Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

General Irish Government discussion thread [See Post 1805]

Options
1…8283858788…93

Comments

  • Options
    #2522
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    You are not a stupid perdon so why ask stupid questions.

    Obviously there was no need to use ALL the private hospitals, surely the sensible thing to do was use them in sequence. As the reach capacity in one use the next. In the meantime almost all the private hospitals could have continued to perform day surgeries and elective operations for both public and private patients. Unfortunately they could not even do that as the agreement precluded them from doing that.

    So if the private hospitals were not able to use those empty beds, do you not think i sensible that the government utilised those beds, for things such as segregation, day surgeries and minor elective operations being that they decided to pre-pay and pre-book for all those beds?

    Basically the government feck'd up in a truly massive way.
    They were absolutely right to have used their power to commandeer hospital beds as they were required and make the private hospitals be prepared to turn over beds to the public health service at short notice, but block book them as they did and then have those bed sat there totally unused by both the private and public health service was not only a complete waste of money, it was also counter productive.

    The private hospitals could have continued to provide short term health care to private patients and at full cost to the government for public patients as well. Instead we had the majority of the beds in private hospitals left empty and not used at all.

    Do you see my point? I m not arguing that the government should not have had the option to commandeer all those beds, my argument is that they booked all those beds and did not use them, and prevented the private hospitals form using them too even though they could easily have cleared beds within two or three days notice.


    You do realize what you have described is what the HSE and government did. They used the beds in the public hospitals and once they would fill up they would start to use the private beds. But they never got to a situation to fill up the public hospitals so the private was used for other patients so they didnt have to go to a affected hospital


    So basically your "fcuked" up government done more or less exactly what you describe. Only they had a better plan not to use any private hospitals for covid at all till they required.

    The more hospitals with covid in it was a bad thing, you do understand that? once it is in the hospital it is probably very hard to get out. Plus the risk of staff getting it increases

    You plan is instead of trying to limit hospitals with covid was to increase the hospital and staff to have exposure? sorry but it is absolutely bonkers


  • Options
    #2523
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    You do realize what you have described is what the HSE and government did. They used the beds in the public hospitals and once they would fill up they would start to use the private beds. But they never got to a situation to fill up the public hospitals so the private was used for other patients so they didnt have to go to a affected hospital


    So basically your "fcuked" up government done more or less exactly what you describe. Only they had a better plan not to use any private hospitals for covid at all till they required.

    The more hospitals with covid in it was a bad thing, you do understand that? once it is in the hospital it is probably very hard to get out. Plus the risk of staff getting it increases

    You plan is instead of trying to limit hospitals with covid was to increase the hospital and staff to have exposure? sorry but it is absolutely bonkers

    So let me understand you properly.

    What you are stating is the beds in private hospitals were being used for private health care, but the government got charged for them anyhow?

    I have been waiting for a minor opp to fix (hopefully) a torn tendon. The reason I have been told there is a a massive delay is that the private hospital cannot take new patients because although there are beds empty, those beds have been booked and paid for by the government. Are you telling me that the hospital in question is flat out lying to me?


  • Options
    #2524
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    So let me understand you properly.

    What you are stating is the beds in private hospitals were being used for private health care, but the government got charged for them anyhow?

    I have been waiting for a minor opp to fix (hopefully) a torn tendon. The reason I have been told there is a a massive delay is that the private hospital cannot take new patients because although there are beds empty, those beds have been booked and paid for by the government. Are you telling me that the hospital in question is flat out lying to me?


    I think the point here is "minor". So much for everyone in it together.


    As I mentioned, which loads of people have backed up the private hospital ahve been used by people that need them. Ask around, common knowledge



    If you had a serious issue they would have seen you.


  • Options
    #2525
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I think the point here is "minor". So much for everyone in it together.


    As I mentioned, which loads of people have backed up the private hospital ahve been used by people that need them. Ask around, common knowledge



    If you had a serious issue they would have seen you.

