Civil unrest may force June election...

Zynks

I lived in the country with the second worst distribution of wealth in the world for many years. It is amazing how ethics and pride go down the drain, and the value of human life collapses. DF, your dream country exists, but it is not in Europe.

I've been there, and I prefer a socially conscious system, though many changes are needed around here to stop abuse and plain stupidity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dresden8

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good luck with that. The Gardai might be happy to be over zealous at Rossport protestors but I don't think they and the army will be prepared to machine gun those 800,000 people for you.

Blackwater maybe?

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Read this report from Oxfam. It will give you some idea of what comes to my mind when I read your argumentation.

Darragh29

Can we really see civil unrest though on or after 7th April??? It is hard to see this budget being harsh enough to be effective... They could try to cut social welfare payments claiming that it can be done without pain due to a falling cost of living, basically claiming that the decision would be "cost neutral" to the claimant, but I can't see people on social welfare agreeing with that analysis.

If he isn't going to put VAT up, and it seems that he won't, and Corporation Tax is untouchable in case the MNC's start wetting themselves, then to make any serious impact on the figures, it looks like either a substantial property tax is on the way back, and the PAYE workers will be queuing up at chemists up and down the country for KY Jelly on 6th April...

thebman

I think property tax is the fairest way to do it TBH. It should probably be on the value of the property as the more well off will usually have bigger homes in better areas so they will be of higher value.

The obvious disadvantage of this is that house value isn't stable and is going in the wrong direction and how to calculate worth for each house over a blanket tax which has lower administration costs.

However a blanket tax could be the final nail in the coffin on payments for some mortgage holders.

I think maybe base it off the mortgage the person currently has. Add some kind of tax or levy to the interest being charged by the bank to increase revenue that way so the bank does a lot of the administration which it is doing anyway when charging the interest on the account or find another way but I don't think a blanket tax is wise as it will force certain people out of their homes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

givyjoe81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Please dont take this as a personal attack but i feel the need to address this nonsense as its now becoming clear.. you're NOT actually takin the p1ss. Up until you have droned on quite a bit and up to a point have given the illusion of some intelligent comments, however your suggestion that we privatise the above, including health is absolutely ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting we follow a privatised health system such as the unmitigated disaster that is the US health 'service'..Christ if you want unrest thats a sure fire way to go about it.

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Please dont take this as a personal attack but i feel the need to address this nonsense as its now becoming clear.. you're NOT actually takin the p1ss. Up until you have droned on quite a bit and up to a point have given the illusion of some intelligent comments, however your suggestion that we privatise the above, including health is absolutely ludicrous. Are you seriously suggesting we follow a privatised health system such as the unmitigated disaster that is the US health 'service'..Christ if you want unrest thats a sure fire way to go about it.

There are merits to a private health care system too. I'll be the first to say it would be more efficient and would probably create more jobs in our health care system.

I think we should privatise it but I can't condone leaving people to die because they don't have health insurance. I think those who can afford to pay should pay and the rest should get free health insurance from the state (i.e unemployed etc...)

There is an inherit problem with this however. Private interests would charge different rates to private and public patients which would waste the states money as they shouldn't need to do this.

To prevent this, an independent payment system would need to exist to try to stop this. A system would need to be put in place so the private hospital does not know if the patient is a public or private patient. This removes any bias in treatment and prevents price gouging the taxpayer picking up the bill.

It also reduces administration costs for the hospitals as they don't have to work out which health insurance company to charge to or do any of that work. They just have an automated system that sends the bill to this system. As the state is doing the administration, it could recoup the costs of this administration by charging a percent on each charge (admittedly killing the benefit I just stated if you do this) or else it would have to come from standard tax.

gurramok

On the topic in question, its damn obvious when you have a huge proportion of young men unemployed, some of them(maybe a minority) will resort to violent protest out of whatever desire they have. This is recognised in other countries as a source of their unrest problems. Give them jobs and the problem goes away or in the Irish context, lets hope they emigrate like alot of them did in the late 80's.

This has happened before, primarily in 1985. Widespread anti-social crime by these very same type of men who had nothing to do but hang around street corners brought chaos to Irish society.(if anyone here remembers!)

