Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

When public provision of hospitals and such is the only option, every societal/socioeconomic group has an interest in ensuring public health services are of the highest quality - which ensures heavy political pressure for keeping things that way.

There's been pressure on politicians and the government in general to improve the hospital system all my life (4 decades)... it hasn't improved that much and has declined in many other ways, especially outside of Dublin. So, color me cynical.. which is why I do rely on my private health service. And I'm not alone with that belief.. which is why you will receive resistance. I, and many others, do not want to have to solely rely on a state service.

You're seeking to take away options for people. You point to the rich, but the rich won't suffer. They'll simply hop on a plane to another country for treatment. It's the rest of us who will suffer.

I'm not rich. I'm definitely middle class, and perhaps more on the lower end of middle class... Your attitude will screw us. Yay!

Geuze

KyussB wrote: »

In the middle of this crisis now, when private hospitals have effectively already been nationalized, is the perfect time to solidify this gain - and ensure these insititutions never enter into private control again - and that health insurance is entirely abolished, and absorbed into the tax base - as it should be.

The French system scores top in this WHO study:

https://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf


It is based on insurance.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

There's been pressure on politicians and the government in general to improve the hospital system all my life (4 decades)... it hasn't improved that much and has declined in many other ways, y!

It has, especially in cancer, AFAIK.

Life expectancy and outcomes have improved.

How much of that is down to h/care is of course debateable.

Geuze

Geuze wrote: »

It has, especially in cancer, AFAIK.

Life expectancy and outcomes have improved.

How much of that is down to h/care is of course debateable.

I'd say that's more to do with the advance of medical research, better technology, and perhaps more importantly, better education for doctors/nurses. Having the internet and quick access to relevant information likely helps too. Not directly the hospital system as such... especially since these days many doctors seem to be out in "clinics" rather than in hospitals.

KyussB

The demands for details of the nationalization of hospital services, are predicated on the idea being unfeasible. I'm not interested in covering the minutiae there - those who present it as unfeasible have to do the convincing - and others can fill in the gaps if they like, as I'm sure people generally can see it is perfectly doable, even if a sizeable change.

Deleted User wrote: »

There's been pressure on politicians and the government in general to improve the hospital system all my life (4 decades)... it hasn't improved that much and has declined in many other ways, especially outside of Dublin. So, color me cynical.. which is why I do rely on my private health service. And I'm not alone with that belief.. which is why you will receive resistance. I, and many others, do not want to have to solely rely on a state service.

You're seeking to take away options for people. You point to the rich, but the rich won't suffer. They'll simply hop on a plane to another country for treatment. It's the rest of us who will suffer.

I'm not rich. I'm definitely middle class, and perhaps more on the lower end of middle class... Your attitude will screw us. Yay!

You're just reserving your cynicism for public services. You've seen yourself, how the main parties make policy, to suit NeoLiberal-style misappropriation of public funds into private hands - you've seen how this takes several different forms, depending on the sector it's applied to, always involving a mix of public and private services in the same sector, with the public service being crapified to further the political case for increasing privatization.

Your cynicism falls short of following this trend, that the main political parties have applied to most other public services, and applying it to the health services. Given the ample evidence from our political parties over the last decade+, continuing a lack of cynicism there would be suspect.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

You're just reserving your cynicism for public services.

Actually, No I don't. I worked in finance at management level. I know how mismanagement and the diverting of funds/services, along with inter department politics/turf wars can occur.

The difference is that concerning this topic, with a private health service, I'm the customer and worth listening to. My withdrawal of funding matters. Under a state health service, I don't believe the politicians or the administrators care what people think/say. I have no choice about funding, so I have no influence. It's like the TV license. RTE is awful rubbish because they don't need to improve... they've got a monopoly and guaranteed income from the taxpayer.. A private service has to improve to retain viewers..

You've seen yourself, how the main parties make policy, to suit NeoLiberal-style misappropriation of public funds into private hands - you've seen how this takes several different forms, depending on the sector it's applied to, always involving a mix of public and private services in the same sector, with the public service being crapified to further the political case for increasing privatization.

Yup. No argument there.

Your cynicism falls short of following this trend, that the main political parties have applied to most other public services, and applying it to the health services. Given the ample evidence from our political parties over the last decade+, continuing a lack of cynicism there would be suspect.

