Article: KKK welcomes Irish move to limit citizenship rights

Cork

Originally posted by arcadegame2004 [/B]


Being opposed to unlimited immigration into Ireland is not racist. [/B]

It does not.

80% voted for the referendum. FF and FG supported it.

The socialist partys did not even manage to get their own supporters to follow the line they took aganist this referendum.

I am not too worried about the KKK. I really don't think they'll start organising here in Ireland.

The KKK along with oreganisations like the IRA should be consigned to the history books.

flogen

Originally posted by Cork
It does not.

80% voted for the referendum. FF and FG supported it.

The socialist partys did not even manage to get their own supporters to follow the line they took aganist this referendum.

I am not too worried about the KKK. I really don't think they'll start organising here in Ireland.

The KKK along with oreganisations like the IRA should be consigned to the history books.

what? Arcade agreed that it doesnt make you racist to vote for the referendum.... surely you know by know that he's a total 'yes' man on the referendum!!

flogen

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
36% of those who voted "Yes" said they did it because "Immigrants are exploiting the country". 27% said it was because of "too many immigrants", while 20% said it was because "people born in Ireland shouldn't be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship".

So 63% of people who voted yes did so for xenophobic reasons. Or did someone actually provide proof prior to the referendum that there was a problem with immigrants that was so severe it necessitated a change in the country's constitution?

Being opposed to unlimited immigration into Ireland is not racist.

No, it isn't. Voting yes because you feel there was an immigration problem however, without proof that there was a problem with immigration, was xenophobic.

The "No" side were unable to justify the automaticity of citizenship on grounds of birth alone,

Got a problem with the citizenship policy of the USA do you? Anti-american scum!

so they fought a campaign of insults in an attempt to smear anyone who voted "Yes" as "racists",

Whereas the "other side" fought a campaign based solely on FUD...
I'm not entirely certain which is worse, but I lean more towards the FUD side...

together with trying to make out that there were very few actually taking advantage of our citizenship-rules.

Well, seeing as how the people whose statements were cited as the cause of the referendum (the Masters of the hospitals in Dublin) publicly stated that they had not asked for a change in legislation, and seeing as how no figures were presented to show that there was a problem, that's a fully legitimate (and in fact correct) stance to take.

But the referendum was about a principle aswell,

Anti-american scum!

If, as they claimed, very few were, then why did they oppose changing the rules, since according to their claims, very few would be affected?

Very few people are murdered each year, relative to the population. Should we not bother with prosecution of murderers then, since so few are affected?

A number of "No" voters are claiming that this referendum had nothing to do with immigration. But if that is so, then why are the majority of the "No" side going on about immigration so much in their condemnation of the decision of the people on June 11th?

Because 63% of people who voted Yes did so on the basis of fears over immigration.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sparks
Got a problem with the citizenship policy of the USA do you? Anti-american scum!

I have already explained why the US is different earlier in this thread. And anyway, they are not in a freedom of movement arrangement with other states, unlike Ireland's arrangement with the rest of the EU. So it's not comparing like with like.

No, it isn't. Voting yes because you feel there was an immigration problem however, without proof that there was a problem with immigration, was xenophobic.

Well, seeing as how the people whose statements were cited as the cause of the referendum (the Masters of the hospitals in Dublin) publicly stated that they had not asked for a change in legislation, and seeing as how no figures were presented to show that there was a problem, that's a fully legitimate (and in fact correct) stance to take.

People like you will always demand 100% proof before you would accept that the system was being abused in respect to citizenship-rules. In a court of law, you dont have to have 100% certainty to make a finding of guilt or innocence, but rather, there needs to be reasonable doubt to acquit a person, and the absence of reasonable doubt to convict a person. The Irish people, acting as a jury (to coin a phrase) ruled on June 11th that there was not - in their opinion - reasonable doubt that our system was being abused. 20% of the "jury" said otherwise. The people are the arbiters of whether the system needed to be changed or not, and they replied "Yes" in their wisdom.

