Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Do you get the same treatment.

1246

Comments

  • #92
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


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

    um....how would one get to their destination then?


  • #93
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

    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.

    And the problem is?
    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    um....how would one get to their destination then?

    Private Chauffeur.

    Thing is in the US they spend 17% of GDP on healthcare. The UK who have the NHS spends 8% on healthcare. Private healthcare is makes less economic sense.
    Furthermore, when people decide to sidestep the problem and pay insurance companies to help them skip the queue it does nothing to help.


  • #94
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


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

    My apologies, that was Hootanany. The point still stands tho that comment was in direct response to the claim that the VHI aren't paying their bills.
    studiorat wrote: »
    And the problem is?

    Not sure what you are getting at here? Your post that I responded to seemed like it was trying to make the point that a two tiered healthcare system is unfair. My point was that as long as people have money they will buy things that people without money can't afford, this includes health related services.

    The only way to stop this would be to make private healthcare facilities illegal and that is not a realistic solution.


  • #95
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    The only way to stop this would be to make private healthcare facilities illegal and that is not a realistic solution.

    What's not realistic is people seem to be perfectly happy to pay privately while the government spends less than half per capita on healthcare than they do in the UK.

    The problem in Ireland has always been poor staffing levels and low capital investment.


  • #96
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    studiorat wrote: »
    What's not realistic is people seem to be perfectly happy to pay privately while the government spends less than half per capita on healthcare than they do in the UK.

    The problem in Ireland has always been poor staffing levels and low capital investment.

    I dont think anyone is "perfectly happy" to be paying ever increasing premiums, but they do because they feel they have to. Like I said before, my father is due an op early next year. He 'd be waiting 3 years publicly. Is he supposed to stop paying his insurance and wait three years in pain so that he stops feeding into a defective system? (because I admit it is just that). He sacrifices a lot to pay his insurance, and has given up a car, sky or ntl or whatever the hell he had lol, home phone etc to make ends meet, but he wont stop paying his health insurance. I'm sorry if this sounds b1tchy but I am sure there are plenty of people on the public system moaning about the two tiered system, who run two cars and pay for Sky, broadband, foreign holidays etc


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    ulinbac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 707 ✭✭✭ulinbac


    studiorat wrote: »
    What's not realistic is people seem to be perfectly happy to pay privately while the government spends less than half per capita on healthcare than they do in the UK.

    The problem in Ireland has always been poor staffing levels and low capital investment.


    Its always the governments fault!! That arguement gets really tiring... If you want better treatment pay for it! It is what it is. You may not think its equitable or ethicable but some of us have made sacrifices to keep the insurance. If you don't like it then move to the UK or US.

    In the UK you get better treatment through private and same in US.


  • #98
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Yup, though I'd be looking for my PRSI back

    Note that PRSI is nothing to do with healthcare.

    Healthcare is financed by tax in Ireland.

    PRSI is used to fund social insurance benefits, e.g. State Pension, etc.


    (One minor exception - Treatment benefit)


  • #99
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Hootanany wrote: »
    Why is there such a disparity between Public waiting times & Private?

    Imagine you are a medical consultant.

    You get a fixed annual wage to treat public patients.

    You get 120-150-180 to treat insured patients, or those paying cash.

    Even with the best will in the world, you face an incentive to prioritise the private patients.


  • #100
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Hootanany wrote: »
    Thats what I think also, Private in Private hospitals, Public in Public Hospitals?

    The public hosps depend on income from insured patients, approx 900-1000 per night.

    If they lost this activity, and the associated income, they may be in difficulty.


  • #101
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    ash23 wrote: »
    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?

    Why shouldn't everybody be able to avail of the best treatment and care for their specific illness?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    vixdname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭vixdname


    endacl wrote: »
    In the vast majority of cases though, THEY'RE THE SAME BLOODY HOSPITALS! WITH THE SAME BLOODY CONSULTANTS!!

    Yes but that consultant see you BLOODY MONTHS EARLIER and hopefully diagnoses your issue BLOODY MONTHS EARLIER, thus getting you back to full health or saving your life BLOODY MONTHS EARLIER !!!


  • #103
    Hootanany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,479 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    Geuze wrote: »
    Imagine you are a medical consultant.

    You get a fixed annual wage to treat public patients.

    You get 120-150-180 to treat insured patients, or those paying cash.