All it takes is for them to be sufficiently organised in this internet arena for them to take their frustrations on lack of hope on the rest of us. It just takes a spark. And i'm just talking about the unemployed ones. There is alot of anger by those that still have jobs so yes, the possibility of civil unrest is there, its just needs a spark.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

There are merits to a private health care system too. I'll be the first to say it would be more efficient and would probably create more jobs in our health care system.

I think we should privatise it but I can't condone leaving people to die because they don't have health insurance. I think those who can afford to pay should pay and the rest should get free health insurance from the state (i.e unemployed etc...)

There is an inherit problem with this however. Private interests would charge different rates to private and public patients which would waste the states money as they shouldn't need to do this.

To prevent this, an independent payment system would need to exist to try to stop this. A system would need to be put in place so the private hospital does not know if the patient is a public or private patient. This removes any bias in treatment and prevents price gouging the taxpayer picking up the bill.

It also reduces administration costs for the hospitals as they don't have to work out which health insurance company to charge to or do any of that work. They just have an automated system that sends the bill to this system. As the state is doing the administration, it could recoup the costs of this administration by charging a percent on each charge (admittedly killing the benefit I just stated if you do this) or else it would have to come from standard tax.

Please show me an example of an efficiently running private health care system, im not saying there aren't any but i reckon the total disaster of the United States health care system is a fairly big caveat not to even consider going down this route, it simply doesnt seem to work. And as it stands in this country, many people earning a decent income are unable to afford private health care due to many other crippling costs. If cuba can do it, we can do it.

Still think DF's post and 'suggestions' are absolutely shocking! Also, tell me how on earth do you privatise education?! Cant help but picture that futuristic Simpson's episode where the Troy McClure is asking school students several questions... the answer's to which are differing denominations of Pepsi....

Zynks

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you insist in a system that doesn't give a f#@k about it's people, Brazil before Lula is one of the closest to your views. Of course, Sierra Leone might be a good fit also...or maybe Russia, Mexico??? Common man, humans are greedy. Give them a hand and they want an arm. Deregulate and privatise everything and you head towards social collapse. I believe in an entrepreneurial society, but social consciousness is essential for stability.

givyjoe81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh so what your saying is that the US system is more like the total mess Irish system which is in reality a mix between the two... And Canada spends less.. hmmm how many people live in Canada again?? If your referring to per capita perhaps that makes sense.. or does it?? Actually no it doesnt, so Canada with its fully socialised system, NOT PRIVATISED, spends less than Americans do on their 'perfectly functioning' hybrid system...

And lets see why does the US spend so much on 'Public health care'... because their min wage is set so low that many citisens can barely afford to feed themselves, never mind afford health insurance..

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Please show me an example of an efficiently running private health care system, im not saying there aren't any but i reckon the total disaster of the United States health care system is a fairly big caveat not to even consider going down this route, it simply doesnt seem to work. And as it stands in this country, many people earning a decent income are unable to afford private health care due to many other crippling costs. If cuba can do it, we can do it.

Still think DF's post and 'suggestions' are absolutely shocking! Also, tell me how on earth do you privatise education?! Cant help but picture that futuristic Simpson's episode where the Troy McClure is asking school students several questions... the answer's to which are differing denominations of Pepsi....

You can identify the reasons the other systems failed and avoid those problems.

I think private hospitals would be more efficient and cleaner than our current hospitals and that would lead to better treatment than we currently have.

I don't think at least initially we should be worried about improving standards above their current level where they are crap currently. I don't think a private healthcare system could be worse than what we currently have.

When you have competition, it pays to provide the best service.

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Oh so what your saying is that the US system is more like the total mess Irish system which is in reality a mix between the two... And Canada spends less.. hmmm how many people live in Canada again?? If your referring to per capita perhaps that makes sense.. or does it?? Actually no it doesnt, so Canada with its fully socialised system, NOT PRIVATISED, spends less than Americans do on their 'perfectly functioning' hybrid system...

And lets see why does the US spend so much on 'Public health care'... because their min wage is set so low that many citisens can barely afford to feed themselves, never mind afford health insurance..

I'd question our public services ability to run a health service properly based on recent performance where many staff couldn't be bothered to wash their hands it seems.

