Budget2009 & medical cards

earlyevening

dresden8 wrote: »

Yes, we know all over 70's own their own homes, and people of that age aren't literally falling apart and need expensive medications and doctor/hospital visits (at €100 a pop no less).

When exactly can we expect FF to write out to the oldsters and tell them they're all loaded and to shut the f*ck up?

I never said that. Calm down, read and understand.

PauloMN

earlyevening wrote: »

Funding the GMS is expected to rise 14% next year. Over 70s earning less than 30 something K a year will get some sort of benefit. A lot will get a doctor only medical card which will go a long way to meeting their needs. (as 80% of the funding of the over 70s medical card went on basic GP services).

80% of the money the HSE speds on a person is spent prolonging their lives by a few weeks just before they die. What inefficiency! Maybe we can take 12bn of the 15bn Health budget back and spend it on champagne?

How dare those old people be so greedy just before they die. :rolleyes:

PauloMN

The Scruffy One wrote: »

I have two points to make on this and I sincerely hope there are others that agree.

Firstly, I believe when a person reaches 70 we are bound as a society to support them through any medical problems no matter how much money they have in the bank.

Secondly, if we want to look at it forensically the money and time spent in means testing (which will be conducted by the HSE) will potentially exceed the 100m our government plans to save,

This is a shocking chapter in Irish Politics and if this is allowed to stand I am very concerned for us as a society and a nation.

On this note are there any protests planned for the Dublin area?

I totally agree with your first point.

My own view is that regardless of how "wealthy" a pensioner is, the medical card is not a luxury item. It pays for the most basic of medical care for elderly people, that's it. But for over 70s, I don't think you can underestimate how important a benefit that is for peace of mind.

"Wealth" to a pensioner means something very different to what it means to a person in their 30s or 40s say. That "wealth" is money that most pensioners probably have earmarked for unexpected expenses, maybe nursing home care, maybe home improvements needed as they get older, maybe money to upgrade a car (don't forget a pensioner can't just walk into a bank and get a car loan).

I think many pensioners would not be as inclined to look after themselves without this simple benefit. Many would leave problems until they were a lot worse. The medical card gives them the benefit of a society that cares about them, that wants to look after them with basic care.

They way this has been handled is scandalous imo. I remember my mother (74 years) telling me that her GP had let it slip that they welcome over 70s on medical cards "with open arms". This was because they got something like 4 times the fee that they got with medical card holders under 70. The fees that doctors get with over 70s medical cards is something that should have been addressed long before it came to this.

On point 2, I've no idea how much it will cost to implement these layers of checks that they'll now have to do, but I expect it will be substantial. My own view is that rather than taking the medical card away from over 70s, they should be cracking down on those who are not paying tax that should, and those abusing the benefits that are granted in this country. They'd make a lot more than the money they'll save by taking the medical card from pensioners.

earlyevening

I'm not too sure of the demographics, but there aren't too many over seventies around at present. Waves of emmigration means we are light on people of that age.
We no longer emmigrate. When all the thirty year olds etc reach that age there's no way the state will give them all free health care. There just paving the way - withdrawing benefits bit by bit.

mikemac

PauloMN wrote: »

They way this has been handled is scandalous imo. I remember my mother (74 years) telling me that her GP had let it slip that they welcome over 70s on medical cards "with open arms". This was because they got something like 4 times the fee that they got with medical card holders under 70. The fees that doctors get with over 70s medical cards is something that should have been addressed long before it came to this.

4 times higher? :eek:
Time to renegoitate that contract if possible, that's way too much a difference.
I've no knowledge of what's in this contract but Minister Harney would have some experience of drawing up contracts with the consultants and the pharmacies so it should be looked at

earlyevening

micmclo wrote: »

4 times higher? :eek:

That's true. They get over 600 per year for each patient over 70. Older people take up four times more of the doctor's time?
Probably.

mikemac

But if it's a GP service, why not a flat fee of 50 or 60 euro per visit. More of course if it's a home visit. Like the rest of us pay.
The state could have a pay as per visit contract with the GP.