    So why are the government paying for beds that are already being used?

    There's approximately 2000 beds in private hospital, the government is paying 108 to 112 million per month. That's roughly €1850 per night per bed plus additional expenses for treatment etc.


  • Options
    #2526
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    You do realize what you have described is what the HSE and government did. They used the beds in the public hospitals and once they would fill up they would start to use the private beds. But they never got to a situation to fill up the public hospitals so the private was used for other patients so they didnt have to go to a affected hospital


    So basically your "fcuked" up government done more or less exactly what you describe. Only they had a better plan not to use any private hospitals for covid at all till they required.

    The more hospitals with covid in it was a bad thing, you do understand that? once it is in the hospital it is probably very hard to get out. Plus the risk of staff getting it increases

    You plan is instead of trying to limit hospitals with covid was to increase the hospital and staff to have exposure? sorry but it is absolutely bonkers


    Shef, you have to remember that the poster in question has been arguing for a constitutional change to resolve the issue we have at the minute (re. "caretaker govt") as it is apparently unconstitiutional. This is despite the constitution laying out exactly the rules in which we are currently operating.

    ---

    I remember when the govt effectively nationalised the private hospitals overnight and it was lauded. It was always going to cost money. And it is a significant chunk of change. But it isn't insurmountable.

    Personally I would prefer if all healthcare was public, but it's not at present, and as it stands the govt have to compensate the private hospitals. Whinging about it now is pointless.

    Aren't we better off having them and not needing them than needing them and not having them? How much would you have put on the lives that may have been lost as a result of the virus getting out of control and overwhelming the system as it was while private hospitals lay empty and inaccessable?
    [This is not aimed at you Shef fyi]


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2527
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    I know not aimed at me

    The private hospitals did stop the spread. People still needed treatments during covid, bringing 100's of people into affected hospitals would only increase the spread. Keeping them seperate made sense and also allowed some patients the options to see specialist which normally would have huge waiting lists.

    No idea why someone would complain

    Putting infected patients into those hospitals would be idiotic.


  • Options
    #2528
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Shef, you have to remember that the poster in question has been arguing for a constitutional change to resolve the issue we have at the minute (re. "caretaker govt") as it is apparently unconstitiutional. This is despite the constitution laying out exactly the rules in which we are currently operating.

    ---

    I remember when the govt effectively nationalised the private hospitals overnight and it was lauded. It was always going to cost money. And it is a significant chunk of change. But it isn't insurmountable.

    Personally I would prefer if all healthcare was public, but it's not at present, and as it stands the govt have to compensate the private hospitals. Whinging about it now is pointless.

    Aren't we better off having them and not needing them than needing them and not having them? How much would you have put on the lives that may have been lost as a result of the virus getting out of control and overwhelming the system as it was while private hospitals lay empty and inaccessable?
    [This is not aimed at you Shef fyi]

    Im not whinge about a government paying for services rendered. Whether they be public or private hospitals every treatment costs money and I will happily continue to pay taxes, even accept that taxes my need to rise, if the money spent delivers something.

    I object to the government committing themselves to spending such massive amounts when in reality there was no need to do so. As stated before the government could have simply put the private hospitals on notice that they could be commandeered at any time on 3 or 4 days notice and be paid fully for that.

    If what Shefwedfan say is true then these beds that the government have already pre-booked and paid for are still being used by the private hospitals. In effect we the tax payer are paying for absolutely nothing.


  • Options
    #2529
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Shef, you have to remember that the poster in question has been arguing for a constitutional change to resolve the issue we have at the minute (re. "caretaker govt") as it is apparently unconstitiutional. This is despite the constitution laying out exactly the rules in which we are currently operating.


    No I never once stated anything about a caretaker government being unconstitutional. Surely that was the point of the thread, the constitution has nothing to say about the situation we are currently in. My argument was that surely there should be some sort of provision so that a president could call elections if he/she feels that no progress is being made on forming a government, or that legislation could be passed despite no taoiseach being elected.

