Medical card review process to stop immediately

2 stroke

A friend of mine is a insulin dependent diabetic, Insulin supplies are normally covered by long term illness book. Some years ago, she was switched from her long term illness book to a discretionary medical card. This was was reviewed and taken away last year. The review dragged on so long, that she ran out of insulin before she was notified that her card wasn't being renewed and that she should reapply for a longterm illness book. I don't think she has recovered from the stress yet.
The realy crazy thing is that she has private medical insurance, that was taken out before she developed diabetes. She considered lapsing this when she got the medical card, but luckily she had little faith in the institutions of state. If she had let it lapse, she would not get back the same cover, without restrictions for diabetes related illness.

jank

Duiske wrote: »

Sending review letters to the parents of kids with Downs Syndrome asking if the condition had improved probably played a part, along with a kicking by the electorate. The latter probably had more to do with it, sadly.

The irony of this public backlash is that it is set against the wrong people. Do you honestly think the Minister of Health is sitting there with a scotch and cigar pouring over a list of sick children whom he wants to screw over? People on whine line would like to think so but obviously this is fantasy.

This review is done by the personal of the HSE and if they have made a dogs bollix out of it then they are the ones that should a) moved from any responsibility or b) better yet fired, but the latter would never happen as the unions would kick up a stink.

The HSE is vastly overstaff and FG and probably Labour would love, repeat LOVE to trim it down to size instead of taking this bad publicity over discretionary medical cards. However, since the budget of the HSE has blown over its target then these discretionary medical cards are one of the few options left to cut costs.

If people really really want to point fingers, then write a letter to the heads of the unions asking and demanding reform so we can have an efficient and cost effective health department.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

The irony of this public backlash is that it is set against the wrong people. Do you honestly think the Minister of Health is sitting there with a scotch and cigar pouring over a list of sick children whom he wants to screw over? People on whine line would like to think so but obviously this is fantasy.

This review is done by the personal of the HSE and if they have made a dogs bollix out of it then they are the ones that should a) moved from any responsibility or b) better yet fired, but the latter would never happen as the unions would kick up a stink.

The HSE is vastly overstaff and FG and probably Labour would love, repeat LOVE to trim it down to size instead of taking this bad publicity over discretionary medical cards. However, since the budget of the HSE has blown over its target then these discretionary medical cards are one of the few options left to cut costs.

If people really really want to point fingers, then write a letter to the heads of the unions asking and demanding reform so we can have an efficient and cost effective health department.

Why don't they trim down the staff? They need to have more backbone in these matters.

beardy_brady

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

So they pay for private health care and they pay for public health care too. That is the system we have at the moment, so what do you expect?
As I understand it, GPs get a standard fee for all GMS patients, and extras would be pennies. In any case, time is much more valuable, and being asked to fill forms to confirm your patient still has alzheimers or Down's or MS is just ridiculous and lazy on the part of the HSE, and ultimately a ridiculous waste of tax payers money, because at the end of the day, we pay for the admin, and any fees paid to GPs for filling forms. The reason the GPs need to take your euros is to pay for the roof over their and your head. That will go down like a ton of bricks I know, but there are practices in dire financial straits all over the country with many doctors closing their doors.

GP fees never dropped a cent during the rescesion , GP,s in ireland earn far more than in any other european country

all this talk about struggling GP,s is lies

jank

And this is not even talking about how the hell did 42% of the population end up with a medical card.... Like WTF? How did that happen?

beardy_brady

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why don't they trim down the staff? They need to have more backbone in these matters.

haddington road = no cuts in public sector staff numbers

beardy_brady

jank wrote: »

And this is not even talking about how the hell did 42% of the population end up with a medical card.... Like WTF? How did that happen?

FF went mad buying votes from 1997 to 2007

Busted Flat.

jank wrote: »

The irony of this public backlash is that it is set against the wrong people. Do you honestly think the Minister of Health is sitting there with a scotch and cigar pouring over a list of sick children whom he wants to screw over? People on whine line would like to think so but obviously this is fantasy.

This review is done by the personal of the HSE and if they have made a dogs bollix out of it then they are the ones that should a) moved from any responsibility or b) better yet fired, but the latter would never happen as the unions would kick up a stink.

