Can you afford this?

For Forks Sake · 21-02-2014 05:43PM

quickbeam wrote: »

And here's another reason not to vote for this shower next time around!

I'm fairly certain this was part of FGs manifesto in the last election...which the people voted for?

Push Pop · 21-02-2014 05:44PM

His is copying Obamacare! Come up with your own ideas O'Reilly, surely you can do that.

Tilly · 21-02-2014 05:44PM

Lars1916 wrote: »

May I ask, who that generous employer is? Or what sector? I only know, that the costs for schemes like this are halved between employer and employee.

Private sector and I don't pay a cent towards it.

Daith · 21-02-2014 05:45PM

Lars1916 wrote: »

May I ask, who that generous employer is? Or what sector? I only know, that the costs for schemes like this are halved between employer and employee.

My previous private company employer paid for our health insurance bar BIK

Riskymove · 21-02-2014 05:46PM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

What about the unemployed, pensioners, those on disability etc.

yes correct but thats the same as now anyway

Uriel. · 21-02-2014 05:47PM

ScumLord wrote: »

That's true but I also think private health insurance companies could help improve things there. They're much more aggressive about targets and could light a fire under hospitals forcing them to improve.

The big worry with private companies is that they'd just cheapen everything and go for the profit, but companies today have kind of gone through that era of profit above people and have put in practices to control themselves better due to being more closely watched.

I hope you are right, I really do.

I remember reading the FG election manifesto with this proposal broadly outlined. In principle it sounds great (not sure if this actual proposal has amended the manifesto proposal).

Time to wait and see though.

Uriel. · 21-02-2014 05:48PM

quickbeam wrote: »

And here's another reason not to vote for this shower next time around!

This proposal was a headline item in the FG election manifesto and campaign.

:rolleyes:

For Forks Sake · 21-02-2014 05:48PM

Lars1916 wrote: »

May I ask, who that generous employer is? Or what sector? I only know, that the costs for schemes like this are halved between employer and employee.

I work for an american MNC here, and all employees are covered by Aviva, fully paid by the company. You can opt out if you wish, and the value is divided by 12 and added to your monthly salary.

Arthur Beesley · 21-02-2014 05:49PM

Riskymove wrote: »

yes correct but thats the same as now anyway

Exactly, but we won't all pay was the point.

Lawrence1895 · 21-02-2014 05:52PM

I think, I'm working with the wrong crowd then

Riskymove · 21-02-2014 05:53PM

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Exactly, but we won't all pay was the point.

well ok, but all workers would, albeit with some subsidies

it could still be a far better way of funding the cost than the current setup

noodler · 21-02-2014 05:54PM

Reilly, in his opinion piece in the Time on Tuesday, was adamant that this would not cost more than our current system (HSE spend plus what people spend on private health insurance).

The point is always raised that these systems are expensive as other countries have found outthem but Reilly quoted public policy in the article who apparently argue that other countries incur these costs due to their elss than favourable demographics which is less of a concern for us in the immediate future.

Like Uriel, I look forward to the White Paper's publication.

quickbeam · 21-02-2014 05:55PM

For Forks Sake wrote: »

I'm fairly certain this was part of FGs manifesto in the last election...which the people voted for?

Uriel. wrote: »

I remember reading the FG election manifesto with this proposal broadly outlined. In principle it sounds great (not sure if this actual proposal has amended the manifesto proposal).

I don't remember specifically but I do remember O'Reilly on a TV show a week before the last election saying that he'd clear all waiting on trolleys within the first 100 days of the new government, and that hasn't happened.

Still don't like it, and still won't vote for them next time (though I'm running out of people I can vote for).

daheff · 21-02-2014 05:55PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

So its just another tax then

Nope. same tax just paid twice

keeponhurling wrote: »

This is what they do in the Netherlands and I believe it actually works quite well

We sure as hell arent the Netherlands.

vitani wrote: »

I presume that will be on top of PRSI contributions :rolleyes:

What abou USC?

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

It can't be any worse than the current system where you pay thousands in tax every year for a bloated and inefficient health service, then also have to pay for private health insurance to actually get some use out of it.

Why not? How will a private health insurance tax make things any different? Its not the money going in thats the problem, its what happens when it gets into the system.

Reform is whats needed, not another way to get drink the well dry.
I heard on the radio that people would be paying 1600 per person per year for the private health insurance. I dont pay that now ....why am I going to pay MORE for this? Will my other taxes drop by the same amount to compensate for the fact that health is being funded differently? I dont see that happening. This looks (to me) to be the next step in the privatisation of our health service. Force everybody to buy private health insurance ...couple of years down the road health will be spun out of Govt expenditure just like water has this year.

If this bolloxolgy continues i'm taking myself & family and leaving the country.

Pumpkinseeds · 21-02-2014 05:58PM

I have 3 severe pre-existing medical conditions, who exactly do they think will give me health insurance? If they push this through they will never be re-elected. This smacks of giving people a worst case scenario, then introducing something less severe in the hope that people will accept it.

darkpagandeath · 21-02-2014 06:02PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I have 3 severe pre-existing medical conditions, who exactly do they think will give me health insurance? If they push this through they will never be re-elected. This smacks of giving people a worst case scenario, then introducing something less severe in the hope that people will accept it.

You mean like the ruse of were cutting funding/help and all that for Disabled people so there was public outcry. Then them doing what they were going to do in the first place and people not having any leg to stand on as "you did not like the first option".

