Woman arrested after paint thrown at Harney

[Hound]

Serioulsy Zapaista I usually am in agreement with you, but discussion about the health service and the actions of Mary Harney are a totally different thread to this. This is a thread about an asault, not the health service. I agree we should have this debate in a different thread where I probably will be in agreement with you.

from very early on this thread descended into whether Harney deserved it or not, so talking about her policies is well within its remit

Do you understand that the overcrowding is set to get worse due to this policy. Less and less people can afford private health care yet the drive towards providing private health care continues, while the drive towards providing public health care diminishes. The private system has grown beyond it's need while the public system is to be further cut by 600 million next month. How can this possibly provide improved health care and shorter waiting list for the public patient?

Those who want to pay is spin for those able to pay.

Zap, its nonsense to say overcrowding would get worse under this policy. It would allow alll those private patients who are being treated in public hospitals to be treated in private hospitals, thus freeing up space in public hospitals.

The impending cuts to the health system is absolutely nothing to do with colocation.

You're absolutely right in that there are people giving up their private health insurance, but not that many. Now that there is proper competition in that market place, people are switching around to get the best deal. But that's a gamble the private operators will be taking, and that's going to happen regardless of whether these operators are allowed to and want to build these new private hospitals. The building of these private hospitals will definitely decrease waiting lists and thus lead to better care in public hospitals

[Zapatista]

The impending cuts to the health system is absolutely nothing to do with colocation.

You're absolutely right in that there are people giving up their private health insurance, but not that many. Now that there is proper competition in that market place, people are switching around to get the best deal. But that's a gamble the private operators will be taking, and that's going to happen regardless of whether these operators are allowed to and want to build these new private hospitals. The building of these private hospitals will definitely decrease waiting lists and thus lead to better care in public hospitals

The number of people with Irish private health insurance has fallen by over 40,000 (almost 2% of those insured) in 2009 and the numbers forced to cancel their policies is likely to increase significantly in 2010 the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children was told today

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1018701.shtml

Zap, its nonsense to say overcrowding would get worse under this policy. It would allow alll those private patients who are being treated in public hospitals to be treated in private hospitals, thus freeing up space in public hospitals.

The Private system has been built around the ability of people to pay and the public system has been adjusted to allow for that. With an extra 40 000 relying on the public system in one year and 40 000 less relying on the private system with it likely to "increase significantly" how in the name of God can you claim that this policy doesn't increase waiting times for the public system? Add 600 million in cuts to the above statistic. There is abundance of space in the private system but it is useless space if we can't afford it.

Of course Harneys cuts are related to the colocation scheme. The colocation scheme was fathomed to cut waiting list and now that scheme is increasing waiting list. If the scheme wasn't there in the first place we wouldn't have empty beds in private hospitals and as long ques for trolleys in public hospitals. We would have a level playing field across the board.

[Nally Stand]

The co located hospitals do not define those who choose to pay and those who choose not to pay. It defines those able to pay and those unable to pay. This does not mean everyone gets the same health care. If they all got the same health care then there would be no debate. Why would anyone pay health insurance if they can get the same health care through the public system?

I never said everyone would get the same healthcare under Harney's plan. But everyone would get better healthcare.

There are 2 or 3 really crap public hospitals, but the vast majority are very good and staffed by excellent doctors and nurses. If they had no overcrowding problems they would give very good healthcare. Those who want to pay more for private hospitals would get more comfort and more privacy.

Do you understand that the overcrowding is set to get worse due to this policy. Less and less people can afford private health care yet the drive towards providing private health care continues, while the drive towards providing public health care diminishes. The private system has grown beyond it's need while the public system is to be further cut by 600 million next month. How can this possibly provide improved health care and shorter waiting list for the public patient?


Those who want to pay is spin for those able to pay.

Serioulsy Zapaista I usually am in agreement with you, but discussion about the health service and the actions of Mary Harney are a totally different thread to this. This is a thread about an asault, not the health service. I agree we should have this debate in a different thread where I probably will be in agreement with you.

