Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

NewRed2 wrote: »

Come back to us after you do and explain to us why a state with a 100% public health service needs to be totalitarian.


We both know you're wrong.

You are implying that all healthcare: every GP, every consultant, every dentist, every hosp, to be owned and operated by the State?

I suspect only Cuba and North Korea are like that?

Geuze wrote: »

If somebody states: h/c is a human right, therefore it should be 100% publicly provided

You're literally fulfilling the criteria of the continuum fallacy.

The continuum fallacy ... is the fallacy of assuming that the existence of a continuum of possible states between two binary positions means that said positions are not meaningfully different. It is a form of equivocation: treating as equivalent two things that should not be treated as such.

Is there something wrong with your brain?

Wanderer78 wrote: »

its more than a sad world, its a really fcuked up world, if wealth accumulation far exceeds providing adequate health care for all

We have never come closer to providing adequate healthcare to all. Parts of the world that hadnt seen a European 150 years ago now have modern hospitals. There are hundreds of medical metrics that show health has never been better. The direction isnt always one way but mostly it is.

There is a zero evidence that private health is hurting Irish healthcare. Again every metric shows that healthcare is improving here all the time.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

We have never come closer to providing adequate healthcare to all. Parts of the world that hadnt seen a European 150 years ago now have modern hospitals. There are hundreds of medical metrics that show health has never been better. The direction isnt always one way but mostly it is.

There is a zero evidence that private health is hurting Irish healthcare. Again every metric shows that healthcare is improving here all the time.

there plenty of evidence to support that our health care systems are both improving and dis-improving at the same time. i.e. elements of our systems are improving, while other elements are dis-improving, at the same time. the most obvious element of dis-improving is 'access', its important to realise, this is sometimes highly subjective, meaning there are at times poor, if not, no metrics to support this belief. it can however sometimes be blatantly obvious theres access problems, the american system is potentially the most privatized system in the world, and its also well known, many americans have poor, if not, effectively no health care cover, because they simply cant afford it. it is known, that some that have been in emergency situations, have pleaded not for ambulances to be called, because they simply cannot afford it. this is where share holder value becomes disturbing! at what point does share holder value trump access? this is now getting to a disturbing level in america, that life expectancy is now falling in parts of america, and this is partly due to the 'inefficiencies' of the market in supplying their nation with some of its most critical of needs, particularly access to adequate health care for all of its citizens.

to bring it back to ireland, is our rising trolley numbers, serious delays etc etc, signs of dis-improvement in our system as a whole, i think so, what do you think?

theres an element of privatization that in fact behaves almost parasitic, its feds on us, its ultimate aim is to extract, and in this case, extract profits and wealth, preventing us from providing ourselves with our most critical of needs, this is also obvious in one of our other critical needs, housing. there is something highly dysfunctional with elements of privatization that has been occurring in our most modern of capitalist ideology, that is in fact highly dangerous for us all, including for the wealthy, it is causing a complex destabilization of our most critical of needs, politically, socially, economically environmentally, etc etc etc. share holder value, and the neoliberial/neoclassical model is failing, we must acknowledge this, and do something about it now

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

You're literally fulfilling the criteria of the continuum fallacy.

The continuum fallacy ... is the fallacy of assuming that the existence of a continuum of possible states between two binary positions means that said positions are not meaningfully different. It is a form of equivocation: treating as equivalent two things that should not be treated as such.

Is there something wrong with your brain?

Apart from the pseudo-intelectual bull**** what about the substantial point?


Are people free to spend their own money as they want or not? We do not spend on tobacco or holidays, we spend a very minimal amount on alcohol and we share one budget car for the household. But we are prepared to spend on private health care. Should we be barred from doing so? Should private health care providers be barred from offering us this service?


By the way, we pay all of our taxes, so we are paying our share towards the public system. In so far as we use private health care, which we pay for ourselves, we are saving demand on the public system - an indirect subsidy.

KyussB wrote: »

Keep the hospitals we've just temporarily nationalized, permanently nationalized - and eliminate all advantages that private health insurance gives, when accessing public health services (in general, eliminate all ways people can 'buy their way' into preferential treatment, in the public health services).