I think if your going to look at Canada you have to compare the power of trade unions between the countries and the productivity of the work force in the public sector in both countries. One of the problems with our health care system seems to be the staff don't want to see changes to the way things are done and actively fight change when healthcare is rapidly evolving with new discoveries made every day.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

You can identify the reasons the other systems failed and avoid those problems.

I think private hospitals would be more efficient and cleaner than our current hospitals and that would lead to better treatment than we currently have.

I don't think at least initially we should be worried about improving standards above their current level where they are crap currently. I don't think a private healthcare system could be worse than what we currently have.

When you have competition, it pays to provide the best service.

The health of a nations citisens should NOT be subject to a 'competition'. Competitive forces have no place in our health care system, except possible with regard to pay of health service staff. I recently seen a quite interesting documentary on the NHS with a doc being interviewed about how his bonus works... in a nutshel, the better the health of his patients the more he earned, that is literally the only suitable form of competition in ours or any health service.

Do you honestly believe that competition brings better service as an absolute?! Think Ryanair! Actually think of anything in this country where we unfortunately have a limited amount of competitors... the service is truely shocking... have you ever had to deal with any of our TV/telecommunications providers?!

Inevtiably private operators will take shortcuts and abuse the system.. Who do you think a private operator would rather treat, a minimum wage commoner (im one of them!) or a Cheeky Charlie ripe to have his golden pockets pinched. I can only make suggestions based on my current knowledge base as i mentioned surely to God we can take some lessons from the Cuban system.

givyjoe81

thebman wrote: »

I'd question our public services ability to run a health service properly based on recent performance where many staff couldn't be bothered to wash their hands it seems.

I think if your going to look at Canada you have to compare the power of trade unions between the countries and the productivity of the work force in the public sector in both countries. One of the problems with our health care system seems to be the staff don't want to see changes to the way things are done and actively fight change when healthcare is rapidly evolving with new discoveries made every day.

Yep some sure are resisting change faciliated by their unions and for the most part, they should be told where to go.. Im not singling out nurses but as far as i am aware they are paid for every single sick day that they miss and an unfortunate high number of these seem to abuse this fact, ( i know several who do this personally), porters too.. That itself is lunacy.. But getting off topic a little

I would also add that many Irish doctors and scientists are greatly contributing to these discoveries so we're not doing everything wrong.. A chap i know, an NCHD, as part of his training is required to develop a tool for use in operations, and for his part has managed to develop some kind of ingenious saw... Anyway he fully acknowledges the shortcomings of our system on a daily basis to which his hands are tied. I dont believe for a second however that as an insider would see a privatised health system as the solution. But il ask him next time i see him (not that his opinion is divine, but better than ours!)

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

Inevtiably private operators will take shortcuts and abuse the system.. Who do you think a private operator would rather treat, a minimum wage commoner (im one of them!) or a Cheeky Charlie ripe to have his golden pockets pinched. I can only make suggestions based on my current knowledge base as i mentioned surely to God we can take some lessons from the Cuban system.

I'm not suggesting people's health be left up to chance or how much they earn. Read my post again, one of the purposes of the system I outlined is to remove the ability of the hospital to know if a patient has private or public health insurance. Nobody should be refused care. If someone has no health insurance by choice they should be treated and they can pay the public back since they will have the means as they didn't qualify for free public health insurance. I'd emphasize that people should never be refused treatment based on ability to pay. That has to be written in stone and doctors and nurses will not allow a hospital to kill its patients if you offer an anonymous system to report abuse.

There should be accountability and an investigation into the cause of death by an independent third party to see if treatment was performed correctly. No company should be allowed to leave a person to die if something can be done or pain removed to allow a less painful death. I think if you put those policies in place, doctors would follow them and stick up for patients as they are treating them and won't want to watch them die. This could be done on a reporting basis to reduce the number of investigations. So if a family member feels the hospital acted inappropriately they can request an investigation by the government body.

givyjoe81 wrote: »

I would also add that many Irish doctors and scientists are greatly contributing to these discoveries so we're not doing everything wrong.. A chap i know, an NCHD, as part of his training is required to develop a tool for use in operations, and for his part has managed to develop some kind of ingenious saw... Anyway he fully acknowledges the shortcomings of our system on a daily basis to which his hands are tied. I dont believe for a second however that as an insider would see a privatised health system as the solution. But il ask him next time i see him (not that his opinion is divine, but better than ours!)

