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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich
Comments
-
Private health individuals do use the public system, as well. They buy their way into preferential treatment in the public system. An additional reason why there must be no crossover in services between the public and private health systems.
.
The thread is about private hospitals. Consultants in the public system being allowed to also see private patients is a completely different matter. I think the two systems should be seperated.
However, people with private health insurance are perfectly entitled to use the public system as they have fully paid their contribution to it already through their taxes. But they are also being "invited" to sign a form to enable the public system to additionally bill the insurance company for their treatment, even though they are just getting the standard public treatment which they have already paid for. This is a cash cow for the public hospitals.0 -
-
Consultants in the public system being allowed to see private patients, is competition between the public and private sector - also leading to preferential treatment for private patients - and that's not the only way there's competition between the two health systems.
One of a myriad of ways that people are allowed to buy their way to preferential treatment - which must be permanently stopped.0 -
Believe it or not I'm not asking you to do anything for the rich people.
Except maintain a system that squeezes wealth upwards to the few. Does anyone really believe a Billionaire property speculator is worth a million Nurses? They are like fuck.
As political economist Mark Blythe said 'The Hamptons is not a defensible position, eventually they'll come for you'.0 -
My point wasn't that breast augmentation should be publicly available along with chemotherapy but rather that chemotherapy should be privately available along with breast augmentation.Unless you count breast augmentation as an 'essential public service', there is no reason for the public services to do it.
There, someone's finally honest enough to admit how much they despise the middle class and rich.Anything that is essential, should be 100% public, with no private option - as that's the only way to ensure a fair health system.
You're admitting that it doesn't matter if someone wants to pay for healthcare at their own expense. The very fact that the healthcare is better than what the public system can provide means they shouldn't be allowed to do it. Talk about class bitterness. You're willing the sacrifice quality for equality. You realise you're a communistic argument? Perhaps you'd like everybody employed by the state then. Why should someone be allowed to take a higher wage in the private sector if that wage is higher than that of the people working in public sector?
Personally I regard fairness as first and foremost allowing people the right to own and alienate their labor and their capital. If I wish to invest my capital in say building a healthcare service that people can voluntarily choose to join, that's my right. If I wish to invest the fruits of my own labor in buying that service, that's my right. If I'm a doctor who's willing to work for the person who built that service and they're willing to pay me, that's my right.
How? Seriously, how? I mean it's not like you've increased the funding for the system. The people you've now forced into the system were already paying taxes before.When those paying for the private health system, and those who own the private health system, are made to use the public system exclusively - then you'll quickly see the public system get the funding and reform it needs.
If the idea is "well if we force these rich and powerful people into eating the same crap as everyone else, then maybe they'll use their wealth and power to improve the system." Well guess what? They've already done it. It's called private healthcare. Because it turns out that good quality healthcare costs a lot. You need a lot of people to invest money in it. Since people don't give away money for free you need an incentive for them them to do so. Like a return on the investment. Where does that come from? Profit. Yes, this is called "The Profit Incentive" and it's responsible for every major technological development of the past 200 years.
And no, you can't just raise taxes because there is a finite amount of taxable income before you drive people away (the rich can afford airline tickets).
Yes, I acknowledged this. What's your solution? Slavery? Earn a medical degree and become an indentured servant?A private system competing to hire healthcare workers out of the public system, or generally paying healthcare workers more than the public system does, absolutely is in competition with the public system.
If by "buy their way in" you mean they're paying for it, why can't the public system use that money to increase their own capacity? The public system is non for profit, what else would they use it for.Private health individuals do use the public system, as well. They buy their way into preferential treatment in the public system. An additional reason why there must be no crossover in services between the public and private health systems.
Why though? The private system does not undercut the public system in terms of cost. Why is it necessary to force people who were a net asset to the public system to become a burden on it? By that I mean, they were paying for it even though they weren't using it and now they're paying for it and they are using it. How is this not a relative loss for the public system?Public monopoly's are a completely normal thing - deployed only in areas they are deemed necessary, for the public good
Why is this for the public good? Well we know the answer. As you've stated your goal is first and foremost to ensure everyone receives the same standard of care regardless of quality.
People have the freedom to leave the country but not to do what they like with their own labor and their own property. If you really want people to emigrate they will you know.- those that don't like it have the freedom to move somewhere else
It's not preferential treatment if I pay extra in order to receive extra.because they certainly don't have the freedom to buy their way into preferential treatment in every area of life.0 -
The disproportionate ownership of wealth is a good thing for the world. Rich people are the ones who create employment, who invest in new products and services that make your life better.Junkyard Tom wrote: »Except maintain a system that squeezes wealth upwards to the few.
If I had to decide to either donate €35,000,000 to the people of Ireland (about €7 each) so they could each go buy a Big Mac and a Diet Coke or donate the whole €35,000,000 to Denis O'Brien based on what would benefit the people of Ireland more, I'd pick Denis O'Brien every time.
