Health System

James Brown

mariaalice wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate you giving your point of view. It's refreshing.
The overriding concern with regard to privatisation is quality of service and value for money. All too often the state seems to worry more about the immediacy of the contract while neglecting the long term issues such as quality and accountability. Not that we really do accountability with our public servants, but we at least have elections, for those of us not shareholders. Privatisation would not be a cure all but I can see the benefits for the politicians being able to dodge responsibility for any crisis.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate you giving your point of view. It's refreshing.
The overriding concern with regard to privatisation is quality of service and value for money. All too often the state seems to worry more about the immediacy of the contract while neglecting the long term issues such as quality and accountability. Not that we really do accountability with our public servants, but we at least have elections, for those of us not shareholders. Privatisation would not be a cure all but I can see the benefits for the politicians being able to dodge responsibility for any crisis.

The overriding concern with all services is value for money and quality of service, be it state funded or private anything.
Virtually all services that are state funded are also available commercially for private purchase also.
I tend to detect total left views of the state must provide everything from your views on this, like everything should be nationalised and you are using health services as a vehicle for a much wider agenda?

mariaalice

Edward M wrote: »

The overriding concern with all services is value for money and quality of service, be it state funded or private anything.
Virtually all services that are state funded are also available commercially for private purchase also.
I tend to detect total left views of the state must provide everything from your views on this, like everything should be nationalised and you are using health services as a vehicle for a much wider agenda?

Everything nationalised would be nonsense and a rather old-fashioned idea. Ther is nothing inherently wrong in privatisation as long as there are very close parameters around it and it is all open to public scrutiny.

Even minor privatisation of a service has made some people/companies spectacularly wealthy.

James Brown

Edward M wrote: »

The overriding concern with all services is value for money and quality of service, be it state funded or private anything.
Virtually all services that are state funded are also available commercially for private purchase also.
I tend to detect total left views of the state must provide everything from your views on this, like everything should be nationalised and you are using health services as a vehicle for a much wider agenda?

You are inferring and assuming a bunch of stuff here.
I've no problem with contracting out jobs of work. My concern with privatisation is accountability. Politicians can be held to account a lot more than private companies, especially if governments 'hands are tied' as we hear on occasion due to contracts entered into.
Where it makes financial sense to contract out various works we often see problems arise when the politicians delegate responsibility to private concerns.
As regards Health, I've covered my reasoning for my opinion as to why I think the goal may be privatising health.
The state must provide everything within it's remit. It is essentially a self governing administrative body answerable to the electorate. They are created and exist with no other purpose than to look after the affairs and best interests of the public.

Edward M

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are inferring and assuming a bunch of stuff here.
I've no problem with contracting out jobs of work. My concern with privatisation is accountability. Politicians can be held to account a lot more than private companies, especially if governments 'hands are tied' as we hear on occasion due to contracts entered into.
Where it makes financial sense to contract out various works we often see problems arise when the politicians delegate responsibility to private concerns.
As regards Health, I've covered my reasoning for my opinion as to why I think the goal may be privatising health.
The state must provide everything within it's remit. It is essentially a self governing administrative body answerable to the electorate. They are created and exist with no other purpose than to look after the affairs and best interests of the public.

I wasn't inferring really, just asking for clarification,
I agree of course, everything govt is responsible for they should be answerable for, no matter who they contract out the work to!

Edward M

mariaalice wrote: »

Everything nationalised would be nonsense and a rather old-fashioned idea. Ther is nothing inherently wrong in privatisation as long as there are very close parameters around it and it is all open to public scrutiny.

Even minor privatisation of a service has made some people/companies spectacularly wealthy.

True enough, but when outside contracts are given out the individual or company contracted are going to be looking for a profit of course.
I agree, sometimes it looks like these things are more of a benefit to the contractor than the taxpayer.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are inferring and assuming a bunch of stuff here.
I've no problem with contracting out jobs of work. My concern with privatisation is accountability. Politicians can be held to account a lot more than private companies, especially if governments 'hands are tied' as we hear on occasion due to contracts entered into.
Where it makes financial sense to contract out various works we often see problems arise when the politicians delegate responsibility to private concerns.
As regards Health, I've covered my reasoning for my opinion as to why I think the goal may be privatising health.
The state must provide everything within it's remit. It is essentially a self governing administrative body answerable to the electorate. They are created and exist with no other purpose than to look after the affairs and best interests of the public.