The HSE is vastly overstaff and FG and probably Labour would love, repeat LOVE to trim it down to size instead of taking this bad publicity over discretionary medical cards. However, since the budget of the HSE has blown over its target then these discretionary medical cards are one of the few options left to cut costs.

If people really really want to point fingers, then write a letter to the heads of the unions asking and demanding reform so we can have an efficient and cost effective health department.

The heads of the unions are part of the golden circle. It took Alan Shatter two weeks to receive an important letter he didn't want to receive, how long would it take a letter to reach union bosses to receive a letter they did not want to see. My guess 10 years.

firemansam4

Medical card income limits are very low, you don't need to be a high earner to be denied a medical card.
I have to laugh at some comments on here about it just being a form to fill out. Some people have to go through all sorts of hoops to prove they are still entitled to one, all while dealing with the stress of a serious ailment or condition for themselves or a family member.

I understand there being a need for austerity but this whole medical card fiasco could have been avoided.

beardy_brady

firemansam4 wrote: »

Medical card income limits are very low, you don't need to be a high earner to be denied a medical card.
I have to laugh at some comments on here about it just being a form to fill out. Some people have to go through all sorts of hoops to prove they are still entitled to one, all while dealing with the stress of a serious ailment or condition for themselves or a family member.

I understand there being a need for austerity but this whole medical card fiasco could have been avoided.

maybe on those below pension age but once you hit seventy , the medical card threshold is insanely high

45 k per anum if your spouse is still alive , until three years ago , the threshold was 70k per anum

delw

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why don't they trim down the staff? They need to have more backbone in these matters.

The incompetency with in the offices is a problem IMO

steddyeddy

delw wrote: »

The incompetency with in the offices is a problem IMO

I know. A few of my mates work in the HSE as doctors and some of the things they have told me is shocking. Jobs seem to be handed out to relatives of employees. One lady in the waiting room over heard a receptionist saying her mother got her the job and confronted her on it by an old lady waiting there.

As a nation we need to get rid of this attitude that it's OK for people to dole out jobs to the incompetent because they are related.

jank

steddyeddy wrote: »

Why don't they trim down the staff? They need to have more backbone in these matters.

Locked into agreements with the unions . Nobody who has a full time permanent role in the public sector can be made redundant. I don't understand it myself why successive governments won't take this matter head on.

steddyeddy

jank wrote: »

Locked into agreements with the unions . Nobody who has a full time permanent role in the public sector can be made redundant. I don't understand it myself why successive governments won't take this matter head on.

Bizarre to say the least.

Turtwig

jank wrote: »

Locked into agreements with the unions . Nobody who has a full time permanent role in the public sector can be made redundant. I don't understand it myself why successive governments won't take this matter head on.

Open to correction but not as bad as the UK got in the 70s and 80s? Still, we could probably do with a Thatcher type to stand up to them and bring them back down to earth and a bit more age equity.

(Would preferably avoid a Thatcher in general though )

Arthur Beesley

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Cool beans.

That'll set the recovery back a bit but at least people get their free stuff still.

Really hope you are being sarcastic.

Don't see why anyone should have a medical card. The poor have it too good here. No wonder we have a massive deficit what with all the social welfare, free travel and medical card perks they get.

Banjo String

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Really hope you are being sarcastic.

Don't see why anyone should have a medical card. The poor have it too good here. No wonder we have a massive deficit what with all the social welfare, free travel and medical card perks they get.

As a matter of interest, how do you propose a (hard working) married couple fund the at home care costs, GP, specialist, consultants and hospital then prescription costs involved with caring for a sick relative (child for example) with a long term, uncurable, severe incapacitating illness?

Personally, I know a few families who would gladly give up everything, from the negative equity house, to the 04 Renault Megane out the front if they had their child's full health in return.

Tldr, your health is your wealth.

Arthur Beesley

Banjo String wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how do you propose a (hard working) married couple fund the at home care costs, GP, specialist, consultants and hospital then prescription costs involved with caring for a sick relative (child for example) with a long term, uncurable, severe incapacitating illness?

Personally, I know a few families who would gladly give up everything, from the negative equity house, to the 04 Renault Megane out the front if they had their child's full health in return.

Tldr, your health is your wealth.

That's what their income tax should be paying for.

mickydoomsux

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Really hope you are being sarcastic.

Don't see why anyone should have a medical card. The poor have it too good here. No wonder we have a massive deficit what with all the social welfare, free travel and medical card perks they get.

