/ethics/


This is utterly bizarre, throwing around accusations of things that might happen without any evidence at all.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

And have you looked at the conflict of interest policies for employees in the health service to see how this is addressed?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/hrppg/code-of-standards-and-behaviour.html


For those in actual decision-making positions, there is ethics legislation as well:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/ethics/


This is utterly bizarre, throwing around accusations of things that might happen without any evidence at all.

I know that but that's why I use words like subtle, osmoses, in the ether and questionable not fraud.


If full-on privatisation is the policy someone is going to make money out of it and sometimes a lot of money.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

And have you looked at the conflict of interest policies for employees in the health service to see how this is addressed?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/hrppg/code-of-standards-and-behaviour.html


For those in actual decision-making positions, there is ethics legislation as well:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/ethics/


This is utterly bizarre, throwing around accusations of things that might happen without any evidence at all.

That's not true, as I'm sure you know. Probably why no quote. Typical fare form you.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How? In what practical sense would this in any way ease the move to privatization? It is a glib, scare-mongering comment with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Using a consultancy service is simply standard business and government practice globally.



No, but if you are going to suggest impropriety then it is incumbent upon you to detail exactly what that is. Will she, in her role, be selecting or involved in the selection process for consultancy services for the HSE that her own company might benefit from?

Scaremongering? To view what's happening and put forward an opinion? Are you fearful of privatisation? For it to be scaremongering there has to be an element of fear I would assume related to the point. I don't know how you can honestly not see how having consultants with a conflict of interest in a position of policy making for the public health service would not ease a move to privatisation.
No basis in fact? An opinion based on the in-actions of numerous governments and growing crises? Looking at the situation and drawing a conclusion is up for discussion I don't understand the passion in vehemently closing down the very idea that we may be moving towards privatisation. Not allowing the idea get passed being put forward is the odd thing here. If you feel that strongly about it not being a plausible possibility why? Why so defensive?
And no, I did not suggest impropriety. I explained what conflict of interest was and why it should be avoided. You are putting forward sensational falsehoods at this point all to quell any talk of the opinion that privatisation may be on the cards. Why? That goes for both of you. I don't see any effort to merely discuss the idea rather close it down and throw up 'misinterpretations'. It's a reasonable topic of discussion lads. If you've no interest, that's fine.

LeinsterDub

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Current health service issues are probably unresolvable no matter who's in government, hard to know what to do now with it

There are literally dozen of health services we could model ours on . Instead we continue with this failed hybrid model that's been broken for 20 years.

James Brown

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There are literally dozen of health services we could model ours on . Instead we continue with this failed hybrid model that's been broken for 20 years.

And you would wonder why. I look at it and think these people are not ejits.

blanch152

mariaalice wrote: »

I know that but that's why I use words like subtle, osmoses, in the ether and questionable not fraud.


If full-on privatisation is the policy someone is going to make money out of it and sometimes a lot of money.

But full-on privatisation isn't the policy, has never been the policy.

Even in Mary Harney's time, she was proposing co-location of private and public facilities, not full-on privatisation.

It is still bizarre that somehow the appointment of one consultant to one contract has suddenly created this whole theory of an agenda of privatisation of the health service. This whole discussion is just scaremongering.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

But full-on privatisation isn't the policy, has never been the policy.

Even in Mary Harney's time, she was proposing co-location of private and public facilities, not full-on privatisation.

It is still bizarre that somehow the appointment of one consultant to one contract has suddenly created this whole theory of an agenda of privatisation of the health service. This whole discussion is just scaremongering.

Please quote such a comment. I'd love to see it.

Again, what scaremongering? Quote?

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Scaremongering? To view what's happening and put forward an opinion? Are you fearful of privatisation? For it to be scaremongering there has to be an element of fear I would assume related to the point. I don't know how you can honestly not see how having consultants with a conflict of interest in a position of policy making for the public health service would not ease a move to privatisation.
No basis in fact? An opinion based on the in-actions of numerous governments and growing crises? Looking at the situation and drawing a conclusion is up for discussion I don't understand the passion in vehemently closing down the very idea that we may be moving towards privatisation. Not allowing the idea get passed being put forward is the odd thing here. If you feel that strongly about it not being a plausible possibility why? Why so defensive?
And no, I did not suggest impropriety. I explained what conflict of interest was and why it should be avoided. You are putting forward sensational falsehoods at this point all to quell any talk of the opinion that privatisation may be on the cards. Why? That goes for both of you. I don't see any effort to merely discuss the idea rather close it down and throw up 'misinterpretations'. It's a reasonable topic of discussion lads. If you've no interest, that's fine.