I notice you say "eliminate all advantages that private health insurance gives" rather than something like "bring public health care up to the same standard as private health care". This is the exactly the point. Some people are more concerned with dragging others down than improving the situation.

Even if the state did behave like Cuba after the revolution and grab these private entities, would it help? The problem with our health system isn't lack of hospital buildings. The state would have to pay for the staff, bills and materials for these appropriated buildings, the existing management and work practices would expand to them, and the current outrageous HSE spend would balloon.

Fix the existing system, and there might not be a need to confiscate private assets. Then, if more capacity is needed, it won't cost so much to add. But fixing the existing system has never yet worked. If any politician was to try, the vested interests would knock it on the head. And funny enough, the people shouting for nationalisation would be the very ones supporting the unions in their fight against the measures to fix it.

LuasSimon wrote:

When will these people ever have enough wealth and to make it worse they wont pay tax in this country, preferring to pay a micky mouse percentage in Luxembourg or Malta. What good are these people to Ireland, fine they will rent out their hospitals at the minute but how much are they pocketing out of it ( more Millions?). These rich seem to be very cosy with the Fine Gael government .

Ireland is the leading global tax haven. They don't need to be paying in Malta, Cyprus or Luxembourg.

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

We have never come closer to providing adequate healthcare to all. Parts of the world that hadnt seen a European 150 years ago now have modern hospitals. There are hundreds of medical metrics that show health has never been better. The direction isnt always one way but mostly it is.

There is a zero evidence that private health is hurting Irish healthcare. Again every metric shows that healthcare is improving here all the time.

Ask the parents of children who are sick and wait years just to see a consultant. Are they part of your metric?
I'm not saying it's because of private hospitals that the system is not working for those people who wait endlessly for assessments and operations but it's part of our broken system.

The public health service is broken and no government in living memory has the will or bravery to do anything about it. Doesn't matter if its FF or FG, both of these have failed for the most part. Would SF do any better? Who knows.

In Ireland, if you need an operation, you can get it fast if you can pay or have health insurance. If you can't pay you wait. Ability to pay comes before need.

Should a health system not provide care on need before ability to pay?

Should this be metric number one?

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Ask the parents of children who are sick and wait years just to see a consultant. Are they part of your metric?
I'm not saying it's because of private hospitals that the system is not working for those people who wait endlessly for assessments and operations but it's part of our broken system.

The public health service is broken and no government in living memory has the will or bravery to do anything about it. Doesn't matter if its FF or FG, both of these have failed for the most part. Would SF do any better? Who knows.

In Ireland, if you need an operation, you can get it fast if you can pay or have health insurance. If you can't pay you wait. Ability to pay comes before need.

Should a health system not provide care on need before ability to pay?

Should this be metric number one?

It has never been a safer country for children. You complain that sick kids have to wait years to get treatment, well 30 years ago these treatments didn't exist. A free on entry universal system will always have long queues and the queues will always be the longest for rarer procedures like in children's medicine. A country of our size can only support so many highly specialised doctors. This is true in Sweden, France, Spain, everywhere. Irish waiting lists are not unusual. Bravery has nothing to do with it and our health system is absolutely not broken. Improvements can be made (personally I'd favour a Swiss model) but peoples expectations are utterly unrealistic.

tjhook wrote: »

I notice you say "eliminate all advantages that private health insurance gives" rather than something like "bring public health care up to the same standard as private health care". This is the exactly the point. Some people are more concerned with dragging others down than improving the situation.
...

Here is a quote of my post, with the bolded part being the bit you deliberately left out - which proves that you are lying about what I said:

KyussB wrote: »

...eliminate all advantages that private health insurance gives, when accessing public health services (in general, eliminate all ways people can 'buy their way' into preferential treatment, in the public health services).

KyussB wrote: »

Here is a quote of my post, with the bolded part being the bit you deliberately left out - which proves that you are lying about what I said:

I deliberately left out most of your post. "Lying" is a pretty strong term - you didn't type what I quoted?

