Liz McManus - Patrionising Politician

Chakar

InFront wrote:

About 50% of people have private health insurance, most people with health insurance have it because we feel it's necessary. Nobody enjoys paying VHI fees, people who do so are not rich. Assuming for a minute that co-location is capable of providing world class health care, why on earth should we pay for private healthcare then?

Everyone will just go back to the public system until it swings back to the critical point where it can't cope, and it simply fails to ever take off. How will colocation fix that?

It's logical that people won't just drop their private health insurance policies until they see a real improvement in the public healthcare system. Even then at that point there will still be a substantial minority on private health insurance policies and these people can continue to be treated in the private hospitals. For example I have private health insurance, I'm certainly not going to let it lapse so as to secure my personal health and well being. Basically the point I'm making is that, it comes down to choice. Mary Harney wants to improve the public healthcare system but she can't do that until she makes the private beds in hospitals free for public patients.

How will co-location prevent private hospitals from picking and making a reputation for profitable work, and from acquiring the most talented consultants? Tell us.

Mary Harney made it clear that the hospital management themselves will be deciding what departments will be put into the private hospitals. So it's not the private hospitals deciding what departments, they will transfer into their facility.

I hope that answers your questions Infront.

mountainyman

Actually she does seem patronising. She is smart and on top of her brief and has her proposals costed (which implies that FlutterinBantam is a fool or a knave-- I think I know which)

She seems patronising because she is really really posh. She is a very very privileged person and that comes across.

MM

FlutterinBantam

She was on a radio programme recently and was asked direct questions which required direct answers.

She flugged every one of them,no costings/no direct answer/just aspirations whichI have myself.

I might be a fool but I am not fooled by that lady .

Heinrich

FlutterinBantam wrote:

She was on a radio programme recently and was asked direct questions which required direct answers.

She flugged every one of them,no costings/no direct answer/just aspirations whichI have myself.

I might be a fool but I am not fooled by that lady .

And would you be fooled by Bertie's answers?

John_C

Floppybits wrote:

I hate the way all parties are playing politics with the health service. What I would like to see happening is that all parties come together with a way to tackle the problem that is health. All parties have some good ideas and some bad ones but its going to take someone with a pair of balls (excuse the language) to actually stand up and say that no one party or coalition is going to solve the problems in health. Health needs all parties and by that I mean each political party, the HSE (a disaster really), the medical profession and by that I mean doctors, nurses, consultants and who ever else I missed to come together and sort it out.

I know all the politicos here were probably watching Prime Time but did anyone watch The Panel on the other channel? They had a celebrity doctor on and asked him how to improve the health service. The answer he gave is basically what Floppybits said above, take it out of the politician's hands. Kind of like a HSE that works.

EamonnKeane

I remember a couple of years ago during a referendum debate on the Late Late, she advised voters that if they didn't understand or know what the referendum was about, just to simply vote no.

Sound advice, really. The European Constitution runs for an eye-melting 600 incomprehensible pages, it's unsurprising it was rejected.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

at that point there will still be a substantial minority on private health insurance policies

But that's exactly my point. If this policy of Harney's were to work, and the public hospitals were to become centres of excellence, anyone with private health insurance can just drop their policy and go public. This brings everyone back to square 1.

For example I have private health insurance, I'm certainly not going to let it lapse so as to secure my personal health and well being.

Nor should you. But if the health service improves dramatically, we're not going to need health insurance. I don't know about you, most people consider it a little bit on the er, expensive side. A huge chunk of people would go back to public health, that just reapplies the pressure on public hospitals, and health never takes off. Public hospital bed numbers would stay the same under the old government.
Under FG-Lab however, there are over 2000 more beds IN public hospitals as well as improved efficiency and resources FOR public hospitals.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

Mary Harney made it clear that the hospital management themselves will be deciding what departments will be put into the private hospitals

It's a private business, I don't think the public hospitals get a say in what they do. They certainly can't stop the most educated consultants, nurses, managers and healthcare professionals from walking across the car park to new employment either. Private hospitals would be in a position to offer better pay, clinical academic reputation and conditions.

Plus, you can't force them to do procedures that are too risky, specialised or unprofitable for them to want to do. Therefore you still get reliance on public hospitals for some specialist care, accompanied by static bed numbers.

Chakar

InFront wrote:

But that's exactly my point. If this policy of Harney's were to work, and the public hospitals were to become centres of excellence, anyone with private health insurance can just drop their policy and go public. This brings everyone back to square 1.

Yeah that's choice. As people go back to the public healthcare system, waiting lists would increase leading to a negative feedback resulting in people using private healthcare. The dynamics completely work out.

Under FG-Lab however, there are over 2000 more beds IN public hospitals as well as improved efficiency and resources FOR public hospitals.

They say they're going to deliver 460 beds every year, the equivalent of a major new hospital every year. That's not possible. As such the 2,300 hospital beds provided wouldn't happen. The current government has delivered 200 new beds every year. That's progress. The policy of co-location when completed will re-designate 1,000 new beds for public patients.

