Government U-Turn on Medical Card 95% to keep them

djpbarry

John_C wrote: »

I have no medical training so feel free to tell me if I'm just wrong but my understanding was that generic drugs were identical to the other ones. Is this not the case?

It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say they are identical, but they should have more-or-less the same effect. Essentially, you're paying for the brand name.

Think of it like this; if you need paracetamol, there's a whole range of products you can buy at different prices. But at the end of the day, paracetamol is paracetamol (or acetaminophen if you're a yank!).

John_C

djpbarry wrote: »

It wouldn't be entirely accurate to say they are identical, but they should have more-or-less the same effect. Essentially, you're paying for the brand name.

Think of it like this; if you need paracetamol, there's a whole range of products you can buy at different prices. But at the end of the day, paracetamol is paracetamol (or acetaminophen if you're a yank!).

Sorry but I'm still confused about this. If paracetamol is paracetamol, how are the generic drugs not exactly the same? Is the difference psychological with patients trusting the brand name product more?

ceegee

John_C wrote: »

Sorry but I'm still confused about this. If paracetamol is paracetamol, how are the generic drugs not exactly the same? Is the difference psychological with patients trusting the brand name product more?

The drug itself is the same, its what else is included in the preparation that can sometimes affect, for example, how quickly its absorbed.
Different brands can be absorbed at different rates, affecting the blood concentration of the drug.

Its not really an issue with most drugs but can be with some.

John_C

ceegee wrote: »

The drug itself is the same, its what else is included in the preparation that can sometimes affect, for example, how quickly its absorbed.
Different brands can be absorbed at different rates, affecting the blood concentration of the drug.

Its not really an issue with most drugs but can be with some.

OK thanks,
I think my worry is that the government might be saving money by giving out worse drugs. I presume though that the doctor will still have the final say.

The_Minister

John_C wrote: »

OK thanks,
I think my worry is that the government might be saving money by giving out worse drugs. I presume though that the doctor will still have the final say.

The problem is that the average doctor gets several grand worth of freebies from big drug companies per year. We cracked down on it a little, but they still get free golf game+meal+freebies for c€50.

That is a huge influence on what drugs doctors choose.

Mr.Micro

What a real successful first budget Lenihan introduced, not. So the incompetent Government got its sums and PR all wrong. A massive U turn on the medical cards debacle and now dropping the 1% levy on minimum wage workers. What a sham. We are dependent on these clowns to get the country straightened out. So will there be another budget as this one is all wrong? Pity for poor FF as its image of party of the people has taken a massive battering.

nesf

John_C wrote: »

I have no medical training so feel free to tell me if I'm just wrong but my understanding was that generic drugs were identical to the other ones. Is this not the case?

Not all brand name drugs have a generic equivalent. Sometimes the best drug for a condition might only be brand name (because it's relatively new and is still under patent) and to prescribe a generic would be to prescribe the "second best" drug. The question then becomes a conflict between the better option and the cheaper option and there's a lot of factors that come then here and in different situations the generic or the brand name might be the better option.

In a lot of cases it is like where you describe where a generic is as good as any of the brand name stuff and your doctor should be prescribing the cheaper option of the two but some of them don't for various reasons, one of them being the amount of advertising that drug companies do with doctors. Just be glad we're not in the States where the drug companies can advertise to people on the street which is a complete joke.

nesf

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What a real successful first budget Lenihan introduced, not. So the incompetent Government got its sums and PR all wrong.

Honestly I feel a bit sorry for Lenihan (not FF in general). In the job a few months and ends up having to give the harshest budget in well over a decade. It's a pity they didn't give the job to Dick Roche or similar.

Lol

This is a farce.No political professionalism involved in the controversial budget measures at all.Did they not see this coming??!! I mean what sort of gombeens are their parliamentary party? Surely they were told of the proposals on the med card at that meeting they had prior to the budget?
What on Earth were they thinking??!!

I'm not a traditional Labour voter but by Golly they were right in their thinking that there are other ways to hit high rollers that are over 70!
Millionaires and billionaires shouldn't have medical cards mind you but ,there should be no furore if they are given them and hit for extra taxes with their medical expenses deductable.

Thats What they should have done - tax them as much as the market would bear and make their medicine bills and VHI fully allowable for tax purposes.

It's a big thumbs down from me for a lack of innovational thinking by this Government and another big thumbs down for political inexpediency.
They are morphing into a pack of buffoons!

djpbarry

Good (in that it echoes my thoughts on the subject, for the most part) article on the subject in today's Times:

Sarah Carey wrote:

Could we cast our minds back to the budget of 2000 when Charlie McCreevy pulled the automatic medical card for over-70s from his bag of pre-election tricks? Remember the loud cheers from the Fianna Fáil back benches and howls of outrage from every other quarter? The opposition was furious, and not just because McCreevy had secured the next election.

