Privatising the public sector

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

kaiser sauze

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You're still living in cuckoo land...

The US is a massive country with hugely differing laws, federal, state and local, which only add to the figure you cite.

To make a claim that the US is heavily regulated and then not pay any attention to the fact that 101,000 people have died per year (on average) over the past decade because of lack of health coverage. Before you accuse me of going off topic, it is the topic, the regulations, if there were really any, would prevent insurance companies from changing peoples' policies mid-term, turning down claims for no reason and refusing coverage outright.

Even using your own link, $170million of the amount is for medicaid/medicare/verterans' care. This points more to inefficiencies rather than the level of regulation. The document itself even says that quantifying the amount spent is nearly impossible. Lastlu, they make the absurd claim that seven million people are uninsured. :rolleyes: (I know this is 2004 before you get on a horse)

Bottom line, don't you dare try and cite a huge amount of spending on regulation as being the barometer of how heavily regulated a country's healthcare system is.

Fighting Irish

uncle_sam_ie wrote: »

First off,that's a sick generalization of people on the dole. Second, once the private sector has to shoulder the cost of health care in this country the 700 euro a year will go out the window and the cost will rise. And third, I don't trust this government or any other to regulate in the publics favor.

100% of people i know on the dole fit into his category one way or another

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

diverdriver

While I wouldn't call it privatised. I would say that it's already happened in Ireland a long time ago. The Irish Aviation Authority used to be a civil service department but was spun off and makes it's living by fees now. It's status is that of a state sponsored commercial company. Essentially semi state. I would say on the whole it worked well. It makes a profit and pays taxes. That could be repeated by spinning off obvious stand alone entities in other departments if suitable. No doubt someone can point out a few.

thebman

diverdriver wrote: »

While I wouldn't call it privatised. I would say that it's already happened in Ireland a long time ago. The Irish Aviation Authority used to be a civil service department but was spun off and makes it's living by fees now. It's status is that of a state sponsored commercial company. Essentially semi state. I would say on the whole it worked well. It makes a profit and pays taxes. That could be repeated by spinning off obvious stand alone entities in other departments if suitable. No doubt someone can point out a few.

Isn't CIE also semi-state?

Doesn't always work

Of course neither does full privatisation but usually less benefits in private companies compared to even semi-state companies and its easier to change work practices to modern work practices.

The different parts of CIE need to be privatised for a number of reasons

diverdriver

Yes but logically CIE should be more like a private company. Most semi states could easily have been private companies but were set up with taxpayers money because the business at the time would not have been attractive. It can have competitors. The IAA on the other hand is not something you'd want a private company to do. You couldn't allow competitors for the IAA. So similar revenue raising agencies in the civil service could be spun off with the stipulation that they must sink or swim but they wouldn't have competitors.

NewDubliner

diverdriver wrote: »

So similar revenue raising agencies in the civil service could be spun off with the stipulation that they must sink or swim but they wouldn't have competitors.

That would allow those agencies to breach the PS embargo on recruitment, pay rises and promotion and permit them to hire Fianna Fail cronies into senior positions, while increasing their charges to cover the cost?

tallaght01

To actually answer the question privatisation of the health service has some significant problems. it's such a poison chalice that someone would have given it away somewhere successfully if it could be done easily.

For starters the healthcare system, especially on the front line, runs (albeit just about) because the staff go above and beyond. Usually for no overtime. Most of that goodwill is motivated by a desire to serve the public. It would be very unlikely to happen when the service just exists to make someone money.

One major benefit for staff is that they could be rewarded for efficiency which is impossibly under the current climate.

The one major problem though is that health costs serious money and it's very very hard to make it profitable. The only real way to make it profitable is to cherry pick. That's why the private hospitals like simple ops, and non emergency services. That's why there's only one or 2 private A+Es in the country.
I work in healthcare, and the best bit of my job is looking after people who don't have easy access to healthcare. I love doing the refugee clinic, and I always loved helping the junkies and the alcoholics out. I do lots of HIV/STD work, and helping out the prostitutes and the rent boys is unbelievably rewarding, as these people almost always have serious life problems.
That's what health is about. It's about society, and not money. People will say that you need money to work a proper society, but the reverse is also true.
Privatised healthcare is likely to see decreased staff productivity, and poorer care for those whop need it most.

I've been offered some outrageous cash to go and work in one of the private hospitals in Ireland. The kind of cash that had me thinking I can't possibly turn this down. So, from a staff point of view it would be great in terms of conditions.

I'm no economist, but I'd say it would be very hard to make money from health, while giving society a decent service.