You'd have a better argument if you said I took your words out of context. But your post does focus on disimproving the private system. You specifically mention the elimination of advantages of the private system, so it's easy to read as meaning that if the private system was hobbled (or eliminated entirely), you'd be happier. If you had said that you wanted more resources spent on the public system, possibly to the detriment of the private system, that would be different.

KyussB wrote: »

There's no motive among the powerful and wealthy who have primary influence in our main parties, to improve the public health system - because they don't have to participate in it. There is in fact motive for them to hold it back and worsen it, to make the private health system more attractive - because that's a gigantic cash cow for that class of people, they can rake loads of money off of the public.

When the powerful and wealthy, who have a defining influence on our political parties, are forced to exclusively use the public health services - then they'll be motivated to improve them.

How do you mean improve them - throw more money into them - or reform and reorganise them? Because if it is the latter there will have to be a lot of broken eggs before we have a nice omelette.
The vested interests that stymie reform are not "the rich" (or should I say "the bogeyman") but all the vested interests both within and without the service itself.

Within you have occupational interests, regional interests, health sector interests (hospitals, community care, primary care, long term care, etc, etc) and, of course, the trade unions. You also have a lot of positions threatened. And without it - well, there is us. Everywhere wants to retain their "local service" whether it is any good or not, or relevant to its location, or whether it can be staffed properly with relevant specialities. Of course, a big driver is local jobs for local people so this unites politicians of all varities behind them.

This crisis shows that change can happen quickly when all other issues are forgotten. Unfortunately I doubt that this will be sustained when the crisis is over.

There are lots of really great people in the health service. But as an organisation it is a mess. And to say that "the wealthy" are preventing its reform is populist nonesense - a characteristic of the disease rather than a cure.

tjhook wrote: »

Quoting your full post, to avoid needless palpitations...

We're all dependent on the public system, and that includes the "powerful and wealthy". If Leo gets hit by a car crossing the road, will a passer-by call a private ambulance to bring him to a private A&E?

And I'm not sure about assigning malicious intents to "that class of people" (presumably those dastardly "powerful and wealthy"?). How does Simon Harris personally benefit if a private hospital manages to double its profits? Or does he just laugh maniacally as he strokes his cat, happy that some other "powerful and wealthy" person is benefiting?

It's really not a conspiracy. We (all of us) spend a hell of a lot of money on the public health system. But for some reason, we don't get the quality of service that many other countries do. The problem isn't the lack of money. The problem isn't lack of skills or hard work from the front-line staff. What else could it be? Could it be the way in which it's run? The management and work practices? And if a politician were to change all that, do you think (s)he would be supported by the vested interests (including unions), and by the public? Or would such a politician would be roasted by the vested interests and the public that would support elements of those interests. Think strikes and placards...

Over the past 20 years, governments have included FF, FG, PD, Labour, Green, and independents of various leanings. Somehow none of them have provided a way to sort out Health. At some point we need to acknowledge that the public wouldn't stand for what would be needed to do so.

What countries? Can anyone show me all these peer countries that supposedly have great affordable healthcare systems?

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Can you give an example of where scoliosis is being treated quicker in a private hospital?

I am happy to discuss this if you can provide an accurate example of where this happens?

Otherwise your post is cranking or hearsay.

I also respect that this thread appears to be some sort of left wing love in, I am getting that from the tone of many posts. But if you really examined totalitarian states which control health systems you would be able to identify that it is the state officers( politicians, civil servants, army members, Gards etc) who get preferential treatment ahead of the regular proletariat. Deny that truth and you are simply spoofing to yourselves.

At least in this country we have universal healthcare, with the added bonus of the option of paying for private healthcare if you like.

A state run system removes your options, which, if you think about it, is actually detrimental to your healthcare. When I am sick I want my doctor to work for me , not for some government which I have no control over. At least as lefties you should be able to comprehend that concept, even if you have yet failed to appreciate how good you have things as they are?

There are kids waiting on public lists for the scoliosis operation while resources in private hospitals are being used to make z list celebrities tits bigger.