Medical cards are given to those on very low incomes; so low that politicians and doctors constantly plead with the Government to raise the threshold. It's bad enough that those on low incomes worry about doctors' fees, but chronic poverty means they are likely to suffer poor health. Their happily retired counterparts in the upper middle classes can afford to see a doctor, and thanks to a lifetime of good nutrition will need to see him less often. McCreevy's stunt meant a poor but not poor enough 69-year-old couldn't get the card while a wealthy 70-year-old could.

It was wrong then and it's wrong today.

To make matters worse, the Government negotiated the "deal" with the Irish Medical Organisation in which doctors won a payment of €640 per non-means-tested over-70 patient, while they only got €160 for a means-tested pensioner. They got more money for the patient statistically likely to be healthy. What a pity no one saw fit to resign over that rape of the public finances.

Back in 2001, James Reilly, then head of the IMO and now Fine Gael's health spokesman, criticised the move as "handing out free medical cards to people who can afford golf club fees". As late as 2005, the Labour Party said that "the Government's electoral ploy in extending medical cards to over-70s regardless of the consequences has been disastrous in cost and equality terms".

I know oppositions are supposed to oppose, but a little consistency wouldn't go astray.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1022/1224454452792.html

mr kr0nik

I have a feeling the government is looking at the long view (for once). Once you remove the automatic entitlement to the medical card, I would suggest that in 10 - 15 years time a lot more than 5 % of the current population (aged 55 and over) will not be eligible to get it.

The big thing here is to remove the automatic entitlement and then creep in the adjustments to get more and more citizens off it.

Voipjunkie

nesf wrote: »

Honestly I feel a bit sorry for Lenihan (not FF in general). In the job a few months and ends up having to give the harshest budget in well over a decade. It's a pity they didn't give the job to Dick Roche or similar.

I have a feeling that is exactly why Cowen moved him to Finance. He knew the hard decisions ahead and that it would take the shine off the heir apparent.

what has surprised me is that the former top brass in FF under Bertie have been so silent Martin,Hannifan, D. Ahern and Dempsey it seems to me that they have been happy enough to let Cowen Coughlan and Lenihan swing in the breeze for the last week pay back time for the sidelining at the last shuffle

BTW Hard to believe that pensioners are being taken in by Enda Kenny FG were against the over 70s card from the start and only changed their position when FF got rid of it.
If FG were in power they would have done the same thing

nesf

Voipjunkie wrote: »

Martin,Hannifan, D. Ahern and Dempsey it seems to me that they have been happy enough to let Cowen Coughlan and Lenihan swing in the breeze for the last week pay back time for the sidelining at the last shuffle

It certainly looks that way all right. Martin has disappeared into the relative safety of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps that was the juiciest promotion on offer..

podge79

nesf wrote: »

It certainly looks that way all right. Martin has disappeared into the relative safety of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps that was the juiciest promotion on offer..

apart from the lisbon 'blip' lol - tbh honest i'd say michael is rubbing his hands... next few months do a bit of talking with backbenchers... and just slightly off topic i'd say we now know why bertie fell down stairs... laughing too hard at cockup cowen has made

is_that_so

Voipjunkie wrote: »

I have a feeling that is exactly why Cowen moved him to Finance. He knew the hard decisions ahead and that it would take the shine off the heir apparent.

what has surprised me is that the former top brass in FF under Bertie have been so silent Martin,Hannifan, D. Ahern and Dempsey it seems to me that they have been happy enough to let Cowen Coughlan and Lenihan swing in the breeze for the last week pay back time for the sidelining at the last shuffle

BTW Hard to believe that pensioners are being taken in by Enda Kenny FG were against the over 70s card from the start and only changed their position when FF got rid of it.
If FG were in power they would have done the same thing

The problem was caused by its being introduced, which was where the real damage was done by the poor negotiating skills of Michael Martin. Once it was in, they really couldn't keep moaning about it. FG have the political nous to see where a decision like that leads and also to recognise the current Govt shambles in trying to "fix" it.

As for the disgruntled Ministers, D Ahern has his eye on an EU commissioner job and I think the "promotion" of Martin is a relief as it keeps him out of harm's way. Nobody cares what the spectacularly ineffective Dempsey thinks and Hannifin just goes to prove that the wrong Mary was promoted.

Voipjunkie

is_that_so wrote: »

The problem was caused by its being introduced, which was where the real damage was done by the poor negotiating skills of Michael Martin. Once it was in, they really couldn't keep moaning about it. FG have the political nous to see where a decision like that leads and also to recognise the current Govt shambles in trying to "fix" it.