I was being sarcastic of course :P

This country is absolutely bizarre in some ways. The sense of entitlement and preciousness about things is crazy. I don't know if it is a result of being a former colony or essentially a theocracy once we obtained our independence but we have a huge hard on for victims, both real and perceived.

Perish the thought that we ask people to prove their need for something that will allow them to obtain a document that is potentially worth tens of thousands to them and is funded by our flagging public finances. People should just "get things".

Banjo String

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

That's what their income tax should be paying for.

Yeah, i agree with you on that one.

USC, Prsi, income tax, LPT, water charges, gp fees, A&E charges, somethings go to give.

mickydoomsux

Banjo String wrote: »

Yeah, i agree with you on that one.

USC, Prsi, income tax, LPT, water charges, gp fees, A&E charges, somethings go to give.

This review of medical cards was an attempt to make "something give" but it was an expenditure cut rather than a tax cut so the electorate threw their toys out of their pram and now the money has to be found by cutting something else or creating more revenue through taxation.

Banjo String

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This review of medical cards was an attempt to make "something give" but it was an expenditure cut rather than a tax cut so the electorate threw their toys out of their pram and now the money has to be found by cutting something else or creating more revenue through taxation.

Means test child benefit. A universal cut was lazy.

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

Means test child benefit. A universal cut was lazy.

As usual with the government they are damned if they do and damned if they don't :rolleyes:

Ó Snodaigh publishes 10 reasons not to cut child benefit

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/25164#.ULs0K-1REq4.facebook

Sinn Féin Social Protection spokesperson Aengus Ó Snodaigh has published ten reasons not to cut child benefit in next week’s budget.

Speaking this morning Deputy Ó Snodaigh said the government has a straight choice next week between targeting the least well off or targeting wealth.

He said;

“The myth that there are no choices in this budget has been laid bare for all to see. Sinn Féin has shown that there are alternatives to austerity.

noodler

Important to point out that 96% of the 1.8/1.9m medical cards currently out there are NOT discretionary (i.e. they are issued purely on financial grounds).

My understanding is that the the other 4% are the ones which will no longer be subject to simply a means test but medical need.

corner of hells

steddyeddy wrote: »

I know. A few of my mates work in the HSE as doctors and some of the things they have told me is shocking. Jobs seem to be handed out to relatives of employees. One lady in the waiting room over heard a receptionist saying her mother got her the job and confronted her on it by an old lady waiting there.

As a nation we need to get rid of this attitude that it's OK for people to dole out jobs to the incompetent because they are related.

I've worked as a contractor in the HSE in the offices where applications for medical cards are processed , I can honestly say I never saw so much waste and overstaffing in one building anywhere , individual middle management were actually concerned that media outlets might get wind of some of the carry on.

Useless incompetent individuals , bizarre work ethics , astonishing monetary waste to name but a few .
Not all the staff , but the memories of some of them are imprinted on my mind.

mickydoomsux

Banjo String wrote: »

Means test child benefit.

Absolutely.

2 stroke

noodler wrote: »

Important to point out that 96% of the 1.8/1.9m medical cards currently out there are NOT discretionary (i.e. they are issued purely on financial grounds).

My understanding is that the the other 4% are the ones which will no longer be subject to simply a means test but medical need.

The thing is that as the 4% were based on medical need, i.e. sick patients, they were costing the government serious money. Cut 4% of medical cards and save a lot.
Many of the 96% of medical cards, being income based, are "just in case" of medical need, therefore not costing serious money.

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

As usual with the government they are damned if they do and damned if they don't :rolleyes:

Ó Snodaigh publishes 10 reasons not to cut child benefit across the board

http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/25164#.ULs0K-1REq4.facebook

Fyp. Who would miss the cut more? Bonos wife, or a low income family?

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

Fyp. Who would miss the cut more? Bonos wife, or a low income family?

You added across the board but that's not what he says. It's the usual shinner TAX THE RICH RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. Do you know for a FACT that his wife even collects CA?

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

You added across the board but that's not what he says. It's the usual shinner TAX THE RICH RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. Do you know for a FACT that his wife even collects CA?

I don't give a shiny shıte what he said. I said.

Means test child benefit. A universal cut was lazy.

You realise what means test means ?

And I don't know if his wife claims it, I do know she's entitled to it.