You are entitled to your liberal views on immigration. However, having already let in 200,000 legally, and 60,000 asylum-seekers, I would like to ask where exactly do you draw the line with respect to the numbers you would allow into this country? Where does it end? And where is the money supposed to come from to house all these people? And why should the hard-pressed would-be Irish homebuyers have to endure all this foreign competition for Irish housing/hospital beds? We have a right to put our own interests first, as does any country.

Cork

The reason that swung the Yes vote was that all other countries across the EU did not grant automatic citizenship.

People did not want Ireland to become a gateway for EU citizenship.

Exit polls are not very reliable. When people vote they really don't want to be asked their reasons.

They wnt to get away after performing their civic duty.

Hopefully eletronic voting will do away with these worthless polls.

BlitzKrieg

Originally posted by Earthman
I agree and you know the ironic thing about this?
Yup it's the KKK's opinion on catholicism....
Whether you are lapsed or practising they'd have you burned to a cross aswell, because you may be Irish and white white,(woe betide if you're Irish and any other colour) but you're not an anglo saxon protestant....

Kinda says it all about the value of their opinion on matters in this country really...

and on a side note of this to be Irish (according to equal employment forms i've filled out while applying for work in england) Is a different Ethnic Origin to being white or black. So if someone screams white supremacy kindly explain your not white your irish and therefore offended.

Sparks

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
they are not in a freedom of movement arrangement with other states, unlike Ireland's arrangement with the rest of the EU. So it's not comparing like with like.

So US citizens are not permitted to travel outside their own borders then?

People like you will always demand 100% proof before you would accept that the system was being abused in respect to citizenship-rules.

What makes you think that? I stated that there has been absolutely no proof provided prior to the referendum, despite repeated public requests for that proof to be provided. How does asking for any proof get transformed to requiring absolute proof?

In a court of law, you dont have to have 100% certainty to make a finding of guilt

On the contrary. In criminal court, you have to be certain past any reasonable doubt to find someone guilty. Finding them innocent just doesn't happen. A court may not find you innocent, because an axiom of the legal system is that you are already innocent unless proven otherwise.
It's an interesting analogy to our specific discussion here in fact. A court requires proof past a reasonable doubt before changing your status as innocent. We, however, were asked to make a change to the citizenship laws without any proof, let alone proof past a reasonable doubt.

The Irish people, acting as a jury

No, that's not correct. Juries adhere to more rules regarding arriving at a decision and are subject to legal review. Coin a different phrase, please, one which does not ascribe a level of rigour to the decision that was simply not present on the 11th.

I would like to ask where exactly do you draw the line with respect to the numbers you would allow into this country? Where does it end? And where is the money supposed to come from to house all these people?

Related questions those. But perhaps my "liberal attitude" would be better explained by asking a further question to your good self:

Who's going to pay for your pension when the demographics of this state clearly show that there will be insufficent people working to support those people who are retired? Are you going to continue the recent trend of pushing the mandatory retirement age further and further back? Or are you going to encourage immigration for the workers it brings into this country so that their taxes can pay for you after you retire?

See, it's not so much a liberal attitude that I have as a pragmatic one.

We have a right to put our own interests first, as does any country.

Indeed. Thing is, that's not what we did on the 11th.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Sparks
Who's going to pay for your pension when the demographics of this state clearly show that there will be insufficent people working to support those people who are retired? Are you going to continue the recent trend of pushing the mandatory retirement age further and further back? Or are you going to encourage immigration for the workers it brings into this country so that their taxes can pay for you after you retire?

Well if we need immigrants, I think we should concentrate on trying to lure home some of the 1.8 million Irish citizens scattered throughout the world. At least then Irish people remain a majority in their own country. It is an uncontroversial form of immigration that I would not object to, since it does not have the identity-undermining effects mass foreign immigration would have. We have no way of knowing how foreign immigrants would vote in a future referendum on a United Ireland. I don't want to take the risk that such a referendum could be defeated purely because of foreign votes.