As for the disgruntled Ministers, D Ahern has his eye on an EU commissioner job and I think the "promotion" of Martin is a relief as it keeps him out of harm's way. Nobody cares what the spectacularly ineffective Dempsey thinks and Hannifin just goes to prove that the wrong Mary was promoted.

in fairness to Martin the doctors had him over a barrel and McCreevy put him there by pulling the stunt of announcing it on Budget day with little or no costings and ignoring the warnings from Dept of Health about cost implications of announcing before consulting the IMO.

As for FG O'Reilly is quoted as saying the universal nature of the over 70s card was wrong as late as last December. It is typical cynical politics of FG Yes FF made a balls of it but FG agree with them on ending it or they did up to last Tuesday then when they see FF in trouble they jump ship all are all for universal coverage.
It just proves that there is absolutely no difference between FG and FF to hell with the countries finance if they see political advantage. If FG had gotten into Government last time FF would be saying the exact same things FG are saying now and FG would be saying exactly what FF are saying.

There is no principles in either party just the principle of opposing for the sake of it to gain political advantage

nesf

Voipjunkie wrote: »

There is no principles in either party just the principle of opposing for the sake of it to gain political advantage

You know I can't think of a single political party who aren't like that and I'm including several foreign ones here. FG would be idiots not to go with public opinion on this one. They can always rework it as opposition to "FF's plan rather than means testing in principle" or similar further down the line.

turgon

jhegarty wrote: »

The first question I have is , if there is 100m to be saved from the doctors why the hell wasn't it done days, months or years ago ?

Thats the question we should all be asking.

irish_bob

nesf wrote: »

You know I can't think of a single political party who aren't like that and I'm including several foreign ones here. FG would be idiots not to go with public opinion on this one. They can always rework it as opposition to "FF's plan rather than means testing in principle" or similar further down the line.

im not an fg supporter but fine gael and labour are the only ones who,s position on this issue i can tollerate , i appreciate the cynical nature of politics and i appreciate the oppositions complete cynicism on this issue

The_Minister

irish_bob wrote: »

im not an fg supporter but fine gael and labour are the only ones who,s position on this issue i can tollerate , i appreciate the cynical nature of politics and i appreciate the oppositions complete cynicism on this issue

Sigh
Labour in 2005 "the Government's electoral ploy in extending medical cards to over-70s regardless of the consequences has been disastrous in cost and equality terms".

Look back and you'll find loads more quotes like that.
The Opposition opposed this move viciously for years, but now they smell blood.

luckat

One of the people on the march told me that the Government had recently voted €150m to clean up Glasnevin Cemetery. "They're willing to spend it on the dead, but not on the old," he said.

Then he told me that in his experience, the HSE paid over the odds for everything from kettles to medicine, because as soon as any retailer or wholesaler sees them coming the dollar signs flash in their eyes, and the price shoots up.

He gave me a handy tip: he said his family buy all their medicine in Lanzarotte, stratospherically cheaper there than in Ireland.

Breezer

The_Minister wrote: »

Sigh
Labour in 2005 "the Government's electoral ploy in extending medical cards to over-70s regardless of the consequences has been disastrous in cost and equality terms".

Look back and you'll find loads more quotes like that.
The Opposition opposed this move viciously for years, but now they smell blood.

As I said in the other thread, bringing it in to buy an election was wrong. Cutting it when people, particularly elderly people, have built their lives around it is equally wrong. Not negotiating a good deal with the doctors was wrong (don't talk to me about Reilly, he did what was then his job and Martin should have done his). Making a half-arsed U-turn was wrong. Pretending that the pensioners have now been given what they want and the issue is closed is wrong. Claiming that the measure is still fully costed is wrong. Mary O'Rourke going on TV and stating that she doesn't agree with it but won't go against the Government is wrong. The Green Party making out that they are against this when Gormley went on TV yesterday supporting it is wrong. The whole thing stinks to high heaven, and is yet another example of FF/PD chickens coming home to roost and ****ting on the country in the process.

hellboy99

Why is it a person over 70 on up to €700 a week can get a medical card and a married couple with kids say earning under €500 is not entitled to one ? A day off sick, doctors fee and medication can be half your wage gone.

Breezer

hellboy99 wrote: »

Why is it a person over 70 on up to €700 a week can get a medical card and a married couple with kids say earning under €500 is not entitled to one ? A day off sick, doctors fee and medication can be half your wage gone.

Older people are far more likely to have chronic disease and/or multiple acute infections, costing a lot more money to treat. I'm not saying the limits applying to middle aged or younger people are necessarily fair either though. Means testing as applied in this country is generally a recipe for disaster.

is_that_so

Voipjunkie wrote: »

in fairness to Martin the doctors had him over a barrel and McCreevy put him there by pulling the stunt of announcing it on Budget day with little or no costings and ignoring the warnings from Dept of Health about cost implications of announcing before consulting the IMO.