I can either have everyone buy themselves one Big Mac and Coke, the 35 mill goes to McDonald's some of it is taxed. Or Denis O'Brien can invest it in a way that is likely to help lead to the creation of new companies, products and services, new jobs. The economic impact may allow each person in Ireland to afford more hamburgers per annum than if I simply bought each person a hamburger.
What does this is even mean? What a low resolution statement. In terms of economic output, the property speculator is probably worth more while in terms of moral worth, the nurses.Junkyard Tom wrote: »Does anyone really believe a Billionaire property speculator is worth a million Nurses? They are like fuck.
A stich in time saves nine.Junkyard Tom wrote: »As political economist Mark Blythe said 'The Hamptons is not a defensible position, eventually they'll come for you'.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
All things come to he who waits.
Wait, what?0 -
[HTML][/HTML]Charles Babbage wrote: »They haven't done very well at this, as many are on salaries lower than 12 years ago.
That is not true.
PS pay restoration has happened.
Maybe not in full for the high earners, but for anybody under 35k all the pay cuts have been restored.0 -
We're in a Socially Democratic Europe - not the US - so people can spare me the 'communist' bollocks, and piss off back to watching Fox News :rolleyes:
There's no country on earth where money is free to buy you whatever you like, without restriction, and without there being some public monopolies.0 -
The disproportionate ownership of wealth is a good thing for the world. Rich people are the ones who create employment, who invest in new products and services that make your life better.
Utter bullshit, what are you some sort of randroid? Jobs create rich people, not the other way round.
Wealth doesn't trickle down - it gets squeezed up. If the rich created jobs then why do we have recessions? Have you ever actually tried thinking through the shite you're saying?0 -
Advertisement
-
We're in a Socially Democratic Europe - not the US - so people can spare me the 'communist' bollocks, and piss off back to watching Fox News :rolleyes:
There's no country on earth where money is free to buy you whatever you like, without restriction, and without there being some public monopolies.
Your slipping down the respectability slope now. I doubt An Post workers who pay VHI and wake up at 3.30 am every morning are watching Fox News either. But they have the wit to pay for private healthcare.
Dress it up anyway you like, I have read the tripe you have posted. Totalitarianism does not work, it never has and never will.
Why would you associate or prescribe :P yourself a future where a government has complete control over your welfare? Why would you want to do that to yourself? Furthermore, why do think government involvement is necessary at all, at any level?0 -
We're in a Socially Democratic Europe - not the US - so people can spare me the 'communist' bollocks, and piss off back to watching Fox News :rolleyes:
There's no country on earth where money is free to buy you whatever you like, without restriction, and without there being some public monopolies.
Can I come at this question from another angle?
The people buying private health insurance can be pushed into the public system easily enough, there will be hurt feelings but if you are hell bent on it then it can be done.
But the doctors, nurses, consultants etc etc working in the private system will put up a fight. These are qualified skilled professionals who may quite like their position.
They are not short of job offers either, its not that big a deal for them to move to the US/UK/OZ as many of them will already have worked and trained abroad. They will not allow themselves be pressganged into the HSE.
You could put a good chunk of the countries medical professionals out of the country.0 -
Topgear on Dave wrote: »Can I come at this question from another angle?
The people buying private health insurance can be pushed into the public system easily enough, there will be hurt feelings but if you are hell bent on it then it can be done.
But the doctors, nurses, consultants etc etc working in the private system will put up a fight. These are qualified skilled professionals who may quite like their position.
They are not short of job offers either, its not that big a deal for them to move to the US/UK/OZ as many of them will already have worked and trained abroad. They will not allow themselves be pressganged into the HSE.
You could put a good chunk of the countries medical professionals out of the country.
No could about it, they will all be leaving. The doctors will be the first to go. Most Sínners and lefties reckon anyone over 100k has to pay extra tax. That is part of their big plan. Basically every qualified doctor in the country will be looking elsewhere ( ie overseas) for better pay if the system was nationalised. The irony is not lost on me, you couldn't make it up.
Once the state started interfering with consultants fees a few years back a lot of our best medical professionals left for the states. They can make 2 or 3 times the money there... and pay less tax.
Some of the Nazi's posting here will need to staff their new nationalised health service with cheap doctors from Asia and Africa. Their concept is so clueless it is laughable. I am sure foreign trained doctors would be fine btw, but I look forward to that argument if it ever kicked off.0 -
Then pay them properly.Topgear on Dave wrote: »Can I come at this question from another angle?
The people buying private health insurance can be pushed into the public system easily enough, there will be hurt feelings but if you are hell bent on it then it can be done.
But the doctors, nurses, consultants etc etc working in the private system will put up a fight. These are qualified skilled professionals who may quite like their position.
They are not short of job offers either, its not that big a deal for them to move to the US/UK/OZ as many of them will already have worked and trained abroad. They will not allow themselves be pressganged into the HSE.
You could put a good chunk of the countries medical professionals out of the country.0 -
Then pay them properly.