Ahh well, I lost faith in the political parties with the banking crash... and most other government organs/departments too. Whenever possible I will turn to a service that values me as a customer rather than a component of a system of compulsory tax.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say that's more to do with the advance of medical research, better technology, and perhaps more importantly, better education for doctors/nurses. Having the internet and quick access to relevant information likely helps too. Not directly the hospital system as such... especially since these days many doctors seem to be out in "clinics" rather than in hospitals.

But better technology costs money. Money is finite. There is a robotic knee surgery machine in Cork. It represents an advance but surgery this way costs 25% more. To buy such a device might cost 1 million or more, probably with expensive servicing costs. Budget is forever a limitation.

IAMAMORON

What the left wing communist unrealistic idealists who are spoofing tripe all over this thread fail to realise is that the intellectual pool being utilised to provide health services in Ireland will not change if the health system is nationalised.

All the best staff will leave and work elsewhere for starters.

Your idealist trite plan will not emancipate the "working" classes, it will actually offer them a poorer health service.

Lefty idealism always assumes that humans will react similarly to the tripe it imbibes. It is ironic to believe that a spinal surgeon is gong to work for 100k less just because a left wing government demands it? Not going to happen. Communism only works if everyone is on board, the fact remains that no one ever is.

Stop kidding yourselves, you are actually wasting your time and energy believing in old fashioned ideologies which have a proven track record of not working. Social thinking needs to evolve to rationalise.

Yellow_Fern

LuasSimon wrote: »

What happens when Larry good man and Denis o brien owns all the hospitals what’s next ?
All the graveyards and crematoriums?
It seems wrong men like these can own so much of Ireland but won’t pay taxes here ??

We have some cemeteries owned by trusts but many others are owned by churches and getting a place is certainly not free. I think mine was about 2,000 Euro. A fancy spot in Glasnevin can set you back 30,000. I am pretty sure all the crematoria are privately owned.

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Under a state health service, I don't believe the politicians or the administrators care what people think/say.

Force them all to use the public healthcare system and it would be fixed fairly rapidly.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

But better technology costs money. Money is finite. There is a robotic knee surgery machine in Cork. It represents an advance but surgery this way costs 25% more. To buy such a device might cost 1 million or more, probably with expensive servicing costs. Budget is forever a limitation.

And what?

Private hospitals make profits. Which allow them to have better equipment, and possibly better trained/experienced personnel because they can pay them more. State enterprises rarely break even, with their budgets because state organisations lean strongly towards inefficiency and waste.

I believe in a private system and a state system working at the same time. I'm not advocating only a private system because it would be abused.. just as a state only system will be inefficient, and even more people will be left with their problems unresolved.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Force them all to use the public healthcare system and it would be fixed fairly rapidly.

Ok. Prove it.

Show me examples where this has happened in other countries and that it's worked...

Junkyard Tom

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok. Prove it.

You gave an opinion and I countered with my opinion but you demand PROOF NOW?



I'm not sure you can 'PROVE IT RIGHT NOW' but you can point to evidence like say Canada where they don't compete with a private system at the hospital level.

Or you could compare health outcomes before a public health system was introduced and after like maybe the 10 years before the NHS and ten years after.

What we're talking about here is political will which there is plenty of if the right people are going to be affected in its absence.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You gave an opinion and I countered with my opinion but you demand PROOF NOW?

No worries. I took it as a statement of fact rather than an opinion. Fair enough.

What we're talking about here is political will which there is plenty of if the right people are going to be affected in its absence.

I'm not sure who the right people are and whether they currently use healthcare in Ireland, private or not. I know a couple of successful types who always get treated in other countries rather than in Ireland.

In any case, I believe it takes more than political will to fix things... It requires changing a variety of cultural habits/perceptions here within government supported bodies. We blame the politicians, but it's the administrators, who really run the show.

salonfire

Wanderer78 wrote: »

The wealth eventually trickles down, it just has a strange look of debt and rising costs of living though, but plutocracy doesn't worry about that, it's all good!

That's exactly how it works.

The wealthy owners of large companies hire people to work who in turn increase their own wealth and pay taxes.

How many jobs have you created? If there were no entrepreneurs out there, do you think each employee and public servant would have aptitude to setup and run a business to sustain themselves as sole traders?

Antares35

KyussB wrote: »

Keep the hospitals we've just temporarily nationalized, permanently nationalized - and eliminate all advantages that private health insurance gives, when accessing public health services (in general, eliminate all ways people can 'buy their way' into preferential treatment, in the public health services).

How will the state afford to run them if people stop paying for private health insurance??

