Why don't we have free healthcare?

Sulmac

'Free' healthcare doesn't exist, as has been said already - someone has to pay.

I agree that healthcare should be free at the point of delivery (through either a single-payer system like the NHS in the UK, or through mandatory health insurance which is paid for by the state for vulnerable groups like in many European countries), though.

Mike 1972

Anita Blow wrote: »

Not comparable. US Health system is private and run by corporate greed in my opinion.

I (responding to a post claiming "state run has always lead to less efficiency compared to private run equivalents") cite an example where this is clearly not the case and you reckon it is "not comparable" because of "corporate greed"

So perhaps you can name the country where benevolent private corporations operate a Universally accessible healthcare system free at the point of use ?

Suryavarman

melekalikimaka wrote: »

because state run has always lead to less efficiency compared to private run equivalents.

I'm well aware of that.

and economy of scale... google it

Indeed economies of scale can lend towards efficiency. So too can competition and the profit motive. The question is which one leads to greater efficiency and I believe it is the latter that will lead to greater efficiency.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So how does one account for the US healthcare "system" being among of the worst (and most expensive) in the developed world ?

And 250 million population....economies of scale....google it.

On what basis do you declare the US healthcare system among the worst in the first world?

4leto

The American system is the best in the world when you are fully insured, You get the best and most immediate treatment. But if you have no or only basic cover, then you get to see the costs of treatment. 1000s I know someone who had a heart attack actually going to JFK, he was fully insured on his companies scheme, he got immediate top consultant care, he thinks he was lucky to have the heart attack there.

But I believe our care for heart attacks is equally as good, but just not that immediate. Err hope I don't ever have to find out.

Mike 1972

4leto wrote: »

The American system is the best in the world when you are fully insured, You get the best and most immediate treatment.

Unless the insurance company deems your illness to be to expensive to be worthwhile (to them) treating, or you have a preexisting condition r their lawyers can find some other get out clause........

Eventually genetic testing is going to develop to the point where the whole system becomes untenable anyway. Those with bad genes wont be able to afford with cover. Those with good genes will only go for the minimum package and the whole concept of private insurance will only remain viable in countries with mandatory community rating.

Ronin247

Mickeroo wrote: »

Which laws changed to suit a multi national company in regards to the healthcare system?

The laws relating to bailing out banks and developers and how we collect royalties and taxes on our natural resources.We are giving away the money which could be better used for the people of Ireland.

4leto wrote: »

How much do you THINK was in these envelopes and how many politicians do we have. Think what you want but none of our politicians or x politicians are billionaires, not even multi millionaires.

So even if everyone of them was corrupt which they were not, you are talking pittance.

The point is they recieved a pittance to sell the rights to untold billions of "potential" revenue. It is not the bribes that were given but what was given for the bribes.

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

Scofflaw made a good post on this issue http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66163445&postcount=31

If you want to believe crazy propagandists like Maura Harrington than go right ahead.

Yes it is a very good post by Scofflaw.The only problem with it is that when we accepted the lesser conditions in order to drum up interest in exploring our western seaboard and as he says of the previous trial wells "the majority were dusters" or dry holes.Amazingly when the terms and conditions were changed to the least favourable they could be for us, the oil companies suddenly found lots of gas etc.....Something stinks and it isnt the gas.If you want to believe some crazy politicians then go right ahead........after all they have never been caught lying and stealing and selling the people down the river have they?

melekalikimaka

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Unless the insurance company deems your illness to be to expensive to be worthwhile (to them) treating, or you have a preexisting condition r their lawyers can find some other get out clause........

Eventually genetic testing is going to develop to the point where the whole system becomes untenable anyway. Those with bad genes wont be able to afford with cover. Those with good genes will only go for the minimum package and the whole concept of private insurance will only remain viable in countries with mandatory community rating.

you been watching gattaca recently per chance?

suitseir

Suryavarman wrote: »

We don't have free healthcare because nothing is free.



Free things cost more? that seems like a bit of a contradiction to me.