More rubbish, have a look at the link. Our Nurses' wages are well ahead of global averages.
https://info.caprelo.com/blog/average-job-salaries-around-the-world0 -
Ranked 8th in the world as per this link.
Nice picture of Dublin City Centre also.
https://naibuzz.com/10-countries-with-the-highest-nurse-salaries-in-the-world/
If they nationalised the healthcare system wages would be the first thing the Nazi's would start chopping.0 -
Advertisement
-
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Except maintain a system that squeezes wealth upwards to the few. Does anyone really believe a Billionaire property speculator is worth a million Nurses? They are like fuck.
As political economist Mark Blythe said 'The Hamptons is not a defensible position, eventually they'll come for you'.
You realise that it is private patients who are maintaining the public system because they are probably higher earners and therefore paying more tax? Joe Bloggs on his 27k a year bitching and whining about perceived inequality is barely paying enough in tax to cover his own public bed for more than five days in the system.0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »Utter bullshit, what are you some sort of randroid? Jobs create rich people, not the other way round.
Wealth doesn't trickle down - it gets squeezed up. If the rich created jobs then why do we have recessions? Have you ever actually tried thinking through the shite you're saying?
Have you tried thinking about the sh*te you're saying? Sweeping (and incorrect) statements masquerading as fact but are in fact thinly veiled anger.0 -
No could about it, they will all be leaving. The doctors will be the first to go. Most Sínners and lefties reckon anyone over 100k has to pay extra tax. That is part of their big plan. Basically every qualified doctor in the country will be looking elsewhere ( ie overseas) for better pay if the system was nationalised. The irony is not lost on me, you couldn't make it up.
Once the state started interfering with consultants fees a few years back a lot of our best medical professionals left for the states. They can make 2 or 3 times the money there... and pay less tax.
Some of the Nazi's posting here will need to staff their new nationalised health service with cheap doctors from Asia and Africa. Their concept is so clueless it is laughable. I am sure foreign trained doctors would be fine btw, but I look forward to that argument if it ever kicked off.
Except the ones advocating for a single tier system dont care how sh*t that system is... once it is sh*t for everyone. They arent interesed in improving the system, only bringing everyone down to the same level, irrespective of the consequences such as loss of talent, resources etc.0 -
Jobs create rich people? How do they do that?Junkyard Tom wrote: »Utter bullshit, what are you some sort of randroid? Jobs create rich people, not the other way round.
Think of every major employer in this country. Each one is owned and managed by some rich person. How do you think those companies go started? Some people got together and invested their capital in some new product or service, they probably started out employing perhaps 20-50 and people. The business had success and grew exponentially from there.
And when people get rich, they normally want to stay rich or get richer. Rich people don’t just keep all their money in a box somewhere. They diversify and invest. The money they use is used by others to further and grow their businesses. The rich person may expand their enterprises and create new companies.
You guys live in this reality where if you walk into a room and you see a rich guy and a poor guy, you assume that the rich guy must have exploited the poor guy.Junkyard Tom wrote: »Wealth doesn't trickle down - it gets squeezed up. If the rich created jobs then why do we have recessions? Have you ever actually tried thinking through the shite you're saying?
I never said wealth trickled down. The term “trickle down economics” is a straw man invented by Ronald Reagan’s critics. Reagan never ever used that term to describe his economic policies. The idea was never to give the rich tax breaks which would trickle down to the workers. That would have been silly.
The policy was called “Supply Side Economics”. If you allow rich people to keep more of their money, you incentivise the sort of investing that leads to economic growth and the creation of new goods and services and yes, jobs.
I have a question for you. If we successfully decreased absolute poverty by 99% but still had large wealth inequality, would you be satisfied?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Junkyard Tom wrote: »The employer pays the worker less than the value of the product of their labour and pockets the excess.
Yes, that’s called a profit margin and it’s the basis for every business that’s ever existed. If the employer payed the worker the exact value of the product, the cost of producing the product would cancel out its market worth, the business wouldn’t exist and the worker would lose their job.
You didn’t answer my question. If we annihilated poverty but we still had massive wealth inequality, would you be satisfied?0 -
Nobody would start a company or build a factory if he has to distribute the value of manufactured items as payroll.Junkyard Tom wrote: »The employer pays the worker less than the value of the product of their labour and pockets the excess.
The only way I can see such a society working is either for the state to run all industry, or for workers to do so through cooperatives. It's been tried before, and it wasn't a success.
The alternative would be for factory owners to replace the employees with machines. That could only work successfully in certain types of industry though.0 -
Maybe if they got rid of the middle management deadwood they could pay their functional staff a little more. Of course, they can't get rid of the dinosaurs - all jobs for lives boys for the next few years until they skip off into the sunset with their DB pensions.
