# Nursing Home Overcharging Vs AIB Overcharging



## daltonr (13 Dec 2004)

The government have spent the last couple of years taking the pension books of elderly people in nursing homes, and giving them about €10 back for sweets newspapers etc.

This apparently is how it should be and the recent "scandal" simply arises because there's a slight flaw in the legislation, which they'll fix and go back to taking this money.

Dermot Ahern this week hinted that they "may" compensate people who had money taken, but he was a long way short of promising it, and he down played the government's error, as if it was a minor paperwork problem.

AIB charged customers the price that it told customers it was charging.  That price was lower than AIB's compeditors, and any customer was free to shop around.  AIB's mistake appears to have been a mistake in what it told IFSRA it would be charging.

In other words both the Government and AIB behaved as they intended towards their "Clients", but made mistakes in the supporting paperwork.

When the AIB story broke the Government ministers and TD's were falling overthemselves in the rush to microphones to condemn the banks, demand heads, etc. etc.

AIB's "overcharging" took mabey €10 or €20 from the average small customer who would have paid more if they'd gone down the street as they were free to do.  Total take was in the region of €30m over an 8 year period.  Most of it from large companies and institutions.

The government took €100m over a much shorter period, exclusively from old age pensioners who couldn't shop around or refuse to hand over their pension books.

Who should be more ashamed now that these stories have both broken?  So far I haven't heard any representative of any bank rushing to a microphone calling for ministers to resign.

Perhaps in future our politicians should spend a little more time ensuring their own house is in order.  Before attacking others.

-Rd


----------



## daltonr (15 Dec 2004)

The government is going to repay "up to" €2000 to these people.  Less than many of them are owed even if you ignore the interest they should be paid on money stolen from them.

The Shame of it.

-Rd


----------



## Monsieur Bond (16 Dec 2004)

> The government is going to repay "up to" €2000 to these people. Less than many of them are owed even if you ignore the interest they should be paid on money stolen from them.



Worse still, even though the govt know exactly who the affected people are, they are not going to simply transfer money back to them; no, the pensioners (some of them 90 years old) have to fill in forms to apply for the refund!

A sure way of ensuring that the cost to the govt is minimised at the risk of simply some (more) bad PR.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Dec 2004)

I haven't read much about the Nursing Home issue - maybe someone could list out the facts of the matter.

Forgetting about what the law actually says for a moment, are we suggesting that residents of nursing homes provided by the state should make no contribution to their upkeep? 

Are we saying that the state should pay for everyone in nursing homes? 

I know of people who have transferred their homes to their kids when they went into nursing homes so that they don't have to make any payment towards the cost.

Brendan


----------



## MOB (16 Dec 2004)

*Nursing Home fees*

"I know of people who have transferred their homes to their kids when they went into nursing homes so that they don't have to make any payment towards the cost."

Brendan,   I believe that the current rules for means testing include the following:

1.  Your family home is not taken into account for the means test if a spouse or dependent is still living in it.

2.  If you transfer any assets (family home or otherwise), they will still be taken into the reckoning for the means test for five years after the transfer.  This seems fair to me.  It contrasts markedly with the means test for the non-contributory old age pensions, where a farmer could transfer 400 acres to his child and pass a means test the following day.

MonsierBond, in relation to the requirement to fill out forms, bear in mind that the person in the nursing home may not necessarily be the person either legally or morally entitled to the refund.   For example, one family member might be paying all the fees (after subvention).  Or the patient might have died:  one next of kin might have paid all the fees, while another might be named as the residuary legatee in the will of the deceased.   Scenarios such as these have already arisen in the case of other types of refunds arising out of the nursing home subvention scheme.  I came across one situation where a deceased lady was due a refund of in excess of €20,000.00, for fees which had been paid by her child, but had left her estate to the Sisters of Charity.  They got it sorted out, by the way.

The multiple possible scenarios mean, unfortunately, that some paperwork is needed.   I know that in the case of my own Health Board (in the previous refund situations), there was an entire manual of standard forms and letters to try to deal with all eventualities.  Also, the Board wrote out to everybody affected - there was no question of them simply waiting for people to contact them or submit forms.

DaltonR,
I concur that the government attitude to this is wholly inconsistent with the attitude to AIB.  

However, 

"Politicians adopt contradictory self serving positions" 

is a headline which has long failed to surprise.  I wish I still had the ability to be annoyed about our politicians (and our journalists).  If the public doesn't have a properly developed and expressed sense of outrage, then we can hardly expect politicians and the media to have a properly developed sense of embarrassment at their own conduct.

regards.


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

Brendan,

I'm not making a point one way or the other with regard to whether they should hand over their pension books.   
I'm pointing out a direct hypocricy between the governments reaction to the AIB FX issue and it's own actions on this issue.

The facts of the case as I understand them are that pensioners in Public beds in Nursing homes had their pension books taken away, and were given about €10 back to buy newspapers, confectionary etc.

The government is happy with the practice, and they intend to continue doing it.  However, they messed up on the legislation and therefore the charges have been illegal up until now (the are trying to get ammending legislation through as quickly as possible to fix the problem).

There is some evidence that this has been known about in the department for 2 years or more.  

The point is that AIB charged customers what it intended to charge them, and told them what it was charging.  The customers were free to shop around and would have found AIB to be the best value.  AIB's mistake was in the details it gave to IFSRA.

