Why do I need health insurance?

Pat 36059

if later in life you develop an illness ,you won't be covered for that illness unless your in private insurance. Your Prsi covers very little apart from, you'll be on a list, and if you get iIll health you might just end up not getting attended to. Take out a medium plan , See how it goes .

Pelvis

Cancelled my health insurance a couple of years ago as I couldn't afford it at the time. Had been meaning to take it up again but hadn't got around to it, until last night, having read this thread!!

76544567

LG1234 wrote: »

I'm 33 going 34 soon so I know I'll be hit with a penalty if I don't take out health insurance next year. But I don't see why I should and I'm hoping someone can fill me in.

The way I see is if I get real sick the public system will look after me. If I'm not really sick and need to see a consultant I can pay the 400-500 quid private fee if needed.

Why would I fork out over 1000 a year for insurance?

When you get sick all will become more clear.
You will be able to look back and see if you made the right decision then.
Do you want to find out only then?

Geuze

Pat 36059 wrote: »

if later in life you develop an illness ,you won't be covered for that illness unless your in private insurance. Your Prsi covers very little apart from, you'll be on a list, and if you get iIll health you might just end up not getting attended to. Take out a medium plan , See how it goes .

Please note that PRSI is nothing to do with healthcare.

Please don't spread this myth.

Since the 1970 Health Act, every resident of Ireland is entitled to public healthcare, nothing to do with PRSI.


[Exception: optical and dental benefit]

daheff

coylemj wrote: »

What most people forget (or choose to ignore) is that if those of us who pay for medical insurance did not do so, the waiting lists for public treatment would be even longer.

The usual answer to this is that medical facilities should be available to all regardless of ability to pay but if the NHS is the model for that, why is there a company called BUPA in the UK running private hospitals and clinics all over the place?

What if all the private health care payments were made to the government and they administered the health system? More patients could be seen & we'd have shorted waiting lists. And more money would be available. why? Private health care is a for profit situation. For every euro you pay a percentage goes to line somebody elses pockets. If that money was reinvested into the health service we all benefit...and at a lower overall cost.

Sure even the HSE are in on the act...they sell capacity to private care providers at extremely high costs...and fluff the invoices (private providers are checking & disputing invoices from HSE for unexpected/unwarranted costs now).

Consultants are working for hospitals (public) and themselves (private).

Our health system is a farce. Govt have tried to outsource it to other people and ended up making a balls of it.

Merowig

Giving more money to the public health service does not mean automatically that this service will become more efficient.

Sue Pa Key Pa

daheff wrote: »

What if all the private health care payments were made to the government and they administered the health system? More patients could be seen & we'd have shorted waiting lists. .

So you're suggesting that I continue making the payments I give my health insurer to the Government, to assist those that aren't making any payments. I see a flaw there......................

And if you seriously think that the HSE will administer that cheaper than the profit taken by the private health insurers, you're more deluded than I think you are

Peregrinus

Merowig wrote: »

Giving more money to the public health service does not mean automatically that this service will become more efficient.

No. But it will be better-resourced. Unless it actually becomes less efficient, that should result in a higher level of service.

I don't think we can pontificate dogmatically, one way or the other, over whether privately-run or publicly-run health services are more or less efficient. It's easy to find examples of both. US health services, largely privately run and financed, are massively inefficiently administered; I think this is universally recognised. The UK NHS, by contrast, has an extremely low ratio of administrative expenses to overall budget. So ideologically-driven convictions that public services are always inefficient, or always efficient, are really no help here.

Merowig

The efficieny of the NHS seems to be a "myth"
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/healthcare/myth-busting-nhs-not-efficient-after-all/

If the public health service has to be better ressourced, the Irish people have to vote for a party which raises additional taxes which contribute then to the health sector or increase the health sectors budget by cutting the budget from other sectors.
As it seems unlikely that this is going to happen any time soon the system stays as it is for now.

That means people who have chances of serious illnesses or are in their mid-30s are advised / incentivsed to take on health insurance.
If not there is the public service with its waiting lists or one can pay from ones pocket for private treatment in Ireland or abroad.