    Even with the best will in the world, you face an incentive to prioritise the private patients.


    But are these same consultants on a fixed wage with the HSE ie 40hrs a week 9 to 5 type thing.
    And their private consultancy is on their time off,"confused"


  • #104
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    I don't think there's enough benefits to private health cover to really justify the price. It would be different if it covered you for everything, but you can still end up paying a fortune for the same treatment. I had an operation a few years ago. If I got health insurance now I wouldn't be covered if I got the same problem again.


  • #105
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Tiddlypeeps wrote: »
    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.


    Yes, it is unfair that money can allow patients to be seen faster.

    One solution: make everybody have insurance - compulsory. (NL, France, Germany)

    Another solution: raise the quality/service in the public health system so that (most) people don't feel the need to buy insurance (UK).


  • #106
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    Don't think there's much in it tbh, was covered by insurance most of my life and was awarded gms a few years ago but haven't seen much difference at all, the only time I think it would be an issue is where it comes to choice of treatment and hospitalisation (sharing a ward or having your own suite). Have never had issues with waiting times or referrals, always been great to date *crosses fingers.


    (having said that, when my father was dying his treatment and the general services available to him at that time, even as a private patient were horrendous, shameful actually)


  • #107
    Geuze
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,360 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Hootanany wrote: »
    But are these same consultants on a fixed wage with the HSE ie 40hrs a week 9 to 5 type thing.
    And their private consultancy is on their time off,"confused"

    Their HSE contracts are varied, but typically 33 hrs, though I'm sure they work for longer.

    But they would have rostered sessions for their private practice, e.g. Thur PM, etc.


  • #108
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    Daveysil15 wrote: »
    I don't think there's enough benefits to private health cover to really justify the price. It would be different if it covered you for everything, but you can still end up paying a fortune for the same treatment. I had an operation a few years ago. If I got health insurance now I wouldn't be covered if I got the same problem again.
    There's a 5 year waiting period for cover for pre-existing conditions, once that's up you're covered.


  • #109
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    There's a 5 year waiting period for cover for pre-existing conditions, once that's up you're covered.

    Yeah that's what I was told. I still wouldn't get it though.


  • #110
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,867 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    We have both VHI and age related medical card. Once you are in the system there is no real difference, no difference in care as far as I can see, but if you have a new condition then it is much better to be private.

    I defend anyone's right to pay for medical care if that is what they want to spend their money on, but at the same time there should not be a 2 tier system forced on everyone.

    The NHS in the UK is a good system, but again, I have relatives over there and the waste and bureaucracy is staggering.


  • #111
    Hootanany
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,479 ✭✭✭Hootanany


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    There's a 5 year waiting period for cover for pre-existing conditions, once that's up you're covered.

    What does that actually mean?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    ulinbac wrote: »
    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?

    You're technically right and morally wrong.

    I have health insurance because I feel I have to, given that the public system is unfair and oversubscribed, especially for my kids, but not because of some reprehensible sense of meritocracy.

    I'd hate for my views to be governed by the fact I can (thankfully) pay for things if required as that may not always be the case and if that happens, the system you cheerlead so much will have you out on the street.


  • #113
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    Hootanany wrote: »
    What does that actually mean?

    Say you needed surgery and didn't have any health cover. Once you get the op done and you then decide to get health cover, you won't be covered if anything goes wrong with that body part again, at least not for 5 years.


  • #114
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    Hootanany wrote: »
    What does that actually mean?
    It's a clause in health insurance premiums designed to stop people signing up for cover after they have been diagnosed with a condition. They will however cover new conditions after a 6mth waiting period.

    So, if you have say diabetes and take out health cover, they will not cover the cost of any treatments needed as a result of you having diabetes until the cover is in place for 5 years. They will however cover any unrelated conditions after 6 mths. It's designed to stop people signing up just because they now need cover. It would be unprofitable to do so.

    Imagine crashing your car, then ringing insurance companies and saying I need insurance to cover the cost of repairing damage to my car, the other person's car, medical and legal expenses. How do you think you would get on?


  • #115
    Daveysil15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭Daveysil15


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    It's a clause in health insurance premiums designed to stop people signing up for cover after they have been diagnosed with a condition. They will however cover new conditions after a 6mth waiting period.

    So, if you have say diabetes and take out health cover, they will not cover the cost of any treatments needed as a result of you having diabetes until the cover is in place for 5 years. They will however cover any unrelated conditions after 6 mths. It's designed to stop people signing up just because they now need cover. It would be unprofitable to do so.

