Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

That's not what I said at all - I said that the existence of the private system in its current form is detrimental to the quality of public system - and that people should not be able to 'buy' their way into preferential treatment.

Explain to me what you think the purpose of the public system is?

Is it universality or quality or affordability?

TheCitizen

IAMAMORON wrote: »

SláinteCare is just a rebrand of the HSE.

Oh right so you know more about this than the all party committee and the team of experts that commissioned and proposed Slainte Care?

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Stop with the patronising already. This thread has already recognised ( I hope ) that universal healthcare is already currently offered by the state.

Slainte Care is proposing a one tier system (which you belittle and disagree with) is the point.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Private healthcare has always been an option. This will not change if Slaintecare becomes a thing.

Healthcare with plush hotel like facilities will still be there if people want to pay privately for it but the point is the system of healthcare will be a one tier system. Is this difficult for you?

IAMAMORON wrote: »

This is a discussion, it is not an opportunity for you to antagonise or pigeon hole posters into some sort of stereotype, so enough with the patronising tone please. You have no idea of who I vote for or if I even vote at all. This thread is about private hospital ownership. If you want to bash FFG please go somewhere else, I find it really boring.

Stop telling me what to do please. I am happy to discuss things but I won't give you the opportunity to tell me how or where I can live my life.

You said the following; "It is obvious from some of the left wing ideology being spewed all over this thread that the posters endorsing a "one tier" health system haven't a clue what they are talking about."


Slainte Care says the following; "The Sláintecare vision is to achieve a universal single-tier health and social care system where everyone has equal access to services based on need, and not ability to pay.
"



It's no wonder you're going to come on here and belittle Slainte Care a document which is supported across the political spectrum in Ireland as merely a "rebranding exercise" for the HSE. The cheek of you and the irony then to accuse others of not having a clue what they're talking about or of being patronising :pac:.

KyussB

Sean.3516 wrote: »

...

We're not on the Philosophy forum, I'm not interested in Libertarian waffle.

The government already has the powers needed to legislate nationalization of private hospitals and health insurers, if a majority passes.

CtevenSrowder

KyussB wrote: »

We're not on the Philosophy forum, I'm not interested in Libertarian waffle.

The government already has the powers needed to legislate nationalization of private hospitals and health insurers, if a majority passes.

If your supposed reforms to the HSE don't happen, and we're all left worse off, what then?

Salary Negotiator

KyussB wrote: »

The government already has the powers needed to legislate nationalization of private hospitals and health insurers, if a majority passes.

And then the President could refer the bill to the SC for them to decide on the legality of it.

We’re in an Emergency now and the owners have agreed so there’s no issue buts it’s very unlikely such a move would be constitutional in the normal course of events.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

We're not on the Philosophy forum, I'm not interested in Libertarian waffle.

The government already has the powers needed to legislate nationalization of private hospitals and health insurers, if a majority passes.

As I said towards the end of my perhaps too long winded post above, the Irish Constitution does have a fundamental right to property which can be limited in the interest of the public good in certain circumstances such as "town and regional planning, protection of national monuments, compulsory acquisition of land and property taxes". So you actually can't just use the "public good" or CPOs as an excuse to nationalise entire industries. https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/government_in_ireland/irish_constitution_1/constitution_fundamental_rights.html

After researching it a bit more, I found out the Irish Constitution actually deals quite heavily with the natural rights I talked about above, more so than I thought it did.

Sean.3516

Salary Negotiator wrote: »

And then the President could refer the bill to the SC for them to decide on the legality of it.

We’re in an Emergency now and the owners have agreed so there’s no issue buts it’s very unlikely such a move would be constitutional in the normal course of events.

True, although the Supreme Court ought to be used as a final check on the constitutionality of something as opposed to the initial litmus test. Judicial review is notoriously fallible and shouldn't be solely relied on.

There are constitutional lawyers in government who's jobs it is to advise law makers on this before legislation is introduced.

Salary Negotiator

Sean.3516 wrote: »

True, although the Supreme Court ought to be used as a final check on the constitutionality of something as opposed to the initial litmus test. Judicial review is notoriously fallible and shouldn't be solely relied on.

There are constitutional lawyers in government who's jobs it is to advise law makers on this before legislation is introduced.

Absolutely, I was really just pointing out that just because legislation has passed the Dail doesn’t mean it automatically is law.