    Come the end of the month legislation required to extend government department budgets, and the special criminal courts will not be able to take place if a government has not already been formed as a consequence of this

    I'm not demanding a specific solution, I'm just advocating that a solution should be agreed by the dail and an amendment be put before the people..


  • Options
    #2530
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    Im not whinge about a government paying for services rendered. Whether they be public or private hospitals every treatment costs money and I will happily continue to pay taxes, even accept that taxes my need to rise, if the money spent delivers something.

    I object to the government committing themselves to spending such massive amounts when in reality there was no need to do so. As stated before the government could have simply put the private hospitals on notice that they could be commandeered at any time on 3 or 4 days notice and be paid fully for that.

    If what Shefwedfan say is true then these beds that the government have already pre-booked and paid for are still being used by the private hospitals. In effect we the tax payer are paying for absolutely nothing.

    Are you serious? What are you rambling about?

    It’s clear you haven’t a clue about the situation. I’m no expert but at least I bothered to actually check and ask what is going on

    I’m not explaining again how the private hospitals are been used. Waste of time


  • Options
    #2531
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Are you serious? What are you rambling about?

    It’s clear you haven’t a clue about the situation. I’m no expert but at least I bothered to actually check and ask what is going on

    I’m not explaining again how the private hospitals are been used. Waste of time

    Its a simple question really. Did the Irish government pay for and pre book the beds in private hospitals?

    If not why are they spend 100+ million a month?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2532
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    efanton wrote: »
    Im not whinge about a government paying for services rendered. Whether they be public or private hospitals every treatment costs money and I will happily continue to pay taxes, even accept that taxes my need to rise, if the money spent delivers something.

    I object to the government committing themselves to spending such massive amounts when in reality there was no need to do so. As stated before the government could have simply put the private hospitals on notice that they could be commandeered at any time on 3 or 4 days notice and be paid fully for that.

    If what Shefwedfan say is true then these beds that the government have already pre-booked and paid for are still being used by the private hospitals. In effect we the tax payer are paying for absolutely nothing.

    We're not paying for absolutely nothing.

    We paid for hosputal beds that we thankfully didn't need to use. Look at the UK and all their lauded "Nightingale Hospitals". What about all of our test centres we didn't need?

    Every penny was "wasted" if you apply your metric for value to it.

    I agree that there might have been a better way in hindsight, but as it stood in March we were in the shítter. This is peanuts considering where we were potentially going.


  • Options
    #2533
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    efanton wrote: »
    No I never once stated anything about a caretaker government being unconstitutional. Surely that was the point of the thread, the constitution has nothing to say about the situation we are currently in. My argument was that surely there should be some sort of provision so that a president could call elections if he/she feels that no progress is being made on forming a government, or that legislation could be passed despite no taoiseach being elected.

    What?

    If the constitution said nothing about the current situation then it would be by definition unconstitutional.

    We do not have a "caretaker/acting government" or "caretaker/acting Taoiseach". These are not terms with any value.


    Politicising the President is not the solution.

    What difference does giving the President an ACTIVE in government formation matter?

    Come the end of the month legislation required to extend government department budgets, and the special criminal courts will not be able to take place if a government has not already been formed as a consequence of this

    Right?

    Do you know what the SCC is?
    I'm not demanding a specific solution, I'm just advocating that a solution should be agreed by the dail and an amendment be put before the people..

    We could try get rid of the Seanad again?


  • Options
    #2534
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    What?

    If the constitution said nothing about the current situation then it would be by definition unconstitutional.

    We do not have a "caretaker/acting government" or "caretaker/acting Taoiseach". These are not terms with any value.


    Politicising the President is not the solution.

    What difference does giving the President an ACTIVE in government formation matter?




    Right?

    Do you know what the SCC is?



    We could try get rid of the Seanad again?