I have already proposed universal health-insurance which would help address the cost of health issue. And I believe that a reduction in the role of the State with regard to pensions would help resolve that issue too, i.e. compulsory private pension contributions. And anyway, you cannot know for certain that Irish birth rates will remain static or fall. I also firmly believe that the privatisation of the vast bulk of the public-sector would allow us to add to the National Pensions Reserve Fund, as well as allowing us to drastically cut public-spending relevant to the public-sector (as the public-sector will then be far smaller). The NPRF after all is supposed to be saving up for a rainy day isn't it.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And I believe that a reduction in the role of the State with regard to pensions would help resolve that issue too, i.e. compulsory private pension contributions.

Wouldn't that disadvantage the poor? Effectively in the form of a reduction in social-contribution cost by the rich?

jc

lucernarian

I believe in ultimate equality. I will draw 1 conclusions from that statement:

That immigrants should be treated exactly like Irish people in every way. They should have unlimited access to work and they should not be given preference for free housing. Their country of origin should not either help or hinder any social welfare claims.

I also believe in unlimited cultural immigration. Any person in the world who wants to partake in Irish society, life and culture should be allowed to come here and become citizens. They should be fully compatible with society, i.e. they need to make the effort by learning fluent english and to a certain extent taking part in the local community. IMO this is true from a national perspective as well as an international perspective. People moving from one part to another part of a country should give something positive to the community.

If you think about it this might pacify the far-right while implementing liberalist ideas.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
Wouldn't that disadvantage the poor? Effectively in the form of a reduction in social-contribution cost by the rich?

No because I would have a fall-back mechanism whererby the pension needs of those who cannot afford private-pension contributions would be dealt with by the State. The point is that the State would be far better placed to do this with the bulk of its pension-responsibilities taken off its shoulders.

I favour a similar solution for the health-service problems. Compulsory private health-insurance should be introduced with the State acting as a safety-net by paying the pensions of those who cannot afford to pay contributions to such a scheme.

You see, at the moment, the lack of a profit motive means that the Health-Service has a DISINCENTIVE to treat pensions, i.e. the more patients treated, the higher the costs faced by the Health-Service. However, with the private health-insurance schemes, the Health-Service has a self-interested motive to treat patients, namely that for every patient they treat, they will make money.

The profit-motive can thus be harness for the general good of the nation.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by To_be_Confirmed
I also believe in unlimited cultural immigration. Any person in the world who wants to partake in Irish society, life and culture should be allowed to come here and become citizens. They should be fully compatible with society, i.e. they need to make the effort by learning fluent english and to a certain extent taking part in the local community. IMO this is true from a national perspective as well as an international perspective. People moving from one part to another part of a country should give something positive to the community.

Another Plantation then. The last one led to partition. Do you want a second partition? Where would you get the money to house all these people?

If we're lucky this year, the 80,000 houses expected to be completed this year might meet demand. Or it still might be insufficient. The last thing we need is to import unlimited additional demand for housing. The laws of demand and supply dictate that unlimited additional immigration will greatly increase demand for housing and reduce the supply of housing for the rest of us. That can only make the house-price nightmare infinitely worse, putting the final nail in the coffin of the dream of a younger person getting to own their own home.

The country would never forgive such a policy. This sort of high-minded, and ultimately extremely reckless policy, pioneered in the past by dogmatic left-wing governments in mainland Europe, was the primary factor that brought about the dramatic rise of the Far-Right in Denmark (18% vote for the Danish Peoples' Party whose votes prop up the Liberal Party Government in Denmark), the Netherlands (List Pim Fortuyn are in Government with the Christian Democrats there), in Belgium (the Vlaams Bloc in Belgium got 27% of the vote there, Austria (the Freedom Party are in Government there), and Italy (Allenzo Nationale, a post-fascist party, are in Government there and regularly get 11% of the vote). The BNP in Britain got 5.65% in the Euro elections and has made inroads in places like Burnley in Northern England. Let's not give these people any more fuel with more of the same in Ireland.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
No because I would have a fall-back mechanism whererby the pension needs of those who cannot afford private-pension contributions would be dealt with by the State.

