nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Do you get the same treatment.

Hootanany

If you have Health Insurance or if you don't.Just wondering?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hootanany

Thats what I think also, Private in Private hospitals, Public in Public Hospitals?

OldNotWIse

Hootanany wrote: »

Thats what I think also, Private in Private hospitals, Public in Public Hospitals?

Yup, though I'd be looking for my PRSI back

Oh wait, I can't afford private health insurance

ash23

Hootanany wrote: »

Thats what I think also, Private in Private hospitals, Public in Public Hospitals?

People who have private insurance pay PRSI too though. So if the government sinks the money into public hospitals, they will have better equipment and more training etc. Why shouldn't someone with health insurance be able to avail of the best treatment and care for their specific illness, whether that is in a private or a public hospital?

Hootanany

That is why Public have to wait for so long because of that scenario.

OldNotWIse

ash23 wrote: »

People who have private insurance pay PRSI too though. So if the government sinks the money into public hospitals, they will have better equipment and more training etc. Why shouldn't someone with health insurance be able to avail of the best treatment and care for their specific illness, whether that is in a private or a public hospital?

I think if they were to separate the two systems, it would be only fair that people who pay privately also have their PRSI directed to the running of private hospitals. Why should they be expected to pay for both systems and only avail of one?

Tiddlypeeps

Hootanany wrote: »

But the VHI owes HSE a shed load of money,normal practice would be withdrawal of service for unpaid bills?

If that is the case then it's pretty crap and the HSE should withdraw the service if all attempts to recover their money have failed.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Messy. Perhaps they should separate the two completely and see how the system pans out.

I disagree with this. If you completely separate the two then you end up with a system like the US. Where publicly funded health care facilities are appalling. The private hospitals hire all the best consultants and staff because they can pay the best leaving the public services with whatever is left. Here people using the public service have access to the same consultants as the private ones it just takes a bit longer to get to them. Then there are the facilities and equipment, here the private service help to fund better equipment and facilities by paying them to essentially rent them for periods of time. Without that money the public hospital would have worse facilities for treating public patients.

I agree on the surface it's a bit **** that someone with money can jump the cue in a public hospital but without the private service the public one would be much worse off.

ash23

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think if they were to separate the two systems, it would be only fair that people who pay privately also have their PRSI directed to the running of private hospitals. Why should they be expected to pay for both systems and only avail of one?

Yeah but then the public hospitals would have really crap facilities and as another poster said, it would end up like the US, where you will actually be left to die or suffer if you can't pay for your treatment. I don't think I'd ever want to see that.

OldNotWIse

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If that is the case then it's pretty crap and the HSE should withdraw the service if all attempts to recover their money have failed.

I disagree with this. If you completely separate the two then you end up with a system like the US. Where publicly funded health care facilities are appalling. The private hospitals hire all the best consultants and staff because they can pay the best leaving the public services with whatever is left. Here people using the public service have access to the same consultants as the private ones it just takes a bit longer to get to them. Then there are the facilities and equipment, here the private service help to fund better equipment and facilities by paying them to essentially rent them for periods of time. Without that money the public hospital would have worse facilities for treating public patients.

I agree on the surface it's a bit **** that someone with money can jump the cue in a public hospital but without the private service the public one would be much worse off.

But if they cant be separated, and hospitals have to suspend services for private patients owing to monies owed...where does that leave private patients?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

OldNotWIse

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And do you think if people stop paying private health insurance and everyone is loaded onto the public healthcare system, it wont collapse?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ulinbac

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is that not because getting an Appendix removed is an emergency procedure and you need to get in asap?

On a side note, I was hospitalised for 5 weeks last year. Went in to A&E got told its 4 weeks min wait. Said I was private and they found a bed in a private ward that day!

I have quite a lot of spine problems and VHI has paid for itself. To see my surgeon on the public system is 4 years!!! Private is 3/4 weeks.

Pain is managed through a minor surgical procedures using a Private Pain physician. I no longer go through my GP and just have to ring his secretary and say my back is gone out again. I have an MRI that week and surgery the next.

The last time I had only had an MRI 3 months prior. Rang on Monday morning and told that my surgery would be that Friday in Blackrock!!! You do not get that in the public system.

shopaholic01

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Was that an emergency appendectomy? Private insurance doesn't guarantee a private bed, one would have to be available at that time.

I've had simple prodecures covered by insurance, some in public hospitals, some in private. The difference for me in both instances was speedy referral to cnsultants and being able to pick a date that suited me. I had a procedure performed before 2 weeks annual leave, so recovered in that time. Not the best way to spend holidays, but I wouldn't have received sick pay apart from social welfare entitlements. This would have meant difficulty with mortgage payments etc.

OldNotWIse

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But the system is already in trouble. Take away all the money pumped in by those paying privately?

My Dad continues to pay his because he needs an operation carried out. He would be 3-4 years waiting for it on public. He was told to pick a date between December 2013 and January next year.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Both my cancer and epilepsy specialists have told me that I don't need private insurance when asked and I have been having fantastic care on the public system for the last seven/eight years. In fact some of my worst experiences during my care were while having scans in private facilities.

I have also been able to get quick scans and my own room after surgery while on public so I see no advantage to private at the moment.

shopaholic01

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Both my cancer and epilepsy specialists have told me that I don't need private insurance when asked and I have been having fantastic care on the public system for the last seven/eight years. In fact some of my worst experiences during my care were while having scans in private facilities.

