Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Private healthcare patients get exclusive access to cancer drugs

1235»

Comments

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


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    Why?

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

    What happens to the children and elderly and disabled in that system?


  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    mariaalice wrote: »
    What happens to the children and elderly and disabled in that system?

    We already have that "system".

    The state provides a health system for everyone.
    If you can afford to go private, then that's your right to improved services outside of the public health system.

    The state provides a public transport system.
    If you can afford a car, you pay for it and off you go.
    The state won't provide cars for everyone.

    This is nothing new.
    Decades ago you'd see campaigns to raise money to send some poor kid to the States for treatment, or some advanced clinic in Europe.
    These days there's gofundme campaigns.

    In better paid jobs, the employer will pay for health insurance because they value productive employees.


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


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    We already have that "system".

    The state provides a health system for everyone.
    If you can afford to go private, then that's your right to improved services outside of the public health system.

    The state provides a public transport system.
    If you can afford a car, you pay for it and off you go.
    The state won't provide cars for everyone.

    This is nothing new.
    Decades ago you'd see campaigns to raise money to send some poor kid to the States for treatment, or some advanced clinic in Europe.
    These days there's gofundme campaigns.

    I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.

    Fair point.
    You probably skip the line a bit to an initial appointment with a consultant, then you're in the public system.
    With the public health system being so underfunded they then milk the private health insurer as much as possible to pay for the rest of the public health service.

    Although I'm not sure how much better care you actually get once you're in the hospital door. Apart from them wanting to earn €800+ a night from your presence in a bed/trolley.


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


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    Why?

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

    Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,316 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    It's a two-tier health system and the gap is only widening. I have pretty comprehensive health insurance through my wife's work and in the space of a 10 days I was able to go to a GP, see a specialist and then have a colonoscopy all because I have insurance.

    A friend of mine doesn't have it and have been on the waiting list for the exact same procedure for four months and counting.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I know for a fact that a lot of this is perception as opposed to reality, I don't have health insurance because I think I will get an improved service I do it to get quicker access at the hospitals I want and at times of my choosing.

    That is the best reason to have it. I think my cancer diagnosis would have come much sooner than it did if I’d had insurance. And time is of the essence with that illness.

    As for the poster who said that hard working high earners deserve to have better healthcare - I never worked harder than the full year I dragged myself to my low income job whilst cancer coursed through my body, weakening my bones and reducing my lung capacity to the point that walking two metres left me dangerously out of breath. I was working full time, on the second floor of a building without a lift up to the day before my diagnosis.


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


    jiltloop wrote: »
    Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.


    We’ve legislated for abortion already, people will decide for others already whom they consider worthy to be born. They’re not having much success with persuading ill-educated black women to cease becoming pregnant, but some societies have had greater success in managing to control the numbers of children born with disabilities and reducing the number of girls born too.

    It’s not quite Aryan, but their intentions were noble at least, right?


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


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    Why?

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

    But the poster made a point about the kids in such a system. One could have inherited money and the other kid could be dirt poor. In the cult of earning line of thought that some here exhibit who would receive priority treatment?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    Click bait nonsense. The dog on the street knows that different treatments are available. You pay your money you take your chances. You don't pay your money you also take your chances. It is not the fault of a private healthcare provider or the HSE. They have different contracts with different pharma providers. The writer of the article is drumming up fear and trying to discriminate treatments between different pharma solutions.

    The reality is that a person responds to different treatments in different ways. How much the treatment costs is irrelevant, as is the article.


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


    jiltloop wrote: »
    Wow you have a disgusting point of view.

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

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

    You can bet that there are people reading your post now thinking "the rich child's parents paid more" so the rich child's life should take priority. You hear the same regarding tiers in education.

    This is where the merit argument falls down. No child chooses his socioeconomic status so you can't apply the logic of "one earned it and the other didn't". It simply becomes who has access to more money. People don't like to admit that though.


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


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    Click bait nonsense. The dog on the street knows that different treatments are available. You pay your money you take your chances. You don't pay your money you also take your chances. It is not the fault of a private healthcare provider or the HSE. They have different contracts with different pharma providers. The writer of the article is drumming up fear and trying to discriminate treatments between different pharma solutions.

    The reality is that a person responds to different treatments in different ways. How much the treatment costs is irrelevant, as is the article.

    Your username is making me hesitant to take you seriously.


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


    It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 568 ✭✭✭rgodard80a


    jiltloop wrote: »
    Wow, nice point of view. Feck it sure let's really try and benefit society and aim for a new Aryan race, let the physically disabled or the most diseased people die out so we can have a more productive society. Don't give them access to healthcare at all in fact, they're just wasting taxpayers money.

    Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

    Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
    Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

    But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.


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


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

    That is a bit strange and what if you are with Laya or some other insurer.


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


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html


    That’s not any different to how private healthcare normally operates anyway? The more cover and services you want, the more it’s going to cost.

    “Three-tier divide”, headline grabbing nonsense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    It seems it will be a three tier system. VH1 patients in public hospitals won't get the new drugs only VHI patients in private hospitals will.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/threetier-divide-opens-up-as-vhi-covers-its-private-patients-costs-for-top-cancer-drugs-38019573.html

    I am beginning to see the wood from the trees now.

    This is actually quite a crude and cynical marketing attempt by the VHI to get more people over age of 40 to subscribe to their top level schemes, ie paying for private hospital cover.

    Given that 1 in 3 people generate Cancer it is one way of scaring people into going for a more expensive cover. Nasty stuff, but I am not surprised.


  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

    Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
    Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

    But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.

    Spot on. All the Shinner/Copinger/Murphy voters dont want "social justice". They want it for themselves. Watch them howl if they got less to feed/clothe/house/providecprovide services services to everyone equally.


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


    rgodard80a wrote: »
    Wow, nice sarcasm and accusation of being a Nazi.

    Anyways, you don't believe in real equality so stop being a hypocrite.
    Real equality would be to drop everyones wages to less than minimum wage across the board, food rationing, rationing of oil and gas and share all our food and resources across the planet, feeding Africa etc.

    But you want the "equality" were you get more than you have now, access to more expensive treatments.

    Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.

    We all do.

    Especially the likes of, say, Margaret Cash who accused the "GUBNENT" of "crucifying" her while she in the meantime cranked out kids we are all paying for. She got not just equality but more than her fair share at the trough. Medical cards too. Her yearly social welfare income would astound many of our EU friends. Maybe less social welfare and a more equitable health system?????


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


    seasidedub wrote: »
    Are you talking about the States? Different thing - no real public system there. We do have o e and by and large it provides good care.
    Spot on. All the Shinner/Copinger/Murphy voters dont want "social justice". They want it for themselves. Watch them howl if they got less to feed/clothe/house/providecprovide services services to everyone equally.

    It's all relative. You realise in the states you'd be labelled as a rabid socialist for insisting on public health care?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,078 ✭✭✭IAMAMORON


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Well the poster's referring to healthcare. I believe essential healthcare should be applied equally to people. That doesn't mean I believe in equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity for most things in life.

    I think everyone does tbh. Particularly when it comes to healthcare. The reality is that everyone's health is a commodity. Idealism gets cast aside when there are limited amounts of aspirin in the jar.

    The fact remains that the pharma companies are going to sell their product to the highest bidders. This will lead to discrimination and fluctuation in prices.

    I am not too keen to open up a cavern of argument here. But I think some posters need to be honest about how lucky all people are on this island when it comes to getting free healthcare. **** stirring articles written in health pages don't help to exasperate patient fears, which as I mentioned earlier are unfounded. Just because there is a more expensive treatment available does not mean it is going to be a more successful one.

    Anyone using the availability of different treatments, to harbour any left wing agenda on patient care in Ireland, especially re public v private healthcare, is being quite naïve.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,474 ✭✭✭Obvious Desperate Breakfasts


    IAMAMORON wrote: »
    I think everyone does tbh. Particularly when it comes to healthcare. The reality is that everyone's health is a commodity. Idealism gets cast aside when there are limited amounts of aspirin in the jar.

    The fact remains that the pharma companies are going to sell their product to the highest bidders. This will lead to discrimination and fluctuation in prices.

    I am not too keen to open up a cavern of argument here. But I think some posters need to be honest about how lucky all people are on this island when it comes to getting free healthcare. **** stirring articles written in health pages don't help to exasperate patient fears, which as I mentioned earlier are unfounded. Just because there is a more expensive treatment available does not mean it is going to be a more successful one.

    Anyone using the availability of different treatments, to harbour any left wing agenda on patient care in Ireland, especially re public v private healthcare, is being quite naïve.

    We don’t though? I only got the medical card because I’m terminal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 234 ✭✭seasidedub


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    It's all relative. You realise in the states you'd be labelled as a rabid socialist for insisting on public health care?

    Yep, I do realise that. I am happy to pay tax for a decent health system. But it has to be understood that if you've got private insurance you'll get faster access. I


Advertisement