What you needed there was a letter from your doctor for A&E to rule out something or other - also letter negates the €66 A&E charge. You probably would have had to spend half the day (or all day) there but the A&E doctor would say 'we'll need to get an ultrasound' which you'd get - no charge - and then you'd be sent off home with an outpatient appointment to see a relevant consultant.After 6 weeks I today received an appointment for SEPTEMBER! It was going to cost me 115euro.
I got an appointment for next week in a private clinic for 135euro!!!!!!!!
You’re making a very good argument for privatised healthcare.Doing precisely what the post prescribes letting off steam!!!
I have a health issue which requires an ultrasound as part of the diagnosis. It causes me practically constant pain which is bearable but not ideal. My doctor referred me to the hosp for the test, I told the hosp that I would be going private and wanted to pay as l thought that this would mean that I could maybe get the test a bit sooner! After 6 weeks I today received an appointment for SEPTEMBER! It was going to cost me 115euro.
I got an appointment for next week in a private clinic for 135euro!!!!!!!!
What can you say!!!!!
B
I am not against private health care being available as an option as long as along side it everyone can have confidence in a public health system that they are paying for a few times over!!!
In this instance I dont really care where I get the test done as long as I get it done!!!!! My peace of mind is shot and my back is constantly sore and painful! Hopefully its nothing serious but it could be and I am one of the lucky ones that I can actually afford to think this way for this particular test, I dont know what I would do if it were something like an MRI as I would not be able to afford that!
I am not against private health care being available as an option as long as along side it everyone can have confidence in a public health system that they are paying for a few times over!!!
This sounds remarkably like the Labour policy for Universal Health Insurance, but it seems like a cop-out to me. Why go for a system where the state is destined to pay a significant profit margin on top of the real cost. Why not address the underlying issues.Let the private sector handle the health needs of everybody, with the government purchasing some form of basic health insurance to meet the needs of those without the means to purchase their own.
The role of the HSE then could be reduced to that of regulation rather than provision.
This sounds remarkably like the Labour policy for Universal Health Insurance, but it seems like a cop-out to me. Why go for a system where the state is destined to pay a significant profit margin on top of the real cost.
Why not address the underlying issues.
The private hospitals aren't without their faults, e.g. MRSA in Blackrock Clinic, cancer misdiagnosis in Barringtons etc.
There is at least an opportunity to eliminate that margin in the public sector. If you opt to privatise, you choose a system that will inherently and always include the margin.What's the difference between paying an extra margin in profit to a private supplier and an extra margin in inefficiency to a public supplier?
I think Labour's policy is designed to remove "inequality" from the health system, as though everybody enjoying the same crap healthcare will solve all our problems. I say we need greater inequality in healthcare, so that the high end, high margin services can subsidise the low margin side, in the same way that business class seats on a British Airways flight will subsidise the economy seats.
My belief is that the state should only supply a basic health service to everybody. Every whim cannot be catered for and cruel as it may seem, every radical new treatment cannot be purchased. Nobody argues that individuals on social welfare should be able to dine in Shanahan's every night but we don't expect them to go to bed hungry either.
I think it will be more cost effective for the state to provide a basic, efficient, clean and timely healthcare system for all by purchasing a basic insurance policy for every citizen in the state than to actually try and provide a health service itself.
I don't want to bring my children up in a more Boston than Berlin society where the healthcare they receive depends on their wealth. Basic healthcare provision is a basic human right.Nobody would suggest that it is a "cop out" that the government doesn't take on Tesco in the food distribution game to ensure nobody in the state goes hungry. I fail to see how this is any different for health service provision.
Regrettably(and unsurprisingly), I don't have all the answers. Is there any international evidence that privatisation of health care actually works for ALL the population (instead of just the privileged few).Are you suggesting that nobody has tried? Does anybody know even know what they are? Resources are finite, we already spend more per head of population on health than the French, yet I hear very few suggestions for reform that don't involve throwing even more money at the existing problems.
Indeed, but at least in a private healthcare system if you don't like one hospital you can take your business elsewhere.
Yes but how difficult is it to eliminate such a margin in a public sector organisation and how little incentive is there to do so? I say it is better to privatise, pay the profit margin of the private supplier and let the private supplier drive down costs and increase efficiency in the pursuit of profit. Where they fail to do so you can always switch to a new supplier.There is at least an opportunity to eliminate that margin in the public sector. If you opt to privatise, you choose a system that will inherently and always include the margin.
This particular aspect of microeconomic theory is known as price discrimination. If I am a business I want to charge people according to their willingness to pay, as long as I can do so profitably. If Bill Gates walks into my shop with a headache, it probably makes little difference to him whether he pays €1,000 or €1 for aspirin. However, it might make a big difference to my business.If the business class seats create this generous subsidy, why would AL have cut them out on everything except transatlantic? Why would Ryanair not be using these seats to subsidise passengers further? I'd love to see some backup for this claim? If (and its a big if) such a subsidy exists, surely the great panacea of the free
market competition is bound to eliminate this subsidy over time?
Do you consider the expectation that when your wife goes into hospital to deliver twins, both she and the twins will come out alive to be a 'whim'? [Check out last week's inquiry into the Tania McCabe case in Drogheda? Do you consider the expectation that when your elderly parents go into hospital in Ennis they will come
out in a more healthy state than they went in to be a whim? [Check out the reports of the fatal C.Diff infections in Ennis]. We are a long, long, long way from dealing with whims in the public health system.
I don't want to bring my children up in a more Boston than Berlin society where the healthcare they receive depends on their wealth. Basic healthcare provision is a basic human right.
Regrettably(and unsurprisingly), I don't have all the answers. Is there any international evidence that privatisation of health care actually works for ALL the population (instead of just the privileged few).
Which country's health system do you wish to emulate? (ie which one has the "weight of history" behind it)?I believe the weight of history backs this assertion.
While your at it room305 what's your favourite colour? (Since we are dragging the whole thread off topic and ignoring the substance of the points you made)Which country's health system do you wish to emulate? (ie which one has the "weight of history" behind it)?
Where does one draw the line between services that the should be public and private? Why not privatise the police force, the fire brigade, the road traffic controllers etc..? Your house fire could be put out faster if you pay the "comprehensive" premium ...
That's where you're wrong. She has to be liable for any and all errors by the 120'000 odd people who work for the public health service. If she can't keep on top of a few thousand clinical decisions each day, as well as set and implement policy, then she should not be in the job!I don't think it matters who is Minister For Health when dealing with stupidity like this.
She has to be liable for any and all errors by the 120'000 odd people who work for the public health service.
Which country's health system do you wish to emulate? (ie which one has the "weight of history" behind it)?
Where does one draw the line between services that the should be public and private? Why not privatise the police force, the fire brigade, the road traffic controllers etc..? Your house fire could be put out faster if you pay the "comprehensive" premium ...
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?