    What are you waffling about. Acting this acting that.

    We have a situation where the previous government holds office but cannot enact any legalisation until a new Taoiseach and government are elected. Thats it. full stop. We have minister that arent even elected TD's anymore.
    In that situation how do you bring forward a vote of no confidence if it was thought necessary. How does the existing Taoiseach replace a minister if he thought that necessary too?

    Do you not think that 4 months is an extreme amount of time for any government to be formed?
    Do you not think that had that constitution change been in place that it would have lit a fire under those that now think the could form a government. They took their own sweet time even starting talks let alone progressing them. And thats not a jab at just FG, FF and the Greens dilly dallied for nearly two months.
    A constitutional change like that would benefit no party. SF no doubt will be in government soon enough and it will affect them in exactly the same way.
    Just because a president might have the power to call for new elections it certainly doesnt mean that is what they will do. They would have to use their own judgement and the advice of their counsel as to whether such a move was warranted. But it certainly would be in the country's interest for him/her to have that stick to speed things up.

    Yes I am well aware of what the SCC is. I dont hold with those that want is got rid of. It certainly does need better oversight, some reform is required, but it is necessary especially when trying to convict those that keep their own hands clean, have perfect alibi's but get their criminal acts performed by others. Very hard for the gardai to build a case in those situations that would stand up in a normal court of law.


    I agree with you about the Seanad. What relevance does it have other to rubber stamp the work of the Dail. When was the last time the Seanad actually rejected a bill? I cant recall any such situation.


  • Options
    #2535
    markodaly
    Registered Users Posts: 13,952 ✭✭✭✭markodaly


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Shef, you have to remember that the poster in question has been arguing for a constitutional change to resolve the issue we have at the minute (re. "caretaker govt") as it is apparently unconstitiutional. This is despite the constitution laying out exactly the rules in which we are currently operating.

    ---

    This!

    There is too much 'What if',' What about' and Monday morning quarterbacking going on at the moment by the very same people who would be giving out anyway.


  • Options
    #2536
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    Its a simple question really. Did the Irish government pay for and pre book the beds in private hospitals?

    If not why are they spend 100+ million a month?

    Already asked and answered. Going in circles ain’t going to change it


  • Options
    #2537
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    markodaly wrote: »
    ---

    This!

    There is too much 'What if',' What about' and Monday morning quarterbacking going on at the moment by the very same people who would be giving out anyway.

    It’s the new politics. Instead of looking at the US and saying saying that’s a complete s**t storm. No we have some parties and followers who have decided to replicate that model and it’s all about trying to put everyone in a box and the let them fight against each other

    Catholic, unionist, partitionsit etc etc etc Fired out daily here


  • Options
    #2538
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    markodaly wrote: »
    ---

    This!

    There is too much 'What if',' What about' and Monday morning quarterbacking going on at the moment by the very same people who would be giving out anyway.

    The high lighted term is unconstitutional in Ireland. The correct term is 'hurler on the ditch'.

    Please reread the constitution.


  • Options
    #2539
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    The high lighted term is unconstitutional in Ireland. The correct term is 'hurler on the ditch'.

    Please reread the constitution.


    You can always spot a rugby person will use that term :-)


  • Options
    #2540
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    You can always spot a rugby person will use that term :-)
    "Quarterback" is a term from American football. Rugby teams don't have quarterbacks; they have fly-halves.


  • Options
    #2541
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    "Quarterback" is a term from American football. Rugby teams don't have quarterbacks; they have fly-halves.

    And full backs - not to mention 13 other positions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2542
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,056 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    And full backs - not to mention 13 other positions.
    Yes, but the fly-half is the one that most closely approximates to the role of the quarterback in the American game.

    Not a lot of Irish rugby fand would know (or care) about that, though. Quarterbacking isn't a term that I'd associate with rugby fans; more with people who mainly inform themselves by participating in US-dominated social media channels, and so are influenced by the language and idioms used there.


