Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] 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 [email protected]

Private healthcare patients get exclusive access to cancer drugs

124

Comments

  • Posts: 26,052 ✭✭✭✭[Deleted User]


    seasidedub wrote: »
    To posters complaining about people with private health insurance getting access/drugs/treatment faster than public patients - almost all EU countries including Scandinavian countries (I know because I worked there) have robust private health insurance and private hospitals. Those who have either insurance or cash to pay get faster access and treatment in those countries too.

    The difference is that the waiting times for access to consultants and elective operations on the public system is very long in Ireland, less so in other countries. But people need to cop on - relative wealth has always been a determinant of health and always will be. And if you work hard, sacrifice to pay insurance (thus removing the burden from the taxpayer....) surely you have a right to fast, efficient care?

    Why would you assume that people who can't afford private healthcare don't work hard?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    seasidedub wrote: »
    To posters complaining about people with private health insurance getting access/drugs/treatment faster than public patients - almost all EU countries including Scandinavian countries (I know because I worked there) have robust private health insurance and private hospitals. Those who have either insurance or cash to pay get faster access and treatment in those countries too.

    The difference is that the waiting times for access to consultants and elective operations on the public system is very long in Ireland, less so in other countries. But people need to cop on - relative wealth has always been a determinant of health and always will be. And if you work hard, sacrifice to pay insurance (thus removing the burden from the taxpayer....) surely you have a right to fast, efficient care?

    I work alongside Mexican cleaners who can barely afford insurance. Some can't at all. Who do you think works more hours me or them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I work alongside Mexican cleaners who can barely afford insurance. Some can't at all. Who do you think works more hours me or them?

    Are you talking about the States? Different thing - no real public system there. We do have o e and by and large it provides good care.


  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    Candie wrote: »
    Why would you assume that people who can't afford private healthcare don't work hard?

    I'm not presuming- but some people prioritise it over other things and sacrifice a lot to have it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Are you talking about the States? Different thing - no real public system there. We do have o e and by and large it provides good care.

    OK who works harder in Ireland. Me or an social worker? I make a lot more than a social worker (which shouldn't be the case).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    OK who works harder in Ireland. Me or an social worker? I make a lot more than a social worker (which shouldn't be the case).

    Sometimes that's just how it is. Are you going to voluntarily take a pay cut?


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Sometimes that's just how it is. Are you going to voluntarily take a pay cut?

    No but I'm not going to spout garbage like someone whose already on less pay than me for what may be equally hard work should also receive less health care than me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    OK who works harder in Ireland. Me or an social worker? I make a lot more than a social worker (which shouldn't be the case).

    I still think there's lessons to be learnt from China.
    They are scoring their citizens by "social credits", good citizens are rewarded.
    Sounds a bit like earning "stamps" to get the dole years ago?

    Score people based on their contribution to society.
    That determines housing, health care etc.

    No point on wasting good money on criminals and spongers.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,333 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It is a bit disturbing that there are people who think just because they are paying they should get access to life-extending treatment that those on the public system would not get, and its evening worse if they think that is what health insurance is for.


    That’s exactly what VHI are offering to their customers though? Access to earlier treatments in the event that one should develop a particular form of cancer that they offer earlier treatments for than are available from the HSE, and that’s somehow disturbing? No, that’s simply how private health insurance works, and initiatives like this attract new customers.

    I don’t know what to make of people who expect that the HSE should be able to offer the same level of services to the public as private health insurance providers can, certainly not when we’re paying as little for our public health services as we are. I really don’t know what to make of people who expect the HSE to fund niche drugs for a small group of people at the expense of many thousands of other public patients who will have to go without treatments or will have their healthcare significantly cut to allow for the budget to stretch to afford the millions spent on these new wonderdrugs that nobody can be sure are all that effective.

    But people who pay privately for their own health insurance are immoral? How the hell does that work?

    steddyeddy wrote: »
    They're only saying that because they can currently afford it. Increase the costs so only high earners could afford it and they'd change their views on the morality of healthcare.