    Imagine crashing your car, then ringing insurance companies and saying I need insurance to cover the cost of repairing damage to my car, the other person's car, medical and legal expenses. How do you think you would get on?

    The difference there though is that you need to have motor insurance which will cover you for those things anyway. If I was to get health insurance it would cost about the same as my car insurance; which is already very high. I don't see the point in paying the same amount for insurance I don't need which won't cover me for pre-existing conditions. At least if I crash my car twice and damage the same part, I'll still be covered.


  • #116
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    Daveysil15 wrote: »
    The difference there though is that you need to have motor insurance which will cover you for those things anyway. If I was to get health insurance it would cost about the same as my car insurance; which is already very high. I don't see the point in paying the same amount for insurance I don't need which won't cover me for pre-existing conditions. At least if I crash my car twice and damage the same part, I'll still be covered.
    It will cover you eventually though, you said that op was a couple of years ago so the 5 year period will be up soon.

    The reason I have health insurance is so I can get a quick referral to a consultant, more choice with dates for procedures etc, if I have a non-urgent condition. Yes, it's expensive, but it's been worth it for me in the past. There are a couple of things I would sacrifice ahead of health insurance. Your premium doesn't increase if you claim too, unlike car insurance.


  • #117
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    ulinbac wrote: »
    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?
    Paying more for something doesn't guarantee a better product/service whatsoever. It's not fair or right that people who cannot afford private healthcare, due to not having the same financial opportunities as others, "deserve" sub-standard treatment.


  • #118
    WilyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,059 ✭✭✭WilyCoyote


    Hootanany wrote: »
    But it is morally wrong to be told 9 months on public "open your wallet & I will see you on Thursday"

    Is this where the Hippocratic oath becomes the hypocritic oath?


  • #119
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    It's not fair or right that people who cannot afford private healthcare, due to not having the same financial opportunities as others, "deserve" sub-standard treatment.

    They aren't getting sub-standard treatment, they are getting standard treatment. People who pay more are getting above standard treatment. Unless we turn into a communist state it's always going to be the case that people with more money can pay for better things.

    It would be great if the government got their act together and sorted out the HSE so that people felt the service was good enough that they didn't feel the need to pay for a better service, but I think we'll be a long time waiting for that so for now all I can do is continue paying for health insurance.
    WilyCoyote wrote: »
    Is this where the Hippocratic oath becomes the hypocritic oath?

    It would be if doctors were putting up fake bottle necks to make people pay more, but as far as I'm aware that is not the case. They are seeing to public patients as quick as they can, but there are a lot more people on the public waiting lists than their are on the private ones. If everyone in the country went private today then the waiting list for everyone would be similar to what is is for the public service.


  • #120
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    Paying more for something doesn't guarantee a better product/service whatsoever. It's not fair or right that people who cannot afford private healthcare, due to not having the same financial opportunities as others, "deserve" sub-standard treatment.


    Nobody "deserves" sub-standard treatment, but the sub-standard public healthcare is not the fault of those who opt for private healthcare.

    Also, and I believe I made this point before, some people make sacrifices in other areas of their lives to pay their private HC (my parents are nearly crippled - pardon the pun- paying theirs) while some others are happy to moan about a two tier system but unwilling to make the same sacrifices.

    What do you suggest is done? Force people to stop paying health insurance? How will that help? Less money going into the system but still the same amount of people in it? Make them pay anyway but put them on public waiting lists?

    If I want to get from A to B I take a bus. I can't afford a taxi. I don't demand that people who can afford taxis stop taking them because its unfair if they get to B before me. I also don't see how bundling everyone who would have paid for a taxi onto a bus will improve the bus service.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    anncoates
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,925 ✭✭✭✭anncoates


    From anecdotal and my own experience, I don't think the treatment differs radically for private and public patients when public patients actually manage to get into the system: just that it takes so much longer for public patient to get into the system.

    It shouldn't be that hard to provide a functioning health service for only 4 million plus people considering the amount of funding put into the HSE and the fact that so many people have health insurance.

    Obviously though in Ireland, inefficient enterprises replete with public money and riddled with cronyism and overpaid, entitlement-addled incumbents - witness HSE, Dublin Bus, Civil Service etc - are the norm.


Advertisement