Health System

Podge_irl wrote: »

Using consultancy services still has nothing to do with privatization though, which was your original assertion. All public bodies the world over use external expertise at times.

Why? Her company has provided consultancy services to the HSE in the past. So what? What exactly is the conflict that may arise from this? You haven't actually outlined any potential conflict whatsoever. Being in charge of selecting which consultancy service to use for a project when you also own a consultancy service is a conflict of interest. Having previously provided services to the HSE and then having a job in the HSE is not in and of itself a conflict. What scenario do you see where this conflict will arise?

It would certainly ease any moves in that direction.

It's possible she could recommend of put forward a company or other consultancy group for a contract, from which she or associates might benefit. That's a conflict of interest. I do not need to point out a fraud to speak on the possibility of one occurring due to a conflict of interest.

con·flict of in·ter·est

a situation in which a person is in a position to derive personal benefit from actions or decisions made in their official capacity.

It's about protecting the tax payer from decision not putting the tax payer first.

blanch152 wrote: »

I did read your post, and there was nothing substantive to it. You were suggesting because one private company had won one contract, that there was a secret agenda to privatise the health service. Did I miss something?

Yes you completely misunderstood. Nothing substantive to support your strawman, no. I said I believed there was a move to privatise at some point, (this is based on decades of unwillingness or less likely inability to tackle health) and things like those appointments didn't lead me to believe otherwise. I did not put it forward as proof of any 'conspiracy'. You fudged.

Red_Wake wrote: »

The immense paranoia about privatization is about it I'd say.

If you couldn't comprehend my post, sure, why not.
Just for clarity.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

...
I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

blanch152 wrote: »

And have you looked at the conflict of interest policies for employees in the health service to see how this is addressed?

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/hrppg/code-of-standards-and-behaviour.html


For those in actual decision-making positions, there is ethics legislation as well:

https://www.hse.ie/eng/staff/resources/ethics/


This is utterly bizarre, throwing around accusations of things that might happen without any evidence at all.

That's not true, as I'm sure you know. Probably why no quote. Typical fare form you.

Podge_irl wrote: »

How? In what practical sense would this in any way ease the move to privatization? It is a glib, scare-mongering comment with absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. Using a consultancy service is simply standard business and government practice globally.



No, but if you are going to suggest impropriety then it is incumbent upon you to detail exactly what that is. Will she, in her role, be selecting or involved in the selection process for consultancy services for the HSE that her own company might benefit from?

Scaremongering? To view what's happening and put forward an opinion? Are you fearful of privatisation? For it to be scaremongering there has to be an element of fear I would assume related to the point. I don't know how you can honestly not see how having consultants with a conflict of interest in a position of policy making for the public health service would not ease a move to privatisation.
No basis in fact? An opinion based on the in-actions of numerous governments and growing crises? Looking at the situation and drawing a conclusion is up for discussion I don't understand the passion in vehemently closing down the very idea that we may be moving towards privatisation. Not allowing the idea get passed being put forward is the odd thing here. If you feel that strongly about it not being a plausible possibility why? Why so defensive?
And no, I did not suggest impropriety. I explained what conflict of interest was and why it should be avoided. You are putting forward sensational falsehoods at this point all to quell any talk of the opinion that privatisation may be on the cards. Why? That goes for both of you. I don't see any effort to merely discuss the idea rather close it down and throw up 'misinterpretations'. It's a reasonable topic of discussion lads. If you've no interest, that's fine.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

There are literally dozen of health services we could model ours on . Instead we continue with this failed hybrid model that's been broken for 20 years.

And you would wonder why. I look at it and think these people are not ejits.

blanch152 wrote: »

But full-on privatisation isn't the policy, has never been the policy.

Even in Mary Harney's time, she was proposing co-location of private and public facilities, not full-on privatisation.

It is still bizarre that somehow the appointment of one consultant to one contract has suddenly created this whole theory of an agenda of privatisation of the health service. This whole discussion is just scaremongering.

Please quote such a comment. I'd love to see it.

Again, what scaremongering? Quote?

Podge_irl wrote: »

I never even commented on whether or not I thought privatisation was on the cards. I said the idea that using consultants somehow eased the way to privatisation is utter fancy - which it is. My issue is with your specious reasoning, not the core concept. Unless every government department is on its way towards privatisation somehow then the use of consultants at some points is utterly irrelevant.

And no, you haven't explained the conflict of interest. Is she going to be in charge of selecting consultancy services and be in a position to select her own? Her small consultancy firm is not going to be buying the HSE so that's not really a concern.

I don't think we are moving towards privatisation as I've seen few enough signs of it. The current status of the service is not dissimilar to the NHS at the moment and is purely about politics and funding. Frankly I think we should properly do one or the other as I think the current set up is stupid.

So if you're not interested in discussing the premise...?

