Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Government's secret plan to block repayment of illegal nursing home charges

Options
11213141618

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Ambulance chasing lawyers is his new phrase for all injustices that require redress. No details of course. Just deflection and zero empathy.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    I had to pay privately for an awful lot of medical care because the care I wanted wasn't available in the timeframe I wanted. Should I be compensated too?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Did you have a medical card?

    I think that was the basis for entitlement here.

    As to which people with medical cards would have qualified, that's the kind of question I'd like the AG to answer in the public interest.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Irish Examiner view: Attorney General delivers remarkable opinion

    Attorney General delivers remarkable opinion

    The opinion delivered by Attorney General Rossa Fanning on the State’s legal strategy seems remarkable enough as an endorsement of the steps pursued. 

    An accompanying comment from the Attorney General, that the public interest is the only interest that the State can have regard to, is even more remarkable.

    That seems an out-and-out contradiction given the situation thousands of members of the public found themselves in as a result of this strategy. 

    An obvious question to ask is what specific public interests were served by the behaviour of successive governments on this issue.

    It’s a frequent criticism of the legal system that it exists to perpetuate itself rather than to serve the people, but reports like this from the Attorney General certainly strengthen the impression of a closed shop validating its own practitioners. 

    It also shows up a certain contradiction in the purpose of the office itself: The Attorney General is legal adviser to each Government department and certain public bodies, but is also the representative of the public in all legal proceedings for the enforcement of law and the assertion or protection of public rights.

    In this particular instance, the issue at hand is not an obscure point of constitutional law but a well-publicised strategy now familiar to much of the population — a strategy which seems manifestly unfair.

    Here is a case in which the assertion or protection of public rights seems to be badly needed, yet the Attorney General has seen fit to focus on its role as legal adviser to Government departments instead. A poor choice.

    ---------------------

    A lot of questions to be answered on this one yet. I presume a report has been promised in the distant future?

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Fine Gael New Politics document 2011

    "Fine Gael will also examine whether some of the functions of the Attorney General, as they relate to his role as “guardian” of the public interest, should be transferred to the Ombudsman. We believe there is a potential conflict of interest between this function of the Attorney General, and his other function as adviser to the Government."

    Sure they will...

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    As noted above that sort of question would be more appropriate for an ombudsman.

    The ombudsman might even be able to initiate court challenges if there was disagreement or say the wronged people were too many to identify or vulnerable.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    No, like everyone else in Ireland, I am entitled to free medical treatment in hospital. It wasn't available in the timeframe I wanted, or in the form I wanted, so I went private, I must be entitled to a refund under the criteria being used here.

    There were waiting lists for nursing homes, just like there are waiting lists now for hip operations. Surely those who chose to go private then and you want compensated are only as equally entitled as me who chose to go private.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Isn't there a scheme in place that if you're waiting long enough for a public treatment a private one will be be provided without charge.

    In this case there was a charge, often borne by the immediate families of these people.

    Hence the wrongdoing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    It already went to the Ombudsman, who found there was an entitlement to refund.

    What wasn't clear was exactly which people should be refunded. Would it be everyone, as everyone over the age of 70 had a medical card back then.

    If I have my timelines correct the government then decided it didn't agree with the Ombudsman's finding which led to this 'strategy'.

    I believe the legal interpretation of successive AGs had been that there wouldn't be blanket liability for the state, i.e., if families voluntarily chose private care they would not be entitled.

    But this 'strategy' just meant those people would be paid out, especially if they had a FG TD as solicitor.

    It stinks.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,640 ✭✭✭Floppybits


    That New Politics Document keeps coming back to haunt FG. They just can't help themselves, they saw how FF acted in government prior and when FG got in they thought well we have to show the electorate that we are better at FF at being corrupt.

    Does it seem that when FG don't get their way in something, they do their absolute best to P*ss everyone off as a punishment like a spoiled child.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    The government has today (Tuesday) noted the report from the Attorney General on matters relating to historic pre-2005 private nursing home charges, and the historic pre-2007 Disabled Persons Maintenance Allowance. The report is being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published.

    The Ministers for Health and for Social Protection, will consider the report and revert to Government within three months.

    -----------------------------

    Within 3 months...how long will it actually take? Given it has taken 2 years to investigate the leak of the Mother and Baby home report findings....

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Far from being a historical issue it looks like this kind of attitude towards how we treat the elderly is alive and well.

    How much do we let go before FFG get booted out?

    Will Varadkar have to be out mugging grannies himself?



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,026 ✭✭✭✭Larbre34


    As annoying as it may be for you, this topic is not a make or break for many voters.

    It would have directly impacted a relatively small number of people to begin with and a lot of time has passed, so that has been further diluted.

