Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

smurgen · 02-04-2020 7:47pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

link?

https://www.independent.ie/business/coronavirus-ireland-paschal-donohoe-points-to-covid-19-bill-approaching-20bn-39097759.html

gary550 · 02-04-2020 7:57pm

smurgen wrote: »

Pascal Donohue saying the Covid bill up to 20bn now.we can assume from this O'Brien and his ilk got their blank cheque?

Where did you get that from that article?

smurgen · 02-04-2020 8:51pm

gary550 wrote: »

Where did you get that from that article?

I’m saying we’re being readied for a shafting.pascal is telling us of the dire financial consequences early hours. It’s setting expectations low so when it becomes a car crash because of their mismanagement and sweat heart deals with the likes of DOB they can still say it wasn’t as bad as what they expected. Expectations management! It’s the trump playbook they’re copying. Like the other day when he said 200k deaths compared to the 2.2 million at the upper scale. Completely cynical behaviour from “leaders”.

CtevenSrowder · 02-04-2020 9:24pm

smurgen wrote: »

I’m saying we’re being readied for a shafting.pascal is telling us of the dire financial consequences early hours. It’s setting expectations low so when it becomes a car crash because of their mismanagement and sweat heart deals with the likes of DOB they can still say it wasn’t as bad as what they expected. Expectations management! It’s the trump playbook they’re copying. Like the other day when he said 200k deaths compared to the 2.2 million at the upper scale. Completely cynical behaviour from “leaders”.

Nothing cynical there. The 2.2 million figure is based on no restrictions being brought in. And the whole World will be taking a shafting due to the recession we're entering.

IAMAMORON · 02-04-2020 9:58pm

smurgen wrote: »

Pascal Donohue saying the Covid bill up to 20bn now.we can assume from this O'Brien and his ilk got their blank cheque?

The article says

The Minister for Finance told reporters on Thursday that a Central Bank estimate for €8bn of extra spending this year on measures linked to the outbreak will “definitely be in the vicinity of a figure like that, potentially higher the longer this public health emergency continues for and how quickly the public health guidance changes”.
And he said the full financial hit will be more than double that as income tax, Vat and other tax headings shrink even faster than spending rises.
“I should indicate though that the tax revenue that will be foregone as a result of economic activity going down is likely to be ahead of that (€8bn) figure and the cumulative cost of where we will be will be high but it is going t be completely by how long this phase of the public health emergency goes on.”

There is also completely no reference to Denis O'Brien.

Where did you get €20 billion from?

IAMAMORON · 02-04-2020 10:05pm

smurgen wrote: »

I’m saying we’re being readied for a shafting.pascal is telling us of the dire financial consequences early hours. It’s setting expectations low so when it becomes a car crash because of their mismanagement and sweat heart deals with the likes of DOB they can still say it wasn’t as bad as what they expected. Expectations management! It’s the trump playbook they’re copying. Like the other day when he said 200k deaths compared to the 2.2 million at the upper scale. Completely cynical behaviour from “leaders”.

Sexual innuendo, political name dropping bordering on familiarisation, metaphorical malapropisms, inconclusive subjective meandering hogwash.

Buffoonery.

smurgen · 02-04-2020 10:37pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Sexual innuendo, political name dropping bordering on familiarisation, metaphorical malapropisms, inconclusive subjective meandering hogwash.

Buffoonery.

Wait til the Sunday for the Indo .Sounds more like the type of safe space you're after.

IAMAMORON · 02-04-2020 10:53pm

smurgen wrote: »

Wait til the Sunday for the Indo .Sounds more like the type of safe space you're after.

Weally?

What does reading sound like?

Geuze · 03-04-2020 12:52am

Here's my suggestion for healthcare.

Leave the provision to a multitude of operators: State + church/religious + for-profit, etc.

Let the State organise it such that 100% of the pop have access.

Money should not be able to buy faster access to care.

Now, how is this to be organised?

Either, 100% of the pop have insurance, so the division between public and private patient disappears.

Every GP / consultant / hosp wants to treat you, as you are insured, and they earn revenue.

Or, we move to a NHS style tax-funded Slaintecare, where the HSE sets targets for much shorter waiting times, and uses whatever operators/providers to achieve these outcomes.

That may mean the HSE contracting with for-profit providers.

If you want to pay cash/insurance for a better hosp room, yes ok.

na1 · 03-04-2020 1:22am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The M50 is a 'private' road. It was funded by business so there is a toll. Works fine.

The M50 is bad example.

It cost NTR (National Toll Roads) €58m to build the M50 West-Link

And then the State (National Roads Authority) has made a agreement of payments of €50 million per annum to NTR from August 2008 until March 2020

03-04-2020 2:20am

KyussB wrote: »

The private health insurers are stealing by taking money without providing the advertised service during the coronavirus - and the government would be taking that money and providing the service instead - pretty simple.

