New politics and Sláinte Care

Slainte care is a joint 10-year plan by all the political parties bar one, so how come FF come out with slightly garbled statistics on the day of a 'launch' of something they were involved with.

Is it a sort of they are in and out by FF with new politics, also do they believe the electorate is stupid and lap that sort of thing up.

20%-25% of the population of Ireland is in need of an outpatient appointment?

Or is it new politics, old politics they don't know what way to go.

It's interesting.

James Brown

mariaalice wrote: »

Slainte care is a joint 10-year plan by all the political parties bar one, so how come FF come out with slightly garbled statistics on the day of a 'launch' of something they were involved with.

Is it a sort of they are in and out by FF with new politics also do they believe the electorate is stupid and lap that sort of thing up.

20%-25% of the population of Ireland is in need of an out appointment?

Or is it new politics, old politics they don't know what way to go.

Its interesting.

Cake and eat it. They want to be part of the cross party reform, but want to stay on the edge so they can knock any issues which may arise in the roll out.
It's in the roll out when generally good ideas falter.
What caught my eye was:

He said the Government would be spending €1bn on E-health, which allow patients to move away from paper files to everyone having an electronic health record.
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0808/983730-waiting-lists/

In 2018, I would have assumed this had been done organically over time like every other filing system in every business/industry big or small. Let's hope no sweet deal contract is crow barred in, (and where is this money coming from, no magic money tree, has to come from somewhere so elsewhere gets less and so on...nobody? Fair enough so).

One thing SF have right;

Sinn Féin TD Eoin Ó Broin has said his party wants to see the Sláintecare plan work, but he said the extent to which the public will have confidence in the Government's ability to implement Slaintecare will be reserved.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Cake and eat it. They want to be part of the cross party reform, but want to stay on the edge so they can knock any issues which may arise in the roll out.
It's in the roll out when generally good ideas falter.
What caught my eye was:



In 2018, I would have assumed this had been done organically over time like every other filing system in every business/industry big or small. Let's hope no sweet deal contract is crow barred in, (and where is this money coming from, no magic money tree, has to come from somewhere so elsewhere gets less and so on...nobody? Fair enough so).

One thing SF have right;

Based on what I've read to date, €1bn is a capital expenditure number. You pay it once, and that's it. It may mean deferring spend on some other capital item for a year, or one-off borrowing. Same as investing in road or public transport infrastructure.

When people make comments about the "money tree" it's generally about proposals to increase annual current spending - that means that the Govt has the find the same amount every year, not just a one off.
That's where you get into the dilemas of either cutting ongoing spending on something else, raising taxes, or borrowing every year into infinity (or of course, shaking down the magic money tree ).


As for sweet deals? Well they will definitely need to bring in IT consultants to build the system. I'm sure that we'll have the usual voices in the media, (and the spokesperson from whichever parties in opposition at the time :rolleyes:) claiming that it's automatically a rip-off because they can use the magic "consultant" word.

Of course, they'll ignore the fact that none of the various Govt departments or State agencies would have anything like the expertise needed to implement such a system, and that tendering to bring in experts to implement a system like that is actually both the most cost effective and the most operationally sound in the long run.

The other risk for "sweet deals" will be when we have the INMO, SIPTU, and all the other unions in the HSE demanding additional pay for using the new system. Whatever about the media, our politicians won't be as quick to crow about "sweet deals" and waste when the public sector unions are involved, despite the fact that any increases like this would be a permanent ongoing cost, instead of a one-off.

I'd tend to agree with SF's comment as well - but I'd qualify it by saying I don't think there's a political party in the country that I'd have much faith in for a project of this scale.

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

Based on what I've read to date, €1bn is a capital expenditure number. You pay it once, and that's it. It may mean deferring spend on some other capital item for a year, or one-off borrowing. Same as investing in road or public transport infrastructure.

When people make comments about the "money tree" it's generally about proposals to increase annual current spending - that means that the Govt has the find the same amount every year, not just a one off.
That's where you get into the dilemas of either cutting ongoing spending on something else, raising taxes, or borrowing every year into infinity (or of course, shaking down the magic money tree ).


