The NMH at St. Vincents

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Why does that not apply to all the other private institutions that have received state funding ?

Maybe perhaps because we are talking about key pieces of infrastructure that appear to be influenced by a group that feels they are above the law?

SD

StudentDad

Donal55 wrote: »

Nope. Our local GAA club got a couple of hundred grand of public money. Is that public property?

This isn't about ownership. This is about control. As far as I know the GAA has never publically placed itself above the law.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

By that you mean give them an exemption from law?

SD

They should get exactly the same as any other private institution currently gets. Exemption of what law ? What law says nuns, or any other hospital must carry out abortions ? The nuns didn't ask for a maternity hospital. The state wanted to build one on their land, the state agreed to their requests, and entered the deal, yet the state are not responsible for what the state does or the deals it enters ?

One eyed Jack

StudentDad wrote: »

It did! You could argue that all the monies pumped into facilities run/owned by the church have become public property by default. Unless the church want's to refund those monies. They're a bit slow with handing over cash so I can't see that happening.

SD

No you couldn't, as they provided services to the State for which they, like any other organisation that provides services to the State, are entitled to be paid for.

Donal55

StudentDad wrote: »

Maybe perhaps because we are talking about key pieces of infrastructure that appear to be influenced by a group that feels they are above the law?

SD

We knew about their views when we were pumping the money into them.
Nothing has changed from their stand point.

Donal55

Gotta go. Line of Duty is on!!!

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

They should get exactly the same as any other private institution gets. Exemption of what law ? What law says nuns, or any other hospital must carry out abortions? The nuns asked, the state agreed and entered the deal, yet are now now responsible for the states mess instead of the state ? lol

lol yeah coz a hospital run/influenced by a religious order doesn't want the right to cherry pick the medical procedures that parliament has legislated for, to be provided in our public hospitals.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

This isn't about ownership. This is about control. As far as I know the GAA has never publically placed itself above the law.

SD

What law says nuns must carry out abortions ?

StudentDad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No you couldn't, as they provided services to the State for which they, like any other organisation that provides services to the State, are entitled to be paid for.

Maybe it's time to break that arrangement.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

lol yeah coz a hospital run/influenced by a religious order doesn't want the right to cherry pick the medical procedures that parliament has legislated for, to be provided in our public hospitals.

SD

Who wanted the nuns involved, wanted to build on their land, and wanted to enter a deal with them ?

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

What law says nuns must carry out abortions ?

What I'm saying is that when it's a publically funded institution and if in the circumstances the abortion in question is legal they ought not be allowed say, 'no, we're not doing that.'

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

What I'm saying is that when it's a publically funded institution and if in the circumstances the abortion in question is legal they ought not be allowed say, 'no, we're not doing that.'

SD

Then why didn't the state make that a condition ? Did you expect the nuns to volunteer to do abortions ?

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Then why didn't the state make that a condition ? Did you expect the nuns to volunteer to do abortions ?

Okay, this discussion has descended into farce. Good luck.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

Okay, this discussion has descended into farce. Good luck.

SD

If the state has no responsibility for the deals it enters and its own actions, pretty much.

One eyed Jack

StudentDad wrote: »

Maybe it's time to break that arrangement.

SD

And how much do you think people should pay in increased taxes to fund your principles?

I'm a taxpayer too and I pay far too much taxes for the shoddy services provided by the State as it is, let alone being asked to bear any further costs to fund incompetence and cronyism.

StudentDad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And how much do you think people should pay in increased taxes to fund your principles?

I'm a taxpayer too and I pay far too much taxes for the shoddy services provided by the State as it is, let alone being asked to bear any further costs to fund incompetence and cronyism.

My principles? Hardly. It isn't too much to expect those who run institutions on behalf of the state and paid by the State. To provide medical care that's been legislated for, either now or in the future.



SD

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

Well, yes, but some ideologies are undoubtedly more harmful than others. An ideology that specifically leads to a prevention in administering healthcare options is more dangerous in the context of running a hospital than an ideology that venerates cats! The context is pretty important here. Sure, it is down to the individual how far they want to take their ideology, but again, when they are in an order that represents said ideology and backs up that it must be upheld, the risks of the ideology being followed is much higher. People at an individual level, confronted with suffering, are much more likely to step in and help than an organisation that feels it against their rules and morality. It is far easier to follow rules than make them.