Private health insurance pays for private hospitals - so if the government take over the private hospitals, they take over the funding of them, too. You do realize the government is critically short of money, right?

Are you one of the 'taxes is stealing' nuts? The law defines what is and isn't stealing - and the government writes the law.

I already pay taxes just like everyone else which are spent on the state health service. The monies I pay to private health insurance are on top of the taxes I pay (and I pay extra taxes considering there is tax on the payments made to the private health insurance company).

The private health insurance companies aren't stealing anything from me because I don't need their service right now. My agent has already said that my payments are being put into a fund against treatments after the crisis has finished. So, your idea of stealing is rather.. selective.

Nope. I feel that reasonable taxation is needed. Double taxation isn't. I should be covered under the State system because I pay my taxes.. You're seeking to justify the government both taking my taxation, and also taking the established funds...

It's unreasonable.. it's stealing.. And I, like many others, would fight against it. It would actually be worth it (considering what's currently in my insurance coverage) to fight the government on this. What's next? The government needs money, so they'll take my life insurance? My pensions? Where does it stop?

Nah. You're proposing open pandora's box. The government can find other ways to generate an income.. perhaps cutting wastage that already exists.

KyussB · 03-04-2020 5:31am

They refund you for the period you aren't covered, either by directly refunding your money, or by taking it off next years premium - and refunding directly if you cancel before next year. That or your paying for a service they aren't providing during a significant period - which amounts to stealing.

Stealing is defined by the law, the government writes the law - if they pass a law taking over the health insurance funds, for emergency funding - it's not stealing.

Were you asleep during the last crisis? The government did raid pensions. It wasn't stealing.

03-04-2020 5:57am

KyussB wrote: »

They refund you for the period you aren't covered, either by directly refunding your money, or by taking it off next years premium - and refunding directly if you cancel before next year. That or your paying for a service they aren't providing during a significant period - which amounts to stealing.

Only if you're unwilling to negotiate. Which anyone dealing with an agent, or account manager, will be able to do.

Anyway, my particular insurance option pools into a fund, which the company takes a percentage from each year. If I don't avail of any services from them, the majority of my monies are carried over to next year, which offsets a portion of what they take out. You do realise that customers can negotiate their agreements rather than automatically accepting a standard plan?

Stealing is defined by the law, the government writes the law - if they pass a law taking over the health insurance funds, for emergency funding - it's not stealing.

Nope. The government is not the law. At least not in western nations.

Any proposal to pass such a law would need to be approved by various organisations... and if they did pass such a law, it could be appealed by both the insurance companies. An appeal that would tie up the legal change for months, if not years.

We don't live in a police state. Well, you don't. I do. Trust me, you wouldn't be wanting this to happen in Ireland, if you understood what it entailed.

Were you asleep during the last crisis? The government did raid pensions. It wasn't stealing.

Yes, it was stealing. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. Which is why FF should have been broken as a party, and their members cast into the sea. Just because a government decides something, doesn't mean that it's moral or just.

I'm beginning to see why Nazism was raised earlier. You really do have some very totalitarian biases.

KyussB · 03-04-2020 4:27pm

If they're taking peoples money without providing the advertised service - except for the few that negotiate with them - that's stealing.

Nobody cares what you think is moral or just - you're fine with health insurance funds stealing money... - if enough of the public and legislature think it's morally just and not stealing, to follow up nationalization of private hospitals, with nationalization of the insurance funds which pay for them - then you have no recourse, tough shit.

Some people seem to think "anything I feel is unfair is NAZISM!!!!" - it's just toys out of the pram whinging.

IAMAMORON · 03-04-2020 4:40pm

KyussB wrote: »

If they're taking peoples money without providing the advertised service - except for the few that negotiate with them - that's stealing.

Nobody cares what you think is moral or just - you're fine with health insurance funds stealing money... - if enough of the public and legislature think it's morally just and not stealing, to follow up nationalization of private hospitals, with nationalization of the insurance funds which pay for them - then you have no recourse, tough shit.

Some people seem to think "anything I feel is unfair is NAZISM!!!!" - it's just toys out of the pram whinging.

@ KyussB - I just wanted to put my cards on the table and let you know that I decided about 48hrs ago that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I didn't want to ignore you because I quite like people and while I have not agreed with anything you have said, I decided to at least read some of your tripe in the hope that you come around to at least making sense. You are not there yet.

I am trying. But some of your posts are lacking rationality. If you are a genuine left thinking person I have no problem with that, I could discuss it with you all night. In fact if you are a Nazi I can talk about that too. But please back up what you're waffling about with some sort of rationality, it helps everyone involved. Otherwise no one respects what you are posting - it is a load of crap at the best of times - but without it being plausible no one is going to respect what you are saying.