As for sweet deals? Well they will definitely need to bring in IT consultants to build the system. I'm sure that we'll have the usual voices in the media, (and the spokesperson from whichever parties in opposition at the time :rolleyes:) claiming that it's automatically a rip-off because they can use the magic "consultant" word.

Of course, they'll ignore the fact that none of the various Govt departments or State agencies would have anything like the expertise needed to implement such a system, and that tendering to bring in experts to implement a system like that is actually both the most cost effective and the most operationally sound in the long run.

The other risk for "sweet deals" will be when we have the INMO, SIPTU, and all the other unions in the HSE demanding additional pay for using the new system. Whatever about the media, our politicians won't be as quick to crow about "sweet deals" and waste when the public sector unions are involved, despite the fact that any increases like this would be a permanent ongoing cost, instead of a one-off.

I'd tend to agree with SF's comment as well - but I'd qualify it by saying I don't think there's a political party in the country that I'd have much faith in for a project of this scale.

Is it? I disagree. It's used for any sum intended for a spend on something someone doesn't like.

Nope. We use consultants in every area. It's just these people, FG and FF, have a bad track record in such things and as referenced by SF, the public will be rightly reserved. We'll see how it pans out.

You seem to misunderstand the role of unions, they do right by their members. That's their job. It's for government, local and national to look after the tax payer. The unions are not in existence to get you or I a good deal. They'd be terrible at their job if they put the tax payer above their own members.

All your loaded twists on my post and eye rolls aside; no government agency or personnel for that matter have the capability of a low level data entry employee? It can be done quite easily. We've already got national level databases. I'm genuinely surprised it wasn't already common place. It's a task I'd say should be made a project, can be justified in being outsourced, but as I say, FF and FG have a shady past in such matters with cronyism and quangos so it's normal to be a little apprehensive. I hope the tax payer gets value for money is all.

blackwhite

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Is it? I disagree. It's used for any sum intended for a spend on something someone doesn't like.

Nope. We use consultants in every area. It's just these people, FG and FF, have a bad track record in such things and as referenced by SF, the public will be rightly reserved. We'll see how it pans out.

You seem to misunderstand the role of unions, they do right by their members. That's their job. It's for government, local and national to look after the tax payer. The unions are not in existence to get you or I a good deal. They'd be terrible at their job if they put the tax payer above their own members.

All your loaded twists on my post and eye rolls aside; no government agency or personnel for that matter have the capability of a low level data entry employee? It can be done quite easily. We've already got national level databases. I'm genuinely surprised it wasn't already common place. It's a task I'd say should be made a project, can be justified in being outsourced, but as I say, FF and FG have a shady past in such matters with cronyism and quangos so it's normal to be a little apprehensive. I hope the tax payer gets value for money is all.

In the same sentence as you make accusations about twisting posts, you then come out with a doozy like that? There aren't enough rolleyes in the world for BS like that TBH

I very clearly stated the Govt "will definitely need to bring in IT consultants to build the system." Following on to say that they don't have the expertise in-house to implement the systems is fairly obviously in relation to the development of the system. But of course - twist the point to try and get some petty digs in :rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect the unions to do anything but to gouge the taxpayer to the hilt - but if you'd bothered to read my post instead of reading the username and deciding to go on the offensive, then you'd see my criticism wasn't of the unions, it was of how all of our political parties have a stunning ability to go silent when the unions make stupid demands like those (but hey - a few more petty personal digs about "understanding the role of unions" is a hell of a lot more important than actual honest debate :rolleyes:).
If we had any politicians willing to stand up to the public sector unions then frivolous union demands wouldn't be a problem.