Peregrinus

It depends on what you mean by "efficiency".

One measure of efficiency is the ratio of administrative overhead to total budget. The more of your budget you spend on administrative overheads, the less you spend on actually delivering healthcare. The US scores very badly on this measure; the UK scores very well. (Ireland is in between.)

The OECD report that the Adam Smith blog refers to is measuring something else. It looks at the country that gets the best health outcomes per dollar spent on healthcare and treats that as the most efficient country. It then calculates the improved health outcomes other countries would get if they could spend their health dollars as "efficiently" as that best performer.

The problem with this analysis is that it isn't necessarily the case that the good outcomes achieved by the best performers are entirely, or even largely, the result of wise choices in spending health dollars - they may have more to do with genetics, diet, lifestyle, etc.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Inefficiency = System not working properly

HSE = Inefficient

Dardania

It's a Darwinian system: the wealthy (basically, the workers who can afford health insurance) get better, faster.
And the poor that can't spend or don't spend their money on healthcare, don't get better, or if they do, it's not fast

Merowig

Though many of the so called poor can still afford drinks and smokes... (which don't help with health either...).
Not to forget that there are still medical cards around for the poor.

Health insurance is available from around ~37 Euro a month... you do not need to be wealthy to afford this.

I find it normal that people who can afford it can get better/faster treatment. I don't see a problem with that.

Peregrinus

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

Inefficiency = System not working properly

HSE = Inefficient

Um, no. A system might be not working properly for a variety of reasons besides inefficiency. It could be under-resourced. It could be poorly designed. It could be targetting different outcomes than the outcomes that the people who say it isn't working think it should be targetting.

After all, we do have the word of The Donald that healthcare is "so complicated".

Sue Pa Key Pa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um, no. A system might be not working properly for a variety of reasons besides inefficiency.

There could be a 1,000 reasons why it is not working properly. The point is that it is inefficient.

daheff

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

There could be a 1,000 reasons why it is not working properly. The point is that it is inefficient.

Its inefficient in its treatment of people by your, my and most peoples expectations.

It may be that they are super efficient based on what they (HSE & Staff) are motivated to achieve...but that may not be what we expect of them.

That said, I do think that the health service could do a lot better.


My earlier point of giving the money spent on health insurance to the health system rather than to for profit companies is that when you give money to for profit companies there is a significant amount of leakage from the money put into the system.

IF (and I know its a rather big IF) this money could be used efficiently then we'd all win. But given that this money is used to buy the time of the same staff that work in the inefficient state run service, I don't think theses staff suddenly become super efficient because they then have their private patient hats on. Thus there is still this leakage of funds.


Personally I don't agree with the notion that people should only get healthcare because they can afford it. What if you were sick and couldn't afford it, but if well could afford to pay tax to fund that healthcare? Should this person not be treated because they cant afford healthcare at this point ??(forgetting about savings/insurance etc).

And we should be looking after those less well off in society (but not the scumbags who don't care -and drink/smoke/take drugs to excess and cause havoc to the health system)

Merowig

Ireland has already a medical card system in place, public services are as well available which are tax funded and cheap health insurances are available.
That is more than enough


If you abolish health insurance / remove the incentives for taking health insurance (no better and faster treatment)/ abolish the private health system - people would automatically stop paying for that. I am not paying for something without getting a return. No one would.
So there would not be more money for the state system available - only more people who would depend on it...


I would travel then to Germany, the Netherlands, Israel, the UK or Romania to get a better/faster treatment if necessary and would most likely get some kind of health insurance for abroad as well.
Simple as that. Bad luck then only for the people who do not want to or cannot travel abroad for treatment...

Sue Pa Key Pa

daheff wrote: »

My earlier point of giving the money spent on health insurance to the health system rather than to for profit companies is that when you give money to for profit companies there is a significant amount of leakage from the money put into the system.