Scaremongering doesn't need a real fear.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scaremonger

It is the spreading of stories designed to cause fear. So people who profess that "privatisation is bad" who then spread stories that the health service is going to be privatised because one consultant was appointed to one contract can in my opinion be scaremongers.

The macmillan dictionary sums it up quite well:

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/scaremongering

"the process of saying or doing something in order to deliberately make people feel worried or frightened, especially so that you can gain an advantage"

The posturing around water charges by the populist opposition parties is another example of this type of deliberate frightening of people.

Anita Blow

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And you would wonder why. I look at it and think these people are not ejits.

The current model persists not because there is some grand plan for privatisation, but because to reform it would require restructuring of the HSE which would cost votes and involve large scale industrial unrest, so politicians won't touch it.
People have not made health reform an election issue so politicians know they don't have to do anything during their term.

Podge_irl

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Scaremongering? To view what's happening and put forward an opinion? Are you fearful of privatisation? For it to be scaremongering there has to be an element of fear I would assume related to the point. I don't know how you can honestly not see how having consultants with a conflict of interest in a position of policy making for the public health service would not ease a move to privatisation.
No basis in fact? An opinion based on the in-actions of numerous governments and growing crises? Looking at the situation and drawing a conclusion is up for discussion I don't understand the passion in vehemently closing down the very idea that we may be moving towards privatisation. Not allowing the idea get passed being put forward is the odd thing here. If you feel that strongly about it not being a plausible possibility why? Why so defensive?
And no, I did not suggest impropriety. I explained what conflict of interest was and why it should be avoided. You are putting forward sensational falsehoods at this point all to quell any talk of the opinion that privatisation may be on the cards. Why? That goes for both of you. I don't see any effort to merely discuss the idea rather close it down and throw up 'misinterpretations'. It's a reasonable topic of discussion lads. If you've no interest, that's fine.

I never even commented on whether or not I thought privatisation was on the cards. I said the idea that using consultants somehow eased the way to privatisation is utter fancy - which it is. My issue is with your specious reasoning, not the core concept. Unless every government department is on its way towards privatisation somehow then the use of consultants at some points is utterly irrelevant.

And no, you haven't explained the conflict of interest. Is she going to be in charge of selecting consultancy services and be in a position to select her own? Her small consultancy firm is not going to be buying the HSE so that's not really a concern.

I don't think we are moving towards privatisation as I've seen few enough signs of it. The current status of the service is not dissimilar to the NHS at the moment and is purely about politics and funding. Frankly I think we should properly do one or the other as I think the current set up is stupid.

James Brown

Podge_irl wrote: »

I never even commented on whether or not I thought privatisation was on the cards. I said the idea that using consultants somehow eased the way to privatisation is utter fancy - which it is. My issue is with your specious reasoning, not the core concept. Unless every government department is on its way towards privatisation somehow then the use of consultants at some points is utterly irrelevant.

And no, you haven't explained the conflict of interest. Is she going to be in charge of selecting consultancy services and be in a position to select her own? Her small consultancy firm is not going to be buying the HSE so that's not really a concern.

I don't think we are moving towards privatisation as I've seen few enough signs of it. The current status of the service is not dissimilar to the NHS at the moment and is purely about politics and funding. Frankly I think we should properly do one or the other as I think the current set up is stupid.

So if you're not interested in discussing the premise...?

'utter fancy'? Why? Why has bringing in private concerns to oversee state policy not in any way linked to a possibility of easing, helping a public service move to a private, should privatisation come about?
Just for kicks, if you were privatising the HSE would you not bring in private entities? If not, how would that work exactly? How could you privatise without bringing in private entities? Would having some already in place not ease the process? Seriously, no?
You seem confused. It's not merely the existence of private consultants, which we know are in everywhere. All departments use contractors. I never made that argument. You're fudging.

Do you believe the concept 'conflict of interest' exists? If so, I'm saying there's a conflict of interest in hiring a person or company to oversee policy which could be used to enrich that person or entity, which would be fine if it was the best deal for the tax payer, however, best to avoid conflict of interest where possible IMO.