No one who is paying private healthcare is annoyed that their health cover has been compromised during this crisis. Generally people have compassion, that includes people with health plans and the super rich.

KyussB · 03-04-2020 5:13pm

How generous of you...When you throw around "NAZI!!!", "COMMUNIST!!!" with abandon - nobody (who doesn't tend to do the same) is going to take you as sincere.

LuasSimon · 03-04-2020 6:37pm

How much a day will Larry Goodman and Denis O brien make out of the whole Covid Hospital scheme ? Should the country be told ?

Both of the mean have a number off Billion in assets , are they giving hospitals at a reasonable rate or have they the country over a barrel ? Simon Coveney been married to Larry Goldman’s niece is surely a conflict of interest .

Griselda · 03-04-2020 6:39pm

LuasSimon wrote: »

How much a day will Larry Goodman and Denis O brien make out of the whole Covid Hospital scheme ? Should the country be told ?

Owner of Zara clothes brand gave 63 million quid to the Spanish for ventilators. Have we seen similar altruism in EIRE.

LuasSimon · 03-04-2020 6:40pm

Griselda wrote: »

Owner of Zara clothes brand gave 63 million quid to the Spanish for ventilators. Have we seen similar altruism in EIRE.

Not a hope only take more off the people through the Fine Gael government contracts

gary550 · 03-04-2020 7:57pm

LuasSimon wrote: »

How much a day will Larry Goodman and Denis O brien make out of the whole Covid Hospital scheme ? Should the country be told ?

Both of the mean have a number off Billion in assets , are they giving hospitals at a reasonable rate or have they the country over a barrel ? Simon Coveney been married to Larry Goldman’s niece is surely a conflict of interest .

Out of curiosity are they the only two wealthy people you know of cause you haven't mentioned anyone else?

Shock awe, an affluent government minister is married to someone from another affluent background :eek: His brother runs a billion euro company and his father was a developer. Guilty by association I suppose? :rolleyes:

Yellow_Fern · 03-04-2020 8:28pm

gary550 wrote: »

Out of curiosity are they the only two wealthy people you know of cause you haven't mentioned anyone else?

Shock awe, an affluent government minister is married to someone from another affluent background :eek: His brother runs a billion euro company and his father was a developer. Guilty by association I suppose? :rolleyes:

BTW this allegation that Coveney is married to a Goodman is totally on true. Coveney sent out a tweet to dismiss it a few months back. He is from a famous and wealthy family but not connected to the Goodmans in anyway.

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 10:11am

IAMAMORON wrote: »

@ KyussB - I just wanted to put my cards on the table and let you know that I decided about 48hrs ago that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I didn't want to ignore you because I quite like people and while I have not agreed with anything you have said, I decided to at least read some of your tripe in the hope that you come around to at least making sense. You are not there yet.

I am trying. But some of your posts are lacking rationality. If you are a genuine left thinking person I have no problem with that, I could discuss it with you all night. In fact if you are a Nazi I can talk about that too. But please back up what you're waffling about with some sort of rationality, it helps everyone involved. Otherwise no one respects what you are posting - it is a load of crap at the best of times - but without it being plausible no one is going to respect what you are saying.

No one who is paying private healthcare is annoyed that their health cover has been compromised during this crisis. Generally people have compassion, that includes people with health plans and the super rich.

Such arrogance

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 10:31am

Geuze wrote: »

Here's my suggestion for healthcare.

Leave the provision to a multitude of operators: State + church/religious + for-profit, etc.

Let the State organise it such that 100% of the pop have access.

Money should not be able to buy faster access to care.

Now, how is this to be organised?

Either, 100% of the pop have insurance, so the division between public and private patient disappears.

Every GP / consultant / hosp wants to treat you, as you are insured, and they earn revenue.

Or, we move to a NHS style tax-funded Slaintecare, where the HSE sets targets for much shorter waiting times, and uses whatever operators/providers to achieve these outcomes.

That may mean the HSE contracting with for-profit providers.

If you want to pay cash/insurance for a better hosp room, yes ok.

Good post. I think there are options to deliver a one tier health system and if people want to pay for nice surroundings and single rooms then that's where those who want to spend extra can spend their money, but i'd go with the Slaintecare option. The crucial bit is the bit in bold above. I think it can be achieved if the political will is there and my proposal would be to charge a levy on everyone so that they are all stakeholders, with the levy increasing incrementally on those who can pay more.

SlainteCare is there as a blueprint that has plenty of support behind it. It is not merely a "rebranding of the HSE" as one particularly boring and annoying poster on this thread disparagingly put it. It is the stated aim of SlainteCare to provide a one tier system. SlainteCare has cross party endorsement, get the citizens behind it by making them stakeholders.