There couldn't be a more direct example of government and business doing the same thing.   The only differences are as follows:

1. The Bank immediately offered refunds with interest.  The government equivocated and finally came up with an offer of "up to" €2000.  Regardless of how much was taken.

2. The Bank took on the responsibility of tracking down the customers and making repayments directly to them, despite the fact that this is actually quite difficult to do.  The government seems to be putting the onus on the victims to apply for the refund.  This would be in keeping with their attitude to the people they ripped off on the Drug Refund Scheme.  This despite the fact that the government can quite easily determine the victims on their own.

3. The Governments victims couldn't refuse the transaction, or shop around.  The Bank's victims could have shopped around but would have been unlikely to find a significantly better deal.

4. The largest victims of the Bank were other businesses.  ALL of the victims of the government were Elderly and by virtue of being in care they had put their trust in the state.


I'm not suggesting the Bank was right, nor am I suggesting the government shouldn't take a contribution towards these peoples care.   I'm just saying that if ministers and TD's are going to fall over themselves to criticize the Banks then let's have some consistency.   A grovelling apology with a promise to repay with interest is the minimum I'd expect.  

If there are no consequenses for our politicians then they can go on bad mouthing everyone else, while making the same mistakes themselves.

The next chief executive of ANY bank to sit in front of the public accounts committee would have every right to laugh in the face of the committee.

MOB:

Very good post.  There are plenty of reasons the banks could use to say that refunds are difficult, and require customers to fill out forms.  It wouldn't have been tolerated by the government.   I won't accept ANY excuse for forms in this case.  Let the government foot the bill for any footwork they need to do.  To make it right.



> If the public doesn't have a properly developed and expressed sense of outrage, then we can hardly expect politicians and the media to have a properly developed sense of embarrassment at their own conduct.



Hense this thread.  And unfortunately hense this post being quite long.   A little Outrage would do a lot of good methinks.

-Rd


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

Hi DaltonR

I see where you are coming from. I thought that you were suggesting that people should not contribute towards their keep. 

Brendan


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

Technically there were no "victims" in either of these crimes, since both were treated as intended.   But the government set the bar with it's indignation.

-Rd


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*



> The next chief executive of ANY bank to sit in front of the public accounts committee would have every right to laugh in the face of the committee.



I can't believe that you can actually say that with a straight face.


----------



## daltonr (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

Of course I can.
I'm not saying the banks are innocent babes, but the gall of politicians to cast stones given the enromous glass house they're living in themselves.

-Rd


----------



## CCOVICH (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

But does this mean that the judges should not be able to convict people of viewing/holding child pornography because one of their own is also (in all likelihood) guilty of same?  Or convict drunk drivers because a member of the judiciary was recently found guilty of drunk driving?

This incident is indeed troubling, especially given the fact that certain health boards stopped levying the charges when complaints were made by certain residents, but then continued to charge those that hadn't complained.  I just don't think that it should make the government no go after bank executives, or anyone else suspected of wrongdoing just because their own house isn't in perfect order.  If we applied the logic 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' to every instance, where would we be?

And anyway, wasn't Mr. Buckley's refusal (declining the invitation) to appear before the PAC when the AIB incidents were first uncovered tantamount to laughing in their faces anyway?


----------



## Tommy (16 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

I agree totally with daltonr on this one. The difference in standards between what politicians (and the whole state apparatus) expect of others and what they apply to themselves is breathtaking.

2 examples

1. A recent media story indicated that a certain govt minister had clocked up a five-figure sum bill in a prominent Dublin restaurant in entertainment relating to govt business in the course of a single year. If any small business owner used company funds to treat their customers, suppliers or business contacts on such a lavish scale, they could very easily end up facing charges for misuse of company monies and other company law offences - charges that now carry career- and reputation-destroying implications for any business person following the enactment of the 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act by the same government of which our restaurant fan was and is a member.

2. TDs and ministers from outside the Dublin area can claim round-sum expense allowances for every night spent in Dublin during the time the Dail is sitting, even though the Dail is their "normal place of work" and without any necessity to produce documentary receipts. If any private-sector company allowed such a concession to their employees they would be treated as having broken the tax laws and thus face a potentially massive tax bill, interest, penalties and the public humiliation of having their details included in the tax defaulters lists.


----------



## daltonr (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*



> But does this mean that the judges should not be able to convict people of viewing/holding child pornography because one of their own is also (in all likelihood) guilty of same? Or convict drunk drivers because a member of the judiciary was recently found guilty of drunk driving?



No it doesn't mean that at all.   For a more direct legal analogy, the current situation is tantamount to judges or gardai handing out stiff sentances for .... speeding, while speeding themselves with immunity,  and being completely oblivious to the irony and hyprocicy.



> I agree totally with daltonr on this one.



It had to happen eventually Tommy.   

-Rd


----------



## Tommy (17 Dec 2004)

*Re: Nursing Home fees*

A stopped clock shows the correct time twice every day.


Btw, I'm not saying whether this refers to me or to you   Perhaps both :lol


----------



## gerard17023 (24 Mar 2005)

*re:nursing home fees*

hi folks
just want to know how my uncle can now  claim for  a refund and also the fact that he was offered 2000 eoro
 which he did not sign for could this disqualify him from the new rebate. he is currently in  a public nursing home and has been for years. would appreciate any advice on this subject

                          thanking you
                           gerard 17023


----------

