Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

1641

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Yes a lot of tax payer money funded the M50 but the point is, private money does too and it works out well.

If owners of private hospitals happen to be corrupt, prosecute them for that. But that has nothing to do with the business model which is very legitimate. There are many owners of Irish hospitals by the way from US non profits to religious orders.

Someone here said we should use the Berlin model, but in Germany they have a totally different system. In German you have to pay for public health insurance and its means tested. If you earn about 50,000 you will pay around 4,000 a year so for many Germans mandatory public health insurance costs far more than irish private health insurance.

When they talk about the European model (be it German ,Scandinanian or whatever) they are talking about a myth. In this mythland the state provides all services on a monopoly basis, these services are free gratis, they run efficiently and effectively, they are easy to access and outcomes are top class. Everyone is happy. These services are paid for by "the rich". (Although it is a bit mysterious how anyone gets to be rich in this mythland since profit is evil and everyone earns pretty much the same. Still it must be so).


This mythland is so mysterious that noone yet has been able to point to a concrete example. Yet the faith remains.

TheCitizen

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Hairy Marney was given the "hospital pass" of setting up the HSE from Michael Martin, she had no option really. In fairness she gave the post 7 years which is more than any other politician in the history of the state, albeit Sean O'Kelly did 7 years in the 30's. Apart from that I don't know what you are talking about, high road, low road or deep road. What are you trying to say here?



FG are not the issue here. The health system is. Private hospitals will be bought and sold no matter what government is in control. Unless of course god forbid the Nazi's get their way. In fact luckily I anticipate the free state will never have a nationalized health system because I don't think the Nazi's will ever have enough support to get into power.



I would like to see some evidence of this claim? I understand that both FG, FF, Labour, Green, SDP, etc are in favour of HSE reform. I don't remember reading about a transformed nationalized health system being muted at all, I have to call you out here.

Finally, this thread is not about the Fine Gael party, it is about private hospitals being privately owned. If you want to have an FG bitching session I suggest you go to the FG bashing thread, there are loads of them.

https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/

Here you go. Maybe you don't remember reading about it because you haven't read. Read it there.

From the document;

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.

Every party in the state; FF FG SF LAB Greens the lot of them has endorsed SlainteCare.

Private hospitals will still exist if people want to pay extra for plush surroundings but SlainteCare is about delivering a one tier health system for all.


Now maybe you don't agree with that but you'd be in a small minority. The tricky bit is implementing SlainteCare, hopefully FFG and whoever is with them in the incoming government will get started at last on delivering it. If it's delivered great, you can then go live in America if it's not to your liking.

KyussB

The private hospitals made an agreement with the government, because they know they would be taken over anyway.

Since the government is urgently in need of funds for the coronavirus, perhaps the private health insurance funds should be taken over as part of the nationalization of the private system?
They're effectively a privatized part of the tax base anyway - and aren't even going to be paying for coronavirus treatments, even though their customers are being charged full premiums with no access now.

3...2...1...before the same Libertarians start defending private health insurance payments at the same premium, in return for nothing.

IAMAMORON

TheCitizen wrote: »

https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/

Here you go. Maybe you don't remember reading about it because you haven't read. Read it there.

From the document;



Every party in the state; FF FG SF LAB Greens the lot of them has endorsed SlainteCare.

Private hospitals will still exist if people want to pay extra for plush surroundings but SlainteCare is about delivering a one tier health system for all.


Now maybe you don't agree with that but you'd be in a small minority. The tricky bit is implementing SlainteCare, hopefully FFG and whoever is with them in the incoming government will get started at last on delivering it. If it's delivered great, you can then go live in America if it's not to your liking.

SláinteCare is just a rebrand of the HSE. Stop with the patronising already. This thread has already recognised ( I hope ) that universal healthcare is already currently offered by the state. Private healthcare has always been an option. This will not change if Slaintecare becomes a thing.

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.

KyussB

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.
...

Says the person who can't help hysterically peppering his posts with "NAZI!", "COMMUNIST!" etc..

That's not just hypocrisy, it's wilful hypocrisy, where the poster knows full well that what he accuses others of, applies to him - and is deliberately shoving the hypocrisy in others faces, precisely to antagonize...

IAMAMORON

KyussB wrote: »

Says the person who can't help hysterically peppering his posts with "NAZI!", "COMMUNIST!" etc..

That's not just hypocrisy, it's wilful hypocrisy, where the poster knows full well that what he accuses others of, applies to him - and is deliberately shoving the hypocrisy in others faces, precisely to antagonize...

Give me another name to use for it and I happily will. But you have posted before that posters have the option of adopting a nationalised health system or leaving the country.... that is Nazi talk if ever I heard it.

To clarify, the nationalisation of the health system to a one tiered system is communism. There is no mud being thrown here. It is what it is.

Exiling citizens who don't agree or adhere to government policy is what Nazi's did and could do, you have certainly threatened posters with the same on this thread.

If you really loved this country you would be happy for every citizen to have an input and an opinion, even if it differed from your own. That is what real republicans do. They offer free speech and opinion to everyone, it is called democracy. That does not entail exiling people who do not agree with it.