What does population have to do with anything?

A lot actually! Like the funding of it? More revenue etc. etc.......do the maths!!!

whatev

help!! so some one filmed me doing things i dont usually do on this and now im petrified!! i said i was ireland, him from england!!!! im so scared!!!

Kevin Duffy

whatev wrote: »

help!! so some one filmed me doing things i dont usually do on this and now im petrified!! i said i was ireland, him from england!!!! im so scared!!!

After your first post, it's a tradition that you have to post up the film.

Irish Steve

One of the biggest reasons we don't have a (lets get it right) Free at the point of delivery health service is because there are way too many people in the "health" service that have very little or nothing to do with the delivery of health care.

Just stop for a moment to think how many people are involved, at high pay rates, in tracking how much money is owed to each consultant, anaesthetist, etc, as well as for drugs, all the other services, so that they can be charged on to VHI, Quinn etc.

Now think how much leaner and more efficient that service would be if there was no need to work out all those charges, and collect them, etc. Another mega issue is the social partnership concept that has allowed stong unions and weak management and government to end up with conditions of service that are totally imappropriate to the real requirement.

Health issues arise 24/7. but in most hospitals, the core services are 8/5, dont even dare to get seriously sick after 2 pm on a Friday, and if you need specialist facilities out of core hours, the costs are horrendous, due in part to the cost of getting people in. We've seen in the last few days that Tesco can undercut most pharmacies by 20%, without really trying, and guess what, the health service is probably paying top dollar for medications. The list goes on, but there's a big chunk of the problems, and there's still no real political will to deal with the issues that are costing dearly. A few weeks ago, I heard from a person that knows, that if all the money being paid to one of the big private insurers was put direct into the health service, via taxation, that would go a very long way to solving most of the problems of the health service, and would allow a better quality of service for most users.

The next few years are going to see significant change anyway, the spending cuts that have to be made ARE going to mean change in health, the big issue will be how those changes are brought about, and I've no massive levels of confidence that even the new government have the ability to face down the vested interests that are so well entrenched and experienced at manipulating the system.

bleg

You've got roughly 1.5 million people with medical cards. They pay for nothing except a 50 cent charge on medicines and non emergency dental treatment. They can and do visit GPs as often as they want, often wasting their doctor's time. That's a lot of what you would call "free" healthcare.

Dudess

Because poor people should take responsibility for themselves and produce money out of thin air, dammit!

sheesh

WalterMitty wrote: »

Economics 101: Nothing a government provides is free, it is paid for by everyone paying tax .
We actually spend more per capita here on healthcare than the countries with best healthsystems in world, total HSE spend plus all private payments to GPs and consultants and VHI subscriptions etc. Its just the resources are so badly managed and average health worker wage so high compared to best public health systems.

stoneill wrote: »

The health care we pay for is totally shíte - can you imagine what a free system would be like?
Field hospitals, swigging whiskey to dull the pain while a blood splattered junior doctor hacked away at your limbs using a rusty saw. Or something.

westendgirlie wrote: »

National Insurance contributions (prsi) are higher in the UK and this goes towards the NHS. I'd happilly pay more PRSI for free healthcare.

But we seem to have done one better than all other countries.

In quiet alot of countries there is free health care

in all these countries this is expensive and in alot it is good

then there are countries like the usa who do not have free health care there is an advantage in that it is cheap

there are very few countries like ireland

we do not have free health care
the health care is crap
the health system is unbelievably expensive.

bleg

Dudess wrote: »

Because poor people should take responsibility for themselves and produce money out of thin air, dammit!

I'm just saying it. What he would call free healthcare is a reality for 1/3 people.

El Guapo!

If we all paid a little extra prsi to get "free" healthcare, would anybody really be against that?
Out of interest does anyone know roughly how much extra prsi we'd have to pay to cover the "free" healthcare??

nicechick!