When this current crisis abates, that basic principle of a one tier system should be delivered on. Crucially the health care workers across the board need to be on board as well.

Any one left arguing against are in a minority and will be sidelined, let them bump their gums. Get SlainteCare and a one tier system delivered.

Yellow_Fern · 04-04-2020 11:02am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Good post. I think there are options to deliver a one tier health system and if people want to pay for nice surroundings and single rooms then that's where those who want to spend extra can spend their money, but i'd go with the Slaintecare option. The crucial bit is the bit in bold above. I think it can be achieved if the political will is there and my proposal would be to charge a levy on everyone so that they are all stakeholders, with the levy increasing incrementally on those who can pay more.

SlainteCare is there as a blueprint that has plenty of support behind it. It is not merely a "rebranding of the HSE" as one particularly boring and annoying poster on this thread disparagingly put it. It is the stated aim of SlainteCare to provide a one tier system. SlainteCare has cross party endorsement, get the citizens behind it by making them stakeholders.

When this current crisis abates, that basic principle of a one tier system should be delivered on. Crucially the health care workers across the board need to be on board as well.

Any one left arguing against are in a minority and will be sidelined, let them bump their gums. Get SlainteCare and a one tier system delivered.

Why? Why not focus on quality of care, rather than windmills.

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 11:07am

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Why? Why not focus on quality of care, rather than windmills.

Windmills? Creating a one tier system like they have in progressive European countries is chasing windmills? What a sad and pathetic attitude.

What did they commission Slaintecare for and create a consensus around it for if they're not going to implement it.

What's your skin in the game why are you against Slaintecare?

04-04-2020 11:26am

TheCitizen wrote: »

SlainteCare has cross party endorsement, get the citizens behind it by making them stakeholders.

When this current crisis abates, that basic principle of a one tier system should be delivered on. Crucially the health care workers across the board need to be on board as well.

Any one left arguing against are in a minority and will be sidelined, let them bump their gums. Get SlainteCare and a one tier system delivered.

TheCitizen wrote: »

Windmills? Creating a one tier system like they have in progressive European countries is chasing windmills? What a sad and pathetic attitude.

What did they commission Slaintecare for and create a consensus around it for if they're not going to implement it.

What's your skin in the game why are you against Slaintecare?

I think you are misinterpreting Slaintecare and what is meant by a one-tier system. The aim of Slaintecare care is to deliver across the board, equal access to public health. I don't think there are many who would object to this - other, perhaps, than those medical consultants who have contracts that enable them to treat both public and private patients. Also, the HSE will be concerned about losing the income form privately insured patients who they currently charge for using the public system.

Certainly I think that most of those who have private insurance would welcome a single tier public system.

This, however, has nothing to do with private hospitals and clinics. These exist right across Europe (including UK) even though they have single tier public health systems. The point is that they must be totally seperate from the public system. A Consultant working in a public hospital would have no right to double job in a private hospital (and vice versa). The private hospital would be fully funded by the people who use it privately - whether directly by fees and charges or, indirectly, by insurance. If, as now, the vast majority of such users are Irish citizens/residents they would have already paid their share towards the public system through the taxation system. How they spend their discretionary money is up to themselves.

If the public system as developed (eg, Slaintecare) is as accessible as claimed, then there would be a big drop in the number paying for health insurance and using private hospitals.

Just as a by the way. A private hospital is different from a with-profit hospital operating in the public system. The latter operates by contract to the state to provide public health services on behalf of the state. These operate also in some single-tier systems. Access to these is nothing to do with private health insurance - they operate as fully accessible public hospitals with payments for their services coming from the state. I have no idea whether these will be considered by Slaintecare as one aspect of service - but either way, private hospitals are a different matter.

Yellow_Fern · 04-04-2020 11:30am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Windmills? Creating a one tier system like they have in progressive European countries is chasing windmills? What a sad and pathetic attitude.

What did they commission Slaintecare for and create a consensus around it for if they're not going to implement it.

What's your skin in the game why are you against Slaintecare?

I have spent years of my life in Europe, there is no one system used in 'progressive' countries. There are many and they are not the panacea they are made out to be. When does a two tier system become a one tier, because all countries have a second tier? Is it when only 20% use private or 10%?

There are four qualities people desire in healthcare;
quality,
accessibility,
speed of availability
and cost to state or people.

There is a myth that elsewhere in Europe they achieve all four. That is easily falsifiable. The NHS has quality and good cost but slow delivery. The US has brilliant quality and great speed but high costs. Slaintecare is already being implemented and it is clear that speed of availability is deteriorating as GPs have growing waiting lists. Irish politics is extremely conformist and heavily driven by a small uncritical media so its not surprising that they are rushing towards Slaintecare.

ILoveYourVibes · 04-04-2020 11:32am

LuasSimon wrote: »

d Denis O Brien.