James Brown

blackwhite wrote: »

In the same sentence as you make accusations about twisting posts, you then come out with a doozy like that? There aren't enough rolleyes in the world for BS like that TBH

I very clearly stated the Govt "will definitely need to bring in IT consultants to build the system." Following on to say that they don't have the expertise in-house to implement the systems is fairly obviously in relation to the development of the system. But of course - twist the point to try and get some petty digs in :rolleyes:

I wouldn't expect the unions to do anything but to gouge the taxpayer to the hilt - but if you'd bothered to read my post instead of reading the username and deciding to go on the offensive, then you'd see my criticism wasn't of the unions, it was of how all of our political parties have a stunning ability to go silent when the unions make stupid demands like those (but hey - a few more petty personal digs about "understanding the role of unions" is a hell of a lot more important than actual honest debate :rolleyes:).
If we had any politicians willing to stand up to the public sector unions then frivolous union demands wouldn't be a problem.

I'd call that a question. I did add to it. You really need take it as it's written not how you imagine it. Let's lose the adversarial vent.
I have been in a situation where some experts would be brought in to work with and set up new systems, on a grand scale. I've also been in situations where a contractor is brought in to set up similar projects and stayed on to train staff already in place on the use of it. So there are many ways we could utilise staff already on the tax payer payroll. There may not be a need to either set up a quango or hire an outside company ongoing to set up and administer such a project. Again, if we do use consultants, that's grand and common place but based on the track records of FF and FG some caution is to be expected.

The other risk for "sweet deals" will be when we have the INMO, SIPTU, and all the other unions in the HSE demanding additional pay for using the new system.

Pointing out that's union's job. It's not a risk. The only risk is how our public representatives deal with it. The only risk here is will government have our back or have some crony deal that isn't the best for the tax payer.

So you like to post comments but anyone responding can't build on the discussion just stay within the confines you reference? No thanks. That's pretty black and white IMO.

Basically, we'll look at the roll out with caution. I'm surprised we aren't already using a nationalised health database. It's pretty embarrassing in 2018.

Roger_007

Surprisingly, Apple Pie and Motherhood don't appear in the plan.::rolleyes:

markodaly

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Nope. We use consultants in every area. It's just these people, FG and FF, have a bad track record in such things and as referenced by SF, the public will be rightly reserved. We'll see how it pans out.

Well for a start, FF or FG people do not run these projects. They are just the guys who sign off on it and trust the civil servants and whatever firm doing the actual work are competent enough to finish the project as intended and on budget.

Projects like these are notoriously difficult, for a multitude of reasons and Ireland is no exception to the rule. The Swedes canceled a police case management IT project in 2014, at a cost of $35 million. The UK canceled an e-borders IT project after the guts of a €1 billion was spent on it.

There are people out there with Phd's earned from having done research into why government IT projects fail so often.

So, it's not the case of FF or FG people to blame for these failures per say, its mostly do with the terms of reference for the project, sliding requirements and the red tape/bureaucracy that comes with having to deal with various departments.

Ireland's public government IT infrastructure is almost 3rd world, precisely because TD's and ministers know that projects are doomed to fail, the civil servants responsible are nameless while the TD, Minster or party gets the blame. So, they shun investment into something very worthwhile, as its just too risky from a PR point of view.

Hopefully, lessons will be learned in any future public IT project, as we desperately need it to run the state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_failed_and_overbudget_custom_software_projects

You seem to misunderstand the role of unions, they do right by their members. That's their job. It's for government, local and national to look after the tax payer. The unions are not in existence to get you or I a good deal. They'd be terrible at their job if they put the tax payer above their own members.

Exhibit A on why government IT projects fail

Good loser

Roger_007 wrote: »

Surprisingly, Apple Pie and Motherhood don't appear in the plan.::rolleyes:

Don't see this plan ever working. It will fail even before it's implemented.


Essentially it seems to be an attempt to introduce the British NHS system into Ireland. At a time when that system is in crisis.

Jolly Red Giant

Good loser wrote: »

Essentially it seems to be an attempt to introduce the British NHS system into Ireland.

No it isn't - its a hamfisted attempt to paper over the cracks

Good loser wrote: »

At a time when that system is in crisis.

The NHS is in crisis because it has faced nearly four decades of slash and burn Thatcherite/Blairite cuts and privatisation (and despite this is in substantially better shape than the Irish health service).