    I could never afford private health insurance ed. I had to sacrifice many other things to be able to pay for it. I can afford it now, but my views on the morality of healthcare are the same. This has nothing to do with who can or cannot afford private healthcare, it has everything to do with a small number of people who demand the same levels of service of our public healthcare system as there are in the private healthcare system, but don’t want to pay for it themselves. Most people are satisfied with the standard of healthcare they receive in the public healthcare system, because they aren’t actually paying a whole lot for it. Everyone pays a small contribution. When one group demands that nearly all of the HSE budget be spent on wonderdrugs for them, then it really does beg the question -

    Where the hell are their morals?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    seasidedub wrote: »
    To posters complaining about people with private health insurance getting access/drugs/treatment faster than public patients - almost all EU countries including Scandinavian countries (I know because I worked there) have robust private health insurance and private hospitals. Those who have either insurance or cash to pay get faster access and treatment in those countries too.

    The difference is that the waiting times for access to consultants and elective operations on the public system is very long in Ireland, less so in other countries. But people need to cop on - relative wealth has always been a determinant of health and always will be. And if you work hard, sacrifice to pay insurance (thus removing the burden from the taxpayer....) surely you have a right to fast, efficient care?

    In most European countries they have robust private health insurance that everyone pays into, and may get a discount on according to their means. In Ireland there is a weird, nhs wannabe system whereby you buy priority with health insurance- which is paid for by some who can afford it and some who can't. Some choose not to buy it even if they can well afford it.

    It's just a ridiculous and unfair system from start to finish. Make health insurance mandatory and means tested, and slap a few co-pays on for things like a+e visits for things that can be handled by the gp. Everyone needs to have a base of responsibility for their own health and everyone deserves the highest level of care- but this needs to be bankrolled somehow and has to be equally accessible to everyone. It shouldn't just be for those who can afford it, but everyone should pay what they can afford, even if it's nominal.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    Lillyfae wrote: »
    In most European countries they have robust private health insurance that everyone pays into, and may get a discount on according to their means. In Ireland there is a weird, nhs wannabe system whereby you buy priority with health insurance- which is paid for by some who can afford it and some who can't. Some choose not to buy it even if they can well afford it.

    It's just a ridiculous and unfair system from start to finish. Make health insurance mandatory and means tested, and slap a few co-pays on for things like a+e visits for things that can be handled by the gp. Everyone needs to have a base of responsibility for their own health and everyone deserves the highest level of care- but this needs to be bankrolled somehow and has to be equally accessible to everyone. It shouldn't just be for those who can afford it, but everyone should pay what they can afford, even if it's nominal.

    Yes - I would like to see a better system in Ireland. I've worked in the health systems of 2 EU countries (Not the UK) and they are far better. But those countries still have fully private systems too and if you have private insurance you get fast tracked - just as in Ireland. I'm simply pointing out that private insurance and fast track access is not a uniquely Irish issue.

    Also - for a more european type system - so no GP fees, healthcare centres instead of GP offices etc, would Irish people want to pay additional taxes? (They won't pay for water which Europeans all do) and would GPs agree to become salaried public employees or just leave for the US/Can/Oz as they already do?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Faster more convenient accesses in the private health insurance system is not denying anyone in the public system accesses even though they will have to wait for it and it will not be as convenient.

    Actually giving one group something that is denied to another group is a different issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭paddy19


    Does anyone have any insight into the basis of this very strange decision by the VHI?

    The media have shown little interest in this critical decision apart from the emotive angle of suffering patients.
    This is an organisation owned by the citizens of this country.
    The VHI are singularly unqualified to decide what drugs should should or should not be reimbursed.
    The NCP is the body tasked with the unenviable job of deciding what drugs will be available to patients.
    We do not need another body messing around in this critical area.
    We already have politicians making knee jerk decisions that play into the money grabbing tactics of the pharma industry.

    So the question remains how and why the VHI have gone on this solo run:

    A mistake.
    A marketing stunt.
    A new direction decided at board level.
    A new direction decided at board level reviewed and agreed with the Government.

    The VHI need to be held to account.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,957 ✭✭✭✭Geuze



    I don’t know what to make of people who expect that the HSE should be able to offer the same level of services to the public as private health insurance providers can, certainly not when we’re paying as little for our public health services as we are. ?