So where is the benefit? I, as a taxpayer earning above the average, still contribute enough to cover myself, plus enough to cover my share of the cost of those who cannot cover themselves. Thats what I, as a taxpayer earning above the average, would be contributing today.

Now, you may argue that allowing my pension to be privately managed is more efficient, but there are also drawbacks.

What if I screw up? Will the state allow me to live in poverty in my old age, or stump up more money to cover my screw-up? What if Ireland suffers a mini-S&L scandal (I refer to the S&L disaster in the US of the late 80s, early 90s) and corporate misgovernance on the part of the financials costs a huge percentage of the nation a massive portion of their pension funds? What if the public get grabbed by the next .com and then get shafted by the next .bomb? Who will step in then, or will the state simply allow a large percentage of hte elderly populace to fall into abject poverty because well - hey - its their own fault, right?

The point is that the State would be far better placed to do this with the bulk of its pension-responsibilities taken off its shoulders.

It depends on where you put your priorities, how much intelligenve you cede to the common man, how simplistically you work the math (X number of individual pension plans paying fees vs a handful of incorporated plans paying fees), how you legislate to prevent the financials taking advantage, etc. etc. etc.

You see, at the moment, the lack of a profit motive means that the Health-Service has a DISINCENTIVE to treat pensions,

Instead we should open them up to profit, which acts as an incentive to either cut costs or charge more. We should also open them to competition, despite the fact that competition will also reduce profits (lets face it - getting sick isn't a "boom" industry - its fairly closely population-linked) acting as, oh, another disincentive.

And hey - you're still talking about the State picking up the "spare" end of the tab, so what incentive to be efficient when you can always ensure a good old ROI from treating the poor.

However, with the private health-insurance schemes, the Health-Service has a self-interested motive to treat patients, namely that for every patient they treat, they will make money.

Hahahahaha.

Sorry, but that last statement shows that you either have a complete misunderstanding of how insurance (and competition, privatisation, and the rest of it) works, or you've misstated yourself horridly.

I'll wait till you decide which it is before responding to the point any further.

jc

arcadegame2004

I'll wait till you decide which it is before responding to the point any further

Bonkey, I am referring to the fact that VHI/BUPA pay the hospitals for the use of beds by their clients.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Bonkey, I am referring to the fact that VHI/BUPA pay the hospitals for the use of beds by their clients.

But they do this at present arcade, so why aren't the hospitals making money now?

If you are referring to the costs incurred by medical card carriers etc. I would point out that the hospitals still get paid for the services they provide to these people. So why aren't they making money now?

The only difference is that perhaps medical card holders cost the hospitals. I mean...teh government covers teh bills, but maybe its at a reduced rate. Maybe thats what you meant. Lets look at that then.......

We replace the medical card with privatised insurance, with the tax-payer still paying for those who can't afford it. The hospitals get to charge everyone full whack (as opposed to charging everyone-except-medical-card-holders full whack) which means that the average cost-per-patient will go up as a national average. It has to go up - same people, more being charged ==> higher average cost.

This increase in cost will be reflected in a rise in charges by the insurers. This will mean that the individual who can afford to pay for his own privatised health care pays more than he/she used to. They also pay more to cover the increase in cost to fund those who used to be medical-card holders.

Net result....your better solution still costs the taxpayer more to get the same result.

The only "better" it will have is that perhaps the hospitals (which would also be privatised under such a scheme, no doubt) may make profit for some investors....at the cost of the taxpayer.

jc

Board@Work

Is this the same KKK who dispise the Irish because they aren't truely anglo-saxon and bow to papist dictator.