You still think I should pay my health insurance premiums in to the health service for the good of those that don't pay? Not happening

I already do that with taxation on my gross salary, I'm certainly not doing that with my net.

enfant terrible

Would health insurance or income protection for illness be a wiser investment.

If one could only afford one of the above?

Peregrinus

enfant terrible wrote: »

Would health insurance or income protection for illness be a wiser investment.

If one could only afford one of the above?

Tough one. They insure against different risks. So the answer has to depend on which risk worries you the more. Getting sick, and having to rely on the public health service? Or being unable to earn, and having to rely on disability benefit?

You need to factor in not only just how bad each of these would be, if it were to happen to you, but also how likely it is to happen to you.

c6ysaphjvqw41k

This post has been deleted.

Sarahsan

Reading this through with a lot of interest. I am moving to Ireland from a country with excellent health care and no need for private health insurance so this is all very new to me. I'm in my late 20s and, as far as I know, in good health. I certainly don't have enough money to fork out 1k per year, but I am wondering if anyone has any advice as to which cover plan or insurer is best? I don't think I need day to day cover, but I would like to be covered in the event of an accident (particularly as I do a lot of sports, including equestrian), or if I was diagnosed with a debilitating illness. I don't know if I can get anything worth having on my salary but would definitely appreciate any advice! Thank you!

Merowig

Sarahsan

you can use this tool to compare costs health insurances and what they provide

http://www.hia.ie/ci/health-insurance-comparison

Sue Pa Key Pa

Sarahsan wrote: »

. I am moving to Ireland from a country with excellent health care and no need for private health insurance QUOTE]

Welcome, Ireland is a magnificent country, but this will be an eye opener for you

Dubl07

Merowig wrote: »

Though many of the so called poor can still afford drinks and smokes... (which don't help with health either...).
Not to forget that there are still medical cards around for the poor.

Health insurance is available from around ~37 Euro a month... you do not need to be wealthy to afford this.

I find it normal that people who can afford it can get better/faster treatment. I don't see a problem with that.

I make certain that health insurance is part of necessary expenditure, along with car tax and insurance, nutrition and miles ahead of nights out or holidays.

The irony if someone else couldn't afford health insurance and ended up with basal cell carcinoma because they'd had sun holidays every year, often topped up by sun beds.

Sam Kade

Zaph wrote: »

I'm currently recovering from major orthopaedic surgery. Total cost for the surgery and several days in a private hospital was over €16k. Total cost to me thanks to VHI - zero, and I was able to schedule the surgery for a time that suited me work-wise. I also posted this elsewhere a couple of years ago as another demonstration of the benefits of private health insurance:

A number of years ago I had a sudden unforeseen complication following knee surgery that left me in absolute agony and unable to walk. Not knowing what was wrong, I went to A&E where an x-ray quickly showed what the problem was. It was clear that another operation was required, so I expected to be told I'd have one within a few days. I was stunned when they told me that I should go home and that they'd be in touch with me in "about 6 weeks" to discuss scheduling the operation. Not that the operation would be in 6 weeks, just that they'd give me a date for it at that stage. When I said that was ridiculous because I couldn't walk due to the extreme pain (far worse than the pain of the original complaint) and would have to go on sick leave, I was told that because it wasn't life-threatening I was a non-urgent case. It then dawned on me that because I was in A&E I was probably being put on the public waiting list, so I asked if my VHI meant I could have the operation sooner. The reaction I got clearly demonstrated the divide in the public and private healthcare systems in this country, it was pretty much "You have VHI? Well why didn't you say so? Take a seat and we'll see what we can do for you". I had the operation a week later.

That's the nature of insurance, you pay for it in the hope that you'll never need it, but are glad of it when you do.

Hardly zero, what about your premiums that you have being paying?

Okon

Sam Kade wrote: »

Hardly zero, what about your premiums that you have being paying?

Yeah, not zero... but probably not 16k either!

wintersolstice

I am currently waiting on the results of a genetic test for cancer. If it is positive, does anyone know how it might affect my two daughters when they want to get a mortgage or take out life cover?