KyussB

The existing CPO laws provide all the power the state needs. There's widespread legal agreement in the case of the National Maternity Hospital, that this is perfectly doable.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

The existing CPO laws provide all the power the state needs. There's widespread legal agreement in the case of the National Maternity Hospital, that this is perfectly doable.

CPOs apply to land or property, not businesses. What is the point of doing a CPO on an empty building that used to be a hospital?

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

The existing CPO laws provide all the power the state needs. There's widespread legal agreement in the case of the National Maternity Hospital, that this is perfectly doable.

I wrote a lengthy post about how you cannot use a CPO to take over a business and I linked to the Citizen’s Information website that’s explicitly when and how Compulsory Purchase Orders are to be applied.

I’ll copy and paste it in again for you:

“
The purpose of CPOs are to buy land to remove obstructions to public infrastructure projects order to further the public good. It's highly irregular that they'd be used to purchase a company. There are actually a lot of safeguards around how they are done. According to Citizensinformation.ie when it comes to compensation:
"You should be left in the same financial position after the CPO as you were before the process".https://www.citizensin...nd_compensation.html

I fail to see how this would be the case if a private healthcare company was bought by the state. Given that a company, unlike a piece of land is worth more to its owner than the market value of its assets. If you take over a company you've also taken over all future income from the owner that would have come from the company. I bet there's a good case against using CPOs to nationalise industries.
“

KyussB

You haven't explained how a CPO can't take over private hospitals. Taking over a business is another matter - which the state has done many times in the past, laws on nationalization are pretty varied - and which (taking over the business itself) likely isn't even strictly necessary here.

You can wrangle over the minutiae all you want: The state has all the power it needs to de-facto and effectively take over private hospitals.

Geuze

TheCitizen wrote: »

Slainte Care is proposing a one tier system (which you belittle and disagree with) is the point.

AFAIK, Slaintecare plans to remove private practice from public hosps.

But private hosps and consultants working in both public and private hosps won't change, AFAIK.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

You can wrangle over the minutiae all you want: The state has all the power it needs to de-facto and effectively take over private hospitals.

If the State bought all private hosps in 2020, what's to stop a new private hosp opening in 2022?

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Consultants in the public system being allowed to see private patients, is competition between the public and private sector - also leading to preferential treatment for private patients - and that's not the only way there's competition between the two health systems.

One of a myriad of ways that people are allowed to buy their way to preferential treatment - which must be permanently stopped.

The reason these contracts were first introduced was due to the fear that consultants would leave if they weren't allowed private practice here, as well as their public job.

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

Anything that is essential, should be 100% public, with no private option - as that's the only way to ensure a fair health system.

Should the production, distribution and sale of food be 100% organised, financed and provided by the State?

The implication of your statement is YES, the production, distribution and sale of food should be 100% organised, financed and provided by the State.

Food is essential, that is true.

"Anything that is essential should be 100% public".

The language here is somewhat vague, but the implication is that all farms and food plants should be owned and operated by the State.


There is an economic rationale for the State to intervene in the production and allocation of healthcare.

There is an economic rationale for limited State intervention in food production, e.g. hygiene standards, labelling, etc.

Salary Negotiator

Geuze wrote: »

Should the production, distribution and sale of food be 100% organised, financed and provided by the State?

Education too?

Junkyard Tom

Geuze wrote: »

Should the production, distribution and sale of food be 100% organised, financed and provided by the State?

Should the organ transplant arrangements be privatised?

This has been covered earlier in the thread.

Geuze

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Should the organ transplant arrangements be privatised?

There is an economic rationale for State intervention in healthcare.

So, it is likely that organ transplants may happen in State-financed and/or State-provided hosps, as well as hosps owned by other providers.

Junkyard Tom

Geuze wrote: »

So, it is likely that organ transplants may happen in State-financed and/or State-provided hosps, as well as hosps owned by other providers.

Leave the 'free market' deal with organ transplants, when an organ becomes available for transplant, let it be auctioned to the highest bidder.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

You haven't explained how a CPO can't take over private hospitals.

Yes I did. I said in the last post: CPOs are for getting rid of obstructions to public infrastructure projects. It’s right there explicitly stated on the Citizen’s Info site.

Unless the government wants to demolish the hospital to build a motorway, they can’t take it over with a CPO.

KyussB wrote: »

Taking over a business is another matter - which the state has done many times in the past, laws on nationalization are pretty varied - and which (taking over the business itself) likely isn't even strictly necessary here.