No need to get nasty because posters are not pandering to your ideals?

1641

KyussB wrote: »

They're effectively a privatized part of the tax base anyway - and aren't even going to be paying for coronavirus treatments, even though their customers are being charged full premiums with no access now.

3...2...1...before the same Libertarians start defending private health insurance payments at the same premium, in return for nothing.

I hadn't anticipated that you would be so moved by the plight of those paying for private health insurance. But to ease your mind:



"Irish Life Health has become the first private health insurer in Ireland to indicate to its customers that they can expect a discount in the months ahead as a result of the Government’s decision to bring all private hospitals under public control during the coronavirus crisis."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-life-indicates-customers-can-expect-discounts-in-coming-months-1.4217052

KyussB

IAMAMORON wrote:

...

I'm not going to play the game of "bat down endless straw-men" - making up hysterical lies about what I have said, to try to fit the Commnist/Nazi label, makes you look desperate to shut down views you don't like.

KyussB

A discount is an insult to health insurance customers - anything less than a full refund for the period that health insurance is effectively useless, is an insult and a money grab.

Since they are taking the publics money anyway, and no longer providing a service - the health insurance funds should be taken over along with the private hospitals, and their funds used to help fight the coronavirus outbreak.

IAMAMORON

KyussB wrote: »

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.

KyussB wrote: »

I'm not going to play the game of "bat down endless straw-men" - making up hysterical lies about what I have said, to try to fit the Commnist/Nazi label, makes you look desperate to shut down views you don't like.

I am only reiterating what you previously posted.

KyussB

According to IAMAMORON - the freedom to travel between countries = Nazism. Okey then.

IAMAMORON

KyussB wrote: »

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.

KyussB wrote: »

According to IAMAMORON - the freedom to travel between countries = Nazism. Okey then.

You are now denying what you have posted?

At least have some sort of backbone into what you are posting? How else is anyone going to respect what you are saying? I have been very clear here. You cannot deny what you have said?

KyussB

You're looking very deseperate to land a smear right now.

KyussB

KyussB wrote: »

A discount is an insult to health insurance customers - anything less than a full refund for the period that health insurance is effectively useless, is an insult and a money grab.

Since they are taking the publics money anyway, and no longer providing a service - the health insurance funds should be taken over along with the private hospitals, and their funds used to help fight the coronavirus outbreak.

It's quite funny really. First you accuse the health insurance companies of doing a money grab based on certain behavior.. and then you suggest that the State should steal the money from both the customers and the health insurance companies...

You are advocating stealing. And yes, it would be stealing from both the customers, and the companies themselves.

KyussB

The private health insurers are stealing by taking money without providing the advertised service during the coronavirus - and the government would be taking that money and providing the service instead - pretty simple.

Private health insurance pays for private hospitals - so if the government take over the private hospitals, they take over the funding of them, too. You do realize the government is critically short of money, right?

Are you one of the 'taxes is stealing' nuts? The law defines what is and isn't stealing - and the government writes the law.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

According to IAMAMORON - the freedom to travel between countries = Nazism. Okey then.

Your policy (by your own admission) deliberately prevents people from providing healthcare on a voluntarily funded basis for no reason other than that healthcare may be higher quality than what the government can provide.

This is authoritarianism.

Junkyard Tom

If companies don't play fair and/or pay their share of tax they are literally parasitic on society - they extract without contributing to the general health of the socioeconomic body.

So who is it that's doing the stealing exactly?

KyussB

Sean.3516 wrote: »

...

That's a lie - a deliberate straw-man.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

The private health insurers are stealing by taking money without providing the advertised service during the coronavirus

If this is true then I am sure these companies will give their members some sort of refund for services not provided subject to their contracts or be sued for fraud in the course of time.

KyussB wrote: »

- and the government would be taking that money and providing the service instead - pretty simple.

Nobody ever said that government and private healthcare couldn't co-operate with each other during a crisis period. In theory the govt could take over their resources in the crisis. Our constitutional right to property is subject to the public welfare during times of crisis but (a)This would be temporary. Reversed as soon as the crisis ends. (b)Government should compensate the business for the use of its property. If you don't this is theft. For the same reason that it is theft for the government to order every non-essential business in the country to shut down without trying to compensate them in some way. If the govt implements the shutdown they bear the responsibility for mitigating the fallout.

KyussB wrote: »

Private health insurance pays for private hospitals - so if the government take over the private hospitals, they take over the funding of them, too. You do realize the government is critically short of money, right?

Which is why the government should seek to co-operate with the private sector rather than nationalising it outright. The cost of compensation when the company is de-nationalised after the crisis period would be greater than the cost of just contracting the company to use its resources.

KyussB wrote: »

Are you one of the 'taxes is stealing' nuts? The law defines what is and isn't stealing - and the government writes the law.

You've literally set up a system that has no limiting principle whatsoever. Power to legislate with no failsafes has been the basis for every dictatorship in history.