'utter fancy'? Why? Why has bringing in private concerns to oversee state policy not in any way linked to a possibility of easing, helping a public service move to a private, should privatisation come about?
Just for kicks, if you were privatising the HSE would you not bring in private entities? If not, how would that work exactly? How could you privatise without bringing in private entities? Would having some already in place not ease the process? Seriously, no?
You seem confused. It's not merely the existence of private consultants, which we know are in everywhere. All departments use contractors. I never made that argument. You're fudging.

Do you believe the concept 'conflict of interest' exists? If so, I'm saying there's a conflict of interest in hiring a person or company to oversee policy which could be used to enrich that person or entity, which would be fine if it was the best deal for the tax payer, however, best to avoid conflict of interest where possible IMO.

So you've seen a few signs of privatisation. What are they? Are you scaremongering? Are you being fanciful, please elaborate?

Based on the current and longstanding state of the health service, continuing to follow the same policy regarding it, despite worsening issues year on year. there are two conclusions can be drawn. The governments we've had are unable or unwilling to tackle the problems we have. Is that a fair assessment?
I think it's only civil to allow a person form an opinion based on their perception of events without haranguing them. Especially in a supposed discussion forum. How about, 'I disagree because...'? Without the cod?
I believe privatisation is the goal because I cannot think of another reason why they let it carry on like they do. They created Irish Water ffs, if they want to do something unpopular or differently they would.

To recap and clear up numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations, here's my post:

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.

I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

If I said they are privatising the HSE, if I said the new appointments were feathering their nests/carrying out sweet deals, that would be another matter. You disagree, great chatting with you.

Edward M wrote: »

We have private health care in Ireland already, what's new?
Is there a suggestion here that there will be no social health care and that all will have to pay?
Is it a suggestion perhaps that hospitals will be privatised and practitioners, nurses etc, will be working for private entity's with the state picking up the tab?
I'm not sure exactly what suggestion is being made here.

You should really read over the previous posts.

blanch152 wrote: »

Something like all of the above. FG is bad, privatisation is bad, consultants are bad, FG are only interested in looking after a select group of the elite and feathering their nests.

So when FG hire a consultant to do some work in the health service, that means there is a secret agenda to privatise the health service. There you go.

You are reposting nonsense you made up. I've asked you to quote where this appears and you ignore the requests and continue to post this spin. You refuse to stipulate why you staunchly fight the very notion of the possibility of privatisation, like I'm insulting your mother, rather than discussing it like a civil person.
You've refused to answer questions on your own hyped up makey up paraphrasing. You've added nothing truthful here. You are once again fudging to derail and shut down discussion IMO.

For clarification Blanch, read this post.
It pertains to my opinion that the reason why health is in constant crisis is that they are waiting, IMO, for it to get so bad they can start privatising chunks of it off. That's my opinion. Based on a number of governments, over decades making little to no fresh new policy moves to tackle it as it gets worse. That's my analysis.
As regards bringing in consultants with a conflict of interest. That's not accusing anyone of any wrong doing. You have posted spin on that too.
Bringing in consultants is not new. Never said it was. Never said it didn't happen elsewhere. Having private consultants in place, with ties to private health would certainly ease any moves in the direction of privatisation.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.


I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

In short, successive government have overseen health get worse as they continue to enact basically the same policies. Why? I believe to let things get so bad privatisation looks good and I do believe, true to previous records for both parties, cronyism and nest feathering would undoubtedly follow. This is the modus operandi of both FF and FG.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Thanks for your opinion. I appreciate you giving your point of view. It's refreshing.
The overriding concern with regard to privatisation is quality of service and value for money. All too often the state seems to worry more about the immediacy of the contract while neglecting the long term issues such as quality and accountability. Not that we really do accountability with our public servants, but we at least have elections, for those of us not shareholders. Privatisation would not be a cure all but I can see the benefits for the politicians being able to dodge responsibility for any crisis.

The overriding concern with all services is value for money and quality of service, be it state funded or private anything.
Virtually all services that are state funded are also available commercially for private purchase also.
I tend to detect total left views of the state must provide everything from your views on this, like everything should be nationalised and you are using health services as a vehicle for a much wider agenda?

Edward M wrote: »

The overriding concern with all services is value for money and quality of service, be it state funded or private anything.
Virtually all services that are state funded are also available commercially for private purchase also.
I tend to detect total left views of the state must provide everything from your views on this, like everything should be nationalised and you are using health services as a vehicle for a much wider agenda?

You are inferring and assuming a bunch of stuff here.
I've no problem with contracting out jobs of work. My concern with privatisation is accountability. Politicians can be held to account a lot more than private companies, especially if governments 'hands are tied' as we hear on occasion due to contracts entered into.
Where it makes financial sense to contract out various works we often see problems arise when the politicians delegate responsibility to private concerns.
As regards Health, I've covered my reasoning for my opinion as to why I think the goal may be privatising health.
The state must provide everything within it's remit. It is essentially a self governing administrative body answerable to the electorate. They are created and exist with no other purpose than to look after the affairs and best interests of the public.

mariaalice wrote: »

Everything nationalised would be nonsense and a rather old-fashioned idea. Ther is nothing inherently wrong in privatisation as long as there are very close parameters around it and it is all open to public scrutiny.