You would argue night was day tbh. :rolleyes:

Uriel.

Banjo String wrote: »

Means test child benefit. A universal cut was lazy.

I've said it so many times before but I'll say it again.

We need to encourage maintenance of or increase in the birth rate.. Tax payers of tomorrow etc. but my view is that we need to encourage children born from socially responsible and positive families.

Paying child benefit to and encouraging johnny scrote to reproduce is not what we want. We want child benefit to encourage the arrival of tomorrow's tax payers not tomorrow's parasites and car jackers.

I'd much rather see benefit paid only to a middle plinth - ie above a certain income threshold but stopping before we reach Michael O'Leary levels of wealth

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

I don't give a shiny shıte what he said. I said.

You realise what means test means ?

And I don't know if his wife claims it, I do know she's entitled to it.

You would argue night was day tbh. :rolleyes:

We are all entitled to many things, does not mean that we claim them. I love how Bono is always bought up in these debates as if he is the only rich person in the country.

Here's what else old Aengus says

The cost of administering the child benefit scheme would sky rocket if a means-test were introduced for any part of it and unacceptable processing delays would inevitably become a feature. Not only would you have to means-test upon initial application but you would have to repeat this test and repeatedly adjust the payment everytime a family’s financial circumstances change e.g. if they got an extra hour of work one week. In November the Minister informed us that working families who are in poverty and who applied for FIS in June of this year may be waiting as long as until April next year for a decision on their claims. Similar administrative back logs apply to most means-tested schemes and would undoubtedly apply to the top-up.

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

We are all entitled to many things, does not mean that we claim them. I love how Bono is always bought up in these debates as if he is the only rich person in the country.

Here's what else old Aengus says

Wait, are you you agreeing with Aengus?

A convert. :pac:

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

Wait, are you you agreeing with Aengus?

A convert. :pac:

Nope i am pointing out the hypocricy of SF.

FWIW I think ALL payments from children's allowance to medical cards to social welfare should be means tested on a regular basis. You want to save money then make sure the people who are getting the money are fully entitled to it.

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

Nope i am pointing out the hypocricy of SF.

FWIW I think ALL payments from children's allowance to medical cards to social welfare should be means tested on a regular basis. You want to save money then make sure the people who are getting the money are fully entitled to it.

I speak on behalf of SF

bumper234

Banjo String wrote: »

I speak on behalf of SF

Not that i am aware of

Banjo String

bumper234 wrote: »

Not that i am aware of

So where is the hypocrisy from SF

twinytwo

beardy_brady wrote: »

haddington road = no cuts in public sector staff numbers

Well they are going to have to do something, with an ageing/longer living population in the next decade or two the government won't be able to pay the public pensions not to mind all the other social welfare benefits including medical cards. Public pensions ( which are paid directly out of public finances) alone leave us liable for almost twice as much as the bank bailout cost. If you think now is bad, you have no idea what is coming.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

Important to point out that 96% of the 1.8/1.9m medical cards currently out there are NOT discretionary (i.e. they are issued purely on financial grounds).

My understanding is that the the other 4% are the ones which will no longer be subject to simply a means test but medical need.

Well somewhere the numbers do not add up. 1.8m medical cards purely on income grounds? That is close to half the country earning less than €340 a week per household after tax. I don't believe it.

We all know what 'discretionary' means in Ireland. It means if you're a good FF man who has a friendly family doctor you'll get your medical card. Same as 'discretionary' penalty points for the right people.

The solution is of course healthcare free at the point of delivery for anyone who is ill. But that sounds like socialism, so we can't do that.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Son Of A Vidic

Banjo String wrote: »

Showing compassion to kids with downs syndrome, leukemia, spina bifida is a set back. OK........

Meanwhile Bono, Mick O'Leary and Michael Flatleys of the country get child benefit payments.

Which of the two scenarios do you reckon should be means tested?

Well said Banjo, that pretty much sums up the muppets. Let's continue to give to those, who absolutely don't need assistance. Meanwhile, the financial rape of the disadvantaged must continue apace.

steddyeddy

bumper234 wrote: »

You added across the board but that's not what he says. It's the usual shinner TAX THE RICH RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE. Do you know for a FACT that his wife even collects CA?

