Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

Godge · 13-03-2015 05:01PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Possibly, however their policy document doesn't mention it.

As well as an NHS, there is also commitments to restore public expenditure to peak levels, spend €13bn on a jobs programme, mimic Norway's energy policy ... Etc...

In a nutshell, one way or another we would all be paying a lot more tax.

Mimicking Norway's energy policy would cost billions in terms of required investment in drilling for oil with the risk of a zero return.

Happyman42 · 13-03-2015 05:06PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The point I made about Norway was this and this only and I posted a link to an article which said it:
Norwegian doctors stay in Norway and work for less because the work conditions and work/life balance is good.
In Ireland(again I posted the survey results) doctors say their main reason for leaving is 'work conditions and work/life balance'.

My point being if we fix the health service first (I posted SF's Health proposals pdf) then doctors will not necessarily leave for more money as Norway shows.

RecordStraight · 13-03-2015 05:11PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

My point being if we fix the health service first (I posted SF's Health proposals pdf) then doctors will not necessarily leave for more money as Norway shows.

It was pointed out to you that Norway has the finest social services in the world and a near-trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund.

It was pointed out to you in the thread that we have neither of these things. Did you concede the point? Or did you flounce off, decrying the 'rubbish thread' that was 'a joke' and 'pathetic' or whatever formula you came up with?

BoJack Horseman · 13-03-2015 05:30PM

Godge wrote: »

Mimicking Norway's energy policy would cost billions in terms of required investment in drilling for oil with the risk of a zero return.

Its risky & as per their policy document on most things, uncoated.

The establishment of a state exploration company would require a long time & truely vast sums of expenditure on plant & equipment& expertise that the civil service doesn't have.

On top of that commitments to refund up to 80% of failed explorations by private companies is another potential calamity..... Seeing as there isn't much to extract.

frankbrett · 13-03-2015 05:33PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Its risky & as per their policy document on most things, uncoated.

The establishment of a state exploration company would require a long time & truely vast sums of expenditure on plant & equipment& expertise that the civil service doesn't have.

On top of that commitments to refund up to 80% of failed explorations by private companies is another potential calamity..... Seeing as there isn't much to extract.

Uh oh

Quango alert!

hmmm · 13-03-2015 05:36PM

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Why can't we as a state incorporate into law a contract for medical students whereby we make 5 years service after graduation compulsory here?

Because we're not Cuba (yet, until SF get their way) and we can't lock the borders down to ensure that professionals cannot flee the country.

hmmm · 13-03-2015 05:37PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

On top of that commitments to refund up to 80% of failed explorations by private companies is another potential calamity..... Seeing as there isn't much to extract.

Seeing as a drop of oil hasn't been extracted from Irish wells, that's going to cost us a fortune. If SF supporters think that the oil is simply lying around waiting to be extracted, they clearly could make a fortune if they'd set up their own Socialist Oil and float out to pick it up. The least they could do is mark an X on the map for the rest of us.

BoJack Horseman · 13-03-2015 05:40PM

hmmm wrote: »

Because we're not Cuba (yet, until SF get their way) and we can't lock the borders down to ensure that professionals cannot flee the country.

In fairness, there is no legal impediment in doing something like this.

If you made medicine, a full-fee course, requiring an interest free loan, students can either work here & repay, or skedaddle & pay, but we won't be financially the worse for it.

RecordStraight · 13-03-2015 05:51PM

hmmm wrote: »

Because we're not Cuba (yet, until SF get their way) and we can't lock the borders down to ensure that professionals cannot flee the country.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for WheatenBriar's point here. It is crazy that we pay to educate these people from the age of 4 right up to qualified doctor level, and then they boot off abroad. If we incentivised them to stay in Ireland for 5 years, they'd be about 30 by the time they were in a position to leave, and could well have family commitments etc. by that time and be more likely to stay.

Of course, the medical establishment (like the legal establishment) is never going to make changes that negatively hit its members interests even if it would benefit society greatly.

hmmm · 13-03-2015 05:51PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

If you made medicine, a full-fee course, requiring an interest free loan, students can either work here & repay, or skedaddle & pay, but we won't be financially the worse for it.