Even minor privatisation of a service has made some people/companies spectacularly wealthy.

True enough, but when outside contracts are given out the individual or company contracted are going to be looking for a profit of course.
I agree, sometimes it looks like these things are more of a benefit to the contractor than the taxpayer.

blanch152 wrote: »

I can't find the relevant posts where you set out your reasoning for why you think the goal may be privatising health.

I have looked across various health websites, various government websites, and the only reference to privatising health in Ireland is a reference to a rant from Jack O'Connor in which he was throwing stones in a general election campaign.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fine-gael-would-privatise-health-outsource-public-transport-says-siptu-head-378878.html

The only other reference is a hilariously nonsencial rant from DDI.

https://www.directdemocracyireland.ie/privatising-ireland-wrong-direction/

So zero evidence of an agenda of privatisation except for two pieces of evidence you have cited:

1 - Some consultant got hired
2 - FG are not to be trusted

You will understand if I am scratching my head still trying to understand the evidence basis for your opinion. If you had some links to FG policy papers on privatisation or think-tank outputs or even kite-flying speeches by backbenchers at summer schools, then at least I would have something to look at, but I am left puzzled by your insistence.

I don't know if you remember it but the last serious reference to privatisation in Irish politics was under the Progressive Democrats, and even they only envisaged co-location of public and private facilities, not full privatisation. That was a different time and nobody is looking to go back there. So apart from some FG bogeyman posturing by the populist left-wing opposition, I really don't see any credibility to the idea that there is a privatisation agenda for health out there.

Why do you insist on this nonsense?
I will not argue against makey uppy accusations you put forward.
None of your comments above pertain to anything I have said or claimed. I believe you know this.
I suppose if you make up your own imagined arguments you'll keep yourself busy enough.
You of course ignore the broader discussion and as per usual go off on a magical mystery tour. Do you have a view on privatisation or is it all about stopping any discussion on it?

For the fourth time(?), here it is. All in English.

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Reluctant to start a new thread, found this one.


I'm convinced the Fianna Fail/Fine Gael goal is to privatise health. This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise. I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes.

The curious thing for me is why you fight, heels dug in on this. Disagree, by all means, but disagree with reality. I'll leave you to your fabrications.

blanch152 wrote: »

This is the single premise you have put forward:

"I believe they are letting health go to pot in the hopes it will sway public opinion when any big shove in that direction comes."

Someone else referred to is as "utter fancy". There is not a single shred of evidence put forward by you to back this up. The only thing you say is:

"This kind of thing doesn't push me to think otherwise"

So when I rephrase your statement as

"Some consultant got appointed and FG are not to be trusted",

there is nothing inaccurate with my rephrasing. There is simply no other substance to your statement. It is quite bizarre that you keep referring back to the same post, yet won't elaborate.

It is all very well to hold an opinion, and everyone is entitled to one, I am not dismissing that entitlement. However, when somone challenges the basis of your accusation, to then refuse to debate because of "makey up accusations" is bizarre.

I have looked up and down every tree, but I can only find zero evidence of a FG privatisation agenda for health. It is probably equivalent to someone else stating an opinion that if SF got elected, they would use the Irish army to invade the North.

You are making false representation of my comments to further your own strawman.
Look;

blanch152 wrote: »

....

So when FG hire a consultant to do some work in the health service, that means there is a secret agenda to privatise the health service. There you go.

You see you blur and fudge and build on that. It's dishonest.

'I believe' based on the state of health. You run off and say there's no documents to back up my claim. More fudgery. I never claimed there were. It's my belief, based on the state of health and why it's not being actively tackled in any different way year on year. That's an opinion based on observation. Is english not your first language?
Look Blanch, you are boring my greatly. If you want to discuss the merits of privatisation or the fact you might think it's unlikely to ever happen, you're more than welcome. Currently all you are doing is closing down the very idea of the possibility of privaisation like it's not allowed be discussed with great vigour and vitriol for reasons best known to yourself.

blanch152 wrote: »

I have looked up and down every tree, but I can only find zero evidence of a FG privatisation agenda for health. It is probably equivalent to someone else stating an opinion that if SF got elected, they would use the Irish army to invade the North.

You're having a laugh. Basically, you don't want anybody suggesting privatisation might be on the cards and will fight tooth and nail to close down any such discussion.
I believe it's very likely the plan based on how they let things go to pot.
It seems to me if they wanted to privatise, letting things get so bad and then claiming privatising would fix everything would be the way to go about it. Bringing in vested interested private consultants to oversee policy would help in such a move IMO.