Dunno if it this 600 per annum fee is value for money at all, it'd wanted to be reviewed.
God knows we've enough administrators and managers who could be sent to review the contract, not short on those

gabigeist

The Scruffy One wrote: »

I have two points to make on this and I sincerely hope there are others that agree.

Firstly, I believe when a person reaches 70 we are bound as a society to support them through any medical problems no matter how much money they have in the bank.

Secondly, if we want to look at it forensically the money and time spent in means testing (which will be conducted by the HSE) will potentially exceed the 100m our government plans to save,

Your first point is nonsense. If you believe that "we are bound as a society to support them through any medical problems no matter how much money they have in the bank," then why provide this only "when a person reaches 70." Its ageist rubbish.

I agree with your second point that the cost of implementing it needs to be monitored but would like to add that once means testing processes are in place, the government can use the information to cut the other unfair benefits provided for elderly people who are well off. I.e. further savings to be made.

eamonnm79

dresden8 wrote: »

Early, you must be in a really ****ty job if you think 34k is rich.

If they own their house and dont have dependants then 34k is well off.
Personnally I think We should have an NHS like the English or French.

But if the gov are going to take the medical card from some of those over 70 then I think they need to raise the lower limit consideribly.

gurramok

As per my previous post.

State pension is now €230 a week(it rose 7euro in budget). On checking with my mother, she gets another €37 a week in private pension so she is 27euro over the €240 limit and classified as 'wealthy' :mad:

Thing is, millionaires wouldn't use the medical card, can you honestly see them waiting 7 hrs in A&E when they can pay instantly to get urgent care?!

FF found €500m for the developers through the new Homechoice loan scheme, another €1.65bn for housing of the social kind yet they did not tackle anything with the overstaffed admin section of the HSE itself nor tackle any part of the public sector wage bill of €19bn.

PauloMN

eamonnm79 wrote: »

Personnally I think We should have an NHS like the English or French.

Yes, basic medical care and cheap prescriptions should be available to everyone who is an Irish citizen, regardless of age. Yet even though we only have an automatic entitlement for all at 70 years old, people now also want this entitlement removed.

How can people on here think that someone over 70 years old who has paid tax into this state year after year, paid tax on everything they have bought, paid PRSI year after year and paid tax on savings should lose something as basic as free GP care and free perscriptions? I'm disguisted that our politicians - the people we elected (well not me thankfully) - have even considered this as a money saving scheme.

EGaffney

What is wrong - in principle - with making wealthy people of any age pay for their own healthcare?

Not an argument about this budget specifically. Just about the wealthy in general.

I mean, nobody should go without food either. But we don't have a free state food distributor for the over-70s.

gurramok

EGaffney wrote: »

What is wrong - in principle - with making wealthy people of any age pay for their own healthcare?

Not an argument about this budget specifically. Just about the wealthy in general.

I mean, nobody should go without food either. But we don't have a free state food distributor for the over-70s.

Do you consider €240 a week wealthy?

Strike off the wealthy, but define whats wealthy.

Read my post above. The poor are getting struck off, that's the issue and why the uproar at FF TD's clinics around the country.

EGaffney

Doh. Sorry I forgot to write "Not an argument about this budget specifically. Just about the wealthy in general." Or not.

Say the top 50%, for argument's sake. That would be a big saving and keeps much of the principle intact.

thebman

gurramok wrote: »

FF found €500m for the developers through the new Homechoice loan scheme, another €1.65bn for housing of the social kind yet they did not tackle anything with the overstaffed admin section of the HSE itself nor tackle any part of the public sector wage bill of €19bn.

This is exactly what makes the budget so disgusting.

The government are completely throwing money at property developers at the expense of everyone else.

If anyone still thinks political donations are okay, wake the fook up.

leninbenjamin

brim4brim wrote: »

This is exactly what makes the budget so disgusting.

The government are completely throwing money at property developers at the expense of everyone else.

If anyone still thinks political donations are okay, wake the fook up.

yeah throwing money at guys who are struggling to keep their businesses alive, and who at one stage employed hundreds of workers, directly or indirectly, who now form the majority of those signing on and creating the extra burden on the public finances. those bastards, who do they think they are? what type of scum goes out and actually employs people?

I think it's someone else who needs to wake the fook up...