I had a bitter experience recently really ill and I will avoid the doc at all cost if I can get away with it! I took ill late Sunday Evening so sick, miserable and alone I called Shannon doc for an appointment needless to say what I got for my €60

''oh yes I see your in pain'' HERE two miserable looking drugs and ''go back to your gp tomorrow'' I was forced to pay another €50 to go see my own GP and another €60 for drugs that doesn't include the loss of earnings incurred by not going to work

He gives his fcuken opinion how hard could it have been to write a prescription confer with my own GP

nicechick!

Dean09 wrote: »

If we all paid a little extra prsi to get "free" healthcare, would anybody really be against that?
Out of interest does anyone know roughly how much extra prsi we'd have to pay to cover the "free" healthcare??

The problem we have is people are willing to pay for Private Health Care why would the gov invest monies into something they provide for ''free'' to the patient yet others are willing to pay for it.

Canadian system really works! Its illegal to operate a private health care business, If I'm right a percentage of your income goes directly into the health care budget a form of tax I suppose the only good thing its directly goes into the health care budget

Evaex

nicechick! wrote: »

I had a bitter experience recently really ill and I will avoid the doc at all cost if I can get away with it! I took ill late Sunday Evening so sick, miserable and alone I called Shannon doc for an appointment needless to say what I got for my €60

''oh yes I see your in pain'' HERE two miserable looking drugs and ''go back to your gp tomorrow'' I was forced to pay another €50 to go see my own GP and another €60 for drugs that doesn't include the loss of earnings incurred by not going to work

He gives his fcuken opinion how hard could it have been to write a prescription confer with my own GP

Should the GP have paid for your loss of earnings too ? Or are you just being a miserable old cnut like the rest of the people who bltch and moan about paying for healthcare, yet think nothing of dropping €100 euro on a night out.

nicechick!

Evaex wrote: »

Should the GP have paid for your loss of earnings too ? Or are you just being a miserable old cnut like the rest of the people who bltch and moan about paying for healthcare, yet think nothing of dropping €100 euro on a night out.

I pay my taxes i.e I expect a return that the GOV would invest in providing society with a level of either free or AFFORDABLE health care

My point was why she I be forced to pay double the price to GP's I think this is unfair seeing as they are both doing the same job!!

And no I'm not a miserable old cnut but you sound like one

Callipo

Hank_Jones wrote: »

Healthcare is something that I often think about, generally about how overpriced it is in this country and how,
as I have become older, now consider trips to the doctor to generally be a waste of money.

I look at the UK and how they introduced free healthcare after the second World War, when they had almost nothing,
and it leaves me wondering why Ireland, with all the resources we had during the celtic tiger era, didn't manage to fix the health care in this country.

I think that healthcare should be a right, not something that is properly available to only a select few.

Someday, hopefully, our healthcare system will be able to compare to that of the British healthcare system in 1944...

I lived in England during the 90's and the only people or party that spoke the truth were the Liberal Democrats.

They basically told people they could give them the health care they wanted but it would be an extra 1 or 2 pence income tax (read as percent)

They bombed.

Go figure.....

Callipo

Callipo wrote: »

I lived in England during the 90's and the only people or party that spoke the truth were the Liberal Democrats.

They basically told people they could give them the health care they wanted but it would be an extra 1 or 2 pence income tax (read as percent)

They bombed.

Go figure.....

actually don't go figure.

People are too stupid and greedy to know better.

:mad:

Evaex

nicechick! wrote: »

I pay my taxes i.e I expect a return that the GOV would invest in providing society with a level of either free or AFFORDABLE health care

My point was why she I be forced to pay double the price to GP's I think this is unfair seeing as they are both doing the same job!!

And no I'm not a miserable old cnut but you sound like one

You had to go to the GP twice, you pay twice. You dont get free healthcare for the rest of your life just because you paid for a GP once.

Good girl for paying your taxes like the rest of society, but you do realise taxes would be even higher for free healthcare? And then you'd be bltching and moaning about that too.

NicsM

we do not have free health care
the health care is crap
the health system is unbelievably expensive.