He owns the place that was supposed to do the treatment for my dad's prostate cancer....just the night before he was due to begin treatment they rang to say they had stopped offering the treatment.

We ended up having to go down to waterford. Very difficult to travel at that time for my dad between treatments etc.

Maybe it was for the best though. He's fine now.

Salary Negotiator · 04-04-2020 11:38am

LuasSimon wrote: »

Simon Coveney been married to Larry Goldman’s niece is surely a conflict of interest .

Not that you ever had much credibility but you’re showing yourself up by repeating lies such as this.

IAMAMORON · 04-04-2020 11:42am

TheCitizen wrote: »

Good post. I think there are options to deliver a one tier health system and if people want to pay for nice surroundings and single rooms then that's where those who want to spend extra can spend their money, but i'd go with the Slaintecare option. The crucial bit is the bit in bold above. I think it can be achieved if the political will is there and my proposal would be to charge a levy on everyone so that they are all stakeholders, with the levy increasing incrementally on those who can pay more.

SlainteCare is there as a blueprint that has plenty of support behind it. It is not merely a "rebranding of the HSE" as one particularly boring and annoying poster on this thread disparagingly put it. It is the stated aim of SlainteCare to provide a one tier system. SlainteCare has cross party endorsement, get the citizens behind it by making them stakeholders.

When this current crisis abates, that basic principle of a one tier system should be delivered on. Crucially the health care workers across the board need to be on board as well.

Any one left arguing against are in a minority and will be sidelined, let them bump their gums. Get SlainteCare and a one tier system delivered.

I was called arrogant.

I said it before, but I am reiterating this again now.

Sláinte Care is nothing more than a rebranding of the HSE. You might refuse to admit that, but by ignoring this fact you are going to end up with an identical system in 5 years.

"sidelining" people who don't agree with you is evidence of a Nazi totalitarian attitude. You also now can not deny that. To turn your back on you own concept to encompass you own goals leaves other citizens behind, this defeats your own ideals in the first place. Pointless.

I get the distinct impression this thread is turning into a rich vs poor debate. How boring.

Thankfully Sláinte care will not get realised- and I can tell you why. As soon as private healthcare payers realise that the government has decided to charge them more taxes and remove their health benefits they will stop voting for them, that is how democracy works.

IAMAMORON · 04-04-2020 11:45am

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He owns the place that was supposed to do the treatment for my dad's prostate cancer....just the night before he was due to begin treatment they rang to say they had stopped offering the treatment.

We ended up having to go down to waterford. Very difficult to travel at that time for my dad between treatments etc.

Maybe it was for the best though. He's fine now.

Which place was that ?

Where did your Dad get treated in Waterford?

04-04-2020 11:51am

LuasSimon wrote: »

How much a day will Larry Goodman and Denis O brien make out of the whole Covid Hospital scheme ? .

Is your concern about Goodman and O'Brien or is it about private hospitals? You seem fixated on those two individuals.

There are many private hospitals in ireland Mater, St Vincent's, Hermitage, blackrock, Aut Even, Bon Secours,Galway Clinic, Whitfield, St Francis, etc, etc, etc. Goodman and/or O'Brien are involved in only a minority of them (as as far as I know not outright ownership, but could be wrong). So is your concern with all of these places or just two individuals?

Should the state expropriate them all? What do you think the impact would be on any company or entrepreneaur considering setting up a business of any sort in Ireland (or already owning one)?

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:03pm

1641 wrote: »

I think you are misinterpreting Slaintecare and what is meant by a one-tier system. The aim of Slaintecare care is to deliver across the board, equal access to public health. I don't think there are many who would object to this - other, perhaps, than those medical consultants who have contracts that enable them to treat both public and private patients. Also, the HSE will be concerned about losing the income form privately insured patients who they currently charge for using the public system.

Certainly I think that most of those who have private insurance would welcome a single tier public system.

This, however, has nothing to do with private hospitals and clinics. These exist right across Europe (including UK) even though they have single tier public health systems. The point is that they must be totally seperate from the public system. A Consultant working in a public hospital would have no right to double job in a private hospital (and vice versa). The private hospital would be fully funded by the people who use it privately - whether directly by fees and charges or, indirectly, by insurance. If, as now, the vast majority of such users are Irish citizens/residents they would have already paid their share towards the public system through the taxation system. How they spend their discretionary money is up to themselves.

If the public system as developed (eg, Slaintecare) is as accessible as claimed, then there would be a big drop in the number paying for health insurance and using private hospitals.

Just as a by the way. A private hospital is different from a with-profit hospital operating in the public system. The latter operates by contract to the state to provide public health services on behalf of the state. These operate also in some single-tier systems. Access to these is nothing to do with private health insurance - they operate as fully accessible public hospitals with payments for their services coming from the state. I have no idea whether these will be considered by Slaintecare as one aspect of service - but either way, private hospitals are a different matter.

yes that's why I think a levy ( a form of universal insurance) would be required to fund the implementation of Slaintecare. A tiered levy depending on income.