I'd say that would make it even more likely that students would go where-ever they would earn the most. Certainly the socialist SF paradise, with salaries cut and 60% of everything they earn going in taxes, would not be attractive.

Happyman42 · 13-03-2015 06:12PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

It was pointed out to you that Norway has the finest social services in the world and a near-trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund.

And that had nothing to do with the point I was making.
The point was if you can improve workload and work conditions then you will keep more doctors. doctors who cite that as the MAIN reason for leaving.

A survey as recent as yesterday showed exactly what I am saying AGAIN.

You just assumed that they where leaving for better money and took it from there when several doctors and surveys say different.

Career opportunities, working conditions and lifestyle are cited as the top three factors for migration by some 88 per cent of over 2,000 students surveyed.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-in-10-medical-students-may-leave-ireland-on-qualifying-1.2135857

Godge · 13-03-2015 06:18PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

And that had nothing to do with the point I was making.
The point was if you can improve workload and work conditions then you will keep more doctors. doctors who cite that as the MAIN reason for leaving.

A survey as recent as yesterday showed exactly what I am saying AGAIN.

You just assumed that they where leaving for better money and took it from there when several doctors and surveys say different.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/nine-in-10-medical-students-may-leave-ireland-on-qualifying-1.2135857

Working conditions is euphemism for money, nobody will fill in a survey and imply they are greedy.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Surveys say "working conditions". Reality shows that when we increase pay we don't have a problem attracting them home. When we cut pay we have vacancies.

You are also mixing up the difference between junior doctors and consultants.

Godge · 13-03-2015 06:20PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

In fairness, there is no legal impediment in doing something like this.

If you made medicine, a full-fee course, requiring an interest free loan, students can either work here & repay, or skedaddle & pay, but we won't be financially the worse for it.

They would just skedaddle and not pay or they would train abroad (Scotland) where there are lower fees and no restrictions.

Calina · 13-03-2015 06:21PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

If we incentivised them to stay in Ireland for 5 years, they'd be about 30 by the time they were in a position to leave, and could well have family commitments etc. by that time and be more likely to stay.

He's not interested in incentivising them to stay. He's interested in forcing them. There's a bloody huge difference between making it compulsory to stay and making it attractive to stay.

Happyman42 · 13-03-2015 06:27PM

Godge wrote: »

Working conditions is euphemism for money, nobody will fill in a survey and imply they are greedy.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Surveys say "working conditions". Reality shows that when we increase pay we don't have a problem attracting them home. When we cut pay we have vacancies.

You are also mixing up the difference between junior doctors and consultants.

Same source

The study led by NUI Galway (NUIG) and published on Thursday has found pay was not a key issue among the respondents.

Iwasfrozen · 14-03-2015 01:18AM

Godge wrote: »

They would just skedaddle and not pay or they would train abroad (Scotland) where there are lower fees and no restrictions.

I doubt it. They'd have to skaddle forever and couldn't own / inherit / receive assets in Ireland which I just don't see most tolerating.

Geuze · 14-03-2015 02:52AM

RecordStraight wrote: »

Yes, we are back at the Laffer curve again. As you charge people punitive taxes on their marginal earnings, they will either figure out ways of dodging the taxes outright, or they will cut back on the amount they work and enjoy more free time instead.

My marginal rate wouldn't change, but my average rate would rise.

They would reduce the tax relief on pension conts.

That's a rise in effective income tax.

Geuze · 14-03-2015 02:56AM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Possibly, however their policy document doesn't mention it.

See their Budget 2015 proposals:

"Standardise the relief at which tax back can be claimed. Beginning with a reduction to 28% in 2015. Raises €235 million"

This would mean higher income taxes for hundreds of thousands of workers.

Especially PS workers, who make two pension conts (6.5% normal pension cont and up to 10% PRD).

A PS on 55k could be hit for 1200-1400 pa.

Geuze · 14-03-2015 03:00AM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Possibly, however their policy document doesn't mention it.

See page 10:

http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2014/Pre-Budget_October2014.pdf

PENSIONS
Ceiling cap and standardising the rate

The current ‘earnings cap’ recognises
€115,000 per annum (whatever your salary
is) as the maximum salary against which
percentages are calculated for pension tax
reliefs. We would reduce the earnings cap for
pension contributions to €70,000 per annum,
which would raise €110 million.