I have to take exception to this post, the health care system in this country is NOT crap-it is heaving under its own weight and the constraints of an ineffective management system which places no emphasis on front line care.

I've just left hospital after a week long stay. I was in A&E on a trolley for 5 days. Not ideal, unpleasant at times (and very boring) but unfortunately I got sick on a bank holiday weekend and there were people far more ill than me needing treatment. Yes I was waiting an extreme amount of time to be admitted and that might make you think the system is useless but the level of care I received at every juncture was outstanding.

Every single healthcare professional I encountered, from the porters to my consultant and especially the nurses were incredibly kind, patient and determined. I would rather pay for healthcare, through tax or insurance and ensure that people like this stay and work here for everyone-they do a very very tough job and deserve remuneration for it. Maybe my experience is the exception rather than the rule but to say that our health service is useless is to ignore all the people who work really hard trying to keep it going.

Kiera

I fractured my wrist in July and all i had to pay was €50 to go to my doc who referred me to the hosp for my treatment, xrays, follow ups and physio. Seems pretty good to me tbh. I also have health insurance which i didnt need to use as everything was free to the public after being referred by my doc.

psychward

Because the Healthcare system like every other ****ing organ of the state exists to support vested interests instead of sick people. The health services greatest benefit is to those drawing a wage from it and they get most of the money. Even if space aliens arrived tomorrow and gave everyone a pill to make them never get sick or die the vested interests would be demanding pay rise, fat pensions and special treatment. Many of them would probably offer their services to ''cull'' excess populations so long as they get paid and have jobs for life.

southsiderosie

melekalikimaka wrote: »

because state run has always lead to less efficiency compared to private run equivalents.

and economy of scale... google it

Do you have any evidence on this? What are you basing this on?

A state run system actually has economies of scale that private systems do not - in many ways it is more efficient from an administrative perspective to have a single system...and the larger the system, the more they are able to drive down costs for consumers. It's amazing to me that free marekters can recognize this when it comes to Wal-Mart, but not when it comes to health service.

Second, why is efficiency the key variable of interest? For a public health system cost/efficiency needs to be balanced against actual health outcomes. And those tend to be much better in countries with socialized health care systems...and, incidentally, much lower levels of income inequality. The US, UK and Ireland are all terrible in this regard.

sheesh wrote: »

then there are countries like the usa who do not have free health care there is an advantage in that it is cheap.

LOL - cheap for who? The US spends more per capita on health care than most other industrialized countries and 21% of the federal government's budget goes to provide health care to seniors, poor people, and uninsured children. We do NOT have a cheap system, from the perspective of the government or the consumer - yet we still have millions of uninsured.

opinion guy

sheesh wrote: »

then there are countries like the usa who do not have free health care there is an advantage in that it is cheap

What planet are you on ? The USA has the most expensive healthcare in the world - with price inflation laregly driven by profit gouging by private firms.

Evaex wrote: »

You had to go to the GP twice, you pay twice. You dont get free healthcare for the rest of your life just because you paid for a GP once.

Actually if you go to GP twice for same issue you are only supposed to pay once (of course does not include the doc on call callout). Alot of patients don't know this and alot of GP's will charge them anyway.

UsernameInUse

"Free" healthcare is not free. It is paid for by the taxpayers...

And also, before we get into the nitty gritty, the concept of free medicine is a Socialist one - to which, I am against. Now, we can discuss WHY medicine is so expensive in the first place - and that is because of the government. Whenever government get involved in anything, prices sore upwards! The reason for this is that with the legislation and regulation they write up, they create massive barriers to entry and redtape which only a few privileged can jump into. Thus, monopolies are born and monopolies sole reason for existence is to crush any opposition so that they can continue to set the limits i.e - the Irish medical association.