LuasSimon

https://www.thejournal.ie/coronavirus-private-hospitals-5061985-Mar2020/

Larry Goodman and Denis O Brien are going to lease the hospitals to the state , no fear they’d let the state use them as a act of goodwill !

Bad enough they won’t pay tax in this country but they have the country over a barrel to use their hospitals as well in this emergency , both men are worth a number of billions , will they ever have enough money ??

Antares35

LuasSimon wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/coronavirus-private-hospitals-5061985-Mar2020/

Larry Goodman and Denis O Brien are going to lease the hospitals to the state , no fear they’d let the state use them as a act of goodwill !

Bad enough they won’t pay tax in this country but they have the country over a barrel to use their hospitals as well in this emergency , both men are worth a number of billions , will they ever have enough money ??

Do you have any other point besides "these people have money and should give it away for free rabble rabble" ?

salonfire

LuasSimon wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/coronavirus-private-hospitals-5061985-Mar2020/

Larry Goodman and Denis O Brien are going to lease the hospitals to the state , no fear they’d let the state use them as a act of goodwill !

Bad enough they won’t pay tax in this country but they have the country over a barrel to use their hospitals as well in this emergency , both men are worth a number of billions , will they ever have enough money ??

If you believe they are not paying their taxes or should be paying more, be sure to let Revenue know. I'm sure they could do with your superior knowledge then theirs.

Also, the Hospitals are probably limited companies with multiple shareholders, shareholders that could be my pension fund.

So the owners have a legal obligation to run the business to maximize shareholder returns.

IAMAMORON

LuasSimon wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/coronavirus-private-hospitals-5061985-Mar2020/

Larry Goodman and Denis O Brien are going to lease the hospitals to the state , no fear they’d let the state use them as a act of goodwill !

Bad enough they won’t pay tax in this country but they have the country over a barrel to use their hospitals as well in this emergency , both men are worth a number of billions , will they ever have enough money ??

This is a free country, it is their constitutional right to own a hospital in it. In fact under the Irish constitution you don't even have to be Irish to own a hospital here either. As Irish citizens they are allowed to make as much money as they like and under Irish Taxation Law they are entitled to pay the correct legal amount of tax also. Why should they pay more?

If the Irish State decides to lease a hospital off anyone, it is also fully entitled to do so. I cannot see the problem with it. It is plausibly a lot more tax efficient for the state to do this.

Would you give something you own to the Irish State for nothing? What is your big infatuation with the state owning everything it uses to run itself?

Sean.3516

Why do people despise private health insurance?

This "Eat the Rich" attitude is so tiresome. If I'm a private individual with funds and I believe that I can set up a hospital that's good enough that people will be willing to pay me for the use of it rather than use the public system, then I should be able to do that. Healthcare actually is a product no matter how much people want to try and treat as a right. Healthcare only exists as the product of labour. Attempts to socialise it completely are a forced confiscation of both labour and property.

People also misunderstand the distinction between the public and private sector here.

The private sector PRE-EXISTED the public sector. Private healthcare was not invented so that people with money could get better healthcare than the poor people. Public healthcare was invented so that people left without healthcare due to economic reasons could get covered. Its not the default, its the fail-safe.

Junkyard Tom

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The private sector PRE-EXISTED the public sector. Private healthcare was not invented so that people with money could get better healthcare than the poor people. .

If this COVID19 pandemic has taught us anything it's that there's no such thing as 'private' healthcare and there never was.

Sean.3516

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If this COVID19 pandemic has taught us anything it's that there's no such thing as 'private' healthcare and there never was.

I don't even know what that means.

Junkyard Tom

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I don't even know what that means.

No, of course you don't. Sometimes the most obvious things are difficult to see. Health is a public matter. If there was no public response to this pandemic then 'private' healthcare wouldn't be worth a hill of beans.

Also, the private system piggy-backs on the public system of roads, public water/sewage infrastructure, public energy supply, public transport, policing and courts, public university graduates, public schools, public hospitals, public enforcement of regulations, public testing of medicines and so on.

tjhook

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

If this COVID19 pandemic has taught us anything it's that there's no such thing as 'private' healthcare and there never was.

I understand this to mean that this country doesn't have a comprehensive private health system. You're absolutely correct. There are plenty of conditions, including most of the immediate life-threatening ones, that the private system isn't set up to deal with. Everybody is dependent on the public system.

Isn't that a good thing? It might be worrying if it were otherwise. The people who make the laws are also personally dependent on the public system.