I can't find the relevant posts where you set out your reasoning for why you think the goal may be privatising health.

I have looked across various health websites, various government websites, and the only reference to privatising health in Ireland is a reference to a rant from Jack O'Connor in which he was throwing stones in a general election campaign.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fine-gael-would-privatise-health-outsource-public-transport-says-siptu-head-378878.html

The only other reference is a hilariously nonsencial rant from DDI.

https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/privatising-ireland-wrong-direction/

So zero evidence of an agenda of privatisation except for two pieces of evidence you have cited:

1 - Some consultant got hired
2 - FG are not to be trusted

You will understand if I am scratching my head still trying to understand the evidence basis for your opinion. If you had some links to FG policy papers on privatisation or think-tank outputs or even kite-flying speeches by backbenchers at summer schools, then at least I would have something to look at, but I am left puzzled by your insistence.

I don't know if you remember it but the last serious reference to privatisation in Irish politics was under the Progressive Democrats, and even they only envisaged co-location of public and private facilities, not full privatisation. That was a different time and nobody is looking to go back there. So apart from some FG bogeyman posturing by the populist left-wing opposition, I really don't see any credibility to the idea that there is a privatisation agenda for health out there.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't find the relevant posts where you set out your reasoning for why you think the goal may be privatising health.

I have looked across various health websites, various government websites, and the only reference to privatising health in Ireland is a reference to a rant from Jack O'Connor in which he was throwing stones in a general election campaign.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fine-gael-would-privatise-health-outsource-public-transport-says-siptu-head-378878.html

The only other reference is a hilariously nonsencial rant from DDI.

https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/privatising-ireland-wrong-direction/

So zero evidence of an agenda of privatisation except for two pieces of evidence you have cited:

1 - Some consultant got hired
2 - FG are not to be trusted

You will understand if I am scratching my head still trying to understand the evidence basis for your opinion. If you had some links to FG policy papers on privatisation or think-tank outputs or even kite-flying speeches by backbenchers at summer schools, then at least I would have something to look at, but I am left puzzled by your insistence.

I don't know if you remember it but the last serious reference to privatisation in Irish politics was under the Progressive Democrats, and even they only envisaged co-location of public and private facilities, not full privatisation. That was a different time and nobody is looking to go back there. So apart from some FG bogeyman posturing by the populist left-wing opposition, I really don't see any credibility to the idea that there is a privatisation agenda for health out there.

Why do you insist on this nonsense?
I will not argue against makey uppy accusations you put forward.
None of your comments above pertain to anything I have said or claimed. I believe you know this.
I suppose if you make up your own imagined arguments you'll keep yourself busy enough.
You of course ignore the broader discussion and as per usual go off on a magical mystery tour. Do you have a view on privatisation or is it all about stopping any discussion on it?

For the fourth time(?), here it is. All in English.

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.

The curious thing for me is why you fight, heels dug in on this. Disagree, by all means, but disagree with reality. I'll leave you to your fabrications.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Why do you insist on this nonsense?
I will not argue against makey uppy accusations you put forward.
None of your comments above pertain to anything I have said or claimed. I believe you know this.
I suppose if you make up your own imagined arguments you'll keep yourself busy enough.

For the fourth time(?), here it is. All in English.



The curious thing for me is why you fight, heels dug in on this. Disagree, by all means, but disagree with reality. I'll leave you to your fabrications.

This is the single premise you have put forward:

"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."

Someone else referred to is as "utter fancy". There is not a single shred of evidence put forward by you to back this up. The only thing you say is:

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

So when I rephrase your statement as

"Some consultant got appointed and FG are not to be trusted",

there is nothing inaccurate with my rephrasing. There is simply no other substance to your statement. It is quite bizarre that you keep referring back to the same post, yet won't elaborate.

It is all very well to hold an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, I am not dismissing that entitlement. However, when somone challenges the basis of your accusation, to then refuse to debate because of "makey up accusations" is bizarre.

I have looked up and down every tree, but I can only find zero evidence of a FG privatisation agenda for health. It is probably equivalent to someone else stating an opinion that if SF got elected, they would use the Irish army to invade the North.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the single premise you have put forward:

"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."