Such a well constructed point. I don't know why the tax the wealthy crowd don't take your points seriously.

bumper234

steddyeddy wrote: »

Such a well constructed point. I don't know why the tax the wealthy crowd don't take your points seriously.

Because their argument is always the same yet none will say what "wealthy" is, Taxing people at 52% and people are crying for even more taxes! I have said already if you want to raise the tax by 5% then let's also cut the dole and pensions by the same %. Means test children's allowance, pensions and dole money. Make people sign on at random dates and times and cut down on the fraud. Before trying to hit the so called wealthy with more tax rises let's stop the systematic fraud taking place.

Turtwig

No pointing in stopping the fraud if the system to catch it costs more than it detects. More to point, fraud is everywhere at all income levels of society and the higher the income, the bigger the loss for the state. 10 SW fraudsters couldn't steal as much money as a person who evades taxes of say 50k a year.

Going after the fraudsters in any income threshold needs to be cost effective. Otherwise you just have to accept that at all income levels you'll have a small minority of leechers. The higher the income the more the significant the amount of drainage by an individual leecher.

The question is the cost of detecting the leeches worth the return from detection? Social welfare wise the current system has fraud checks as it is. Would adding more really detect enough fraudsters to warrant it? Would adding more tax detectives really catch enough avoiders?

Whether we like it or not leakages will be part of the system. There's no point in plugging those leaks if the costs of repairs is worth more than the actual losses incurred by the leaks. Just ensure you have a system to prevent a high minority of leaks and plug the obvious non expensive leaks as they arise.

bumper234

Turtwig wrote: »

No pointing in stopping the fraud if the system to catch it costs more than it detects. More to point, fraud is everywhere at all income levels of society and the higher the income, the bigger the loss for the state. 10 SW fraudsters couldn't steal as much money as a person who evades taxes of say 50k a year.

Going after the fraudsters in any income threshold needs to be cost effective. Otherwise you just have to accept that at all income levels you'll have a small minority of leechers. The higher the income the more the significant the amount of drainage by an individual leecher.

The question is the cost of detecting the leeches worth the return from detection? Social welfare wise the current system has fraud checks as it is. Would adding more really detect enough fraudsters to warrant it? Would adding more tax detectives really catch enough avoiders?


Whether we like it or not leakages will be part of the system. There's no point in plugging those leaks if the costs of repairs is worth more than the actual losses incurred by the leaks. Just ensure you have a system to prevent a high minority of leaks and plug the obvious non expensive leaks as they arise.

10 X €188 X 52= €97760 :rolleyes:

steddyeddy

bumper234 wrote: »

Because their argument is always the same yet none will say what "wealthy" is, Taxing people at 52% and people are crying for even more taxes! I have said already if you want to raise the tax by 5% then let's also cut the dole and pensions by the same %. Means test children's allowance, pensions and dole money. Make people sign on at random dates and times and cut down on the fraud. Before trying to hit the so called wealthy with more tax rises let's stop the systematic fraud taking place.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that but I think the better off can afford to take more cuts.

bumper234

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with any of that but I think the better off can afford to take more cuts.

And i feel that someone who has been on the dole for the last 15 years can take a cut. I feel someone who has been on the dole for 10 years or even 5 years can take a cut. Does that make me right? Who are these "better off" that you speak of?

Turtwig

steddyeddy wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with any of that but I think the better off can afford to take more cuts.

Problem, is if you "equalise" cuts the middle income spectrum and those near it get squeezed the most.

Disproportionately cutting is unfair and screams bias or begrudgery. Thing is pain of paying is disproportionate if you cut equally percentages from everyone. Which highest pain falling on middle income bands and those just above the lowest tax thresholds.

Politically though having water charges and the like disportinately distributed according to wealth is suicide!

Banjo String

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Well said Banjo, that pretty much sums up the muppets. Let's continue to give to those, who absolutely don't need assistance. Meanwhile, the financial rape of the disadvantaged must continue apace.

Well thats my take on it, then we get posters taking points I make to make crying claims of "SF hypocrisy".

Good auld bumper eh. :pac:

Turtwig

bumper234 wrote: »

10 X €188 X 52= €97760 :rolleyes:

Fair enough I didn't check the sums. The point still holds. The higher income, the more money a minority of leeches can defraud the state.

If you spent ten years on the dole you'd still wouldn't match a person who evades a 100k in taxes in a single year.