NHS has loads of middle management too though. A centralised system needs a lot of brains to make sure each branch gets the correct amount of food. To make sure waiting lists are met and people are discharged promptly. A more private or German model where hospitals are competing wouldn't have this issue.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »NHS has loads of middle management too though. A centralised system needs a lot of brains to make sure each branch gets the correct amount of food. To make sure waiting lists are met and people are discharged promptly. A more private or German model where hospitals are competing wouldn't have this issue.
Do you think there should be 2, instead of 1, National Children's hospitals built in Ireland and then get them to somehow compete against each other?0 -
Junkyard Tom wrote: »The employer pays the worker less than the value of the product of their labour and pockets the excess.
This can only happen on a short term basis. In normal imperfect competition at some point super normal profits enjoyed by entrepreneurs fall into equilibrium. The product becomes incompetent without the addition of a proper labour resource. The market decides what wages are paid via labour supply , it is not the capital employed in the industry which decides wage levels.
If you are going to pretend you know economics at least get it right when you are using it to embellish your argument.0 -
Do you think there should be 2, instead of 1, National Children's hospitals built in Ireland and then get them to somehow compete against each other?
Private GPs and our 19 private hospitals already compete each other. If you want to see private GPs, many even now, don't have waiting lists. It's perfectly feasible in a country as small as Ireland to have competition. Now in respect to your point, it might not be specialist procedures like children's medicine but in much of medicine it could occur.0 -
Some of the posters here have described themselves as aspiring to a European social democratic model of health care while in reality what they are describing is an authoritarian communist model. Perhaps they would point out to somewhere in Europe where the state has an absolute monopoly on healthcare and private practice is banned?
Also, some of our lefties allude to the "Scandinanian model". It has many attractions (although far from perfect also). What they do not allude to is the cost and that everyone is required to pay towards the cost of comprehensive state services. On average, the tax/charges taken from the top 20% of earners in Ireland is 33%, while in Sweden it is 36%. So a small but significant increase but much more state service. However, the average deduction from the bottom 20% of earners in Ireland is 12% while in Sweden it is 37%. If we really want to follow the Swedish model it is our lowest earners who would need to accept the biggest proportionate tax increase. Yet our lefties are all for Swedish services but not Swedish taxes and levies.
Also, although the Swedish state pays for comprehensive health care, much of the actual service is provided by private companies who compete against each other for state contracts. And beside all this about 640,000 Swedes pay for private health insurance in order to bypass the public system for elective procedures. Health care is not totally free either, although total charges to the individual are capped at about €100 pa.
And the system? It is rated one of the best in Europe but still has many problems, some of which will be very familiar to us:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-swedes-world-class-healthcarewhen.html0 -
You will find that if you think deeply enough( I respect that might be an issue for you), but you would rather have the option of securing your own financial future, than having to rely on a government to spend your money for you? Especially considering the current evidence on how government wastes our taxes.
It goes back to the old Boston v Berlin argument that Mary Harney used to go on about. Harney is not remembered well in Irish political history. It's hard work to set up a Berlin model and Harney wasn't one for hard work. Crucially the Berlin model is certainly better in terms of medical outcomes for citizens, but you're the type that will take the easy road that will end up with the worse outcome. You haven't thought about this very deeply at all and your idiotic anti public service prejudice just won't allow that to happen.A one tier system would not improve the service provided. In fact most of the intellectual resources currently available would leave the country if our healthcare system was nationalised. So not only would the one tier system be less effectual it would also be incompetent as to its' requirements. You don't want that.
Lies and bullshít.
A one tier system is the one preferred by nearly every political party in the state you live in incl FG. FG had a Universal Health Insurance idea which sounded good before they got into government a decade ago. They are now endorsing Slainte Care, the idea is that there would be a one tier system for all and if people want to pay for hotel standard facilities in plush surroundings they are entitled to spend their money on that but the medical service will be one tier across the board. Establishing a one tier system involves hard work and political courage, FG have failed in that regard in two terms of government to deliver on that aspiration (their stated aspiration btw).0 -
Some of the posters here have described themselves as aspiring to a European social democratic model of health care while in reality what they are describing is an authoritarian communist model. Perhaps they would point out to somewhere in Europe where the state has an absolute monopoly on healthcare and private practice is banned?
Also, some of our lefties allude to the "Scandinanian model". It has many attractions (although far from perfect also). What they do not allude to is the cost and that everyone is required to pay towards the cost of comprehensive state services. On average, the tax/charges taken from the top 20% of earners in Ireland is 33%, while in Sweden it is 36%. So a small but significant increase but much more state service. However, the average deduction from the bottom 20% of earners in Ireland is 12% while in Sweden it is 37%. If we really want to follow the Swedish model it is our lowest earners who would need to accept the biggest proportionate tax increase. Yet our lefties are all for Swedish services but not Swedish taxes and levies.
Also, although the Swedish state pays for comprehensive health care, much of the actual service is provided by private companies who compete against each other for state contracts. And beside all this about 640,000 Swedes pay for private health insurance in order to bypass the public system for elective procedures. Health care is not totally free either, although total charges to the individual are capped at about €100 pa.