Someone else referred to is as "utter fancy". There is not a single shred of evidence put forward by you to back this up. The only thing you say is:

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

So when I rephrase your statement as

"Some consultant got appointed and FG are not to be trusted",

there is nothing inaccurate with my rephrasing. There is simply no other substance to your statement. It is quite bizarre that you keep referring back to the same post, yet won't elaborate.

It is all very well to hold an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, I am not dismissing that entitlement. However, when somone challenges the basis of your accusation, to then refuse to debate because of "makey up accusations" is bizarre.

I have looked up and down every tree, but I can only find zero evidence of a FG privatisation agenda for health. It is probably equivalent to someone else stating an opinion that if SF got elected, they would use the Irish army to invade the North.

You are making false representation of my comments to further your own strawman.
Look;

blanch152 wrote: »

....

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 see you blur and fudge and build on that. It's dishonest.

'I believe' based on the state of health. You run off and say there's no documents to back up my claim. More fudgery. I never claimed there were. It's my belief, based on the state of health and why it's not being actively tackled in any different way year on year. That's an opinion based on observation. Is english not your first language?
Look Blanch, you are boring my greatly. If you want to discuss the merits of privatisation or the fact you might think it's unlikely to ever happen, you're more than welcome. Currently all you are doing is closing down the very idea of the possibility of privaisation like it's not allowed be discussed with great vigour and vitriol for reasons best known to yourself.

blanch152 wrote: »

I have looked up and down every tree, but I can only find zero evidence of a FG privatisation agenda for health. It is probably equivalent to someone else stating an opinion that if SF got elected, they would use the Irish army to invade the North.

You're having a laugh. Basically, you don't want anybody suggesting privatisation might be on the cards and will fight tooth and nail to close down any such discussion.
I believe it's very likely the plan based on how they let things go to pot.
It seems to me if they wanted to privatise, letting things get so bad and then claiming privatising would fix everything would be the way to go about it. Bringing in vested interested private consultants to oversee policy would help in such a move IMO.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

You are making false representation of my comments to further your own strawman.
Look;



You see you blur and fudge and build on that. It's dishonest.

'I believe' based on the state of health. You run off and say there's no documents to back up my claim. More fudgery. I never claimed there were. It's my belief, based on the state of health and why it's not being actively tackled in any different way year on year. That's an opinion based on observation. Is english not your first language?
Look Blanch, you are boring my greatly. If you want to discuss the merits of privatisation or the fact you might think it's unlikely to ever happen, you're more than welcome. Currently all you are doing is closing down the very idea of the possibility of privaisation like it's not allowed be discussed with great vigour and vitriol for reasons best known to yourself.



You're having a laugh. Basically, you don't want anybody suggesting privatisation might be on the cards and will fight tooth and nail to close down any such discussion.
I believe it's very likely the plan based on how they let things go to pot.
It seems to me if they wanted to privatise, letting things get so bad and then claiming privatising would fix everything would be the way to go about it. Bringing in vested interested private consultants to oversee policy would help in such a move IMO.

I am as much in favour of discussion privatisation of the health service as I am in favour of discussing the world being round or the logistics of an Irish army invasion of Northern Ireland or the chances of Bristol City winning the Premier League.

A pointless discussion unless somebody can show some real evidence to back it up.

James Brown

blanch152 wrote: »

I am as much in favour of discussion privatisation of the health service as I am in favour of discussing the world being round or the logistics of an Irish army invasion of Northern Ireland or the chances of Bristol City winning the Premier League.

A pointless discussion unless somebody can show some real evidence to back it up.

Grand so. Yet here you are.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

@Matt Barrett & blanch152

Unless either of you has anything new to add beyond Matt's saying he believes the health service is being set up for privatistation and Blanch's saying he thinks that opinion is groundless, could you drop it please? The endless going around in circles is ruining the thread for everyone else.

James Brown

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

Mod Note

@Matt Barrett & blanch152

Unless either of you has anything new to add beyond Matt's saying he believes the health service is being set up for privatistation and Blanch's saying he thinks that opinion is groundless, could you drop it please? The endless going around in circles is ruining the thread for everyone else.

I've asked on numerous occasions for a Mod to step in. Thank you.