James Reilly & Brendan Howlin

C

Calico

Registered User
Messages
415
Given that the first-time outpatient waiting list has now doubled in a year, and will have more than doubled by the time all the figures are in, will James Reilly be allowed to completely obliterate what's left of our broken health service or will Enda Kenny do as he said he would a year ago and get rid of non-performing ministers? And in the wake of the public sector allowances farce, the same question for Brendan Howlin? I mean, it would funny if it weren't so serious!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0920/hospital-outpatient-waiting.html
 
The real question is will James Reilly be allowed to make the heath system work or will the unions and other vested interest groups continue to make sure it is run for the benefit of the people who work in it rather than the nations sick and infirm.
There is more than enough money being spent on health, it's just being spent on the wrong things and in the wrong places. For example, how is it that the Jack & Jill foundation can deliver the same services as the HSE for one third the cost?
 

Because they actually don't have an "endless" source of revenue. Very much like a private enterprise they are dependent on donations, they have to make every penny stretch or they essentially go out of business. If they make money stretch further they help more people and donors are more willing to help out organizations where they can see that their money is put to good use.
The HSE and its sub-organisations do not have that incentive. If you don't spend your budget this year it will be cut next year, it is the exact reverse, no incentive to make funds stretch as far as possible. And then as you already mentioned you have union protected jobs and wages making it difficult/impossible to reduce numbers and costs.
 
And that's why a universal health insurance system is better; everyone who comes in the door is a private patient and a source of revenue.
 
Purple said:
And that's why a universal health insurance system is better; everyone who comes in the door is a private patient and a source of revenue.
Click to expand...

As long as the insurance is private and open to competition. The UK is often put up as a poster boy for universal health care, but it is pretty much entirely run by the state through the tax system, and they have the same cost problems and very long waiting lists.
 
It is unfair to compare the "single-level" UK health system to our shambolic approach to caring for sick and infirm citizens. In the UK everything from GP consultations to nurse-practitioner house calls is free, not so here. They have their problems as high-lighted by Gerry Robinson et al. but please compare like with like.
 

An insurance based system would provide a single-level system; everyone is a private patient.
The UK system does not provide free GP consultations or nurse-practitioner house calls. They are simply not paid for by the end user at the time they receive the service. They are paid for though; doctors and nurses in the UK get paid, I know it’s considerably less than their counterparts here but they still get something.
The delivery, clinical and admin structures in the UK, as well as the levels of accountability that their doctors and nurses are subjected to, are decades ahead of ours.
 
I really have no confidence in either James Reilly & Brendan Howlin.

What criteria James Reilly use to add these health centres in his area?

As taxpapyers - are we not entitled to know this?

As for Howlin? Wexford did pretty well from the stimulus package.

Both James Reilly & Brendan Howlin seem to be hostages to public sector unions.

I am beginning to believe we need national government.
 
cork said:
I am beginning to believe we need national government.
Click to expand...

We had one, it was called Social(ist) Partnership. Basically everyone at the table got what they wanted. It didn't matter that it was unaffordable.
Those at the table genuinely thought that they were representing everyone; the employers bodies thought they were representing all employers even though they largely just represented bodies in the protected sector and the unions thought that they were representing all "workers" even though they largely just represented employees in the protected sector. Nothing was costed before it was promised and structural weaknesses in our economy (and society) were exacerbated.

The net result was much like the last few pages of Orwell's Animal Farm.
I’m not a fan of national governments (of social partnerships) because I am a fan of democracy.
 
There is a report that identified 500 million savings that could be achieved in local government.

This report is gathering dust.

They say the "low hanging fruit" is gone.

I believe that no serious attempt has been made to reform anything.
 

The NHS is not free, it is paid for through payroll deductions, and it doesn't come cheap.

cork said:
There is a report that identified 500 million savings that could be achieved in local government.

This report is gathering dust.

They say the "low hanging fruit" is gone.

I believe that no serious attempt has been made to reform anything.
Click to expand...

I fully agree and the evidence is in the annual government spending reports. Ireland is still spending vastly more than it did immediately before the crisis.
 

The reports I'm hearing from Netherlands, Germany etc are that the jury is still very much out as to whether Universal Health Insurance models (Bismarck models) provide care any cheaper than systems like the UK and Canada (Beveridge systems). Competition certainly is not working at driving down costs in Netherlands.
 
I would have thought that Germany had enough experience with their current model for the jury to be in.
 

Linky?
 
Purple said:
I would have thought that Germany had enough experience with their current model for the jury to be in.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. The german system has been in place for decades. The problem in Germany is that they have thrown many barriers to entry in the way of private hospitals and clinics and do not close down underperforming hospitals. But as a resident of Germany you can shop around for your health insurance just like you would for your car insurance.

I found one list of health cost inflation. Not sure what the source is, but this would show the UK at the top end of the scale.
 
my dad's a former industrial engineer and entitled to a medical card as he is over 70. Recently he was diagnosed with a clot in his leg. Just as a matter of interest he documented the clinic he goes to (public service, Connolly Hospital) and even at 74 came up with 6-7 incidents of waste....he has to go every 2 days so multiply that by the amount of people....he said administrators were falling over each other but the clinical care was scarce - for example, he dared to refer to the doctor (whom he has met three times) by his first name and was told that he would only answer to Dr....

For a different procedure I took him to Beaumont Private - in and out in 15 minutes, and couldn't be nicer.

I voted FG and Labour and think the whole thing is a disgrace. I'm not a natural Labour voter and who knows, Roisin Shortall could be difficult to deal with, but a quick search of planning apps shows James Reilly has many in. still.
 
amtc said:
for example, he dared to refer to the doctor (whom he has met three times) by his first name and was told that he would only answer to Dr....
Click to expand...
That’s incredible; people are still going on with that rubbish in this day and age!
 

Why would you want to close down underperforming hospitals? Doesn't that great 'free market competition' that you keep going on about make sure that only the efficient hospitals survive?

Would these barriers to entry have anything to do with little inconveniences like quality, or patient safety?
 
Complainer said:
Would these barriers to entry have anything to do with little inconveniences like quality, or patient safety?
Click to expand...
No, in a competitive market, particularly one where the quality of service is such a major selling point, hospitals would prioritise patient safety and quality in order to attract customers.
The only potential problem is whether the public sector is competent and capable enough to audit hospitals to the required standards. Evidence so far in this country suggests that’s the area where we need to focus our attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register