And the system? It is rated one of the best in Europe but still has many problems, some of which will be very familiar to us:
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-09-swedes-world-class-healthcarewhen.html
Do you think we should have a European type health system or an American type health system?0 -
Advertisement
-
TheCitizen wrote: »Do you think we should have a European type health system or an American type health system?
I wpud be perfectly happy with a European healthcare style system - definitely not a US style one.
But I would like a bit of honesty about how Europeans pay for their health system.
And honesty that Europe does not ban private health care.
And honesty that our public healthcare system costs a lot and needs great reform - then maybe fewer people will opt to pay for private healthcare out of their own money (after paying for public healthcare from their taxes).
And honesty that, when the chips are down, resistance to healthcare reform comes from all sections of society - left,right and centre, within the healthcare system, and outside it from the public.
Honesty that for most people when they say reform what they actually mean is more money and somebody else to pay for it.0 -
This isnt all about hospitals been this or that and what country has best healthcare , the point is oligarch rich people like Larry Goodman who pays many of his staff minimum wage for example those in Meat factories doing seriously tough physical work is slowly but surely controlling the country .
In this instance a man whos worth billions is taking large amounts of money off Ireland for use of his hospitals in this time of crisis , could he not forget about accumulating more money for a few months and donate use of the hospitals rather than taking money off a government that doesn't have it.
The fact he like Denis O Brien , JP and others pay a very low percentage( less than 1% in some cases tax rate) to another country rather than pay like everyone else in Ireland does to the Irish government is not right either. its not as if they cant afford it. The rich are getting richer, the Working class, lower middle Class and the Middle Middle class haven't a washer then in their ratrace.0 -
In this instance a man whos worth billions is taking large amounts of money off Ireland for use of his hospitals in this time of crisis , could he not forget about accumulating more money for a few months and donate use of the hospitals rather than taking money off a government that doesn't have it.
.
Well, it certainly soon turned into an attack on private healthcare. Most people who pay for, and avail of, the care probably neither know, nor care, who owns the hospitals. If you want to have a go at rich business people why have a go specifically at private hospitals?
As for providing services free. The hospitals (whoever owns them) employ a lot of staff (and presumably at the going rate, or why else would they want to work there rather than in the public system?).
The staff employed directly will be in all categories - nurses, radiographers, lab staff, domestic and catering staff, porters, administrators, etc. These people will be deployed now to the Covid emergency but they are still employed by the private hospitals and paid by the private hospitals. Do you think that the owners (and there are a lot more than just Goodman and O'Brien) should meet all of these costs out of their own pockets? Not to mention all the costs for for running and maintaining equipment, supplying food, etc?
AFAIK the Consultants are not employed directly by the hospitals and will be offered a temporary contract by the state for the duration of the emergency.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »NHS has loads of middle management too though. A centralised system needs a lot of brains to make sure each branch gets the correct amount of food. To make sure waiting lists are met and people are discharged promptly. A more private or German model where hospitals are competing wouldn't have this issue.
Because that has worked out so well in the HSE :P0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »There is a misconception that private means for the rich. That is not true. Plenty of ordinary people use private healthcare. Another example are roads. The M50 is a 'private' road. It was funded by business so there is a toll. Works fine.
Think you need a serious history lesson on the m50 tolls and who was involved,how it was paid back and when the repayments were made and why we are still paying for it.
Would it be easier to ask to name the owners of these private hospitals who have NOT being involved in scandals or corruption with favoured politicians and political parties and tax evasion in Ireland.0 -
I wpud be perfectly happy with a European healthcare style system - definitely not a US style one.
But I would like a bit of honesty about how Europeans pay for their health system.
And honesty that Europe does not ban private health care.
And honesty that our public healthcare system costs a lot and needs great reform - then maybe fewer people will opt to pay for private healthcare out of their own money (after paying for public healthcare from their taxes).
And honesty that, when the chips are down, resistance to healthcare reform comes from all sections of society - left,right and centre, within the healthcare system, and outside it from the public.
Honesty that for most people when they say reform what they actually mean is more money and somebody else to pay for it.
Is that right.
https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/
There's the blueprint for health reform in Ireland that has cross party support. When asked on RTE in a discussion on Health SF proposed paying for its introduction with a levy on higher earners. I recall Simon Harris saying "oh no that won't work, all the consultants would leave the country etc..." But Simon didn't put forward any proposal to pay for the introduction of Slainte Care himself, he just spent all his time attacking SF's proposal. Personally I think that a tiered levy across the board would be better so that everyone is a stakeholder in it with higher earners paying more. The tricky bit is to get the health workforce on board.
It won't be easy to get all those ducks in a row but FFG are going to be in government again so the opportunity is for them to finally start delivering on this.