The problem seems to be the assumption that private health care causes death. It is a reputation earned from American hospitals or at least what people read about them over here. I believe it can be done right and with minimal interference in the market.

For one thing if hospitals were forced to release statistics on failed surgeries, number of MRSI cases etc... then it would lead to patients choosing (when possible) to go a good hospital. Since this affects the hospitals bottom line, it would lead to better treatment for patients as no hospital would like to be viewed as the one that kills people and the one to avoid.

With private hospitals they'd be more of them competing for service in areas leading to better emergency response times too by ambulances as they won't get money if the person dies at the road side accident etc...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnathan woss

Donegalfella I hope you never manage to find yourself living in your ideal world, but with no money.....

That would be an ironic twist of fate wouldn't it ?

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well I don't know how widespread that problem is within the Canadians system.

It maybe the case that there are hospitals within Canada with short waiting lists that the doctor could have sent those people and I know that shouldn't be necessary but I think a certain amount of this will inevitably occur in health care systems of traveling for treatment to avoid queues as you can't stop or even predict how many people in an area may suffer from a particular disease (alright you can for some probably).

Overall though I think most public systems are doomed to lack of resources. With privatized hospitals you'd end up with wider choice and shorter queues IMO but you do also need a system in which nobody can die if its avoidable.

Insufficient funds should not be written on an autopsy report.

givyjoe81

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So what do you suggest?! If the US is terrible and Canada is worse.. then which system do we employ?! I would rather take my chances on the Canadian system than the US, in fact its the single biggest reason why i would not live in the states. Would this video be propoganda by american 'lobbyists' talkin up the US system and using the 'flawed' Canadian system to do so..? The same crap was pulled on the opposite end of the spectrum in Michael Moore's Sicko...and far more convincingly i might add. I didnt watch the whole video though tbh... Obviously the system isnt perfect, but i believe its better than the US system. I did watch enough to get the impression that you and/or the video seem to be implying that if you pay privately you get to 'skip the queue'... while in this case the guy obviously needed to, thats exactly whats wrong with our system, it enables people who can pay to skip the queue.

Christ just spotting the horror of the rest of your post.. Are you for real?! You think that the medicaid etc are the ones responsible for ruining the US health care system?! Not the greedy insurance companies 'ingenious' ways out of paying up on policies.. Jesus, if these appallingly poor US citisens didnt have this social medicine, just what would they do?! Il tell you, die... As for you earlier comment about unions and productivity between the two countries, again another reason why i would rather live in Canada, American dream my ass, you get what two weeks holidays per year, unions are demonised and workers are exploited, i suggest you take a look at the documentary on Wall-Mart to see why Medicaid and the like exists..

B man i know about your previous post but the point is we are appalling at providing so many less critical private services in this country so competition i dont believe would solve the problem. Anonymity just wouldnt be possible, how on earth would doctors know what level of cover patients had? As things stand in the US system they are varying degrees of cover which only cover medical costs up to a certain amount.. apologies if you have outlined how this would be overcome but i just dont see it.

Martyr

donegalfella, i sincerely hope you never take up politics full time, because its obvious to me you have very little real life experience.

i'm guessing you're either very young or never wanted for anything your entire life, living comfortably without any effort at all.

god forbid you end up some day without any money in your own ideal world..haha, you wouldn't last long.

how some people on the forums here can take your opinions seriously, i'll never know.

you can't learn about real life reading books written by socially inept people.

thebman

givyjoe81 wrote: »

So what do you suggest?! If the US is terrible and Canada is worse.. then which system do we employ?! I would rather take my chances on the Canadian system than the US, in fact its the single biggest reason why i would not live in the states. Would this video be propoganda by american 'activists' talkin up the US system and using the 'flawed' Canadian system to do so..? The same crap was pulled on the opposite end of the spectrum in Michael Moore's Sicko...and far more convincingly i might add. I didnt watch the whole video though tbh... Obviously the system isnt perfect, but i believe its better than the US system. I did watch enough to get the impression that you and/or the video seem to be implying that if you pay privately you get to 'skip the queue'... while in this case the guy obviously needed to, thats exactly whats wrong with our system, it enables people who can pay to skip the queue.