A private hospital will still be there with hotel like rooms and mod cons etc.. The quality of medical care though and accessibility should be the same across the board in my opinion and that is what I hope Slaintecare means when it says it is committed to delivering a one tier health system.

The insurance company I imagine won't like Slaintecare but its up to the politicians to back up their stated intentions and implement Slaintecare and ensure all vested interests get on board.

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:17pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I was called arrogant.

I said it before, but I am reiterating this again now.

Sláinte Care is nothing more than a rebranding of the HSE. You might refuse to admit that, but by ignoring this fact you are going to end up with an identical system in 5 years.

You forgot to add in your opinion, but your arrogance shines through on that as you think your opinion is fact.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

"sidelining" people who don't agree with you is evidence of a Nazi totalitarian attitude. You also now can not deny that. To turn your back on you own concept to encompass you own goals leaves other citizens behind, this defeats your own ideals in the first place. Pointless.

I mean sidelining those who are against progress like you. When progress is achieved you'll have to get on with it like it or not.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I get the distinct impression this thread is turning into a rich vs poor debate. How boring.

You'd know about that.

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Thankfully Sláinte care will not get realised- and I can tell you why. As soon as private healthcare payers realise that the government has decided to charge them more taxes and remove their health benefits they will stop voting for them, that is how democracy works.

There's a poster above that says Slaintecare has already begun to be implemented.

Again you forgot to add in your opinion. Every political party in the country is endorsing Slaintecare so I don't know they're who going to vote for if some people you're referring to don't like it. They can still pay for private hospitals and nicer rooms if they want to, but the quality of medical care will be the same across the board is the crucial aspiration.

Change can be difficult for people but change in the Irish health system is necessary, I suggest that you should try to get over your difficulty.

04-04-2020 12:23pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

yes that's why I think a levy ( a form of universal insurance) would be required to fund the implementation of Slaintecare. A tiered levy depending on income.

A private hospital will still be there with hotel like rooms and mod cons etc.. The quality of medical care though and accessibility should be the same across the board in my opinion and that is what I hope Slaintecare means when it says it is committed to delivering a one tier health system.

The insurance company I imagine won't like Slaintecare but its up to the politicians to back up their stated intentions and implement Slaintecare and ensure all vested interests get on board.

Maybe accessibility should be the same but will it be? There will be huge demand pressures on a public system and limitations on its capacity to meet such demands. These limitations are universal, no matter what system. (To help alleviate excessive demand there should always be some fraction of cost to the user, no matter how small. Tier this if you want to). Also, as regards quality. There can be no guarantee that it will be equal. If people wish to pay private health insurance to access private hospitals and private consultants then that it is at their own discretion.

As regards paying for the system, I hope we are not back to "let the rich pay" bunkum. We have a heavily redisributitive tax system already (I have no objection to this in principle). But all payment for universal services (including childcare) should be by way of universal payment. Proportionate of course.

In Sweden, for example, the top 20% of income earners pay on average 36% of all income to the state, in Ireland it is on average 33%. However, in Sweden the bottom 20% of income earners pay 37% of all income to the state, whereas here it averages just 12%. Freely accessible and universal state services come at a cost - across the board.

I don't think there will be any significant objections from insurance companies to Slaintecare - it is just a matter of altering premiums. There will still be a market for private health. There will be plenty of objections and obstacles elsewhere though.

Yellow_Fern · 04-04-2020 12:24pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

yes that's why I think a levy ( a form of universal insurance) would be required to fund the implementation of Slaintecare. A tiered levy depending on income.

A private hospital will still be there with hotel like rooms and mod cons etc.. The quality of medical care though and accessibility should be the same across the board in my opinion and that is what I hope Slaintecare means when it says it is committed to delivering a one tier health system.

The insurance company I imagine won't like Slaintecare but its up to the politicians to back up their stated intentions and implement Slaintecare and ensure all vested interests get on board.

A lot of fluff and no answers to my point. Can you define what is a one tier system if private hospitals won't disappear?

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:27pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I have spent years of my life in Europe, there is no one system used in 'progressive' countries. There are many and they are not the panacea they are made out to be. When does a two tier system become a one tier, because all countries have a second tier? Is it when only 20% use private or 10%?

There are four qualities people desire in healthcare;
quality,
accessibility,
speed of availability
and cost to state or people.

There is a myth that elsewhere in Europe they achieve all four. That is easily falsifiable. The NHS has quality and good cost but slow delivery. The US has brilliant quality and great speed but high costs. Slaintecare is already being implemented and it is clear that speed of availability is deteriorating as GPs have growing waiting lists. Irish politics is extremely conformist and heavily driven by a small uncritical media so its not surprising that they are rushing towards Slaintecare.