As it is, we can all be treated by the public system. We all have the right to use it, regardless of what we do in life - whether we are criminals, tax payers, millionaires, whatever. If somebody makes additional private arrangements outside of the public system, that's fine, it's up to themselves. It doesn't in any way alter the responsibility of the state to provide an adequate public health system to everybody.

IAMAMORON

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Also, the private system piggy-backs on the public system of roads, public water/sewage infrastructure, public energy supply, public transport, policing and courts, public university graduates, public schools, public hospitals, public enforcement of regulations, public testing of medicines and so on.

I don't think the private healthcare system " piggy backs" on anything really?

It offers citizens the option of receiving a health service which they are directly providing for.

Your argument that it relies on state infrastructure to facilitate its' own existence is facile. Subjective at best. I pay my taxes to the government to make sure the traffic lights are working. My taxes also contribute to the HSE and the provision of universal healthcare to every citizen in Ireland. etc etc.

If I want to pay extra for private healthcare surely that is my prerogative?

Sean.3516

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No, of course you don't. Sometimes the most obvious things are difficult to see. Health is a public matter. If there was no public response to this pandemic then 'private' healthcare wouldn't be worth a hill of beans.

Public health is a public matter. I never said that we shouldn't legislate for externalities. Of course a major government response is warranted if a serious once in a century pandemic is threatening the whole population. It's a public issue in the same way that if this country were invaded tomorrow, it would be a public issue.

What does that have to do with me being able to decide for myself what type of cancer treatment I want? What does that have to do with me if I were a doctor being allowed to work where I want and negotiate my own salary? The vast majority of medical issues are specific to the individual and should not be nationalised.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Also, the private system piggy-backs on the public system of roads, public water/sewage infrastructure, public energy supply, public transport, policing and courts, public university graduates, public schools, public hospitals, public enforcement of regulations, public testing of medicines and so on.

So because the government gives us lots of nice things (that we pay for), we are all beholden to the government? Users of the private system disproportionately subsidise the users of the public system.

We benefit from the programs you mention in exchange for the money we pay in tax. The transaction ends there.

1641

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

No, of course you don't. Sometimes the most obvious things are difficult to see. Health is a public matter. If there was no public response to this pandemic then 'private' healthcare wouldn't be worth a hill of beans.

Also, the private system piggy-backs on the public system of roads, public water/sewage infrastructure, public energy supply, public transport, policing and courts, public university graduates, public schools, public hospitals, public enforcement of regulations, public testing of medicines and so on.

There is no country in the world that provides unlimited public health care (or please correct me if I wrong?). There may be some that outlaw all private healthcare (North Korea maybe? Any others?). But they do not provide unlimited care - there are always limits. Are you suggesting that individuals in any such society should be prohibited from purchasing any additional care from their own resources?

Can Mr Citizen not choose to pay to see a doctor privately if he so chooses? Can Ms Citizen not choose to purchase an licensed medication that is not covered under that country's health scheme?

Can Mr Citizen travel abroad to pay for a procedure not available in his own health service if he saves his money for it?

Can Ms Citizen not pay a doctor to have a procedure that she could avail of publically but would have to wait - or that she would have to go to an assigned doctor and not one of her choice?


Because that is what private healthcare is. Using ones own discretionary resources to spend on healthcare rather than on something else. Private hospitals are there to meet this demand in Ireland. But it seems you would want to outlaw Mr and Ms Citizens right to spend their discretionary income as they like. Even though as taxpayers they have already paid their share towards the public system. If the public system was better there would be less demand for private healthcare. But there will always be some demand - unless we become North Korea (and even there if we climb the party hierarchy there will be private care).

KyussB

If private health care wants to provide breast augmentation and other not-strictly necessary services, I don't care about that - and if they can find a way to 'insure' stuff like that, leave it to them.

No duplication of essential medical services provided by the public system, or anything which puts them in competition with the public system - their hospitals, staff, resources etc. are to remain nationalized - with the owners reimbursed for the asset losses at post-crash market prices.

Nobody is free to purchase anything they like - that's not true on any country on earth - if we decide that the public health system takes priority here, and restrict people to the public system for essential treatment - then tough shit, you're free move to another country.

IAMAMORON

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.

They simply have never thought the concept through thoroughly enough.

They are critiquing a current system which actually provides citizens with better healthcare … and then advocating implementing a system which would be detrimental to everyone receiving it.

Gormless really.