We would
standardise the relief at which tax back can be
claimed, beginning with a reduction to 28% in
2015. This raises €235 million.

That last proposal is a huge hit to workers on over 33k who contribute to pensions.

Geuze · 14-03-2015 03:05AM

Godge wrote: »

That assumes that you would continue to pay 70-80% of your marginal income tax rather than work a four-day week or take a lower-paying job with less stress.

SF don't seem to be proposing a change to my MTR, they plan to cut tax reliefs on pension conts.

That causes the ATR to rise, not the MTR.

Dan_Solo · 14-03-2015 01:59PM

hmmm wrote: »

I'd say that would make it even more likely that students would go where-ever they would earn the most. Certainly the socialist SF paradise, with salaries cut and 60% of everything they earn going in taxes, would not be attractive.

How many graduates will be going straight to 100,000+ jobs in the public or private sector? Be specific now as this is exactly what you are claiming will make people emigrate.

Dan_Solo · 14-03-2015 02:02PM

hmmm wrote: »

Seeing as a drop of oil hasn't been extracted from Irish wells, that's going to cost us a fortune. If SF supporters think that the oil is simply lying around waiting to be extracted, they clearly could make a fortune if they'd set up their own Socialist Oil and float out to pick it up. The least they could do is mark an X on the map for the rest of us.

Since they're not in government to do anything about it, this waffle is, well, just waffle. You expect SF to nationalise resources when they're not in power? Who do you think they are, being able to dictate national policy without seats in the Dail, bank managers?

Dan_Solo · 14-03-2015 02:08PM

LeeMajors wrote: »

So, you're for the FFail 'throw heaps of money at it' approach?
That's why the HSE is in the state it's in.

No, I think the current FF/FG approach is to pay doctors double the going rate so you can only afford half as many of them and then wonder why there's 100s on trolleys and years long waiting lists.

Dan_Solo · 14-03-2015 02:45PM

Dog of Tears wrote: »

The Shinners will just get us this guy and his friends.

So this is what the antishinners think is representative of the average Pakistani doctor the HSE will be bringing in?
Sounds like racism, smells like racism, looks like racism....

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-03-2015 02:47PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So this is what the antishinners think is representative of the average Pakistani doctor the HSE will be bringing in?
Sounds like racism, smells like racism, looks like racism....

Dr Nick Riviera

Yeah

Sure sounds like a Pakistani doctor to me

Quit with the faux outrage would ya it's ****ing embarrassing at this stage :rolleyes:

Dan_Solo · 14-03-2015 02:50PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Dr Nick Riviera

Yeah

Sure sounds like a Pakistani doctor to me

Do you know what "representative" means? Or were you even aware it was the STANDARD of doctor that the image was meant to represent?
You think he posted the image because Dr Nick Riviera is Latino or because he's a **** doctor?

Eugene Norman · 16-03-2015 12:21PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All of those arguments are resuming the conclusion of course. Oil rich has nothing to do with doctor's pay, in fact it would be reason to pay more. The public service in Norway is good precisely because they get (amongst other things) vocational medics and public servants rather than those in love with higher pay, and not only did norway in fact have a culture of emigration to the U.S., that argument is spurious in any case because very low pay in one field could trump a disinclination to general emigration.

If irish doctors are leaving replace them with immigrants. Since irish wages are higher than most of the world that shouldn't be an issue.

RecordStraight · 16-03-2015 12:47PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

All of those arguments are resuming the conclusion of course. Oil rich has nothing to do with doctor's pay, in fact it would be reason to pay more.

I disagree. I'd require a lot more money to live in a country with rubbish public services than one with excellent ones. Wouldn't you?

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the actual thread than on the rules thread though.

Happyman42 · 16-03-2015 02:12PM

RecordStraight wrote: »

I disagree. I'd require a lot more money to live in a country with rubbish public services than one with excellent ones. Wouldn't you?

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the actual thread than on the rules thread though.

'I' = 'everybody'. There isn't any point discussing anything on that level.

Dan_Solo · 16-03-2015 02:42PM

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Yes but i was responding to another logically illiterate post by PB.

But but but HE'S part of the gang so he can't possible tell HIM he's off topic!

Sinn Fein - looming health service disaster?

Comments