Are they actually going to make a dent on it this time and face down vested interests including insurance companies and get the health workforce and citizens on board or will they fail again? Do they have the political will and political courage to reform the health service? So far they haven't shown that. We'll find out won't we.0 -
TheCitizen wrote: »It goes back to the old Boston v Berlin argument that Mary Harney used to go on about. Harney is not remembered well in Irish political history. It's hard work to set up a Berlin model and Harney wasn't one for hard work. Crucially the Berlin model is certainly better in terms of medical outcomes for citizens, but you're the type that will take the easy road that will end up with the worse outcome. You haven't thought about this very deeply at all and your idiotic anti public service prejudice just won't allow that to happen.
Hairy Marney was given the "hospital pass" of setting up the HSE from Michael Martin, she had no option really. In fairness she gave the post 7 years which is more than any other politician in the history of the state, albeit Sean O'Kelly did 7 years in the 30's. Apart from that I don't know what you are talking about, high road, low road or deep road. What are you trying to say here?TheCitizen wrote: »Lies and bullshít.
A one tier system is the one preferred by nearly every political party in the state you live in incl FG. FG had a Universal Health Insurance idea which sounded good before they got into government a decade ago. They are now endorsing Slainte Care, the idea is that there would be a one tier system for all and if people want to pay for hotel standard facilities in plush surroundings they are entitled to spend their money on that but the medical service will be one tier across the board. Establishing a one tier system involves hard work and political courage, FG have failed in that regard in two terms of government to deliver on that aspiration (their stated aspiration btw).
FG are not the issue here. The health system is. Private hospitals will be bought and sold no matter what government is in control. Unless of course god forbid the Nazi's get their way. In fact luckily I anticipate the free state will never have a nationalized health system because I don't think the Nazi's will ever have enough support to get into power.TheCitizen wrote: »A one tier system is the one preferred by nearly every political party in the state you live in incl FG
I would like to see some evidence of this claim? I understand that both FG, FF, Labour, Green, SDP, etc are in favour of HSE reform. I don't remember reading about a transformed nationalized health system being muted at all, I have to call you out here.
Finally, this thread is not about the Fine Gael party, it is about private hospitals being privately owned. If you want to have an FG bitching session I suggest you go to the FG bashing thread, there are loads of them.0 -
TheCitizen wrote: »Is that right.
https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/
There's the blueprint for health reform in Ireland that has cross party support. When asked on RTE in a discussion on Health SF proposed paying for its introduction with a levy on higher earners. I recall Simon Harris saying "oh no that won't work, all the consultants would leave the country etc..." But Simon didn't put forward any proposal to pay for the introduction of Slainte Care himself, he just spent all his time attacking SF's proposal. Personally I think that a tiered levy across the board would be better so that everyone is a stakeholder in it with higher earners paying more. The tricky bit is to get the health workforce on board.
It won't be easy to get all those ducks in a row but FFG are going to be in government again so the opportunity is for them to finally start delivering on this.
Are they actually going to make a dent on it this time and face down vested interests including insurance companies and get the health workforce and citizens on board or will they fail again? Do they have the political will and political courage to reform the health service? So far they haven't shown that. We'll find out won't we.
Let's just see where the resistance will come from once any specific reforms are put on the table. There will be resistance from various occupational and sectoral lobbies within the HSE. There will be resistance from unions (Not couched as resistance, of course. More like "Structures that need to be put in place", aka promotions and allowances.). There will be regional and local resistance across the country at any perceived "loss of service" (or employment) backed by local politicians of all shades. Parties and TDS will trumpet there enthusiasm in general but baulk at specific reforms.
I can't see where the issue with insurance companies comes in. It would simplify the situation considerably if private and public healthcare was to be properly seperated.
And of course we have SFs contribution - "tax the rich". (No reference to Swedish taxes?). That is a great contribution to reform - and totally unpredictable! How constructive and original.0 -
Think you need a serious history lesson on the m50 tolls and who was involved,how it was paid back and when the repayments were made and why we are still paying for it.
Would it be easier to ask to name the owners of these private hospitals who have NOT being involved in scandals or corruption with favoured politicians and political parties and tax evasion in Ireland.
Yes a lot of tax payer money funded the M50 but the point is, private money does too and it works out well.
If owners of private hospitals happen to be corrupt, prosecute them for that. But that has nothing to do with the business model which is very legitimate. There are many owners of Irish hospitals by the way from US non profits to religious orders.
Someone here said we should use the Berlin model, but in Germany they have a totally different system. In German you have to pay for public health insurance and its means tested. If you earn about 50,000 you will pay around 4,000 a year so for many Germans mandatory public health insurance costs far more than irish private health insurance. Millions will top this up with even better care but they spend so much on basic insurance the public is quite good. And as someone else said, hospitals are run by a huge number of organisations too. You don't have the state determining how much surgeons should earn like you would here.0 -
Advertisement
-
This isnt all about hospitals been this or that and what country has best healthcare , the point is oligarch rich people like Larry Goodman who pays many of his staff minimum wage for example those in Meat factories doing seriously tough physical work is slowly but surely controlling the country .