    Public health exp is not low in Ireland.

    It is relatively high, given the age-profile of our population.




  • if all the money people are paying into the private healthcare system was removed in the morning would the fabled impoverished patient be better off or worse i wonder

    the theoretical system (of anything) where everyone gets what they need (let alone want) has always remained theoretical. now why do we think that is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Yes - I would like to see a better system in Ireland. I've worked in the health systems of 2 EU countries (Not the UK) and they are far better. But those countries still have fully private systems too and if you have private insurance you get fast tracked - just as in Ireland. I'm simply pointing out that private insurance and fast track access is not a uniquely Irish issue.

    Also - for a more european type system - so no GP fees, healthcare centres instead of GP offices etc, would Irish people want to pay additional taxes? (They won't pay for water which Europeans all do) and would GPs agree to become salaried public employees or just leave for the US/Can/Oz as they already do?

    My policy allows me to claim back 50% of GP fees so I would certainly pay more insurance to get 100% coverage of GP etc care, the GP would still be a self-employed practitioner or a salaried employee it would be their choice. That is the way it should go everyone should be insured to a basic level which all pay for then if anyone wants to top up for nicer ( for want of a better word ) more convenient experience they could


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    if all the money people are paying into the private healthcare system was removed in the morning would the fabled impoverished patient be better off or worse i wonder

    the theoretical system (of anything) where everyone gets what they need (let alone want) has always remained theoretical. now why do we think that is.

    Depends on how you define a need, my oldest daughter worked/volunteered in a public hospital in a region of India for a very short while its not a poor region by Indian standards. I am not sure how it works exactly but patients do pay a very small amount, the hospital was very basic but clean and the patients got treated but not to the standards we have in the west.

    Her other conclusion we in the west have too much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,546 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    mariaalice wrote: »
    but they will be getting the same treatment as the private patient.

    Not necessarily.

    As soon as my waiting period is over, I'm very likely to be having some knee surgery which is needed, but will never get prioritised highly enough to actually be done in the public system.


  • Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Skyrimaddict


    It is the same rubbish as always here, if you dont have an extra 200-300 a month to pay, go wait in a rubbish health service.

    Everyone slags the NHS, but it seems to be much superior to use here.
    With all the tax we pay, (1500) a month in my case, we get very little return for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    Not necessarily.

    As soon as my waiting period is over, I'm very likely to be having some knee surgery which is needed, but will never get prioritised highly enough to actually be done in the public system.

    Lots on in the public system get it done with the national treatment purchases fund without having to pay for it ever abroad but does that count as public health. I know someone who had two hip replacement done with the NTP.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    It is the same rubbish as always here, if you dont have an extra 200-300 a month to pay, go wait in a rubbish health service.

    Everyone slags the NHS, but it seems to be much superior to use here.
    With all the tax we pay, (1500) a month in my case, we get very little return for it.

    The public health system here is not rubbish its badly organised and disorganised, it's something that really irritates me the perception that the public health system is rubbish it's not.


  • Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Skyrimaddict


    seasidedub wrote: »
    To posters complaining about people with private health insurance getting access/drugs/treatment faster than public patients - almost all EU countries including Scandinavian countries (I know because I worked there) have robust private health insurance and private hospitals. Those who have either insurance or cash to pay get faster access and treatment in those countries too.

    The difference is that the waiting times for access to consultants and elective operations on the public system is very long in Ireland, less so in other countries. But people need to cop on - relative wealth has always been a determinant of health and always will be. And if you work hard, sacrifice to pay insurance (thus removing the burden from the taxpayer....) surely you have a right to fast, efficient care?

    To be fair, I have worked in Norway and Sweden for a number of years. The public system is miles better.
    Fell over once, twisted an ankle and was in an out of hospital within 2 hours.
    I was billed I think 12 euro, admin fee.

    The debate over wealth and insurance isnt really the point, it is the service, speed and quality of the drugs that is an issue.
    Yes, you should get better treatment etc, if you can pay Ie. beds, nursing etc, but access to the same drugs and doctors.
    Many doctors who work get paid by the state to provide cover in hospitals but also do consulting, so you imagine which gets more time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Skyrimaddict


    mariaalice wrote: »
    The public health system here is not rubbish its badly organised and disorganised, it's something that really irritates me the perception that the public health system is rubbish it's not.