We‘ve had state owned and part-state owned companies in this country. We’ve had state-sponsored monopolies done through licensing legislation of bus companies for instance. We’ve never had the government forcibly take over a privately owned company in the way you’re suggesting.

KyussB wrote: »

You can wrangle over the minutiae all you want: The state has all the power it needs to de-facto and effectively take over private hospitals.

I’m telling you what the Citizen’s Information website says about CPOs and it directly contradicts what you’re saying.

KyussB

Except the National Maternity Hospital - and a wide history of previous varied CPO's - contradicts that. You've no evidence for those restrictions.

Don't mix up CPO's with nationalization of businesses.

ohnonotgmail

KyussB wrote: »

Except the National Maternity Hospital - and a wide history of previous varied CPO's - contradicts that. You've no evidence for those restrictions.

Don't mix up CPO's with nationalization of businesses.

does the state own the national maternity hospital? I dont believe they do. they certainly pay for it but do they own it? the same applies to other hospitals that predate the state.

IAMAMORON

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

does the state own the national maternity hospital? I dont believe they do. they certainly pay for it but do they own it? the same applies to other hospitals that predate the state.

There is a multitude of ownership. for example Sir Arthur Guinness was on the board of governors of St James's. It was essentially built by Guinness although there were roots of a surgery there prior to Guinness involvement. The main hospital as it is now was completed in the 70's.

St Vincents has connections with the sisters of Charity on Leeson street.

Most of the university hospitals such as Galway and Limerick etc were built by the state. But there is lots of crossover between the church and state since the 1920's, particularly in health and education. When the British government signed the 1921 treaty they essentially turned off the taps. We were left with a gang of gunmen and poets to run a country with no money, the church stepped in, for better and for a lot worse.

But in general the state has acquired any physical ownership of the properties on a piecemeal basis and in cases such as church involvement the buildings are still owned by the church. But it massively depends and there are a multitude of different scenarios. But the state certainly does not own the physical properties of a lot of the public hospitals. Where they don't they are either being gifted the use of the property or more likely they are renting/leasing them from the owners - in most cases this is the church but there are other municipal interests such as Dublin Corporation and Co Councils etc.

ohnonotgmail

IAMAMORON wrote: »

There is a multitude of ownership. for example Sir Arthur Guinness was on the board of governors of St James's. It was essentially built by Guinness although there were roots of a surgery there prior to Guinness involvement. The main hospital as it is now was completed in the 70's.

St Vincents has connections with the sisters of Charity on Leeson street.

Most of the university hospitals such as Galway and Limerick etc were built by the state. But there is lots of crossover between the church and state since the 1920's, particularly in health and education. When the British government signed the 1921 treaty they essentially turned off the taps. We were left with a gang of gunmen and poets to run a country with no money, the church stepped in, for better and for a lot worse.

But in general the state has acquired any physical ownership of the properties on a piecemeal basis and in cases such as church involvement the buildings are still owned by the church. But it massively depends and there are a multitude of different scenarios. But the state certainly does not own the physical properties of a lot of the public hospitals. Where they don't they are either being gifted the use of the property or more likely they are renting/leasing them from the owners - in most cases this is the church but there are other municipal interests such as Dublin Corporation and Co Councils etc.

that is my point. Kyussb gace the NMH as an example of the state taking ownership of a private hospital when i dont think that is the case at all.

Yellow_Fern

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Leave the 'free market' deal with organ transplants, when an organ becomes available for transplant, let it be auctioned to the highest bidder.

You are confusing regulations and public services. Private business are regulated all the time. I understand organ transplantations is extremely specialised and only occurs in three hospitals. The Irish private hospital scene is too small to sustain that but if it was bigger Id suspect there would be organ donation in private hospitals as occurs in the UK.

LuasSimon

The New Coved 19 Social isolation centre been built at City west is been built by one of Denis O Briens companies. The Covid 19 crisis is a gold mine for Denis O Brien and a few other blueshirts.

IAMAMORON

LuasSimon wrote: »

The New Coved 19 Social isolation centre been built at City west is been built by one of Denis O Briens companies. The Covid 19 crisis is a gold mine for Denis O Brien and a few other blueshirts.

link ?

smurgen

Pascal Donohue saying the Covid bill up to 20bn now.we can assume from this O'Brien and his ilk got their blank cheque?

IAMAMORON

smurgen wrote: »

Pascal Donohue saying the Covid bill up to 20bn now.we can assume from this O'Brien and his ilk got their blank cheque?

link?