Obviously not.. now we are becoming more acceptable to them???

arcadegame2004

But they do this at present arcade, so why aren't the hospitals making money now?

They would make MORE money if private-health insurance was compulsory for all who could afford it.

Regarding your remark on "profits for investors", remember that there is no monopoly in the health-insurance sector. I would continue allowing people to choose between VHI and BUPA, or any future insurers that enter the market. I note that BUPA's premiums are largely lower than the VHI's, and that the VHI is a state-owned company. Hmmmm....interesting...

I have not talked about privatising all the hospitals.

We should give the hospitals a greater incentive to treat patients. A greater financial incentive is likely to succeed in getting them to treat more patients.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
They would make MORE money if private-health insurance was compulsory for all who could afford it.

Yes. at the cost of Joe Q Taxpayer - the person who you keep insisting will benefit from this.

Regarding your remark on "profits for investors", remember that there is no monopoly in the health-insurance sector.

There are two players at the moment. There is no price-war between them. What makes you think a third player will introduce a price war?

I have not talked about privatising all the hospitals.

Indirectly, you have. You've called (in previous posts) that the government has no business running inefficient organisations which could be far more efficient, cost-effective, and even profitable when privatised. You've talked about hospitals making money - and more of it when privatised. From this, its hard to see where you're saying that there are some hospitals which shouldn't be privatised.

If that is what you're saying, then clearly the only ones which shouldn't be privatised are those which by their very nature cannot be profitable. So, you're proposing that we get rid of the assets we have which can offset this cost (i.e. the profitable hospitals), but keep the loss-maker.

So now, not only will Joe Q Taxpayer be paying more for his insurance (as outlined in previous post and not addressed more than cursorily by yourself), but he will also have to pay for all the major loss-making stuff he already does without the benefit of the non-loss-making stuff to offset it.

Lose. Lose. Lose.

We should give the hospitals a greater incentive to treat patients. A greater financial incentive is likely to succeed in getting them to treat more patients.

How, if not by privatising them? If they remain semi-state, then by your own arguments they can't have this incentive. If they could, then you're undermining your own arguments as to why anything should be privatised. If you privatise them, then their making more money simply means that Joe Q Public is paying more which ends up funding the private sector and lining some investors' pockets.

arcade....face it....you haven't actually thought a single one of these privatisation issues through. I notice in another thread, you're busy trotting out the wonders of the 5 biollion the sale of Eircom raised, despite you're dodging the numerous challenges that were put to you on this very same point previously.

As with the referndum threads, you're falling into the same rut of regurgitating the same points that you feel are significant, whilst ignoring any and all counter-points that you can't answer by avoiding the challenged topic in the thread in question, only to throw it back up again at the next presentable opportunity as though it were uncontested, unarguable fact. I'm beginning to wonder at the point in even bothering trying to engage in rational discussion with that type of mentality.

jc

lucernarian

If my idea was implemented properly, a huge influx of immigrants would not occur. You deliberetely failed to notice that I set clear conditions for a person becoming a citizen of ireland. For my policies to work, they would need to be also implemented across the western world.
There was no point for listing all those statistics. The reason for those results was because of immigration mis-management. I still think it is possible to placate most extreme political groups by my idea.
If, as many say, Ireland was used as a stepping stone to get to europe by most immigrants then why would there be an influx of immigrants if my idea was implemented?

Imo to call it another Plantation is an appalingly stupid comment. I will not waste my currently limited internet access on that question.

FYO The greatest threat to my(a young person) owning of a house in many areas is the sprawl of Dublin.

If someone really wants to be an irish person in every way then s/he will be able to interact fully with society. They will be "one of us" to use an unfortunate phrase.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey[/I
Yes. at the cost of Joe Q Taxpayer - the person who you keep insisting will benefit from this.