As for FG O'Reilly is quoted as saying the universal nature of the over 70s card was wrong as late as last December. It is typical cynical politics of FG Yes FF made a balls of it but FG agree with them on ending it or they did up to last Tuesday then when they see FF in trouble they jump ship all are all for universal coverage.
It just proves that there is absolutely no difference between FG and FF to hell with the countries finance if they see political advantage. If FG had gotten into Government last time FF would be saying the exact same things FG are saying now and FG would be saying exactly what FF are saying.

There is no principles in either party just the principle of opposing for the sake of it to gain political advantage

I wouldn't defend Martin and even less McCreevy under any circumstances. It was stupid then and the attempts to fix it has been even more abysmal. Not sure why you are picking on "cynical" FG. If they had said nothing there'd be complaints about their impotence and how no-one could ever vote them in as a government. Opposition are expected to criticise poor decisions of government and what has transpired in this budget deserves all the abuse it has generated so far. If they are guilty of anything then it is the scatter gun approach they have used at times but that is part and parcel of opposition.

As Alan Dukes observed on radio there seems to be a collective ineptitude about this. Headless chickens is what I see myself. I also believe that neither Labour nor FG would have produced such a foolish uncosted idea in the first place. Unlike FF the opposition have people who know what hard times look like and how you deal with them. One thing you certainly don't do is make three attempts at political suicide in the same budget.

Voipjunkie

is_that_so wrote: »

I wouldn't defend Martin and even less McCreevy under any circumstances. It was stupid then and the attempts to fix it has been even more abysmal. Not sure why you are picking on "cynical" FG. If they had said nothing there'd be complaints about their impotence and how no-one could ever vote them in as a government. Opposition are expected to criticise poor decisions of government and what has transpired in this budget deserves all the abuse it has generated so far. If they are guilty of anything then it is the scatter gun approach they have used at times but that is part and parcel of opposition.

As Alan Dukes observed on radio there seems to be a collective ineptitude about this. Headless chickens is what I see myself. I also believe that neither Labour nor FG would have produced such a foolish uncosted idea in the first place. Unlike FF the opposition have people who know what hard times look like and how you deal with them. One thing you certainly don't do is make three attempts at political suicide in the same budget.

I am not picking on FG for criticising the Government my criticsim is based on the their lack of any consistancy
Of course FF have made an utter mess of not just introducing the universal card but also their attempts to get rid of it.
But FG last week believed that universality of the over 70 medical card was wrong and a waste of resources yet this week they are all for bringing it back.

By all means FF should be hung out to dry for the cack handed manner in which they tried to change the card and the clear lack of any thought for the implications of that decision. But if FG believed that universality was wrong last week surely it does not become right because FF suddenly see the mess they foisted on the taxpayer 7 years ago.

You can oppose the manner in which the decision was implemented you can oppose the terms of the means test but surely you should not be for universality just for the sake of it.

Whether we like it or not the previous system that FF introduced was unsustainable there is plenty of hay to be made from that without arguing for a return to it

nesf

is_that_so wrote: »

I also believe that neither Labour nor FG would have produced such a foolish uncosted idea in the first place.

Give them a few terms in Government during the good times and believe me you'll see history repeat itself. When tax revenue keeps going up, costing of projects becomes more and more lax, such is the nature of these things. It's rather similar to boom mentalities in markets in some ways.

is_that_so wrote: »

One thing you certainly don't do is make three attempts at political suicide in the same budget.

This is what has really surprised me, it's almost as if they're trying to get out of Government or something.

hellboy99

Breezer wrote: »

Older people are far more likely to have chronic disease and/or multiple acute infections, costing a lot more money to treat. I'm not saying the limits applying to middle aged or younger people are necessarily fair either though. Means testing as applied in this country is generally a recipe for disaster.

And a younger person doesn't ?

Point taken that in some cases it can cost a lot more for older people but it comes across as double standards, the system needs to change. I have a friend that up until recently was unemployed and had a medical card, now he is working and on minimum wage, coming out with under €280 a week and not entitled to a medical card, hows that fair ?

John_C

Breezer wrote: »

don't talk to me about Reilly, he did what was then his job and Martin should have done his

It's a little off topic but I don't like this way of thinking. There are too many people in this country who are out to make a quick buck for themselves or their own group. There are plenty of examples of these from FF and a few from FG. They're not the type of people I like to see in politics.

luckat

hellboy99 wrote: »

Why is it a person over 70 on up to €700 a week can get a medical card and a married couple with kids say earning under €500 is not entitled to one ? A day off sick, doctors fee and medication can be half your wage gone.

Exactly. Which is why we should have a universal health system with free access for all, as in France - where the system is much cheaper to run than ours, per capita.