B man i know about your previous post but the point is we are appalling at providing so many less critical private services in this country so competition i dont believe would solve the problem. Anonymity just wouldnt be possible, how on earth would doctors know what level of cover patients had? As things stand in the US system they are varying degrees of cover which only cover medical costs up to a certain amount.. apologies if you have outlined how this would be overcome but i just dont see it.

First off, I think the need for levels of healthcare comes down if you only have one system in which nobody can die because of cost.

Most of the health insurance companies have little distinguishing what they offer anyway. I wouldn't see a problem with having predefined cover options which can be selectable by the user for each company. The company would charge for each service and they would compete on price directly.

This would also ensure transparency and the ability for direct comparisons on price as you would have a single name for each cover element in a cover policy and it would make them more adaptable than they currently are. Companies could put forward new things they'd like added to the plan list but all companies must offer all services to ensure a persons plan could be deciphered by this. I don't believe a doctor would aid the hospital into finding out if they can screw the patient anyway (this is where the whistle blowing element comes in) and the patient will be given a receipt of charges which can be used to prove if overcharging has occurred compared to what the costs should be for a procedure.

The hospital only really needs to know what the person is covered for and not who they are insured with or if it is public or private cover.


In a opt in selectable level plan as outlined above, the insurance company would pay as specified in the plan and the government could pay the rest of the bill. After which, the person must pay back the state as they are earning enough to pay for private insurance so can pay for this bill over time. If it becomes impossible for them to pay due to circumstances then they can freeze the payments. If the person dies, the debt should be written off and not based on to family members IMO.

I believe any barriers with this system could be overcome with a bit of thought and that this system could work. The reason I put forward such a system is because the public can't afford an efficient, public healthcare system. It needs the private sector on this issue but a duel system simply does not work due to inconsistencies in levels of service between the two systems usually against the poorer in society. I think this system offers the best of both worlds. The private sector can do what they do best and the public can bare the costs should they spiral but the person does not get off the hook unless they die which reduces the overall expenditure by the taxpayer IMO as nobody or very few people are going to kill themselves to avoid paying since it would be frozen if they lost the means to pay their debt.

Zambia

I love the way mass emigration is quoted....

You all do realise there is no where to go. Unless you have really good qualifications no country will take you.

thebman

Zambia232 wrote: »

I love the way mass emigration is quoted....

You all do realise there is no where to go. Unless you have really good qualifications no country will take you.

Well we are in the EU, many countries have to take you. Whether you could survive there considering you probably won't qualify for their welfare is another matter.

Zambia

thebman wrote: »

Well we are in the EU, many countries have to take you. Whether you could survive there considering you probably won't qualify for their welfare is another matter.

True but if you are migrating intending to go on welfare thats just silly. Plenty of that in Ireland.

Also I don't hear of a wealth of jobs anywhere else in the EU.

Fact is there is nowhere left that's easy to run to.

silverharp

NewDubliner wrote: »

Name them?

In the present climate , how about he dept. of defense for starters? Earthquake insurance would he higher on my list of worries at the moment.
Anything to do with regional development should be shut down. FAS and the IDA would not be required if we had an efficient economy. An post should be privatised. Airports should be sold off.
THe gov. has not shown itsself capable of providing efficent services or regulations. The only way forward is to reduce its size so they can focus and not put the interests of sensible and prudent taxpayers at risk

Elmo

silverharp wrote: »

In the present climate , how about he dept. of defense for starters? Earthquake insurance would he higher on my list of worries at the moment.
Anything to do with regional development should be shut down. FAS and the IDA would not be required if we had an efficient economy. An post should be privatised. Airports should be sold off.
THe gov. has not shown itsself capable of providing efficent services or regulations. The only way forward is to reduce its size so they can focus and not put the interests of sensible and prudent taxpayers at risk

:eek:

Do you know how much An Post is worth at the moment? It is not worth a 42c stamp TBH. Ditto the Airports.

Anything to do with Regional Development if everything wasn't so centred around Dublin we possibly wouldn't be in this mess.

The IDA is need for continued inward investment, how do you think we go Foreign Direct Investment into this country.

I agree more regulation is needed but now is not the time to get 2 euro for Cork Airport.