]

The taxpayer would arguably be better off in net terms. The reduced cost to the Government due to having to pay for the treatment only of the poor would lift a great financial burden from around its neck. Private-sector companies would have to compete against each other for customers and a price-war would ensue. But you are right that the current situation in the health-insurance is currently a duopoly. More health-insurance companies from across the world should be encouraged to set up in Ireland, so as to ensure real and meaningful competition. For that reason I qualify be proposals be accepting that more players would need to be introduced into the health-insurance market for my proposals to be viable.But if/when that happens they oight to be implemented.

If that is what you're saying, then clearly the only ones which shouldn't be privatised are those which by their very nature cannot be profitable. So, you're proposing that we get rid of the assets we have which can offset this cost (i.e. the profitable hospitals), but keep the loss-maker...

So now, not only will Joe Q Taxpayer be paying more for his insurance (as outlined in previous post and not addressed more than cursorily by yourself), but he will also have to pay for all the major loss-making stuff he already does without the benefit of the non-loss-making stuff to offset it.

The idea that you only have charges in the private-sector and none in the public-sector is silly. Look at the ESB and its planned 14% rise in cost-per-unit. I have not specifically called for all the hospitals to be sold-off. You are wrong to make out that I am calling for that.

The greater efficiency of a private-sector environment with several players in the market trying to attract consumers could translate into a better deal for the taxpayer/consumer than at present, i.e. through the price-burden on consumers being lower than that part of the tax-burden currently spent on it. Niamh Brennan's report a few years ago into the Health-Service found huge inefficiency in spending within this monolithic institution (she called it a "collinder").

How, if not by privatising them? If they remain semi-state, then by your own arguments they can't have this incentive. If they could, then you're undermining your own arguments as to why anything should be privatised. If you privatise them, then their making more money simply means that Joe Q Public is paying more which ends up funding the private sector and lining some investors' pockets.

Which would you prefer - the status-quo where the Health-Service has a disincentive to treat most patients - or what I have proposed, i.e. creating more of an incentive? You only have to look at the scale of recent bed-closures right across the country, especially in Dublin, to see where the current discincentive is leading. They are closing beds because they have a disincentive to treat more patients or at least a disincentive to treat them faster than would otherwise be the case.

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
The taxpayer would arguably be better off in net terms.

Arcade...you're dreaming. Every cost the govt has will still remain....except for those which were offset by an accompanying profit-maker. This latter group are what you want to sell.

Say a hospital costs 2M to run, and generates 3M. According to your logic, this should be privatised.


If it costs 2M to run, and generates 1M, then it prbably can't be privatised, or will only be privatisable with subsidisation. In either case, we continue to pay for the loss-maker.

Buy if we had one of each hospital, we'd balance out before privatisation, and face a 1M per year loss after privatisation.

And yet you say that taxpayer will be better off?

Lets see how you explain that.....

The reduced cost to the Government due to having to pay for the treatment only of the poor would lift a great financial burden from around its neck.

Errr? What???

The reduced cost to teh government is purely and solely what gets taken on as a direct payment by the taxpayer to the health insurance. So instead of giving the govt some notes every month, you give it to the privatised firm.

That doesn't save the taxpayer a penny.

Private-sector companies would have to compete against each other for customers and a price-war would ensue.

Show me a single privatised hospital system in the world where price-wars have erupted, and I'll cede that you may have a case.

Regardless, a private-sector price-war can only limit profits. A government-run business has no need of profit and can run at break-even. Therefore, this is a non-issue.

But you are right that the current situation in the health-insurance is currently a duopoly.
More health-insurance companies from across the world should be encouraged to set up in Ireland, so as to ensure real and meaningful competition.

Now you're showing a simple lack of understanding of market principles. If there was profit to be made, we wouldn't need to be encouraging anyone to come here...they'd be queueing up to get in themselves. They're not...so I'll let you figure out what the implication is.

I would also point out that one of the players at the moment is a no-need-for-profit government-owned body. How does one undercut those charges, if not by running a loss. The existence of other players (even a single other player) already forces a certain level of competitiveness on the government-run body. You're not making a single case of how more players, or privatisation is going to suddenly lower the costs.