It is a fact that money spent by bureaucrats is not spent as wisely as if it was spent by the individual that actually earned it. Following on from this, when money is spent by politicians it upsets the market as supply and demand are thrown out the window for this hands-on artificial economic Keynesian worshipers such as southsiderosie. I am a Free Market guy and believe the Austrian school can provide healthcare for far cheaper, so much so that there wouldn't be any need for "free" healthcare. Just let the market do what it does best. If the HSE was destroyed tomorrow, we as a people would be far better off and healthier.

opinion guy

UsernameInUse wrote: »

It is a fact that money spent by bureaucrats is not spent as wisely as if it was spent by the individual that actually earned it. Following on from this, when money is spent by politicians it upsets the market as supply and demand are thrown out the window for this hands-on artificial economic Keynesian worshipers such as southsiderosie. I am a Free Market guy and believe the Austrian school can provide healthcare for far cheaper, so much so that there wouldn't be any need for "free" healthcare. Just let the market do what it does best. If the HSE was destroyed tomorrow, we as a people would be far better off and healthier.

Provide one example where an Austiran style free market healthcare has worked.

Giruilla

Pay for my existence!!

Rabies

Take away the tax free allowance. Tax people on min wage
Tax people on the dole
Also a higher tax for those on very high income
Give "free" health care.

southsiderosie

UsernameInUse wrote: »

"Free" healthcare is not free. It is paid for by the taxpayers...

And also, before we get into the nitty gritty, the concept of free medicine is a Socialist one - to which, I am against. Now, we can discuss WHY medicine is so expensive in the first place - and that is because of the government. Whenever government get involved in anything, prices sore upwards!

Then why is health care cheaper on a per capita basis in single-payer Britain and socialist Scandinavian states than in the private U.S. system?

UsernameInUse wrote: »

The reason for this is that with the legislation and regulation they write up, they create massive barriers to entry and redtape which only a few privileged can jump into. Thus, monopolies are born and monopolies sole reason for existence is to crush any opposition so that they can continue to set the limits i.e - the Irish medical association.

Actually, monopoly systems, if well-run, can lower red tape and fix prices downward. The Veteran's Administration health care sub-system in the U.S. does this - there is far less administrative overhead than exists in private-sector health care companies and keeping patient info within one system leads to fewer medical errors.

The issue with a monopoly is, it primarily exists to benefit stakeholders. In the private sector, this generally means the owners (whether private, or shareholders). Medical associations are an excellent example. However, in a well run public health system, the stakeholders are the citizenry. They can and do set limits - on physician pay and drug costs - in the interests of keeping health care affordable and accessible to the general population - i.e. the shareholders. This is the key difference between a public sector and private sector monopoly.

UsernameInUse wrote: »

It is a fact that money spent by bureaucrats is not spent as wisely as if it was spent by the individual that actually earned it.

Saying it is a fact doesn't make it so. Do you have any actual evidence of this, or are your posts just going to be full of the usual free-marketeer hyperbole?

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Following on from this, when money is spent by politicians it upsets the market as supply and demand are thrown out the window for this hands-on artificial economic Keynesian worshipers such as southsiderosie. I am a Free Market guy and believe the Austrian school can provide healthcare for far cheaper, so much so that there wouldn't be any need for "free" healthcare. Just let the market do what it does best. If the HSE was destroyed tomorrow, we as a people would be far better off and healthier.

Ah, resorting to labels, I see. That's so much easier than resorting to using actual data.

What the market does best is deliver returns to the owners of capital. But that is not the point of a public health system. Can you provide one shred of evidence that a market-based healthcare system actually provides better health care outcomes for citizens? Because from the data I have seen, the two are not correlated at all.

Irish Steve

southsiderosie wrote: »

However, in a well run public health system, the stakeholders are the citizenry. They can and do set limits - on physician pay and drug costs - in the interests of keeping health care affordable and accessible to the general population - i.e. the shareholders. This is the key difference between a public sector and private sector monopoly.

Can't say I've noticed! 2 issues that as far as I'm concerned have to be addressed as a matter of highest priority.

K-9

Because we paid a very low PRSI/National Insurance rate until about 3 years ago. Simple as that.

You get what you pay for.