We have a constitution for this reason. It has a right to property in there so no, the government couldn't just re-define stealing to nationalise private property.

KyussB

If legislation is put forward to nationalize the private hospitals and take over the private insurance funds, and the vote for it passes - then absolutely it can be done. Certainly, compensation appraised at the post-crash prices should be arranged.

There is no question at all, though: It can be done. The government has to full power needed to do this, given the right legislation passing. This fits fully with Social Democratic government policy.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

That's a lie - a deliberate straw-man.

Explain to me how this a straw man.

You've stated multiple times that you are in favour of banning private healthcare. You've stated the reason you believe this is that a system where everyone receives the same level of care is the only fair system.

Nationalising an entire industry is an authoritarian measure.

Explain to me how I have straw-manned you.

KyussB

That's not what your straw-man was citing me as saying.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

If legislation is put forward to nationalize the private hospitals and take over the private insurance funds, and the vote for it passes - then absolutely it can be done. Certainly, compensation appraised at the post-crash prices should be arranged.

Yes, but if you do this without the consent of the company and dictate to them what constitutes a fair price, that still violates their right to property. Normally the government negotiates the purchase and you would have a vote in the Dail to appropriate the funds.

When the government bailed out the banks one of the conditions was that the government be given equity in the banks. If the banks didn't like this, they didn't have to accept the bailout. You need the consent of both parties

In the words of Mitt Romney "Corporations are people too". People don't waive their right to property rights when they organise into corporations.

Junkyard Tom

Sean.3516 wrote: »

right to property.

Our right to property is not absolute. We only have a right to property because government (the people) enforces/protects it in the first place.

KyussB

Private property doesn't exist without the laws defining it and limiting it - and the government writes the laws. Nationalization and compulsory purchases are nothing new - they happen in every country on earth, regardless of the countries politics.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

That's not what your straw-man was citing me as saying.

Okay, here's the post you accused me of straw-manning you in.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Your policy (by your own admission) deliberately prevents people from providing healthcare on a voluntarily funded basis for no reason other than that healthcare may be higher quality than what the government can provide.

This is authoritarianism.

Note, when I say "providing healthcare on a voluntarily funded basis", I'm talking about private healthcare because that's what is. It's a consensual transaction.

You have stated that you want all healthcare to be public, thus banning private healthcare.

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.

This is what you said if you can remember all the way back to yesterday. You made the distinction between essential services like chemotherapy and non-essential services like breast augmentation. A distinction I agree with.

You say its unfair for the private option to exist when it comes to essential services. Unfair because (1.) It's better and (2.) It's exclusive to those that can pay for it.

I say again, if you ban people from providing these services on a private basis, it is an authoritarian measure.

Sean.3516

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Our right to property is not absolute. We only have a right to property because government (the people) enforces/protects it in the first place.

Natural rights like the right to property or the right to life pre-exist government.

If you lived in a state of nature (without government), you would still have these rights, they just wouldn't be protected.

KyussB

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.

It would save a lot of wasted space, to not paraphrase me.

I don't think you know the difference between Social Democracy and Authoritarianism.

KyussB

I'm not interested in debating loony Libertarian concepts (one which every country on Earth is in breach of). You're under the jurisdiction of a government and your property rights, and their limits, are defined by the law.

Lets stick to reality, and not Freeman on the Land nonsense.

Sean.3516

KyussB wrote: »

Private property doesn't exist without the laws defining it and limiting it - and the government writes the laws.

We've reached the bottom of the iceberg. We're literally debating fundamental axioms as to the nature of rights but that's okay.

There have been two views of rights throughout history:

One view (the view that pre-dominates history up until The Enlightenment) is that rights come directly from government. The government sets the limits as to what you can do. The problem with this is that there is no limiting principle. The government can give and take away rights at will. The manner in which those rights are defined (tyranny or democracy) makes no difference. The point is that there are no safeguards. The "common good" or the "will of the people" can and HAS been invoked with both good and catastrophic consequences.

The second view of rights that originated during the Scottish Enlightenment with John Locke is that there are in fact some rights that you have by dint of being a freely willed human being. These rights exist whether or not there is a government to protect them. These are life, liberty and property. If you lived in a woodshed in the wild and no government existed, you would be alive, you would be able to do what you wanted and you would own certain things (particularly things made through your own labor or things made through the labor of others but voluntarily given to you. The idea is that the first purpose of government is to protect these rights. Everything else is secondary. Usually this is done through a constitution that defines what the government can and can't do. Most constitutions guarantee a right to life, liberty and property. The Dail couldn't just do away with these rights if it wanted to.

I'm a believer in the second view of rights. You're obviously a believer in the first. That's fine. The Irish system of rights is mixed of the two but on this issue, I believe the Irish Constitution actually backs me up. Property is a Constitutional right. You'll need a constitutional amendment to bypass it.

KyussB wrote: »

Nationalization and compulsory purchases are nothing new - they happen in every country on earth, regardless of the countries politics.

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.citizensinformation.ie/en/housing/losing_your_home/compulsory_purchase_and_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.