Matt Barrett wrote: » There's many an and or but in that blog. It's open to interpretation. Do you think there's a crisis? If yes, this discussion is pointless. If no, I disagree, as does the UN and Fine Gael along with any other political party including the Greens. So not sure why you are obsessing on this line when nobody but yourself and wheels seem to want to.
Matt Barrett wrote: » We don't know if SF would bankrupt the place. We know FF have and we know FG oversee worsening crises. I don't think it makes sense to stick with alternating between two not fit for purpose entities because SF might do something. Fair point for any reservations but are we to stick with the FF/FG combo because they've the experience? Be it SF or whom ever, we seriously need a break from FF/FG IMO.
Bambi wrote: » FG haven't messed up on housing. Housing is going exactly as FG want it to go right now, this is what they are. I've a house with a reasonable mortgage and I'm insulated from all this but any party that comes up with a plan that addresses housing for the average joe in a sustainable manner will get my vote.
Abel Ruiz wrote: » Fianna fail, no way. How do people forget???? This time 10 years ago, we were fuked. Big time... In December 2009, they had a third budget in 14 months. It was horrible. Google it. But of course they blamed the 2008 economic downturn on everyone/everything but themselves. I'll never forgive them, never. Sure this housing crisis is a carryover from their decisions since the turn of the century. And their leader did an excellent job behind the wheel at the department of health haha. What a spoofer!!!!!
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » "The 2008 economic downturn" is a weird way of describing the biggest global economic crash in history.
Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: » ...and how are Sinn Fein going to fix that?
Matt Barrett wrote: » Hopefully they'll in the least stop it getting worse as is currently the case. Fianna Fail will be the big danger IMO. If people are worried about giveaways to the taxpayers loss. The main difference; FG are happy to spend tax monies on a flawed series of policies, waste money in some cases, be it any area you choose, health, housing etc. where the problems not only persist but become worse.SF will likely invest heavily in social housing, health, education etc. Will we get value for money? I don't know, but in the least we might stem the tide of worsening crises. FF? a mix of the two, heavy on the 'looking after our own'. Going into government with FF to get bums on seats never works out for the junior partner.
salonfire wrote: » Health's budget is getting bigger every year. Do you see any improvements in it? Therefore your statement is incorrect. In fact, reducing Health spending would see improvements. Allocate the money to competition driven clinics to take care of the routine procedures to bypass the public sector waste.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Hopefully they'll in the least stop it getting worse as is currently the case.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Fianna Fail will be the big danger IMO. If people are worried about giveaways to the taxpayers loss.
Matt Barrett wrote: » The main difference; FG are happy to spend tax monies on a flawed series of policies, waste money in some cases, be it any area you choose, health, housing etc. where the problems not only persist but become worse. SF will likely invest heavily in social housing, health, education etc. Will we get value for money? I don't know, but in the least we might stem the tide of worsening crises. FF? a mix of the two, heavy on the 'looking after our own'.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Going into government with FF to get bums on seats never works out for the junior partner.
salonfire wrote: » Health's budget is getting bigger every year. Do you see any improvements in it? Therefore your statement is incorrect.
salonfire wrote: » In fact, reducing Health spending would see improvements. Allocate the money to competition driven clinics to take care of the routine procedures to bypass the public sector waste.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » How closely have you looked? Have you looked at the improvements in cancer survival rates or stroke survival rates?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you looked at the increase in A&E patients seen each year?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Speaking of Joe Duffy, have a listen to the lady on today's show who went to have her baby in a private hospital and ended up needing 14 further surgeries over the next three years to repair the damage they did to her. She lost her relationship and nearly lost her house at the hands of your beloved competition driven clinics.
salonfire wrote: » How closely have you looked? Improvements in medical technology and better screening (insurance companies offer a free heart screen service for example, as well as the cerivcal and bowel checks) are also factors in improved rates. You have proved my point. Prior to Mary Harney, cancer treatment was a mis-mash of local interests where every crossroads had cancer treatment. She had the fore-sight to drive through the bull-shit and set up dedicated centres of excellence.
salonfire wrote: » Thanks again for proving my point. The HSE is so dysfunctional the solution to every medical need (emergency or not) is to land everyone in A&E, causing the bottlenecks there.
salonfire wrote: » And there are never no bad outcomes to medical procedures in public hospitals?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You've noticed our population is increasing, right? You have a point about our over-dependance on EDs, but the fact remains that SVUH dealt with 6% more patients last year with the same resources as before.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yes, of course there are - but you know how private hospitals work, right? They cherry-pick the nice, routine, profitable cases, and when things get tough, they dump the patient back on the public system. I spent a lot of time in Holles St in the past. A lot of the mums in there were tricky cases of twins that were dumped back on the public system by Mt Carmel. Look at how the private cosmetic clinics dump back on the public system when things go wrong. It's easy to run a profitable service when you don't have to clean up your own mess.
salonfire wrote: » And the budgets are getting bigger every year. Ireland spends a huge amount of money per capita on health, despite being a young population.
salonfire wrote: » And that's the way it should be. Take the routine cases and care off the HSE and tender out to private hospitals. Doctors working in both systems always get far more done privately than same procedures publicly. If things go wrong or for complex cases, this should be a slim-lined HSE's focus. So that the cost is not borne by one individual or hospital but by the pool of taxpayers, delivered in centres of excellence not centres that are opened for the benefit of staff.
salonfire wrote: » Why does the HSE have 50 payroll offices around the country?