Mike 1972

suitseir wrote: »

They have it in the UK because it is a country with a population of over 60m. Compare that with ROI with a population of 4.6m. We just could not financially sustain it!!!

:rolleyes: By that logic India and China should have an income tax rate of 1% and a life expectancy of 200 while Tuvalu should have 500% tax and an infant mortality rate of 100%

pbowenroe

because once the average punter on the street finds out that 'free healthcare' means a tax increase, he'll say ''no fukin way"

Ellis Dee

Forgive me if I quibble a little and point out that nothing is actually free. :cool:

I have spent most of my life in countries (the Nordic region and Germany mainly), where universal health care systems have been in place for decades and getting sick does not mean one is faced with huge medical bills. It gives one a great sense of security.;)

Naturally, these systems have to be paid for out of taxes, which tend to be high. On balance, I feel it is a good deal. People seek medical treatment early, because they know they will not be charged much if anything for it. That, in turn, often obviates the need for much longer and expensive treatment later. It's sort of a matter of a stitch in time saves nine.

On the other hand, taxes are high in Ireland as well, but I often feel that people get feck all in return.:eek:

It's all a question of priorities. Ask a Dane or a Swede or a Finn what their country's most important natural resource is and the answer will likely be "people". It pays to take good care of natural resources, but successive Irish governments have obviously not been very good at that.:rolleyes:

coonecb1

I wish there could be a Groupon-style discount scheme for buying medicine. It's kind of what they have in the UK under the NHS, whereby all prescriptions are £10 sterling

Mike 1972

pbowenroe wrote: »

because once the average punter on the street finds out that 'free healthcare' means a tax increase, he'll say ''no fukin way"

How exactly is paying exorbitant health insurance premiums, prescription charges and €60 for < five minutes with a doctor any better ?

pbowenroe

i didn't say it was.

Solnskaya

"why don't we have free healthcare?"- because Ireland is governed by a narrowminded scabby bureaucracy that sh1ts on its own people at every turn. Anybody who has lived in the Uk knows just what a shower of grasping, jobsworth, anal begrudging wnankers we have in our public service. Our kids crap schools, our rubbish healthcare, out sh1te roads and our bent politicians are all manifestations of the warped mindset of the permanent government. Generosity and benevolence are foreign concepts to them and they pretty much begrudge every interaction that involves dealing with the populace. Anybody on a pension, anybody who visits a social welfare(hah)officer, anybody who needs care and all of the vunerable in our society will pretty much have to agree with what I am saying.

HovaBaby

What do you mean our healthcare isn't free?

It has only recently been that medical card holders have had to pay €1.50 for each item on their prescription list. All the scumbags who queue up for the D10's at my GP certainly don't pay for their drugs.

sheesh

southsiderosie wrote: »

Do you have any evidence on this? What are you basing this on?

A state run system actually has economies of scale that private systems do not - in many ways it is more efficient from an administrative perspective to have a single system...and the larger the system, the more they are able to drive down costs for consumers. It's amazing to me that free marekters can recognize this when it comes to Wal-Mart, but not when it comes to health service.

Second, why is efficiency the key variable of interest? For a public health system cost/efficiency needs to be balanced against actual health outcomes. And those tend to be much better in countries with socialized health care systems...and, incidentally, much lower levels of income inequality. The US, UK and Ireland are all terrible in this regard.



LOL - cheap for who? The US spends more per capita on health care than most other industrialized countries and 21% of the federal government's budget goes to provide health care to seniors, poor people, and uninsured children. We do NOT have a cheap system, from the perspective of the government or the consumer - yet we still have millions of uninsured.

opinion guy wrote: »

What planet are you on ? The USA has the most expensive healthcare in the world - with price inflation laregly driven by profit gouging by private firms.



Actually if you go to GP twice for same issue you are only supposed to pay once (of course does not include the doc on call callout). Alot of patients don't know this and alot of GP's will charge them anyway.

Its cheap for the tax payer obviously!!!!