She didn't throw the paint just because she had too much spare red paint and had to get rid of it. It was in protest at the Health Service. So discussing the motive is, as Hound says, well within the remit of the thread.

[Hound]

So we have 98% of those on private insurance maintaining it - that's damn high considering. Now if only we could get those private patients all treated in private hospitals and free up the public hospitals for the public patients.

Are you trying to say that the 2% who have given it up have done so because of the colocation policy rather than the economy, and that they wouldnt have given it up had the poilcy not been thought of?? Otherwise I can't see how you can say this policy increases waiting lists!!

"An abundance of space in the private system" is just not true. The existing profitable private hospitals are seeking to expand their offerings and hospitals. There will be privately funded construction work on private hospitals in 2011.

From time to time of course, space opens up in private hospitals in certain areas, and then the National Treatment Purchase Fund is used to allow public patients be treated in private hospitals (but again not even close to the number of private patients who get treated in public hospitals). Again if more space is opened up in private hospitals this avenue could be used a lot more to reduce waiting lists.

Just to be clear, I never once said this was the perfect solution. But its one of the best ideas we've had in a long while. And would definitely make things better for the patient that they would be without it.

[Zapatista]

I see that's were we differ. You see 98% holding private insurance (last year with no renewal figures or projections of renewal figures) and I see 40,000 people. We are just different that way I suppose.

[An Gaeilgoir]

In the past year, the company i work for have been involved in 5 private hospital projects around the country. The efficiency with which these hospitals operate is unbelievable, all state of the art equipment and highly trained staff. a thin layer of admin holds it all together. We have recently completed a hospital in the south of the country, which was a vacant office block previously in  to a state of the art 75 bed hospital, with operating theatres, x-ray, cat scan, computer monitored infection control. Total lenght of the project 6 months, total 350 million. if this was to happen in the HSE, it would take ten years, costs would spiral and all the staff transfered would require relocation money, travelling money and os on ( i know this as i have been involved in HSE projects also, one example, 10 beds were unable to open as there were not enough funding, but a staff relaxation garden was added at a cost of 200K plus, as the unions demanded it as part of the terms for the staff to move into the new building). If this is private healthcare versus public healthcare, then there is no debate really. A lot of these private beds end up in the public system any way through the various schemes so the bed capacity thorugh out the entire health system is in reality increasing.

[Zapatista]

Are you trying to say that the 2% who have given it up have done so because of the colocation policy rather than the economy, and that they wouldnt have given it up had the poilcy not been thought of?? Otherwise I can't see how you can say this policy increases waiting lists!!

I'm saying that they are now reliant on a public system that is already struggling. The projection was that takers of private insurance would increase with no plan in place for the reverse. We are arguing the 'two tier system'.

"An abundance of space in the private system" is just not true. The existing profitable private hospitals are seeking to expand their offerings and hospitals. There will be privately funded construction work on private hospitals in 2011.

That's the projection following through. The demand is decreasing unless the tax payer pays for there use. Maybe we will have to buy back these hospitals eventually.

From time to time of course, space opens up in private hospitals in certain areas, and then the National Treatment Purchase Fund is used to allow public patients be treated in private hospitals (but again not even close to the number of private patients who get treated in public hospitals). Again if more space is opened up in private hospitals this avenue could be used a lot more to reduce waiting lists

.

At the expence of the tax payer and straight into the hand of the private hospital. It's double tacation again and it's no wonder there is a demand for more private hospitals. Not only did they get the land for free but when they have empty beds the state will fill them.

Just to be clear, I never once said this was the perfect solution. But its one of the best ideas we've had in a long while. And would definitely make things better for the patient that they would be without it.

Just to address An Gaeilgoir, i'm not saying that the private hospitals are not of high quality. Many of thewm are fantastic hospitals. I am saying the two tier system is wrong.

[An Gaeilgoir]

Are you trying to say that the 2% who have given it up have done so because of the colocation policy rather than the economy, and that they wouldnt have given it up had the poilcy not been thought of?? Otherwise I can't see how you can say this policy increases waiting lists!!