    If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
    You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

    I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,302 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
    You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

    I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.

    It's not I have had treatment for the same condition in both the private and public system and could compare them, now it was not a chronic condition which is where the public system falls down.

    For all the giving out about the NHS its a very good system better than the public service here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Skyrimaddict


    mariaalice wrote: »
    It's not I have had treatment for the same condition in both the private and public system and could compare them, now it was not a chronic condition which is where the public system falls down.

    For all the giving out about the NHS its a very good system better than the public service here.

    The treatment you got is not rubbish!
    I would say the process in which in took you to get it on public probably was.

    This is as someone who has had two surgery on public, one nearly ended very badly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Lillyfae


    If the system is so bad, then yes it is rubbish.
    You can have the best product in the world but if it cant be used correctly then it is not fit.

    I am aware there are lots and lots of very hard working people there, make no mistake.

    This is one thing that I don't get at all. Some people don't seem to understand that too much admin/ management staff, poor budgeting etc etc is what a rubbish system is. All these problems but a complete unwillingness to accept that it's across the board.

    Listening to people sharing their experiences of childbirth on Joe Duffy last week. Hundreds of stories of women being treated like animals, them and their babies being mistreated, traumatized, mutilated, gravely injured. Midwives, nurses, consultants varying in different degrees from incompetent to dangerous to acting like the mammy noone ever wanted. Very few wanted to admit that alot of these people are just sh*t at their jobs. It's a scary thought, nursing is a "vocation" dontchakno, that some people that go into it don't like the public, don't like the work they're doing and sometimes can't do it at all- in anecdotally a lot of cases. There needs to be something done so that we don't get these job-for-lifers with endless flexibility and salary increases kept on over years. There needs to be both accountability and possibility to weed out the tyrants that have been festering in a job that they only wanted for it's benefits in the first place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭jiltloop


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    Who should be prioritised between 2 patients, one of which has never worked a day in their lives, the other a high earning tax payer who chooses to pay extra money to purchase insurance?

    Wow you have a disgusting point of view.

    Let's alter your despicable comparison and say there are 2 children with leukemia, 1 child has rich parents (possibly wealthy through nothing only inheritance or luck of the draw in life) and the other's parents are on the dole for whatever reason.

    Neither child obviously has worked in their life, neither child has had any influence on their own socioeconomic status. Which child should be prioritized for life saving treatment?


  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    jiltloop wrote: »
    and say there are 2 children with leukemia, 1 child has rich parents (possibly wealthy through nothing only inheritance or luck of the draw in life) and the other's parents are on the dole for whatever reason.

    Neither child obviously has worked in their life, neither child has had any influence on their own socioeconomic status. Which child should be prioritized for life saving treatment?

    They both get an equal chance in the public health system.
    Health spending is not an unlimited pool and moral choices on budgets will always be made at the state level.

    If someone has the resources to bypass the state health system, to "help themselves" and go elsewhere, they're going to do that.

    What do you expect to happen?
    We can't write blank cheques for health nor justice for that matter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭jiltloop


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    They both get an equal chance in the public health system.
    Health spending is not an unlimited pool and moral choices on budgets will always be made at the state level.

    If someone has the resources to bypass the state health system, to "help themselves" and go elsewhere, they're going to do that.

    What do you expect to happen?
    We can't write blank cheques for health nor justice for that matter.

    Yes I know, I'm directly challenging PKiernan's post above where he asks who should be prioritized between someone on the dole and someone paying for health insurance.

    I know they both get the same medical treatment, it appears he doesn't and is getting his usual dolebash in as well.

    If you want to argue a stance that I haven't taken go ahead and enjoy yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    jiltloop wrote: »
    Yes I know, I'm directly challenging PKiernan's post above where he asks who should be prioritized between someone on the dole and someone paying for health insurance.

    Why?

    All things being equal, it would benefit society to "invest" in its more productive members.


Advertisement