UsernameInUse

opinion guy wrote: »

Provide one example where an Austiran style free market healthcare has worked.

Provide one example where socialised/government medicine has worked?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Then why is health care cheaper on a per capita basis in single-payer Britain and socialist Scandinavian states than in the private U.S. system?

You're using the U.S as an example of private free market healthcare? Christ, should I even acknowledge this post?

Actually, monopoly systems, if well-run, can lower red tape and fix prices downward. The Veteran's Administration health care sub-system in the U.S. does this - there is far less administrative overhead than exists in private-sector health care companies and keeping patient info within one system leads to fewer medical errors.

Monopolies decrease prices and raise standards? Come off of it.

Saying it is a fact doesn't make it so. Do you have any actual evidence of this, or are your posts just going to be full of the usual free-marketeer hyperbole?

May I ask how you have perceived this Keynesian BS that is falling down around us to be true? If you're in Uni, time to tell your professor to get a grip, although he'd probably get a slap on the wrist if he were to teach anything outside the "mainstream".

Ah, resorting to labels, I see. That's so much easier than resorting to using actual data.

Resorting to labels? I have not insulted you personally, although I am of course well within my obligation to inform you that the economics you subscribe to, Keynesian, is a fraud.

See bold.

Necron

Although I support the idea of public healthcare it just isnt feasible with the funds available.

Corben Dallas

Why don't we have free healthcare?".... because someone has to keep furnishing the Doctors gravy train you board once you have got the Rocket-Scientist point total to do Medicine, and after the brief period(5yrs) they actually do any hard work as Junior Docs/NCHD, its time to Specialise, do a couple yrs to become a Consultant and do Private only healthcare from then on Chaps. That’s where the money is ya know…

You only have to get the €50 bill every time you see a Doctor you know they’ve earned their life time licence to rip off Joe Public.

Only recently 2008 The HSE/ Dept of health offered the Medical Profession in Ireland €200k+ pa to do 35 hrs per wk on Public only contracts(20/80% split), but this was sniffed at because it didn’t also include the Government paying for full Public Liability/Medical Malpractice insurance as part of the contract.(think the figure was 260k+) and anyways they could easily get more just doing private…why bother…

I mean how can one keep two houses, run two cars, send the kids to the best private schools and take a couple of sun holidays a year on 260k ?….its just not poss darling…

southsiderosie

sheesh wrote: »

Its cheap for the tax payer obviously!!!!

Given that direct government spending on health care for seniors and the poor is a fifth of the federal budget, despite having a 'private' system, no it's not cheaper.

southsiderosie

UsernameInUse wrote: »

Provide one example where socialised/government medicine has worked?

See bold.

So you still have no actual data and are again resorting to hyperbole?

I'm done here.

UsernameInUse

southsiderosie wrote: »

So you still have no actual data and are again resorting to hyperbole?

I'm done here.

Look at the problems Obamacare is causing in the U.S? Regulations breed regulations and the only people that get a payday when government enter medicine are the big corporations lining up to lobby and then get the contracts.

What ever happened to the doctor/patient relationship? What about the physicians right in the centre of it? Those doctors wanting to get out of it all because the simple clinic is dying at the cost of the large government monopoly given companies or those associations involved in protectionism?

You've completely lost all sense of reality. You're somehow under the assumption that government helps the situation. It's the polar opposite. People will say medicine is one area that is too important to leave to the markets - those that understand say that medicine is too important NOT to leave to the market. Have you ever gone down to the hospital on a medical card? Tell those people sitting there for six hours just to see someone if this system is working. You wouldn't want to be really sick in an Irish hospital. Yet, those that pay are have the best doctors on their doorstep all just a phonecall away. Why is this?

Why is it so difficult for a foreign doctor to come to Ireland and set up a business? Because only those privileged enough can actually get past the amount of red-tape and bureaucracy. I say abolish all license of practitioners. Allow the market to work. The poor and sick will be greatly benefited. It's sick what these people are engaged in.