salonfire wrote: » If you have a child coming into adult-hood, would you continue to pour unlimited amount of money at them? Of course you wouldn't, it destroys them. The same should be the same for the HSE. Pouring money makes them worse and even more useless. A good cull of the system would do a world of wonders for everyone.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I don't suppose you've any evidence of how this approach would be better or more efficient?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I dunno, but I guess it might be something to do with the fact that they're the biggest employer in the country with over 100k direct staff and a further 200k staff funded. Where did you get that figure from, btw?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except the HSE isn't a child, or a business. It's a health service. Maybe you should do some research on what works for health services.
salonfire wrote: » You are sitting about the house going blind with cataracts. You are given a choice of waiting for endless years a HSE waiting list. Or you can go private through the National Treatment Purchase Fund at be seen in a few weeks. Which would you choose? How's that for research for you.
salonfire wrote: » And that stops them from being more efficient? Look at the mess they made of PPARS. Their structure is such a mess (helped by tacking on various allowances and strike work-arounds, it was impossible to streamline into one IT system.
salonfire wrote: » Maybe people like you should realize pouring money into the system does not work. It only allows them hire more managers and paper pushers that further hangs the system in red tape. Health spending should be cut and cut drastically and the routine care tendered out. Look at the Aras Attracta scandal. If that was a tendered practice, they would never again get a contract from the HSE and would rightly close and those 'managers' put on the dole and forever shunned by other employers. But because it a HSE facility, it cannot be got rid off and staff not sacked.
Johnny Dogs wrote: » @ wheeliebin, that's a bit unfair, you've been shown by multiple posters (and the very source you linked to) that your 21%/1 in 5 argument was based on nothing more than mere speculation with a little splash of wisfulness on your part. People have posted over and over again giving detailed information as to why your statement is incorrect (the report you linked to said it was uncertain how many it applied to) .
enricoh wrote: » Are you saying 21% of those on the homeless list are not from outside the eu?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Eh no, that's not research at all. That's a hypothetical scenario. Research would involve looking at how things have been done in other countries and seeing how successful or otherwise these have been before coming up with a solution. What you're doing is listening to Newstalk jocks and thinking that they know what they're talking about. Which they don't. BTW, the answer to your question is of course that I'd choose to have my procedure on the NTPF if that was the quickest and cheapest option for me. I've used private healthcare in the past, and I'll probably use it again in the future.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » But you're asking the wrong question. The real question is why we have a scheme like the NTPF that incentivises consultants to have long waiting lists in their public practice so they get paid a second time for treating the same patient in their private practice via NTPF?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It was actually the health boards that made a mess with PPARS. It pre-dated the HSE. It was the HSE that had the guts and the brains to put the project out of its misery and kill it off. You do know that they've gone ahead with a combined payroll system since then, right? I think it is SAP Payroll, though I'm not certain of that. Like most public sector IT projects, you don't hear anything about it when it goes right.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So the +671 care staff (mostly health care assistants) hired last year don't count? And the +287 nursing and midwifery staff? And the +287 social care professionals? And the +171 medical / dental staff? They did sack the staff at Aras Attracta. And you really don't have a clue about how public sector tendering works if you think you can blacklist organisations. So is there anything more behind your ideas, other than opinions?
salonfire wrote: » Thanks for proving my point. As I said the routine procedures should be stripped off the HSE and the associated paper pushing deadwood (maybe some of the 1000 excess HR mangers there for example) should be put out.
salonfire wrote: » Err, because without having consultants, there would be no NTPF. Without NTPF, the HSE waiting lists would be even worse and by the time you are treated, you'd be blind. You should be grateful consultants are willing to split their time private and public.
salonfire wrote: » Their payroll is a mess. Have a look at the grade structure online. See how many different payroll offices they have to deal with queries.
salonfire wrote: » Thanks for proving my point. If their tendering does not take into account past performance of a service provider says it all really on what we can expect from the public service model.
Chiparus wrote: » If Mehall doe not get the Taoiseach job after the next GE, he will be replaced as leader of FF. It has to be with SF I cannot see any workable alternative for FF
Matt Barrett wrote: » Despite any claims to a political ethos it may just be a matter of who's on top in the next FF/FG love in. For stability like.
Chiparus wrote: » FF wont accept another FG led government. I think they will have to bite the bullet as the current arrangement makes SF the defacto opposition. The best way to destroy SF would be to bring them into coalition with FF (c.f. Progressive Democrats, Greens)
Matt Barrett wrote: » I don't know about that. FF are happy enough now with that situation. Sadly FF are still technically able to call themselves opposition as laughable as they are. FF/FG will not risk giving SF such oxygen. FG would rather give defacto power to the party 'practically had us eating out of bins' because it helps protect the status quo. Giving SF a nod might destroy the FF/FG monopoly and that monopoly is more dear to their hearts than any political ethos or policies or faux morals they may feign association with or claim to be against.
blanch152 wrote: » FF cannot afford to either prop up another FG government or go into coalition with FG as their voters would desert them for other parties. That leaves two options after the next elections. (1) A coalition between FF and SF, because SF will have campaigned on the basis that a change is needed and going in with FG would be hypocritical. (2) FG do really well and cobble enough from the Greens, Labour, SD and independents to form a stable government. My money is on (1).
Matt Barrett wrote: » I both love and loathe that out come. I'd hate to see any party side with FF and I'd expect SF to come out the worse, however we badly need a change from FF/FG so any moves in that direction is a positive. The kind of people who support FF, will continue to do so. They hardly support them because of their ethics. Not saying they don't get a share of floaters.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