So you've seen a few signs of privatisation. What are they? Are you scaremongering? Are you being fanciful, please elaborate?

Based on the current and longstanding state of the health service, continuing to follow the same policy regarding it, despite worsening issues year on year. there are two conclusions can be drawn. The governments we've had are unable or unwilling to tackle the problems we have. Is that a fair assessment?
I think it's only civil to allow a person form an opinion based on their perception of events without haranguing them. Especially in a supposed discussion forum. How about, 'I disagree because...'? Without the cod?
I believe privatisation is the goal because I cannot think of another reason why they let it carry on like they do. They created Irish Water ffs, if they want to do something unpopular or differently they would.

To recap and clear up numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations, here's my post:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.

I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

If I said they are privatising the HSE, if I said the new appointments were feathering their nests/carrying out sweet deals, that would be another matter. You disagree, great chatting with you.

Edward M

We have private health care in Ireland already, what's new?
Is there a suggestion here that there will be no social health care and that all will have to pay?
Is it a suggestion perhaps that hospitals will be privatised and practitioners, nurses etc, will be working for private entity's with the state picking up the tab?
I'm not sure exactly what suggestion is being made here.

blanch152

Edward M wrote: »

We have private health care in Ireland already, what's new?
Is there a suggestion here that there will be no social health care and that all will have to pay?
Is it a suggestion perhaps that hospitals will be privatised and practitioners, nurses etc, will be working for private entity's with the state picking up the tab?
I'm not sure exactly what suggestion is being made here.

Something like all of the above. FG is bad, privatisation is bad, consultants are bad, FG are only interested in looking after a select group of the elite and feathering their nests.

So when FG hire a consultant to do some work in the health service, that means there is a secret agenda to privatise the health service. There you go.

blanch152

blanch152 wrote: »

Something like all of the above. FG is bad, privatisation is bad, consultants are bad, FG are only interested in looking after a select group of the elite and feathering their nests.

So when FG hire a consultant to do some work in the health service, that means there is a secret agenda to privatise the health service. There you go.

No privatisation is not bad, its part of the mix I have used private healthcare and have health insurance, but and this is a big but, and it's at the heart of the matter for me. The nursing staff are paid the same in the private hospital as in a public hospital and have similar terms and conditions of work.

So privatise away as long as there is complete openness sunlight is a great disinfectant and as long as staff are not exploited. Complete openness means the salaries of the directors and senior staff in any for-profit organisation providing services to the HSE or any government department should be open to public scrutiny.

Its the nonsense to think that there are all up's and no's downs to privatisation.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

We have private health care in Ireland already, what's new?
Is there a suggestion here that there will be no social health care and that all will have to pay?
Is it a suggestion perhaps that hospitals will be privatised and practitioners, nurses etc, will be working for private entity's with the state picking up the tab?
I'm not sure exactly what suggestion is being made here.

You should really read over the previous posts.

blanch152 wrote: »

Something like all of the above. FG is bad, privatisation is bad, consultants are bad, FG are only interested in looking after a select group of the elite and feathering their nests.

So when FG hire a consultant to do some work in the health service, that means there is a secret agenda to privatise the health service. There you go.

You are reposting nonsense you made up. I've asked you to quote where this appears and you ignore the requests and continue to post this spin. You refuse to stipulate why you staunchly fight the very notion of the possibility of privatisation, like I'm insulting your mother, rather than discussing it like a civil person.
You've refused to answer questions on your own hyped up makey up paraphrasing. You've added nothing truthful here. You are once again fudging to derail and shut down discussion IMO.

For clarification Blanch, read this post.
It pertains to my opinion that the reason why health is in constant crisis is that they are waiting, IMO, for it to get so bad they can start privatising chunks of it off. That's my opinion. Based on a number of governments, over decades making little to no fresh new policy moves to tackle it as it gets worse. That's my analysis.
As regards bringing in consultants with a conflict of interest. That's not accusing anyone of any wrong doing. You have posted spin on that too.
Bringing in consultants is not new. Never said it was. Never said it didn't happen elsewhere. Having private consultants in place, with ties to private health would certainly ease any moves in the direction of privatisation.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.


I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

In short, successive government have overseen health get worse as they continue to enact basically the same policies. Why? I believe to let things get so bad privatisation looks good and I do believe, true to previous records for both parties, cronyism and nest feathering would undoubtedly follow. This is the modus operandi of both FF and FG.