I'm saying that they are now reliant on a public system that is already struggling. The projection was that takers of private insurance would increase with no plan in place for the reverse. We are arguing the 'two tier system'.

"An abundance of space in the private system" is just not true. The existing profitable private hospitals are seeking to expand their offerings and hospitals. There will be privately funded construction work on private hospitals in 2011.

That's the projection following through. The demand is decreasing unless the tax payer pays for there use. Maybe we will have to buy back these hospitals eventually.

From time to time of course, space opens up in private hospitals in certain areas, and then the National Treatment Purchase Fund is used to allow public patients be treated in private hospitals (but again not even close to the number of private patients who get treated in public hospitals). Again if more space is opened up in private hospitals this avenue could be used a lot more to reduce waiting lists

.

At the expence of the tax payer and straight into the hand of the private hospital. It's double tacation again and it's no wonder there is a demand for more private hospitals. Not only did they get the land for free but when they have empty beds the state will fill them.

Just to be clear, I never once said this was the perfect solution. But its one of the best ideas we've had in a long while. And would definitely make things better for the patient that they would be without it.

Just to address An Gaeilgoir, i'm not saying that the private hospitals are not of high quality. Many of thewm are fantastic hospitals. I am saying the two tier system is wrong.

I have think the two tier system is a bit of a myth to be honest, if public patients are seriously ill they are given the same level of care and priority as private patients, often in private hospitals. It seems to be the more "non- serious" health issues that the public patients lose out on, but which at the same time effect their quality of life, no argument there. I currently pay 172 euros a month for myself, wife and kids private insurance. That is 45 quid a week and yet when my missus had our second child, we were in the public system/ward as the private part of the hospital was full, same level of care in both. 45 quid a week is not massive money luckily in my case, and to be honest  not for a lot of people i think. I know also that for some people 45 euros a week would be the difference between food and the table and not. But i think it is all about priorities,people are making decisions based on their situation every day now, so why should people not have to choose between a night on the tiles/ smoking or  private health care at 45 euros a week. As for people who are really caught in the poverty tray and i mean genuinely caught, free health care without question, but free health care for people who can pay something towards the cost, the days of getting things for free are long gone.  A publicly funded health care system would be great, but with the HSE able to get rid of 4000 staff at 150K a pop, we are a long way from this with our tax base dwindling each week.

[Declan]

if public patients are seriously ill they are given the same level of care and priority as private patients

I can give you numerous examples from my own family where that statement is simply untrue.

free health care without question, but free health care for people who can pay something towards the cost, the days of getting things for free are long gone.

People do contribute towards healthcare it's called taxation!!

[Hound]

At the expence of the tax payer and straight into the hand of the private hospital. It's double tacation again and it's no wonder there is a demand for more private hospitals. Not only did they get the land for free but when they have empty beds the state will fill them.

You're well able to debate without throwing in the "mistruths", but it seems you can't help it. Or maybe its an arrogant streak that thinks it won't be noticed?

In the past year, the company i work for have been involved in 5 private hospital projects around the country. The efficiency with which these hospitals operate is unbelievable, all state of the art equipment and highly trained staff. a thin layer of admin holds it all together. We have recently completed a hospital in the south of the country, which was a vacant office block previously in  to a state of the art 75 bed hospital, with operating theatres, x-ray, cat scan, computer monitored infection control. Total lenght of the project 6 months, total 350 million. if this was to happen in the HSE, it would take ten years, costs would spiral and all the staff transfered would require relocation money, travelling money and os on ( i know this as i have been involved in HSE projects also, one example, 10 beds were unable to open as there were not enough funding, but a staff relaxation garden was added at a cost of 200K plus, as the unions demanded it as part of the terms for the staff to move into the new building). If this is private healthcare versus public healthcare, then there is no debate really. A lot of these private beds end up in the public system any way through the various schemes so the bed capacity thorugh out the entire health system is in reality increasing.