It's a private business, I don't think the public hospitals get a say in what they do. They certainly can't stop the most educated consultants, nurses, managers and healthcare professionals from walking across the car park to new employment either. Private hospitals would be in a position to offer better pay, clinical academic reputation and conditions.

Plus, you can't force them to do procedures that are too risky, specialised or unprofitable for them to want to do. Therefore you still get reliance on public hospitals for some specialist care, accompanied by static bed numbers.

The public hospitals will be deciding which beds should be re-designated as public beds. As it follows they will be deciding what departments should be transferred as a result with obvious regard to the opinions of the private healthcare providers. Of course private hospitals should be able to attract the best people for the job, however you have to remember the private hospitals number of beds, will form but a fraction of the Irish healthcare system of 13,700 beds.

lucernarian

I thought that she sounded much more capable to deal with the nurses' strike than any other politician I can think of. She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

ateam

EamonnKeane wrote:

Sound advice, really. The European Constitution runs for an eye-melting 600 incomprehensible pages, it's unsurprising it was rejected.

This was actually about the abortion referendum.

ateam

To_be_confirmed wrote:

I thought that she sounded much more capable to deal with the nurses' strike than any other politician I can think of. She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

Why can't she give a date now?

delta_bravo

To_be_confirmed wrote:

She didn't give half the waffle that the PDs, FF and FG were giving on it about "taking it to benchmarking". She said that the Labour party would give a date for the 35 hour week if they got into office, and that was that.

I would expect that health would be close to the heart of the Labour party, so mabye she would be best for the job? I could be wrong still.

Brian Lenihan didnt seem to be waffling to me. He was pretty blunt and honest in his answers that they wont back down. Fine Gael dont seem too keen on meeting the demands either

InFront

Chakar wrote:

As people go back to the public healthcare system, waiting lists would increase leading to a negative feedback resulting in people using private healthcare.

Look: "customer" growth is the best indicator of success, right. Now when the hundred of thousands of ordinary (not rich) people stay on private health insurance it means the public health system is not the world class system of excellence being promised; that it is shoddy. Unless you're saying we all enjoy giving VHI money for giggles.
The reason the private health insurance won't budge is that a swing back to public health care would cancels out any potential progress. Neither move. This is a negative feedback loop. The new load cancels out the benefit in tandem with market (patient) growth. No new beds.

They say they're going to deliver 460 beds every year, the equivalent of a major new hospital every year. That's not possible.

Ridiculous, PD propaganda. Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

Wicklow Boy

I thought that Liz McManus did ok on TV last night but she still was avoiding the hard questions. I think that Mary Harney's point that everyone should received medical care not on whether they are public or private but on medical need. Her attempt to deal with the consultants is just that.
My big worry today is hearing from the nurses conference that both ENda K and Liz McManus would give in to the nurses 35 hour week within a short time frame, early next year is total capitulation and means they have no guts to run the helath service and for that reason alone I now cannot vote for either party.
That attitude would bankrupt the health service in order to get them into power.

Can i put this question to Liz Mc Manus, what are her proposals to deal with the the huge strain put on the health service put by alcohol attendees in our casualty units. Should we penalise them. Does she support mandatory breath testing after accidents as this would help reduce road carnage and the number of people in hospital.

Chakar

InFront wrote:

Look: "customer" growth is the best indicator of success, right. Now when the hundred of thousands of ordinary (not rich) people stay on private health insurance it means the public health system is not the world class system of excellence being promised; that it is shoddy. Unless you're saying we all enjoy giving VHI money for giggles.
The reason the private health insurance won't budge is that a swing back to public health care would cancels out any potential progress. Neither move. This is a negative feedback loop. The new load cancels out the benefit in tandem with market (patient) growth.

The movement of people within the healthcare system is more dynamic than that. I know, I mentioned negative feedback but I took it to mean in this case, the movement of people between the public and private hospitals.

Ridiculous, PD propaganda. Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

So how are they going to deliver 2,300 hospital beds? Extensions? Build new hospitals? I don't think they can do it in the next five years from 2007. They're seriously lacking in specifics.

Wicklow Boy

Wicklow Boy wrote:

My big worry today is hearing from the nurses conference that both ENda K and Liz McManus would give in to the nurses 35 hour week within a short time frame, early next year is total capitulation and means they have no guts to run the helath service and for that reason alone I now cannot vote for either party.
That attitude would bankrupt the health service in order to get them into power.

I couldnt believe what I hear Kenny and McManus at today at that nurses conference.
Are they that desperate for power now that Kenny is turning into a Yes man altogether!
Very bad form.They should have remained neutral on the issue and let the machinery thats there deal with the issue.