Irish politics is conformist? Amazing the tripe people come out with just to suit whatever argument they've built up in their head.

How often do we have a set of proposals where all parties across the political spectrum in Ireland endorse it? Property tax, bin charges, water charges all of these had some opposition parties against what was proposed. Slaintecare has near universal political endorsement, but you're going to make that out to be a bad thing. Are you the type that will still find fault with something because there must be something wrong with it if "they're all for it"?

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:31pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

A lot of fluff and no answers to my point. Can you define what is a one tier system if private hospitals won't disappear?

It means the quality and delivery of medical care will be the same across the board, but if you want to pay extra you can do so and be given a nicer room to stay in.

Yellow_Fern · 04-04-2020 12:33pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

Irish politics is conformist? Amazing the tripe people come out with just to suit whatever argument they've built up in their head.

How often do we have a set of proposals where all parties across the political spectrum in Ireland endorse it? Property tax, bin charges, water charges all of these had some opposition parties against what was proposed. Slaintecare has near universal political endorsement, but you're going to make that out to be a bad thing. Are you the type that will still find fault with something because there must be something wrong with it if "they're all for it"?

Water charges was forced upon Ireland by international obligations as was the property tax. There are plenty examples of Irish politicians lacking any diversity of thought. But I agree in some cases they don't agree and there is debate. I find fault in policy where is there is international evidence against it. Now my question is, what is a one tier system if private healthcare remains? It kinda sounds like fluff.

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:34pm

1641 wrote: »

Maybe accessibility should be the same but will it be? There will be huge demand pressures on a public system and limitations on its capacity to meet such demands. These limitations are universal, no matter what system. (To help alleviate excessive demand there should always be some fraction of cost to the user, no matter how small. Tier this if you want to). Also, as regards quality. There can be no guarantee that it will be equal. If people wish to pay private health insurance to access private hospitals and private consultants then that it is at their own discretion.

As regards paying for the system, I hope we are not back to "let the rich pay" bunkum. We have a heavily redisributitive tax system already (I have no objection to this in principle). But all payment for universal services (including childcare) should be by way of universal payment. Proportionate of course.

In Sweden, for example, the top 20% of income earners pay on average 36% of all income to the state, in Ireland it is on average 33%. However, in Sweden the bottom 20% of income earners pay 37% of all income to the state, whereas here it averages just 12%. Freely accessible and universal state services come at a cost - across the board.

I don't think there will be any significant objections from insurance companies to Slaintecare - it is just a matter of altering premiums. There will still be a market for private health. There will be plenty of objections and obstacles elsewhere though.

That's what I said

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:38pm

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Water charges was forced upon Ireland by international obligations as was the property tax. There are plenty examples of Irish politicians lacking any diversity of thought. But I agree in some cases they don't agree and there is debate. I find fault in policy where is there is international evidence against it. Now my question is, what is a one tier system if private healthcare remains? It kinda sounds like fluff.

Was it? I have no recollection of that and besides Water Charges have not been implemented?

Other query answered above.

04-04-2020 12:44pm

1641 wrote: »

As regards paying for the system, I hope we are not back to "let the rich pay" bunkum. We have a heavily redisributitive tax system already (I have no objection to this in principle). But all payment for universal services (including childcare) should be by way of universal payment. Proportionate of course.

In Sweden, for example, the top 20% of income earners pay on average 36% of all income to the state, in Ireland it is on average 33%. However, in Sweden the bottom 20% of income earners pay 37% of all income to the state, whereas here it averages just 12%. Freely accessible and universal state services come at a cost - across the board.

.

TheCitizen wrote: »

That's what I said

So you accept that those on all incomes will have to pay more for universal and freely accessible state services, but proportionately this will apply most to lower earners?

IAMAMORON · 04-04-2020 12:49pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

It means the quality and delivery of medical care will be the same across the board, but if you want to pay extra you can do so and be given a nicer room to stay in.

Sure you can do that now?

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:50pm

1641 wrote: »

So you accept that those on all incomes will have to pay more for universal and freely accessible state services, but proportionately this will apply most to lower earners?

No the opposite. Proportionately will apply most to higher earners, unlike (if it's accurate) the Swedish example you outlined above.
I think those figures re Sweden above btw factor in that those on lower earnings spend most of their income on goods and services that have taxes built into it?

Those who can afford it best would be asked to pay a little bit more would be my suggestion, but all would be asked to pay a levy which means all are stakeholders and all buy into the reforms.

I suppose that's a mad idea for some around here :pac:, for me it's the most practicable way of funding such reforms.

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 12:53pm

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Sure you can do that now?