    People who vote are, in the main, working adults with families of various ages, who are trying to secure a good education for the kids, a value added lifestyle for themselves and the prospect of a sustainable retirement.

    As is human nature, eaten bread is soon forgotten and so elections are won and lost by how much cash is in a wallet, how good the employment picture is, how manageable the mortgage or rent is, how satisfactory and fairly priced an education the youngsters are getting and how easy it is to avail of good and prompt health care.

    That even goes for the 'grey army', who mobilised in the 2008-12 years when their State pension, travel pass, medical cards and living alone allowance, all came under scrutiny from An Bord Snip Nua.

    I don't deny the Government is really up against it with the current serious difficulties in health and housing for tens of thousands. Thats what will sink or save them, not this historical nursing home care issue.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,972 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Yes but you need to apply to the NTPF and it was only setup in 2004, also the fair deal scheme was only setup in 2009 and again you have to apply and be approved for it. I'm pretty sure both these dates fall outside when the majority if not all of when these cases were happening so they don't apply to this situation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    You're 100% correct. 👍️

    I was just replying to someone else who was trying to make a point about private medical patients being refunded because of public waiting lists.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,972 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Yeah i'm still not understanding why anyone who used private nursing homes because public beds were full is entitled to a repayment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    Because they had medical cards, I believe is the legal basis.

    Roisin Shortall also pointed out that the number of public beds shrank dramatically in this time.

    Many of these people would have paid social insurance all their lives.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I posted this yesterday without describing what's in it.

    https://www.thejournal.ie/nursing-homes-ireland-3-5991314-Feb2023/

    Since 2016 there have been reports of families with elderly relatives being given all sorts of spurious charges.

    Some were charged for bandages and dressings which were to be provided by the HSE.

    In some cases being charged for newspapers for blind relatives. Or being charged for bingo and baking for a relatives didn't partake.

    Seems the elderly are still getting shafted by FFG.

    And makes a further mockery of their claims of how careful they are with the public purse.



  • Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭TipsyMcStagge


    The failure of the state to provide the appropriate amount of public beds caused a reliance on private homes in the first place. This is absolutely deliberate state policy driven by the hideous neo liberal ideology which underlines it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Well then, if that applied then to nursing homes, then it applies now to other medical issues and procedures.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,193 ✭✭✭Cluedo Monopoly


    Yeah, name a vulnerable group who hasn't been treated badly by the state.

    What are they doing in the Hyacinth House?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,972 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    PRSI has nothing to do with this. Its not a savings account, PRSI paid today is paid out to someone as welfare tomorrow. Im 37 and will end up having paid PRSI a large portion of my working life but by the time I get to retirement age the state pension as we know it will not exist.

    I simply don't agree that holding a medical card should entitle someone to repayment of any private treatment without prior agreement from the state like the NTPF or Fair Deal scheme.

    Its akin to requesting your taxi journeys be repaid because you hold a travel pass and there were no buses.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,972 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Exactly if its true the medical card program is fatally flawed and needs to be completely reworked.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    If the government concedes on the nursing home issue, they face a much much bigger bill and a much much bigger problem when it comes to medical treatment.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    What do you mean by "badly"?

    Is there a universal standard? Should we compare ourselves to other countries?



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    I'm in agreement with you there.

    So would we bring in universal entitlements? Say for people with disabilities should everyone with a certain level of disability have an entitlement to state care?

    At present it's at the whim of the state for adults with disabilities, and I'm aware that this is being abused by the private sector these services are farmed out to.

    Families are told if they complain about problems in a service they'll have to take their relative home, though they wouldn't have the facilities or resources to care for them at home.

    Of course this has been known about for years. What was FFGs response? Sweep it under the carpet with these dodgy secret plans.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    You'll have to back that up with something or else it's just scaremongering.

    Successive FFG governments were made aware since the early 1970's they had a legal responsibility to some elderly patients in private care. See the Travers report.

    I'm not aware of any report or advice saying the same applied to other forms of medical care.



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,755 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    What is being said is that the Government is liable to pay the private costs because a public bed wasn't available. Conceding that principle doesn't just apply to nursing home beds, it applies to all treatment available on a medical card. That means that any person with a medical card can just go and get private treatment and claim a refund from the government.

    The thing is that the outrage merchants rarely think things through.

    Any government that conceded on this issue would be insane.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,509 ✭✭✭MegamanBoo


    But you've nothing to back that up, you're just adding 2 + 2 and getting something that justifies the FFG position.

    It's just scaremongering.

    The legal advise since the 1970's is that governments had a liability for some private patients in public nursing homes.

    If you find something comparable for other forms of medical care, by all means bring it to the discussion.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,893 ✭✭✭deirdremf


    by the time I get to retirement age the state pension as we know it will not exist.

    That depends on who you vote for. Keep voting for FFG and your prediction will certainly come true.



Advertisement