Is health insurance immoral?

Dorakman

I hear a lot of people harp on about the 2 tier health system. How is private practice coexisting with public healthcare such a bad thing?

mickdw

No.
You spend on what you chose. Some spend their last penny on health cover while others might spend it on a holiday.
It should however be priced at a level where people with average wage / pension should be able to afford it.

alphasully

No, it's essential. Also we dont have a 2 tier health service, we have up to 5 tiers.

Edgware

mickdw wrote: »

No.
You spend on what you chose. Some spend their last penny on health cover while others might spend it on a holiday.
It should however be priced at a level where people with average wage / pension should be able to afford it.

There are several levels of insurance which will give different levels of benefit and are affordable to average wage/pension. People who smoke 40 a day could get some very good cover if they cut back to 20 a day and use the saving for health insurance.
Thats the system. You might as well say that every house should be priced at a price that all can afford.

mikhail

I have no problem with private healthcare and private health insurance so long as the public system provides a good baseline cover. The ****e US system can't be allowed creep in.

piplip87

We have a highly subsidised public health system. The maximum anybody can pay publicly for approved treatment in a hospital is 800(may have changed since I worked on HSE accounts).

Where as if a private patient presents at the public hospital this subsidy is no longer exists. So by having private healthcare you are saving the state money on your healthcare.

Fred Cryton

Dorakman wrote: »

I hear a lot of people harp on about the 2 tier health system. How is private practice coexisting with public healthcare such a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. it's just petty jealousy and envy from the SF & welfare dependents who want middle classs people to have to wait in line with them. They can't see that public sector inefficiencies are what is causing the problem in health in the first place.



They want to bring the rest of us down to their level. The word spiteful comes to mind.

Dorakman

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It's not a bad thing. it's just petty jealousy and envy from the SF & welfare dependents who want middle classs people to have to wait in line with them. They can't see that public sector inefficiencies are what is causing the problem in health in the first place.



They want to bring the rest of us down to their level. The word spiteful comes to mind.

I did always think that’s it’s really screwed up that employer provided health insurance is taxed as BIK. Shouldn’t the government be happy with less burden on the public system?

ForestFire

I'm hearing these government parties talking about setting up universal health care system (is this full public again?)

When was this part of the election campaign??

As someone else's says, if you're willing to pay health insurance and forego other things like, holidays, meals out etc then why should you not be able to have private heth insurance?

It's community based and cost about 20euro a week.
It also heaving funds the public system.

What happens when they take the private hospitals into the public sector.... It will not improve anything for anyone currently on public, it will just make things worse for all....

I think there are some 7nivetsal systems that work well like Canada and Holland, if I remember correctly, but could we replicate that here? I believed there is a large clean out at the middle and upper levels require to get a good system we can fund, but unions will resist all...

Rodney Bathgate

I assume we get rid of all forms of medical card if we have a ‘1 tier’ system.

Yellow_Fern

The idea of a one tier or two tier health system to some extent is just codology. All countries have a second private tier. The only difference between Ireland and say the UK or a typical other country in Europe is that we are more reliant on private than elsewhere.

What is the other option?

Everybody treated in the public system with no private care allowed? You've just got a lot more people using the Public system. So, those that weren't paying for Health Insurance would have to pay for it through taxes to support a larger public need. Those that were paying Health Insurance would be paying less. So, instead of me paying for Health Insurance, those not currently paying would have to pay higher taxes.

I'd be okay with you paying more for my health care, OP, but I fear paying more money into the HSE (we pay more per capita that the UK for the NHS as it is) will not raise the Public sector up to the Private sector.

What do you think, OP?

Dorakman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is the other option?

Everybody treated in the public system with no private care allowed? You've just got a lot more people using the Public system. So, those that weren't paying for Health Insurance would have to pay for it through taxes to support a larger public need. Those that were paying Health Insurance would be paying less. So, instead of me paying for Health Insurance, those not currently paying would have to pay higher taxes.

I'd be okay with you paying more for my health care, OP, but I fear paying more money into the HSE (we pay more per capita that the UK for the NHS as it is) will not raise the Public sector up to the Private sector.

What do you think, OP?

I’m for a 2 tier system, perhaps I wasn’t clear. I’ve got health insurance, and I’d never go public unless there’s no other choice.

suicide_circus

Fred Cryton wrote: »

It's not a bad thing. it's just petty jealousy and envy from the SF & welfare dependents who want middle classs people to have to wait in line with them. They can't see that public sector inefficiencies are what is causing the problem in health in the first place.



They want to bring the rest of us down to their level. The word spiteful comes to mind.

I cant believe you went there

Geuze

ForestFire wrote: »

I'm hearing these government parties talking about setting up universal health care system (is this full public again?)

When was this part of the election campaign??

As someone else's says, if you're willing to pay health insurance and forego other things like, holidays, meals out etc then why should you not be able to have private heth insurance?

It's community based and cost about 20euro a week.
It also heaving funds the public system.

What happens when they take the private hospitals into the public sector.... It will not improve anything for anyone currently on public, it will just make things worse for all....

I think there are some 7nivetsal systems that work well like Canada and Holland, if I remember correctly, but could we replicate that here? I believed there is a large clean out at the middle and upper levels require to get a good system we can fund, but unions will resist all...

It's called Slaintecare, there is cross-party agreement on it.

It wasn't really an issue in GE2020.

It means the removal of private practice from public hosps.

It doesn't directly involve private hosps.

It would mean the HSE would move closer to the NHS.

Geuze

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

The idea of a one tier or two tier health system to some extent is just codology. All countries have a second private tier. The only difference between Ireland and say the UK or a typical other country in Europe is that we are more reliant on private than elsewhere.