That's the objective. If the political will is there and people including health workers buy into it, yes.

Carrying on like before isn't an option unless you're happy to continue to fail.

04-04-2020 1:11pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

No the opposite. Proportionately will apply most to higher earners, unlike (if it's accurate) the Swedish example you outlined above.

Those who can afford it best would be asked to pay a little bit more would be my suggestion, but all would be asked to pay a levy which means all are stakeholders and all buy into the reforms.

I suppose that's a mad idea for some around here :pac:, for me it's the most practicable way of funding such reforms.

So it is the usual bunkum. You pretend to aspire to European social democratic models of state service but reject the taxation implications that go with that. We already have a highly redistributive tax system. The "rich", or higher earners pay disproportionately more.

https://www.esri.ie/news/irish-tax-system-does-most-in-europe-to-reduce-inequality

If you are for real (and not just promoting populist nonesense) you will look also at European taxes and charges. Yes Sweden is one of the countries frequently referenced as to services we should have - so why not the taxes and charges that go with that? Or, maybe you prefer Germany? In 2019 an Irish (single) worker on €25,000 would have had approx €3,150 in state deductions. In Germany it was approx €7,500. But they do have an excellent health system apparently! And they also have water charges - that is extra!
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/what-is-the-truth-about-paying-tax-in-ireland-1.4101097

TheCitizen · 04-04-2020 1:20pm

1641 wrote: »

So it is the usual bunkum. You pretend to aspire to European social democratic models of state service but reject the taxation implications that go with that. We already have a highly redistributive tax system. The "rich", or higher earners pay disproportionately more.

https://www.esri.ie/news/irish-tax-system-does-most-in-europe-to-reduce-inequality

If you are for real (and not just promoting populist nonesense) you will look also at European taxes and charges. Yes sweden is one of the countries frequently referenced as to services we should have - so why not the taxes and charges that go with that? Or, maybe you prefer Germany? In 2019 an Irish (single) worker on €25,000 would have had approx €3,150 in state deductions. In Germany it was approx €7,500. But they do have an excellent health system apparently! And they also have water charges - that is extra!
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/what-is-the-truth-about-paying-tax-in-ireland-1.4101097

It's not bunkum just cos you disagree with it. You're suggesting that the cost of funding the change to Slaintecare should be disproportionately levelled on the lower earners. I think all should make a contribution but it should be levied on higher earners who can afford to pay it best proportionately.

In Germany is refuse collection paid for by general taxation? What about childcare costs, is that better subsidised? I know in Sweden paternity and maternity costs are much generous. It's easy to pluck a few figures here and there to back up whatever argument you're making up, oftentimes though it can be comparing apples and oranges.

04-04-2020 1:48pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

It's not bunkum just cos you disagree with it. You're suggesting that the cost of funding the change to Slaintecare should be disproportionately levelled on the lower earners. I think all should make a contribution but it should be levied on higher earners who can afford to pay it best proportionately.

In Germany is refuse collection paid for by general taxation? What about childcare costs, is that better subsidised? I know in Sweden paternity and maternity costs are much generous. It's easy to pluck a few figures here and there to back up whatever argument you're making up, oftentimes though it can be comparing apples and oranges.

It is bunkum because your are talking about European level state services but refuse to accept European level state taxes and charges. High earners in Ireland already pay disproportionately more (https://fdw.ie/personal-tax-uhy-study-2019/). Sure they will have to pay some more to come up to European level standards but not much. It is the lowest earners who would need to come up most. It is populist nonesense to suggest that there is a free lunch here.
I don't have up to date statistics to hand on the extent of the disproportionate amount paid by higher earners but I reckon these haven't changed much. Also ,even middle earners pay considerable tax, although proportionately less. But lower earners pay disproportionately little.

"The increases in the proportion of taxes paid by high income earners has become notable in recent years. For example, in 2015, the top 1% of income earners paid 19% of all personal taxes while just twelve months later this is estimated to be 22%.

In 2017, it is estimated that the bottom 50% of income earners will pay 3.6% of the income tax take."

https://taxinstitute.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/The-Budget-Book-2017.pdf

IAMAMORON · 04-04-2020 1:51pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

That's the objective. If the political will is there and people including health workers buy into it, yes.

Carrying on like before isn't an option unless you're happy to continue to fail.

Do you not accept that the Irish State already provides universal healthcare?

Yellow_Fern · 04-04-2020 1:51pm

TheCitizen wrote: »

In Germany is refuse collection paid for by general taxation?.

No.

TheCitizen wrote: »

What about childcare costs, is that better subsidised?

yes it is subsidized (although not normally free but I think Berlin is an exception here) but it is so over subscribed you need to reserve a place before a child is born, unless you live in an aging area.

Ireland's Hospitals owned by the Rich

Comments