You are correct that I don't know much about either of the scandals you mentioned and I will read up on them, but as it stands, I would prefer to have the State running healthcare as a State institution at least conceptually answerable to the Irish people than the Catholic Church which is so much more difficult to hold to account for anything.

May I recommend that you research the Bridget McCole story?

It's illuminating!

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

My principles? Hardly. It isn't too much to expect those who run institutions on behalf of the state and paid by the State. To provide medical care that's been legislated for, either now or in the future.

SD

The state approached the nuns looking to build a hospital on their land, why is the state not looking to provide its own services ?
And why is the state not responsible for the agreement it enters into ?

One eyed Jack

StudentDad wrote: »

My principles? Hardly. It isn't too much to expect those who run institutions on behalf of the state and paid by the State. To provide medical care that's been legislated for, either now or in the future.

None of the religious orders run institutions on behalf of the State, but of course I would expect the State to pay for services provided to it by organisations run by religious orders. What services these religious orders provide is at their discretion, and if the State doesn't want to pay for their services, the religious orders will still continue to make money from providing their services to private patients.

It's those people who cannot afford private healthcare (again, due to successive Governments incompetence) who will lose out.

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

The state approached the nuns looking to build a hospital on their land, why is the state not looking to provide it own services ?
And why is the state not responsible for the agreement it enters into ?

Those are legitimate questions. I cannot answer them though.

SD

StudentDad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of the religious orders run institutions on behalf of the State, but of course I would expect the State to pay for services provided to it by organisations run by religious orders. What services these religious orders provide is at their discretion, and if the State doesn't want to pay for their services, the religious orders will still continue to make money from providing their services to private patients.

It's those people who cannot afford private healthcare (again, due to successive Governments incompetence) who will lose out.

Those people dependent on the public health system are losing out as you say. The vested interests are making their money and it looks from where I'm standing anyway like they will continue to do so. It's one thing to allow a private company run a hospital paid for by the State. It is an entirely different matter when that company is allowed own the ground it's placed on. The govt. has a chance here to break the mould so to speak. Sure, let the nuns run the hospital but don't let them own the facility and remove any notions of 'sorry we don't like those treatments' if/or when the law changes and certain procedures become legal. We can't have the insane outcome of a publically funded hospital limited in what it will be able to provide because board members x and y or z veto the procedures they disagree with. It's either a public hospital or it's not. It can't be a LLC that takes taxpayers money and then tells the populace to shove it, if the law changes and certain procedures become legal down the road.

SD

One eyed Jack

StudentDad wrote: »

Those people dependent on the public health system are losing out as you say. The vested interests are making their money and it looks from where I'm standing anyway like they will continue to do so. It's one thing to allow a private company run a hospital paid for by the State. It is an entirely different matter when that company is allowed own the ground it's placed on. The govt. has a chance here to break the mould so to speak.

The way I see it, the Government had a chance here to implement internationally recommended best practice by co-locating a maternity unit with an acute unit on the one ground and save tax payers a ball of cash. But, due to Government incompetence, SVHG pulled out of the deal so now the Government could be left with no choice to, as you put it - break the mould, and in the process cost the tax payer an inordinate amount of money, more money than it cost them to fund any redress scheme, that's for sure.

And then 'Brains' Harris suggests a divestment scheme similar to the divestment scheme used to divest patronage in the Education sector?

Jesus wept (no pun intended).

Sure, let the nuns run the hospital but don't let them own the facility and remove any notions of 'sorry we don't like those treatments' if/or when the law changes and certain procedures become legal. We can't have the insane outcome of a publically funded hospital limited in what will be a available because board members x and y or z veto the procedures they disagree with. It's either a public hospital or it's not. It can't be a LLC that takes taxpayers money and then tells the populace to shove it, if the law changes and certain procedures become legal down the road.

The whole premise of your argument is based upon things that haven't happened yet (and won't likely be implemented in the way you envision if the Oireachtas has anything to do with it). Hospitals will be just like schools in that they will be able to tell Government simply naff off with their funding and they'll take private patients. You might call it an "insane outcome", but it's actually standard practice internationally (except for the States where ObamaCare has been an utter disaster and Trump rolling back on it has only increased his popularity).

StudentDad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way I see it, the Government had a chance here to implement internationally recommended best practice by co-locating a maternity unit with an acute unit on the one ground and save tax payers a ball of cash. But, due to Government incompetence, SVHG pulled out of the deal so now the Government could be left with no choice to, as you put it - break the mould, and in the process cost the tax payer an inordinate amount of money, more money than it cost them to fund any redress scheme, that's for sure.

