That would be fine if doctors only worked in the private or public system but they don't. They would be assessing their mates who would in turn be assessing them.
Taxpayer to pay for IVF for those who can't afford it.
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
As long as you have the cash you can have anything you like. This topic is about those who cannot afford the treatment.
It will be down to the doctors "clinical" decision. Translated that means if he/she wants the money they will approve the treatment.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
And you can't think of any checks and balances that may deter professional doctors from fraud? For instance, having to fraudently alter blood test results? Or being the doctor with a patients who success rates are below average? Or losing your licence to practice?
There is a reason why medical doctors can command good salaries, it rewards them for their professionalism and dedication, provides them with reasonably well-off lifestyles and in turn reduces their need to act in a corrupt manner.
You say that despite all of the evidence to the contrary over decades in this country and elsewhere. Why do you use the phrase "professional doctors"? You you think professionals are less prone to human frailties that the rest of us plebs? Take a look at the tax defaulters list and, this may shock you, but doctors pop up with great regularity. Work on the assumption that they are just the same as the rest of us, no better or worse. Very few are ever sanctioned, particularly is specialist areas.
Diagnosis is based on their opinion after looking at multiple factors. They can just play the emotive card, they are good at that, and talk about the unfortunate people to whom they are peddling their wears rather than the large incomes they are getting from their customers. You will never be more vulnerable, more open to grasping at straws, than when you sit across from them and they are offering you the chance to have a family.
While you may be slightly more reticent when it is your money there is no chance of rationality coming into it when they are asking you to gamble with someone else's money.
If it is run by a public only system with everyone concerned getting a flat salary with limits on the numbers of times each person/couple can access the service and with a limit on the overall number of IVF rounds the State funds each year then maybe it could be done but the most likely outcome from this is rich doctors getting richer.
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
@Purple What you say above is the exact reason I suggested that the medical assessment is done by someone who would not financially gain from the outcome. This is the only reasonable way that the financial aspect can be minimised.
This is not an uncommon practice - in the IT industry, it is common practice that anyone who supports a selection process for a major piece of work would be automatically excluded from bidding from that work.
While not defending anyone who defaults on tax, I doubt doctors themselves (to a large degree) come up with the 'avoidance' schemes.
I absolutely agree that if this is to be state funded, it needs to be taken away from the private operators within a pre-defined amount of time and limits/controls put in place.
This is not an uncommon practice - in the IT industry, it is common practice that anyone who supports a selection process for a major piece of work would be automatically excluded from bidding from that work.
While not appropriate to this conversation, doctors in general tend to rely on professional advice around their finances. They are normally too busy working and earning money to be coming up with schemes on how to avoid/evade tax. They rely on professionals to advise them in this area. Much of that advice can be poor, and what really 'kills' them is they discuss some scheme in the staff canteen with some others and they suggest it to their accountant and all of a sudden they are caught as well. Sheep mentality is definitely at play here.
While not defending anyone who defaults on tax, I doubt doctors themselves (to a large degree) come up with the 'avoidance' schemes.
Don't worry Brendan. Knock-on costs you envisage will be more than offset by the savings made when 8th amendment is weakened and the State ramps up abortion funding.
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I never suggested that there is no such thing as corrupt doctors, merely implied that they are not all on the take. If I was to take a guess, I would say the ratio of corrupt doctors to professional doctors would be very low.
In the meantime, back on topic, here is the report from the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/upl...Commission-on-Assisted-Human-Reproduction.pdf
What's the difference between a corrupt doctor and a professional doctor?
Yea, that's why they insist on cash only payments
And since when did that ever stop anyone?
Those with a medical card* should get free IVF and everyone else should pay. "Works" for everything else so I don't see why it should be any different for IVF.
* Excluding OAPs unless they're up for it!
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
They would need to be infertile first.
"Back on topic" with a 12 year old report that also does not actually address the topic. It a report on :
"possible approaches to the regulation of all aspects of assisted human reproduction and the social, ethical and legal factors to be taken into account in determining public policy."
So no mention of taxpayers paying for IVF or not.
gnf_ireland
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,441
I have always received a proper receipt from any medical professional I have ever encountered, no matter how it was paid.
I have lots of experience recently where tradesmen refused to take on the job when I asked for a receipt or when I said I would not pay by cash !
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
Your gas, I'll give that. The report from the Commission on Human Reproduction has nothing to do with the Assisted Human Reproduction bill put to the cabinet today as reported by RTE?
If you go through the report and the now (censored from AAM) Dept of Health press release you would clearly understand that the state has every intention of providing AHS services to the public in a regulated form.
In what composition those services would be provided we did not know. Until today at least, when the Minister indicated that prospective families would get clarity on any government financial commitment.
Which is great, because the one of the factors for providing support is acknowledging the hard work people put into developing their careers, but as a consequence, are contributing to low fertility rates amongst that sector of taxpayers.
We don't know the detail yet, how much, who qualifies etc, but one thing is sure, between reports, press releases, proposed bills etc, nowhere does it mention that children born through IVF will presumably need their childhoods paid for by the State, their housing etc as implied in post no 2.
But don't let that stop you trolling.
Last edited:
TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
C'mon cremeegg, Carl Marx came up with socialism in 1848. 12 years is nothing!
There is nothing in the RTE report today about Karl Marx. Cremeegg will be hounding you now for being 'off-topic'
Last edited:
Wow! Is Brendan's second post here possibly the most insensitive ever?
Given the huge financial pressures couples starting out face, it seems really misguided to say that because they can't come up with an extra 5-10k in a year that they can't afford children.
Loads of people are gifted money from parents for IVF and can provide for their children just fine.
A couple might save for one round of IVF only for it to fail. The first round is often diagnostic and the same couple might have success with a second round, but be unable to afford it. It doesn't mean they cannot afford children.
I think the proposal to pay for IVF is premature though. Until we can reduce waiting lists for essential surgeries, offer more support for home carers and children with disabilities, we cannot afford to fund IVF. People can already claim back 20% on ivf expenses. Maybe start by increasing the tax back.
Lets base arguments on realities though. That people who cannot afford IVF cannot afford children isn't a reality.
Given the huge financial pressures couples starting out face, it seems really misguided to say that because they can't come up with an extra 5-10k in a year that they can't afford children.
Loads of people are gifted money from parents for IVF and can provide for their children just fine.
A couple might save for one round of IVF only for it to fail. The first round is often diagnostic and the same couple might have success with a second round, but be unable to afford it. It doesn't mean they cannot afford children.
I think the proposal to pay for IVF is premature though. Until we can reduce waiting lists for essential surgeries, offer more support for home carers and children with disabilities, we cannot afford to fund IVF. People can already claim back 20% on ivf expenses. Maybe start by increasing the tax back.
Lets base arguments on realities though. That people who cannot afford IVF cannot afford children isn't a reality.
There are lots of things that people can't afford. Should their neighbours have to pay for those as well? 5-10k a year, it would be far more than that!
I'm aware of the risk of breaching the posting guidelines here but that's rubbish.
No, he's posted far more insensitive stuff than that!
Exactly. I can't believe a Health Department that staggers from one crisis to the next would even think of losing focus and spending time\resources\budget on something like this. Suggests a disconnect from reality.