Much as I'd like to see a change in government for the sake of a rest and giving the others a chance to do better maybe...if I see any more of that kind of stuff I too would have to reconsider my vote.
Theres no point in changing a government if after a short while into it, you have every tom dick and harry union in the country looking for crazy pay rises.That surely would leave the economy in tatters.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

InFront

InFront wrote:

Pat Rabbitte has been on the radio today pointing out how it was done over fifty years ago in this country in the same time period.

Vocations to the nuns have dropped a tad since then though.

ateam

Tristrame wrote:

I couldnt believe what I hear Kenny and McManus at today at that nurses conference.
Are they that desperate for power now that Kenny is turning into a Yes man altogether!
Very bad form.They should have remained neutral on the issue and let the machinery thats there deal with the issue.

Much as I'd like to see a change in government for the sake of a rest and giving the others a chance to do better maybe...if I see any more of that kind of stuff I too would have to reconsider my vote.
Theres no point in changing a government if after a short while into it, you have every tom dick and harry union in the country looking for crazy pay rises.That surely would leave the economy in tatters.

Yes Kenny saying what the nurses wanted to hear. I suspect many nurses are aware of his tactic to get votes.

funktastic

So what's going to happen when Kenny/McManus give a date for a nurses 35 hour week? how will they deal with teachers, bus drivers and public servants who will look for pay claims? Just give them all money?

lucernarian

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Working hours is an issue that I understand does not directly concern the pay agreements. Lis McManus did say that the pay claim should (read: must) be dealt with in benchmarking. And I agree with that stance. A lot of things cost the taxpayer money anyway. Whether they deserve the extra money or not is your own choice. I think they do.

InFront

The movement of people within the healthcare system is more dynamic than that.

No, it isn't. When the quality of the public health system falls, take-up of private insurance rises. When the public system is great, private health take-up falls. It's everyday supply and demand. 50% of the population currently have private health insurance, they don't want it. Do you think average families enjoy paying the VHI money for what our taxes ought to cover?

Imagine fifty patients (on average wages) in a world class public hospital, NOT paying private insurance, sitting happily waving across the carpark to 50 private patients (on the same average wages getting the same treatment) but paying through the roof private insurance.
Do you seriously think that is realistic and sustainable? Either the public system won't improve, or it will improve, but this would be immediately canceled out by a reversion to dependence upon public healthcare. Supply and demand.

InFront

Chakar wrote:

So how are they going to deliver 2,300 hospital beds? Extensions? Build new hospitals?

Yes, there will be bigger hospitals, including an increase in step down beds and community care units, as well as in-hospital isolation units to counter problems like hospital infections.

Why do you find this so incredible? It's been professionally costed, it's been done before (in much leaner times) and it makes perfect sense. Major investment in health is actually nothing new, the money is there. But at least this time it is getting spent in the right direction. Not on a system that eats its own head.

what are her proposals to deal with the the huge strain put on the health service put by alcohol attendees in our casualty units.

The agreed decision between the two parties is to place drunks in wet rooms with some medical supervision, out of the way of genuine healthcare operations.

Wicklow Boy

So Liz and Enda say they will have wet rooms for Drunks to segregate them from really sick people. Fine. Now will she demand that anybody who ends up in these wet rooms following a road traffic accident will face a mandatory blood test for alcohol levels? If she won't it will just be a continuation of the pious platitudes we heard from her on prime time last night.
My guess is that she will refuse to answer that question this side of the election no matter how many times it is asked and no matter how many more people die or are seriously injured on rthe oads of wicklow because of careless alcohol induced driving.

FlutterinBantam

Liz will answer anything but the straight question put to her.

She was asked recently by an RTE interviewer " You are now the Minister for health,how would you solve the current dispute.

Out comes the wish list,waffle,vague nebulous statements etc etc etc.

I trust Harney to use MY tax money wisely in this situation

the health Service is bound and gagged by vested interests each earning so much and sucking so hard from the teat of the cash cow(us) that nobody wants to change.

When will people wake up and realise we are paying these people far too much money.
You have punters calling 205k p.a. micky mouse money when their counterparts in the UK are gettin 1/3 less..

Wake up everybody,you are being conned right left and centre

Chakar

Infront: It is clear that we will have to agree to disagree on the policy of co-location.

ateam

When asked twice what to do to solve the health service, Kenny said to both questions, we need an imaginative answer to solve the crisis. Would he kindly like to speak about the imaginative answer.

InFront

Hmm I think he's on the election trail... probably not reading boards today.

He has already said that the nurses will have to compromise, and that then he will compromise too. Kenny was one of the guys on the Government team who resolved the nurses concerns that caused them to dispute in 1997 and resolved the issues in question at that time. As was Pat Rabbitte. They understand how to resolve this type of dispute from previous successes with nurses.

EK has said he will personally chair negotiations and play a central part in talks once again, to clear up the matter.

He can't very realistically say what specifically the compromises are without negotiating with the nurses now, can he? But at least he is going to negotiate, unlike Ahern who has no plans to do so, nor has he even talked to the nurses since the start of 2007.