Yes, there is private practice in the UK, and AFAIK some takes place in public NHS hosps.

In many countries provision is left to many operators, while everybody has insurance.

Geuze

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd be okay with you paying more for my health care, OP, but I fear paying more money into the HSE (we pay more per capita that the UK for the NHS as it is) will not raise the Public sector up to the Private sector.

What do you think, OP?

This is my fear also.

We start Slaintecare, we pay more tax, the idea is we drop our insurance.

OK.

But then, for various reasons, the new Slaintecare doesn't meet the targets for waiting times.

LoughNeagh2017

Insurance is legal robbery, you pay your car insurance and if you have no accidents you are just paying for other peoples car repairs. Then they have the nerve to increase your insurance price if you ever do eventually have to claim yourself. It makes you want to drive into a wall just so you can get your moneys worth.

Montage of Feck

Insurance is a form of gambling so therefore immoral.

rob316

The state own the largest private operator. That sits uncomfortably with me. If you fixed the hse what would be the need for a private healthcare system?

Dravokivich

Montage of Feck wrote: »

Insurance is a form of gambling so therefore immoral.

No it isn't. Insurance is about protecting assets and minimising losses.

noodler

And I thought everyone was in favour of slaintecare

mickdw

Edgware wrote: »

There are several levels of insurance which will give different levels of benefit and are affordable to average wage/pension. People who smoke 40 a day could get some very good cover if they cut back to 20 a day and use the saving for health insurance.
Thats the system. You might as well say that every house should be priced at a price that all can afford.

I think you took slightly wrong meaning from my post. I should have explained better. Im agreeing that there is a place for health insurance and nothing wrong with providing better service to those who pay hard cash.
May be more accurate to say it should be at a price that those on average wages could afford if they chose to put their money in that direction and sacrifice other things.
It should never be affordable to all otherwise, it will be just a tax on public health care.
I also agree with loading prices for late comers.

AllForIt

No.

People who contribute more to the economy deserve better health care.

It's called being responsible and not expecting everything to be handed to you on a plate.

piplip87

noodler wrote: »

And I thought everyone was in favour of slaintecare

All parties in theory are in favour of Slantiecare. It's how it's implimented is where the differences lie.

FG want to gradually introduce it. By negotiating contracts with consultants to keep them working in the public hospitals and not see private patents.

FF want the same except to pump money into the Treatment Purchase Fund to reduce waiting times, which has plenty of merit as it dramatically decreased waiting times between the late 90s to mid 2000s.

SF & PBP want to roll in seize private hospitals, American pharmaceutical companies, Insurance companies and employ hospital consultants while Increasing Thier tax liability because you know consultants are highly paid and that's not allowed in the utopia. They also want to introduce free health care for all. Which again has merit but we need thousands of healthcare professionals before it can be implemented.

L1011

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I assume we get rid of all forms of medical card if we have a ‘1 tier’ system.

Yes and no

In a true single payer system there would be no need for a medical card equivalent because there would be no payments made ever by anyone


In many single tier European systems there is some form of user contribution for primary care costs - a damn sight lower than the average GP cost here currently - and for prescriptions; but there would still be exemptions available. These would be a lot less common than the medical card and would never have political interference in the issuing of them. Clean cutoffs and hard cases are ignored.

There was such extreme corruption in the issuing of discretionary medical cards in the past here that if we end up with a system like above your holding or not of a medical card previously should be entirely irrelevant; with the exemptions granted anew.

Geuze

L1011 wrote: »

In many single tier European systems there is some form of user contribution for primary care costs - a damn sight lower than the average GP cost here currently - and for prescriptions; but there would still be exemptions available. .

Yes, AFAIK in France most GP charge 25 euro.

The compulsory insurance covers 70%.

You pay the 30% yourself.

You can buy optional insurance to cover the 30%.

Yellow_Fern

piplip87 wrote: »

All parties in theory are in favour of Slantiecare. It's how it's implimented is where the differences lie.

FG want to gradually introduce it. By negotiating contracts with consultants to keep them working in the public hospitals and not see private patents.

FF want the same except to pump money into the Treatment Purchase Fund to reduce waiting times, which has plenty of merit as it dramatically decreased waiting times between the late 90s to mid 2000s.

SF & PBP want to roll in seize private hospitals, American pharmaceutical companies, Insurance companies and employ hospital consultants while Increasing Thier tax liability because you know consultants are highly paid and that's not allowed in the utopia. They also want to introduce free health care for all. Which again has merit but we need thousands of healthcare professionals before it can be implemented.

Yes the parties but there are plenty of intelligent people who don't agree with Slaintecare.

Ireland's jumbled health service is a suitable case for treatment — but not at any price: cormac lucey


Waiting times are an inevitable feature of a universal free on entry healthcare.

sheep26

mickdw wrote: »

No.
You spend on what you chose. Some spend their last penny on health cover while others might spend it on a holiday.
It should however be priced at a level where people with average wage / pension should be able to afford it.

I totally agree

mariaalice

No, nor are fee-paying schools, or living a five-bed house by yourself.

There should be equality of access to health care based on medical needs but if someone is using their insurance to get a more convenient appointment time, a nicer ambiance, a modern ensuite private room, more convenient all-round experience I don't see any harm in that.

Yellow_Fern

Healthcare is what is termed a positive right. It requires others to provide you with this service. Nature does not provide it. What relies on others will always be at the whims of others and the state can only try to provide the service insofar as all the highly specialised doctors and nurses are willing and able to sell their labour to provide it. As medicine becomes more and more advanced it is becoming harder to offer and it seems to be more and more irresponsible to assume that the state will will simply provide it to you as desired. There are just too many actors at play. For that reason I would urge everyone to buy private health insurance.