For that reason I qualify be proposals be accepting that more players would need to be introduced into the health-insurance market for my proposals to be viable.But if/when that happens they oight to be implemented.

But you ahven't shown that more players will bring any such benefits, nor how there are further benefits to be accrued after bringing in hte players, but before privatisation occurs.

The idea that you only have charges in the private-sector and none in the public-sector is silly.

Yes, it is silly. Its utterly ridiculous. I never said anything of the sort, though, so I'm curious as to what relevance this has to anything.

Go back and look at my two-hospital example above again. Now go back and read the comment you were replying to which discussed that your "improvement" involved selling off anything which was profitable, and (by logical extension) retaining everything which runs a loss. See? Same point. Nothing to do with charges being private/public.

Look - here it is simplified more :

Pre-Privatisation : Asset 1 runs a loss of €X, Asset 2 runs a profit of €Y. We can offset one against the other , so that we have a net loss of X-Y, or a net profit if Y is larger than X.

Net result - the taxpayer covers the cost of X-Y, (or gains the benefit if its a profit)

Post Privatisation : Asset 1 runs a loss of €X, Asset 2 runs a profit of €Y. We can no longer offset as we no longer own Asset 2, so we pay the government to cover the loss of X, and we pay the owner of Hospital 2 his full value of Y.

Net result in the post case : the taxpayer covers the cost of X + Y.

How you construe this as being better off is beyond me.

I have not specifically called for all the hospitals to be sold-off. You are wrong to make out that I am calling for that.

So can we be crystal clear about this? You do not want a single solitary hospital privatised, regardless of how profitable it is or could be? Not one? Why not? You want everything else thats profitable to be privatised.

The greater efficiency of a private-sector environment with several players in the market trying to attract consumers could translate into a better deal for the taxpayer/consumer than at present,

Key word in that sentence is the word could. it automatically acecpts that this may not happen. It does not rule out the opposite happening.

So until you show that your "could" is a "will", your argument holds no water.

Also, bear in mind that you are still assuming that the market will support several players. it may not. Even if it will support multiple players, there is no guarantee that those players will engage in true competition. And if the market will support multiple players, etc. then what is the disadvantage in one of those players being state-owned. Competition is a reason to disolve monopolies, not to privatise resources.

Niamh Brennan's report a few years ago into the Health-Service found huge inefficiency in spending within this monolithic institution (she called it a "collinder").

Yes, and the biggest culprits there - I believe - were the hospitals. Now what have I seen you say recently about hospitals? Oh yes....you don't want them privatised.

So....privatising one relatively small aspect of our health system (health insurance, which is already in a non-monopolistic market) and keeping the biggest problems in state hands...how will this improve matters?

Which would you prefer - the status-quo where the Health-Service has a disincentive to treat most patients - or what I have proposed, i.e. creating more of an incentive?

For a start, I'd prefer that people be more intellectually honest than to try and imply that there are only two options here.

Secondly, I would prefer that the government took a long hard look at improving the efficiency before doing anything else. The reasons for this are threefold :

1) Improving efficiency - without privatisation - will reduce costs to the taxpayer in every area it is achieved, which will include the biggest money-wasting areas which you don't want to privatise anyway

2) Improving efficiency prior to privatisation means that we are in a far better position to ensure that we don't get ripped off in our sale price.

You only have to look at the scale of recent bed-closures right across the country, especially in Dublin, to see where the current discincentive is leading.

Errr...hospital beds are in hospitals. You don't want to privatise hospitals, remember?

They are closing beds because they have a disincentive to treat more patients or at least a disincentive to treat them faster than would otherwise be the case.

Arcade...you're only confirming my opinion that you genuinely haven't a clue about this stuff.