And then 'Brains' Harris suggests a divestment scheme similar to the divestment scheme used to divest patronage in the Education sector?

Jesus wept (no pun intended).





The whole premise of your argument is based upon things that haven't happened yet (and won't likely be implemented in the way you envision if the Oireachtas has anything to do with it). Hospitals will be just like schools in that they will be able to tell Government simply naff off with their funding and they'll take private patients. You might call it an "insane outcome", but it's actually standard practice internationally (except for the States where ObamaCare has been an utter disaster and Trump rolling back on it has only increased his popularity).

Maybe I am looking into a crystal ball to some extent. However, I'd like to think that we've learned from our mistakes. Not holding my breath on that one. It also points to the fact that if the nuns do opt for the naff off option they need to have as few advantages as possible from the get go. Let them run the place for x years, they don't own the facility and if they won't take direction from govt., get rid and find someone who will. Yes the money is in private practice but it has to be a public facility, not just in name. It's a hospital, not the Ritz.

SD

pilly

......... wrote:

Since when was the state not responsible for the deals it enters into ?

......... wrote:

The state is responsible for its own actions, and should be providing it's own healthcare to citizens instead of relying on cosy deals with the private sector.

Are you just copy and pasting?

.........

pilly wrote: »

Are you just copy and pasting?

any answers to the questions repeatedly being avoided yet ?

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And how much do you think people should pay in increased taxes to fund your principles?

I'm a taxpayer too and I pay far too much taxes for the shoddy services provided by the State as it is, let alone being asked to bear any further costs to fund incompetence and cronyism.

I see that, along with your opposition to abortion, you also have a principled position on your tax money and imagine you would also NOT want taxpayers funding a new NMH to be provided by the state if the people given possession of the new maternity hospital turn to the state and say "we will not allow services at it that we don't like" thus denying its patients the services already provided at Holles St NMH.

It's my understanding that StudentDad also has a principled approach to the use of taxpayers monies and does NOT want to have taxpayers money wasted at the St Vincent's campus if the SOC don't wish to provide or indeed put a block on services at a new state funded National Maternity Hospital they may be handed possession of, said services being provided at the present NMH.

It seems to me that, despite your opposing views on the issue to hand, you both agree on NOT wanting taxpayers funds to be wasted. I can't, as yet, see what tax funds would go towards funding StudentDads principles. The new hospital is at the proposal stage, no deal being done at a legal level yet from which the parties could NOT withdraw without financial penalties which the taxpayer would fund.

aloyisious

The Examiner is running a front page story that the state may lease the site at SVH that the new NMH is supposed to be located on for a nominal sum yearly over an extended period. Foreign Affairs minister Charlie Flanagan is quoted as saying the Govt is considering the proposal while Simon Harris is quoted as saying (again) that the Govt will be looking at the ownership of the (NMH) facility at SVH. I missed the statement the report says Simon Harris made last night on the issue.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/disputed-national-maternity-hospital-site-may-be-leased-by-state-449110.html

Hotblack Desiato

Donal55 wrote: »

Can't see that happening soon.

Did you overlook the word new? That can and should start today.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way I see it, the Government had a chance here to implement internationally recommended best practice by co-locating a maternity unit with an acute unit on the one ground and save tax payers a ball of cash. But, due to Government incompetence, SVHG pulled out of the deal

Educate yourself as to the actual facts.

pilly

......... wrote:

any answers to the questions repeatedly being avoided yet ?

To what? The government is bad blah blah blah? I think we're all agreed on that. Just fail to see what point you're trying to make?

Samaris

As a matter of interest, how is it not holding the State responsible for a deal they're wishing to make by pointing out to the State that a large number of people do not feel their deal is currently acceptable due to the involvement and potential influence of the Sisters of Charity?

I mean, that is exactly what this is. State brings in Church (or rather, State wants hospital close to the previous one, it's not quite like they were just looking for a spot anywhere and this one just happens to be belonging to SoC). Many people do not like this. They protest the Church's involvement in the deal to the State. Note how there's no arguments aimed at changing the views of the -Church- in this. I think most Irish people know that's pointless by now.

So basically, the sticking point is the Church's involvement because of their past record, their intransigence about doing anything about it and all complaints are actually being levelled at the State to get the Church out. As it is meant to go, since we control the State (more or less, or at the least, we theoretically can), and do not and cannot control the Church (to do that, hey look, we'd need to clean up the State's toadying, so it keeps coming back to the State).