They are entitled to pay the going rate for staff. There is a misconception that Irish workers are underpaid, they are the best paid workers on the planet in many industries and top 10 in everything. That is why most meat plants and factories are staffed predominantly by hard working foreigners who are more than happy to roll up their sleeves for an honest days pay. Their efforts contrast with your average bitching Irish dolehound who would prefer to be on a bar stool talking shight than spending 40 hours a week working for a living. Before you pipe up there we also get better dole than the rest of world also. Look it up.In this instance a man whos worth billions is taking large amounts of money off Ireland for use of his hospitals in this time of crisis , could he not forget about accumulating more money for a few months and donate use of the hospitals rather than taking money off a government that doesn't have it.
What man are you referring to?
The government don't own the states money. In fact the government is employed by the state to govern it. You as an Irish citizen own the states money. The owners of the private hospitals are fully entitled to a financial reward for leasing the hospitals to the state, they are under no obligation to do so. In fact they have the option of refusing the state access, what would you rather they do?The fact he like Denis O Brien , JP and others pay a very low percentage( less than 1% in some cases tax rate) to another country rather than pay like everyone else in Ireland does to the Irish government is not right either. its not as if they cant afford it. The rich are getting richer, the Working class, lower middle Class and the Middle Middle class haven't a washer then in their ratrace.
This is Irish tax law. The law is governed by the state. They are entitled to pay the legally required amount of tax, why should they pay any more? Have you any concept of the amount of employment and industry these high earners have worked hard to create?
The reason why the Irish people pay so much taxes is a subject of much debate, I am not interested in opening it up if I am being honest. But skimming an extra few bob off the super rich will not solve the problem. There is no evidence that fleasing the super rich solves the problems of the principalities they operate in.
Finally the argument they only pay 1% tax is untrue. This is leftist propaganda. Yes they make so much money they employ teams of accountants to ensure they pay as little as possible, but this makes economic sense. But the concept that the money is not taxed is garbage. Everyone pays their share at one point or other. No Irish business persons are getting rich on the back of flawed or unjust fiscal policies, they are all paying lots and lots of tax.0 -
Yellow_Fern wrote: »Yes a lot of tax payer money funded the M50 but the point is, private money does too and it works out well.
If owners of private hospitals happen to be corrupt, prosecute them for that. But that has nothing to do with the business model which is very legitimate. There are many owners of Irish hospitals by the way from US non profits to religious orders.
Someone here said we should use the Berlin model, but in Germany they have a totally different system. In German you have to pay for public health insurance and its means tested. If you earn about 50,000 you will pay around 4,000 a year so for many Germans mandatory public health insurance costs far more than irish private health insurance.
When they talk about the European model (be it German ,Scandinanian or whatever) they are talking about a myth. In this mythland the state provides all services on a monopoly basis, these services are free gratis, they run efficiently and effectively, they are easy to access and outcomes are top class. Everyone is happy. These services are paid for by "the rich". (Although it is a bit mysterious how anyone gets to be rich in this mythland since profit is evil and everyone earns pretty much the same. Still it must be so).
This mythland is so mysterious that noone yet has been able to point to a concrete example. Yet the faith remains.0 -
Hairy Marney was given the "hospital pass" of setting up the HSE from Michael Martin, she had no option really. In fairness she gave the post 7 years which is more than any other politician in the history of the state, albeit Sean O'Kelly did 7 years in the 30's. Apart from that I don't know what you are talking about, high road, low road or deep road. What are you trying to say here?
FG are not the issue here. The health system is. Private hospitals will be bought and sold no matter what government is in control. Unless of course god forbid the Nazi's get their way. In fact luckily I anticipate the free state will never have a nationalized health system because I don't think the Nazi's will ever have enough support to get into power.
I would like to see some evidence of this claim? I understand that both FG, FF, Labour, Green, SDP, etc are in favour of HSE reform. I don't remember reading about a transformed nationalized health system being muted at all, I have to call you out here.
Finally, this thread is not about the Fine Gael party, it is about private hospitals being privately owned. If you want to have an FG bitching session I suggest you go to the FG bashing thread, there are loads of them.
https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/
Here you go. Maybe you don't remember reading about it because you haven't read. Read it there.
From the document;The Sláintecare vision is to achieve a universal single-tier health and social care system where everyone has equal access to services based on need, and not ability to pay.
Every party in the state; FF FG SF LAB Greens the lot of them has endorsed SlainteCare.
Private hospitals will still exist if people want to pay extra for plush surroundings but SlainteCare is about delivering a one tier health system for all.
Now maybe you don't agree with that but you'd be in a small minority. The tricky bit is implementing SlainteCare, hopefully FFG and whoever is with them in the incoming government will get started at last on delivering it. If it's delivered great, you can then go live in America if it's not to your liking.0 -
The private hospitals made an agreement with the government, because they know they would be taken over anyway.