Macha

leninbenjamin wrote: »

yeah throwing money at guys who are struggling to keep their businesses alive, and who at one stage employed hundreds of workers, directly or indirectly, who now form the majority of those signing on and creating the extra burden on the public finances. those bastards, who do they think they are? what type of scum goes out and actually employs people?

Those people should never have been in the construction industry in the first place. The whole construction sector was artificially inflated by FF and this pushed people into setting up businesses and training for what was essentially a temporary bubble. Now those businesses are going bust and we have thousands of construction workers who do not have the skills for other, more sustainable jobs. Where is our sustainable, inidgenous industry? We actually have very little.

And this move is also going to further inflate house prices, making it harder for the MAJORITY of people while propping up a MINORITY. Democracy at it's best.

thebman

taconnol wrote: »

Those people should never have been in the construction industry in the first place. The whole construction sector was artificially inflated by FF and this pushed people into setting up businesses and training for what was essentially a temporary bubble. Now those businesses are going bust and we have thousands of construction workers who do not have the skills for other, more sustainable jobs. Where is our sustainable, inidgenous industry? We actually have very little.

And this move is also going to further inflate house prices, making it harder for the MAJORITY of people while propping up a MINORITY. Democracy at it's best.

Pretty much what he said is why I don't need to wake up. I'm quite awake actually. Although I could have done with a few more hours sleep. Maybe if public transport was efficient in this country or housing affordable, I'd have a shorter commute.

Anyone defending political donations has an invested interest in keeping political donations legal. Either that or they are extremely naive.

All it does is keep politicians looking after the people donating to them instead of the people they are elected to serve.

If there is no demand in a market, it is not a reason for the government to get involved. There will always be struggling businesses. The market prices will correct themselves to demand eventually anyway.

Why do people think it is okay to throw loads of debt on people earning the average industrial wage to ensure there is a market for housing? Putting all the young people in the country into massive debt so they can buy houses off middle aged people (or over in some cases) is not the answer to the countries problems. How does keeping the young poor and the old wealthy recover our economy?

eamonnm79

brim4brim wrote: »

Pretty much what he said is why I don't need to wake up. I'm quite awake actually. Although I could have done with a few more hours sleep. Maybe if public transport was efficient in this country or housing affordable, I'd have a shorter commute.

Anyone defending political donations has an invested interest in keeping political donations legal. Either that or they are extremely naive.

All it does is keep politicians looking after the people donating to them instead of the people they are elected to serve.

If there is no demand in a market, it is not a reason for the government to get involved. There will always be struggling businesses. The market prices will correct themselves to demand eventually anyway.

Why do people think it is okay to throw loads of debt on people earning the average industrial wage to ensure there is a market for housing? Putting all the young people in the country into massive debt so they can buy houses off middle aged people (or over in some cases) is not the answer to the countries problems. How does keeping the young poor and the old wealthy recover our economy?

You re too kind to them my friend.
They are throwing artificially inflated levels debt on people so they can buy new houses off developers not second hand ones off middle aged people. The new government home loans deal is only on new homes.

thebman

eamonnm79 wrote: »

You re too kind to them my friend.
They are throwing artificially inflated levels debt on people so they can buy new houses off developers not second hand ones off middle aged people. The new government home loans deal is only on new homes.

I know its for new homes but most property developers are middle aged especially the ones donating to FF that will be looked after in this deal.

Should probably have said that

FF are scum for doing this to the people and worse for trying to pass it off as doing us a favour. I've told everyone I know about this and not to buy into this crap but I'm sure a few still will.

To try to implement this and attack the education and elderly to get the money for their property developer friends is probably the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in Irish politics (I'm only young )

gurramok

Here's something to read about the public sector €19bn wage bill. Apparently its gone up by 47% in only 6 years, scandalous.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4969079.ece

Matt Cooper is dead right saying an axe has to be wielded to the public sector wage bill.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4968594.ece

All of the above were 'forgotten' to be mentioned in the budget but they didn't forget the pensioners. :mad:

Macha

True, they talked about having to make difficult decisions but they didn't make the REAL difficult decisions like
-leaving the housing market alone
-cutting public sector costs
-tackling inefficiencies in the HSE
Children and the elderly are easy targets (or so they thought..)