Totally agree. If we could run the public hospitals like they run the private ones, we'd be a helluva lot better off, but no chance with the power the unions have.

[An Gaeilgoir]

if public patients are seriously ill they are given the same level of care and priority as private patients

I can give you numerous examples from my own family where that statement is simply untrue.

free health care without question, but free health care for people who can pay something towards the cost, the days of getting things for free are long gone.

People do contribute towards healthcare it's called taxation!!

And Declan i can only go on my experiences regarding seriously ill family members in the public heatlh sector. As for your second point on taxation, look at where our taxation is going in the public health care system 4000 redundancies @ 150K a pop, retire at 50 full pension for the rest of your days, union strangulation of each and every new work practice introduced. I pay 45 euros a week as it is important for me and my family to have better quality health care. I sacrifice something else to pay this as it is a priority for me versus other things. It is my choice, as for taxation look around you for christs sake, billions been pumped in to our public system for a population of 4 million, if half of that was given to efficient private health care providers, would we have a better system, in my opinion from dealing with both the private and public system from a commercial and medical prospective the answer is yes without doubt.

[Zapatista]

You're well able to debate without throwing in the "mistruths", but it seems you can't help it. Or maybe its an arrogant streak that thinks it won't be noticed?

I take it back.
At a steal then. Millions lost on tax breaks for the developers of private hospitals.

I don't think I'm arrogant.

Is that the only issue with my post?

[Declan]

Gaeilgoir - I'm not disagreeing with your analysis of where the taxation is going but when I hear statements like free health care and the corresponding link to people being able to afford to pay for it I just get annoyed.

Also in a grown up society that actually gives a shit about it's citizens it would be organised properly to produce a more equitable system. This Govt has a simple ideology of public bad private good and that has been a deliberate policy which to my mind is just wrong.

I sacrifice something else to pay this as it is a priority for me versus other things

And I'm sure you are not alone in that and fair play to you but to my mind that you actually have to do something like that to get decent healthcare is outrageous in today's society.

if half of that was given to efficient private health care providers

Unfortunately if you take that to it's logical conclusion you end up in a situation like the States.

To me the middle ground is the system that seems to operate reasonably well in most of Western Europe.

[An Gaeilgoir]

I have worked on projects in Belgium and lads working for us got injured and had to go to hospital/ doctor/dentist and it would make you weep to see the standards, efficency and equipment/staff they use over there, simply out of this world. But the health system is not strangled like it is here by all the vested interests, both union wise and medically. The belgium people pay massive taxation to cover their system and it works unbelievely well. My point is that i pay and extra 45 quid a week  to get a similar system here and if it was worked out i'm sure the lad in Belgium is paying a similar amount out of his wages to access his system albeit a public system. I dont want to see a similar system as the US have, not by a long shot as the most needy in society there are basically sent to the vets clinic instead of a hospital. But if the private health sector in this country keeps going the way it is, it will only be a matter of time that competition between private hospitals will increase, private health insurance costs will come down and the big lumbering HSE with all its problems will be told to shape up or Govt. money will start to move towards the private sector hospitals.

[Hound]

You're well able to debate without throwing in the "mistruths", but it seems you can't help it. Or maybe its an arrogant streak that thinks it won't be noticed?

I take it back.
At a steal then. Millions lost on tax breaks for the developers of private hospitals.

A c'mon Zap, you've some neck. Do you have any idea how much they are looking for in terms of up-front payment, annual lease/concession payment and annual profit share payment?

No?

Its a long long way from a steal. Some potential operators thought it was too expensive and made it non viable, so they dropped out. Others think they can still turn a profit, but to say its a steal is absurd.

And developers of private hospitals have not got a penny in special tax breaks.
The tax breaks, when they were in, were quite narrow. Nobody involved in the running/operating/development/construction of the hospital could avail. And also the tax allowances could only be used against rental income and not against any other income such as salary, dividends, gains, etc - so it was very difficult to source investors.