Since the government is urgently in need of funds for the coronavirus, perhaps the private health insurance funds should be taken over as part of the nationalization of the private system?
They're effectively a privatized part of the tax base anyway - and aren't even going to be paying for coronavirus treatments, even though their customers are being charged full premiums with no access now.
3...2...1...before the same Libertarians start defending private health insurance payments at the same premium, in return for nothing.0 -
TheCitizen wrote: »https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/slaintecare-implementation-strategy/
Here you go. Maybe you don't remember reading about it because you haven't read. Read it there.
From the document;
Every party in the state; FF FG SF LAB Greens the lot of them has endorsed SlainteCare.
Private hospitals will still exist if people want to pay extra for plush surroundings but SlainteCare is about delivering a one tier health system for all.
Now maybe you don't agree with that but you'd be in a small minority. The tricky bit is implementing SlainteCare, hopefully FFG and whoever is with them in the incoming government will get started at last on delivering it. If it's delivered great, you can then go live in America if it's not to your liking.
SláinteCare is just a rebrand of the HSE. Stop with the patronising already. This thread has already recognised ( I hope ) that universal healthcare is already currently offered by the state. Private healthcare has always been an option. This will not change if Slaintecare becomes a thing.
This is a discussion, it is not an opportunity for you to antagonise or pigeon hole posters into some sort of stereotype, so enough with the patronising tone please. You have no idea of who I vote for or if I even vote at all. This thread is about private hospital ownership. If you want to bash FFG please go somewhere else, I find it really boring.
Stop telling me what to do please. I am happy to discuss things but I won't give you the opportunity to tell me how or where I can live my life.0 -
Says the person who can't help hysterically peppering his posts with "NAZI!", "COMMUNIST!" etc.....
This is a discussion, it is not an opportunity for you to antagonise or pigeon hole posters into some sort of stereotype, so enough with the patronising tone please.
...
That's not just hypocrisy, it's wilful hypocrisy, where the poster knows full well that what he accuses others of, applies to him - and is deliberately shoving the hypocrisy in others faces, precisely to antagonize...0 -
Advertisement
-
Says the person who can't help hysterically peppering his posts with "NAZI!", "COMMUNIST!" etc..
That's not just hypocrisy, it's wilful hypocrisy, where the poster knows full well that what he accuses others of, applies to him - and is deliberately shoving the hypocrisy in others faces, precisely to antagonize...
Give me another name to use for it and I happily will. But you have posted before that posters have the option of adopting a nationalised health system or leaving the country.... that is Nazi talk if ever I heard it.
To clarify, the nationalisation of the health system to a one tiered system is communism. There is no mud being thrown here. It is what it is.
Exiling citizens who don't agree or adhere to government policy is what Nazi's did and could do, you have certainly threatened posters with the same on this thread.
If you really loved this country you would be happy for every citizen to have an input and an opinion, even if it differed from your own. That is what real republicans do. They offer free speech and opinion to everyone, it is called democracy. That does not entail exiling people who do not agree with it.
No need to get nasty because posters are not pandering to your ideals?0 -
They're effectively a privatized part of the tax base anyway - and aren't even going to be paying for coronavirus treatments, even though their customers are being charged full premiums with no access now.
3...2...1...before the same Libertarians start defending private health insurance payments at the same premium, in return for nothing.
I hadn't anticipated that you would be so moved by the plight of those paying for private health insurance. But to ease your mind:
"Irish Life Health has become the first private health insurer in Ireland to indicate to its customers that they can expect a discount in the months ahead as a result of the Government’s decision to bring all private hospitals under public control during the coronavirus crisis."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-life-indicates-customers-can-expect-discounts-in-coming-months-1.42170520 -
I'm not going to play the game of "bat down endless straw-men" - making up hysterical lies about what I have said, to try to fit the Commnist/Nazi label, makes you look desperate to shut down views you don't like.IAMAMORON wrote:...0 -
A discount is an insult to health insurance customers - anything less than a full refund for the period that health insurance is effectively useless, is an insult and a money grab.
Since they are taking the publics money anyway, and no longer providing a service - the health insurance funds should be taken over along with the private hospitals, and their funds used to help fight the coronavirus outbreak.0 -
If private health care wants to provide breast augmentation and other not-strictly necessary services, I don't care about that - and if they can find a way to 'insure' stuff like that, leave it to them.
No duplication of essential medical services provided by the public system, or anything which puts them in competition with the public system - their hospitals, staff, resources etc. are to remain nationalized - with the owners reimbursed for the asset losses at post-crash market prices.
Nobody is free to purchase anything they like - that's not true on any country on earth - if we decide that the public health system takes priority here, and restrict people to the public system for essential treatment - then tough shit, you're free move to another country.I'm not going to play the game of "bat down endless straw-men" - making up hysterical lies about what I have said, to try to fit the Commnist/Nazi label, makes you look desperate to shut down views you don't like.
I am only reiterating what you previously posted.0 -
Advertisement
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement