penguin88 wrote: » So I'll take from this response that you are in favour of prohibiting medical card holders from taking out private insurance. I, and many others, would not agree with this.
sleepyheadh wrote: » Oh yes I'm Sorry if we can't solve the problem entirely we should never speak of it.. Apologies
sleepyheadh wrote: » What's your answer to the question asked?
penguin88 wrote: » That's a question for another thread, the topic here is healthcare.
Hotfail.com wrote: » This guy could easily have a low income and value his health highly, therefore he may be getting private health insurance + Medical Card and does without Sky and other luxury goods. Would you prefer he spent his money on alcohol/gambling instead of health insurance?
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
sleepyheadh wrote: » The very principle that you are using to argue your side, is identical to the one in that question. The are virtually identical question, I would love to see what your answer is. If you don't answer I have to presume that you would give the person who can afford to pay rent the house.
penguin88 wrote: » You might think it's an identical question but it's not, and demonstrates your lack of understanding of the healthcare system. A council house and privately rented accommodation both fulfil essentially the same role and are no different from one another. The public and private health systems are very different in terms of ease/equity of access and the difference between them can mean extra pain, debilitation and potentially death.
Turtwig wrote: » A more apt analogy is offering a person a council house with shoddy conditions. They then choose to spend harsh winter like moments in a hotel with adequate conditions. Paying from their own pocket.
sleepyheadh wrote: » Just so you know for the future... You know when you are sitting in a&e for 5 hours waiting to see a doctor. They no you are not really sick. Notice how when the ambulance pulls up and the person is wheeled in unconscious and bleeding out the are treated immediately. The question is the same. The issues are similar, identical in fact. I would love for you to point out some real life incidences where people have died because they were public patients.
sleepyheadh wrote: » Now if only there was more funds available to upgrade the system to a higher standard. Maybe if the government weren't paying for a persons GP visits that they were able to afford without the medical card!
penguin88 wrote: » You realise monthly GP visits would cost more than some health insurance policies? You seem fixated on GP care as a benefit of medical cards and are largely ignoring the secondary care, pharmacy and other health services it provides.
penguin88 wrote: » You realise monthly GP visits would cost more than some health insurance policies?
sleepyheadh wrote: » Oh I know it would thats why you get medical insurance!! It's kinda the whole point of medical insurance actually.
sleepyheadh wrote: » We'll let's go back to the initial point I was making.. The guy was saying he uses his med card for free gp treatment and then his for a quicker hospital experience. This is what I felt was wrong and this is why I keep referring back to GP care, as it was the initial point I was making
sleepyheadh wrote: » And just so you can see how stupid this analogy would be let's play it out. Person A - I have scrimped and saved all year in order to afford rent. I have not drank or smoked in order to put a roof offer by head. Government - hello person A we would like to offer you a council house with shoddy conditions, what you say want it? In this scenario the person still shouldn't bad offered the house as they can afford rent. Now let's look at what I think you were saying. Homeless person currently living in a door way in dublin inner city - Jesus I wish I had somewhere I could sleep at night Government - hello, would you like a home? The conditions are a bit shoddy though! Homeless man - no f'ing problem!
penguin88 wrote: » No that's not the point, GP visits aren't fully covered by any policy as far as I know, hospital care is the major reason for health insurance.
sleepyheadh wrote: » I was talking to a fellow boards member earlier today and they were quite open about the fact they had a medical card but also pays for health insurance. I thought it completely defeated the purpose of the medical, clearly the guy had enough money to afford health care, yet he still felt perfectly comfortable in saying he had the medical card. Is this a common thing?
penguin88 wrote: » Wow...and on that ridiculous conflation of the housing and homeless crises, I am out of here for tonight!
Person A - I have scrimped and saved all year in order to afford rent. I have not drank or smoked in order to put a roof offer by head. Government - hello person A we would like to offer you a council house with shoddy conditions, what you say want it? In this scenario the person still shouldn't bad offered the house as they can afford rent.
put a roof offer by head.
Hotfail.com wrote: » He said all this on the internet. (I presume) You don't know the man, I doubt he was telling you the whole story. He could be diabetic, a cancer sufferer, have a bad heart or a myriad of other illnesses or ailments that make it impossible for him to afford to pay for both GP visits and medication but make it necessary for him to have private health insurance so he can be seen by a specialist as soon as possible to prevent his health being damaged even further due to larger waiting lists on the public system.
obplayer wrote: » So if they had spent the money on booze and fags they should be offered the house? Is that what you are saying? Do you have a cold?
sleepyheadh wrote: » No what I am saying is if a person has suffices means that means that they do not require assistance from the government. They should not be given it.
obplayer wrote: » So government assistance should only be given if people are living at subsistence level? Anything above that is fend for yourself?
sleepyheadh wrote: » And just as a heads up the correct use of the word myriad in that sentence should read - have a bad heart or a myriad other illnesses.
Hotfail.com wrote: » Time for me to leave, once we get to correcting grammar we can say goodbye to any reasonable level of debate. And just as a heads up, they're both acceptable. Bye.