  • Options
    #2543
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Already asked and answered. Going in circles ain’t going to change it

    but it wasn't answered was it.

    I'm not looking for your opinion, I'm looking for supporting evidence.


  • Options
    #2544
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    markodaly wrote: »
    ---

    This!

    There is too much 'What if',' What about' and Monday morning quarterbacking going on at the moment by the very same people who would be giving out anyway.

    I find it funny that your would make that argument, considering that you constantly berate other parties or people posting on this board for not think things through

    The 'what if's' should have been asked by the ministers or Taoiseach BEFORE they implement policy, or commit themselves to agreements.

    After all the questions being asked now could easily have been foreseeable at the time of entering the agreement. Did the government know they needed all the beds whey they entered that agreement, NO. So surely they could have looked at the scenario of all beds being required and very few beds being required and tailored their agreement appropriately. Was that such an intellectual jump that poor old Simon Harris could not handle it?

    even the private hospitals were complaining that not enough patients were being sent to them.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/coronavirus-private-hospitals-threaten-to-pull-out-of-state-deal-1.4253879

    We had consultants complaining they could not treat patients that desperately needed treatment because of this agreement despite beds being left empty and private hospitals under utilised.

    So no you haven't answered any question, nor have the government really answered the truly relevant questions. Nor would they release the agreement in full which is a very strange response being that releasing the agreement would answer all questions and put an end to any questioning. Why do that?

    So where's your evidence backing your claims or am I supposed to accept that your opinion trumps everyone else and indeed any fact.


  • Options
    #2545
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    but it wasn't answered was it.

    I'm not looking for your opinion, I'm looking for supporting evidence.


    Ring your local TD so


  • Options
    #2546
    efanton
    Registered Users Posts: 1,164 ✭✭✭efanton


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Ring your local TD so

    Exactly the type of response I expected.

    So why jump in on a comment on this board if you are not prepared to back up your own claims.

    I can only assume its is because there is no evidence whatsoever to do that.


  • Options
    #2547
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    efanton wrote: »
    Exactly the type of response I expected.

    So why jump in on a comment on this board if you are not prepared to back up your own claims.

    I can only assume its is because there is no evidence whatsoever to do that.


    Its been explained, your unwilling to accept because you dont like the answer so off you go


  • Options
    #2548
    Scoundrel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    You do realise it doesn't become free to operate if you buy it?

    Of course I do but 25 million for 6 months is absolutely ludicrous the taxpayer has been shafted here as usual to benefit a private business.


  • Options
    #2549
    Chips Lovell
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,267 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chips Lovell


    efanton wrote: »
    After all the questions being asked now could easily have been foreseeable at the time of entering the agreement. Did the government know they needed all the beds whey they entered that agreement, NO. So surely they could have looked at the scenario of all beds being required and very few beds being required and tailored their agreement appropriately.

    So instead of a block takeover of entire hospitals for the period, you reckon they should have had a more flexible arrangement and only acquired as many beds as they needed at a particular time?

    Was such a deal on offer? And was it possible from a practical perspective, e.g. can you go from taking 10% capacity one week to 50% the next, can COVID and non-COVID patients share facilities like this, etcl?


  • Options
    #2550
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Scoundrel wrote: »
    Of course I do but 25 million for 6 months is absolutely ludicrous the taxpayer has been shafted here as usual to benefit a private business.


    Its a case of supply and demand. It is not like Ireland has millions of hospitals waiting around for a crisis.

    The other option was to spend millions like the UK building a hospital which doesn't get used


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2551
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,921 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Its a case of supply and demand. It is not like Ireland has millions of hospitals waiting around for a crisis.

    The other option was to spend millions like the UK building a hospital which doesn't get used

    I think we both know that anything the government did would have been criticised by these very same people.

    If they paid 10m for 6months or whatever it will still be "too much".

    The contracts should be scrutinised of course, and they will, by the C&AG in time.


Advertisement