If the non-privatised hospitals can be given an incentive to work better without being privatised, then this completely undermines every single point you've made about privatisation leading to improvements that we can't gain otherwise....because here you're allowing massive improvements in the hospitals without privatisation.

If, on the other hand, you've changed yoru mind and decided now that the hospitals should be privatised, then go back and re-address all the points you dodged by saying you didn't want the hospitals privatised.

Make up your mind. When you do, come back and present a coherent end-to-end reasoning why we should have privatisation. To date all you've managed is to parrot the calls of others, and badly represent (and confuse) the arguments that those others have tried making which still aren't convincing enough even if you weren't making such a mess of it.

jc

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
If it costs 2M to run, and generates 1M, then it prbably can't be privatised, or will only be privatisable with subsidisation. In either case, we continue to pay for the loss-maker.

But if the Hanly report is implemented, then the costs entailed in running certain hospitals could be reduced, since Hanly envisages (and I agree with him) a reformed Health-Service in which certain services are centralised in regional-centres. I personally feel that the current practice of hospitals that are close to each other having exactly the same facilities is a wasteful duplication of resources, which eventually become such a drain on the hospital that some of those duplicated resources have to be dropped from the hospital, i.e. facilities. Your analysis also seems to assume that a profit-motive already exists within the Health-Service. If only it did. Then maybe we'd be seeing a better degree of value for money for the doubling of health-spending since 1997. Efficiency is needed, rather than simply throwing money at the problems of the health-service. If simply throwing more taxpayers' money at the Health-Service were all that were required to resolve the problems of long waiting-lists/times etc. then those problems would have been resolved long before now.

The hospitals need to be given a greater incentive to treat patients. At present, 60% of patients (those not on health-insurance) are treated as a burden. The cost entailed in treating them acts as a deterrant to their operations etc. being carried out quickly, since (unless they have private-health-insurance) such patients are a cost-burden on the hospitals.

There has been criticism in recent times of the so-called "two-tier" nature of the Health-Service, i.e. a perceived unfairness that those on private health-insurance seem to be getting their ailments/injuries attended to quicker than the non-insured among us. So what I am proposing in introducing compulsory private health-insurance is actually a step towards greater equality of opportunity for patients. I firmly believe that then the benefits accruing to those insured with VHI and BUPA could then be realised by the vast majority of us. Those who cannot afford to insure themselves should have their treatment taken care of by the State - after all I recognise that all Government's have a responsibility to help the poorer members of society. Far smaller-waiting times would result from my proposals, and a far smaller financial burden (relative to income) would be weighing down the hospitals.

Actually privatising the actual hospitals might not be a bad idea, since it would relieve the Government of the overheads involved in paying the electricity, telephone and other bills, and the salaries of the nurses and doctors, opening up a road to lower taxes. I am very enthusiastic about the proliferation of private hospitals in this country. I don't believe in monopolies. Hospitals could compete against one another, with the Government introducing compulsory league-tables for waiting-times for operations, for example. Also, with regard to my earlier point on the Government looking after those who cannot afford health-insurance, the Government could put such a contract out to tender, with the cheapest option being awarded the contract to be the private-health insurer that the Government would pay premiums to on behalf of those below a certain income-threshold.

Look Bonkey, we have tried simply throwing money at the Health-Service in the absence of a profit-motive existing in that service. Where has it brought us? Facilities introduced only to be withdrawn later. Longer waiting-times for operations. A 2-tier system in which 40% of the population (including me) gets a head-start over everyone else. It is not fair Bonkey, to have such a two-tier system. Some on the far-Left see the solution to the "two-tier" system as involving restrictions or an attack on the whole idea of private health-care, but that would only make things worse, and only demonstrates the rigidness of their socialist dogma, entailing a fixation with "the evils of capitalism" :rolleyes:

An unusual exception to this seems to have been Labour's proposals for compulsory health-insurance at the last election. It appears this is still their policy. Maybe there is hope for them modernising a la New Labour in Britain after all. But we'll see.