Seems they also posted a profit in [broken link removed], [broken link removed], [broken link removed], [broken link removed]and [broken link removed].
What I can't understand is that if the vhi have been saying all along that they need RES money to stay afloat, then how have they managed over the last ten years without it?
They went into a loss AT jULY 2006, I think. The problem is that there existing customer base is getting older, with a sharp increase in health costs for the 50+ age group.
The costs are higher again for the 70+ group, and according to Dan White VHI have 50 times the number of members in this goup as do BUPA
Martin O'Rourke gave the Irish account details and the fact that BUPA had to operate in a much more restrictive way than Vhi was for the last ten years. BUPA UK seemed to be subbing the Irish operation for the first few years.
Are you sure BUPA would be forced into the red by this? They don’t publish results separately for Ireland which is surprising if it would make such a strong case for them.
The average age for Vhi members is 44 and for BUPA it was 38, so with Vhi taking a hell of a lot more income than the age difference, it really comes down to inefficiencies. With Vhi's higher numbers of staff, higher unionisation/wages, much more costly offices in the centre of the capital and more generous deals to the hospitals and taxi transfers, I'm not surprised they can't compete.Surely, though, they had members getting older all the time? It's not as if 2006 was the year all their members "got old"?
The average age for Vhi members is 44 and for BUPA it was 38, so with Vhi taking a hell of a lot more income than the age difference, it really comes down to inefficiencies. With Vhi's higher numbers of staff, higher unionisation/wages, much more costly offices in the centre of the capital and more generous deals to the hospitals and taxi transfers, I'm not surprised they can't compete.
The average age for Vhi members is 44 and for BUPA it was 38, so with Vhi taking a hell of a lot more income than the age difference, it really comes down to inefficiencies. With Vhi's higher numbers of staff, higher unionisation/wages, much more costly offices in the centre of the capital and more generous deals to the hospitals and taxi transfers, I'm not surprised they can't compete.
The only people benefiting from BUPA's exit are BUPA themselves. They are a total disgrace. It seems quite clear their strategy was to come in, cream as much money as they could until risk equalisation came in ('cos they knew it would), prolong the inevitable for as long as they could through court cases etc., and then when time was called they ran off in a fake hissy fit with all the huge profits they have made to date. Brilliant.
Sure we can argue about the rights and wrongs of risk equalisation, but BUPA entered the market knowing full well what the position was... they distracted us all by posturing and whining about how 'unfair' it all was, when all they wanted to do was divert attention from the huge profits they kept building up. They relentlessly targeted young members whilst benefiting from a market that 'forced' them to charge those young members a rate that well exceeded the claims they would have to pay. For the 10 years or so that they are here, they've made a relative fortune. Poor BUPA. Poor victims. That was the strategy all along. Nice job. Don't be suckered into thinking they actually really believed that risk equalisation would never come in. Of course, the only victims here are joe public who have paid them this money.
The only people benefiting from BUPA's exit are BUPA themselves. They are a total disgrace. It seems quite clear their strategy was to come in, cream as much money as they could until risk equalisation came in ('cos they knew it would), prolong the inevitable for as long as they could through court cases etc., and then when time was called they ran off in a fake hissy fit with all the huge profits they have made to date. Brilliant.
...Poor BUPA. Poor victims. That was the strategy all along. Nice job. Don't be suckered into thinking they actually really believed that risk equalisation would never come in. Of course, the only victims here are joe public who have paid them this money.
It seems quite clear their strategy was to come in, cream as much money as they could until risk equalisation came in ('cos they knew it would), prolong the inevitable for as long as they could through court cases etc., and then when time was called they ran off in a fake hissy fit with all the huge profits they have made to date. Brilliant.
Have you any evidence to support this conspiracy theory? eg Have BUPA done this previously in any other country?
Sarcasm?And, as someone else pointed out, bupa's supposed to be a not for profit organisation. They hardly decided that the irish operation was when they'd change this??
at least with VHI, profits are essentially re-invested in the health service, so even if they're more inefficient the net benefit to the health service is unlikely to be any worse.
Nothing except the fact that they did come in, cream as much money as they could until RE came in and then when the time came, ran off with their huge profits... (or at least are threatening to)
Yes, but have they done this elsewhere? If so, this would support your theory.
Finally, does it matter if they're here or not - at least with VHI, profits are essentially re-invested in the health service, so even if they're more inefficient the net benefit to the health service is unlikely to be any worse.
Somebody mentioned it a few pages back but I'll repeat it again; a proportionate transfer of elderly suscribers from VHI to both BUPA and VIVAS is the best solution to this.
It levels the playing field and neither BUPA or VIVAS will then be subsidising VHI's supposed inefficiencies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?