Diemos · 21-02-2014 06:03PM

Wow, this could finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

A cynic might say the timing of this is perfect to take heat from our glorious minister Shatter.

daheff · 21-02-2014 06:04PM

Diemos wrote: »

A cynic might say the timing of this is perfect to take heat from our glorious minister Shatter.

I dont think thats working..hes fecked

Pumpkinseeds · 21-02-2014 06:15PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

You mean like the ruse of were cutting funding/help and all that for Disabled people so there was public outcry. Then them doing what they were going to do in the first place and people not having any leg to stand on as "you did not like the first option".

What they're proposing makes no sense. Young people are the ones who are giving up health insurance because they can't afford it, thus the waiting lists for public patients waiting to see a consultant or have a proceedure are getting even more insanely long.

Government, and it really doesn't matter which one it was, pushed through a 2 tier health service, actively encouraging the building of private hospitals and now people can't afford their premiums anymore. So now they have a 2 tier system that young people and famillies can't afford and a public health service with higher and higher demands on it that it just can't cope with.

I'd love to know what they propose for people with pre-existing conditons who won't be covered by insurance. I'm not really sure how that would work.

The_Valeyard · 21-02-2014 06:18PM

I see legal challenges in the European courts over this. Could be an issue of double taxation or something like that.

Temptamperu · 21-02-2014 06:21PM

Instead of buying expensive insurance why dont we just put it in taxes and have a NHS like system. Why is the middle man so important?

darkpagandeath · 21-02-2014 06:22PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

What they're proposing makes no sense. Young people are the ones who are giving up health insurance because they can't afford it, thus the waiting lists for public patients waiting to see a consultant or have a proceedure are getting even more insanely long.

Government, and it really doesn't matter which one it was, pushed through a 2 tier health service, actively encouraging the building of private hospitals and now people can't afford their premiums anymore. So now they have a 2 tier system that young people and famillies can't afford and a public health service with higher and higher demands on it that it just can't cope with.

I'd love to know what they propose for people with pre-existing conditons who won't be covered by insurance. I'm not really sure how that would work.

I'm confused ? I'm on your side what I was pointing out was the last worse case scenario. So they could then go ahead and do what they were planning all along they never ment to keep the Disability cuts. They just did that to create public out cry so other people would take the cuts.

ScumLord · 21-02-2014 06:23PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I have 3 severe pre-existing medical conditions, who exactly do they think will give me health insurance? If they push this through they will never be re-elected. This smacks of giving people a worst case scenario, then introducing something less severe in the hope that people will accept it.

The thing is doing this as a nation means we can force them to take on everybody. It's like group buying in a way, they won't turn down over a million healthy customers because a few thousand are actually sick.

Rightwing · 21-02-2014 06:26PM

The underlying principle behind it is sound, the caveat is, the consultants really do need to the highest paid in the world, so folks we need to stump up cash for a dreadful service.

Pumpkinseeds · 21-02-2014 06:28PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

I'm confused ? I'm on your side what I was pointing out was the last worse case scenario. So they could then go ahead and do what they were planning all along they never ment to keep the Disability cuts. They just did that to create public outcry so other people would take the cuts.

I think they just want to gauge public opinion on it. I honestly can't see how they could implement it, is what I mean. So it's just a guess that they don't actually intend to do it, but have something less odious planned, that way they can be seen to backtrack and say they've bowed to the wishes of the people or some such.

I can't see how they could legally force private health insurance on people on low incomes or benefits. I would imagine that if they start deducting money from benefit payments that someone would mount a successful legal challenge to it. It all just seems so nonsensical. I don't really know what to make of it

Pumpkinseeds · 21-02-2014 06:31PM

ScumLord wrote: »

The thing is doing this as a nation means we can force them to take on everybody. It's like group buying in a way, they won't turn down over a million healthy customers because a few thousand are actually sick.

The thing is that they could add a clause to the policies of customers like me who have pre-existing medical problems,which could mean that we would have to pay x amount of years of premiums before we could be covered for those conditions.

After all premiums are going up not down, so it doesn't seem as though the health insurance companies are too concerned about the loss of clients.

Tiddlypeeps · 21-02-2014 06:33PM

Lars1916 wrote: »

May I ask, who that generous employer is? Or what sector? I only know, that the costs for schemes like this are halved between employer and employee.

A lot of employers pay the full policy for staff. But to the employee it feels like they pay half if they are on the higher rate of tax because BIK means they have to have to pay almost half the value of the policy as a tax.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater · 21-02-2014 06:36PM

Just another stick to bate PAYE workers with. Honestly, you'd be forgiven for thinking that they're trying to decrease the tax base in the country. If I hopped onto the dole now I'd be avoiding water charges, property tax (or getting rent allowance) tv licence, medical fees and work related expenses.

The mind boggles.

shopaholic01 · 21-02-2014 06:37PM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The thing is that they could add a clause to the policies of customers like me who have pre-existing medical problems,which could mean that we would have to pay x amount of years of premiums before we could be covered for those conditions.

After all premiums are going up not down, so it doesn't seem as though the health insurance companies are too concerned about the loss of clients.

There is a 5 year waiting period before health insurance companies will provide cover for pre-exisiting conditions. If this became compulsory surely the state would still be liable to provide treatment, or to negotiate with providers to remove this?

zarquon · 21-02-2014 06:39PM

Tilly wrote: »

Private sector and I don't pay a cent towards it.

Not true. It's categorized as a benefit in kind and therefore applicable for additional paye tax.

Same with my employer but i have to pay tax on the BIK which is not taken at source as the employer pays it.

Can you afford this?

Comments