Cancer care is excellent whether you are a public or private patient. It's a life-threathening disease and requires immediate treatments. If epilepsy is severe the same applies.

Problems can arise though waiting for a diagnosis as a public patient. Many cancers can initially have vague symptoms and you may be put on a waiting list for a CT/MRI scan, that's where insurance is invaluable. Some are asymptomatic and are diagnosed as a result of other conditions being investigated.

It's great that you have had such a postive experience and I hope you recover fully.

XxMCRxBabyxX

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Cancer care is excellent whether you are a public or private patient. It's a life-threathening disease and requires immediate treatments. If epilepsy is severe the same applies.

Problems can arise though waiting for a diagnosis as a public patient. Many cancers can initially have vague symptoms and you may be put on a waiting list for a CT/MRI scan, that's where insurance is invaluable. Some are asymptomatic and are diagnosed as a result of other conditions being investigated.

It's great that you have had such a postive experience and I hope you recover fully.

Just to counteract - my cancer was vague and asymptomatic and never life-threatening, just a lump in my neck that wasn't even diagnosed till after surgery one, and was still all dealt with quickly.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

shopaholic01

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Just to counteract - my cancer was vague and asymptomatic, just a lump in my neck that wasn't even diagnosed till after surgery one, and was still all dealt with quickly.

It was visible though. Take pancreatic cancer for instance, symptoms if present are very vague until it is well advanced.

Anyway, I'm not nit-picking with you. It's great to hear a positve story!

sadie06

I haven't read the whole thread, but I would warn against paying to go private yourself with a view to going public when you get a diagnosis.

i just did this. I have no health insurance but wanted a swift diagnosis as I was worried there was something sinister wrong. I now need occupational therapy and I am not eligible to be seen at the public clinic as I have come through the private system.

:mad:

studiorat

kfk wrote: »

But there has to be a difference between private and public. Private patients should have shorter waiting times and should be offered better treatments imo.

Why?

Tiddlypeeps

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And do you think if people stop paying private health insurance and everyone is loaded onto the public healthcare system, it wont collapse?

That was in response to you saying VHI aren't paying their bills. VHI are not the only insurance provider so not all private patients would be moved to public care. And if as you say VHI aren't paying their bills then the HSE are already paying for those patients anyway, so stopping the service to VHI wouldn't put them under any extra load than they are under already.

ulinbac

studiorat wrote: »

Why?

It's quite simple. You pay more money, you get better treatment than standard.

If you buy a car wirth €5k and another worth €10k would you not expect a better car and service.

At the end of the day if there are two people with the exact same illness but one is public and the other private, the private patient will (in most cases) receive the better care and treatment and rightfully so.

Do you not think that they price in the cost of a person in nearly everything?

OldNotWIse

studiorat wrote: »

Why?

Taxis are faster than buses.

studiorat

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Taxis are faster than buses.

Of course. So instead of saving money by not getting the bus you save even more money by not getting a taxi.

So people are seriously suggesting that the health service should be two tiered just so those paying for private care can feel like they are getting their moneys worth?

ulinbac wrote: »

At the end of the day if there are two people with the exact same illness but one is public and the other private, the private patient will (in most cases) receive the better care and treatment and rightfully so.

^^^
That's so stupid and fcuked-up. The mindset that something is worth more just because you pay more money for it.

ulinbac

studiorat wrote: »

Of course.

^^^
That's so stupid and fcuked-up. The mindset that something is worth more just because you pay more money for it.

In terms of health insurance it is. My medical bills are min. €3k for the rest of my life. My VHI is €1,800. I get seen quickly (that week) as previously stated. It's simple, you pay extra money for better seats at a football match so why not healthcare. Last year they were €21k and I would still be waiting if I wasn't private!!

I have to use my VHI each year and it is worth the money and I couldn't give a toss if I'm skipping people who are just as ill or worse off caus I pay the money! One of my mates has a similar injury to me and he went public, regrets not having private because of the queues!

If you're lucky enough not to have to used it thats great but when you really need it its worth it!!!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

muppetkiller

The only advantage I can see is that if you have private health insurance you can demand to get seen earlier in a public hospital. It's all about money and if you can say to a doctor in a Public hospital that you're heading to a Private Clinic as it's taking too long for treatment they will treat you instantly and some poor chap gets kicked down the list.

It happened with my mum when she had a heart attack, she was waiting ages for her Stent until she threatened to move to a private hospital as she had insurance. She was then seen too two hours later.

Tiddlypeeps

studiorat wrote: »

Of course. So instead of saving money by not getting the bus you save even more money by not getting a taxi.

So people are seriously suggesting that the health service should be two tiered just so those paying for private care can feel like they are getting their moneys worth?

^^^
That's so stupid and fcuked-up. The mindset that something is worth more just because you pay more money for it.

It is unfair that someone with money can buy their way to the front of the queue. But what is the alternative?

You can't stop people from paying for private health care, you would have to make it illegal for someone to open their own private hospital or clinic.

OldNotWIse

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

That was in response to you saying VHI aren't paying their bills. VHI are not the only insurance provider so not all private patients would be moved to public care. And if as you say VHI aren't paying their bills then the HSE are already paying for those patients anyway, so stopping the service to VHI wouldn't put them under any extra load than they are under already.

I didn't say anything about VHI not paying bills - in fact that was news to me.