Co location and location of cental mental hospital

[althebal]

Colocation is, I believe, the most important issue in the negotiations along with the location of the central mental hospital alongside a prison.

If I was involved in negotiatians for the Greens, I would not give ground on these issues.

While the popular perception of the green party is that their raison d'etre relates to the environment, this is not the case. Green thought and policy extends far beyond this.

Most of this thought and much of the policy is in line with both FF and PD policy. The green party adds creativity and new ideas to common areas of interest to the whole community in areas such as eduaction, planning, health and economics.

Much as the Greens wish to enter government and regardless of the fact that their policies will also further the 'pd agenda' of job creation and fiscal responsibility, they must abide by important social democratic principles such as 1) equality and 2) healthcare and education as a community services accessible to all.

In relation to the large choices facing Irish society, I believe the motorway near Tara, sheel to sea and shannon, are worth giving ground on.

I believe shannon is worth giving ground on because denying the US the use of Shannon would, I believe, constitute a hostile act in a world with enough hostility in it already, and would make no difference to the war in Iraq and the people of Iraq. If Ireland has any voice here, it is as a friend of America where, we can and do, urge a peaceful approach to world issues.

On the motorway and Tara, I am not so sure. There is a good argument for perserving the site. I don't know if there is an alternative route. If there is it should be used, if not, it should be comprimised on by the Greens, if neccessarry. Denying the people in the commuter belt roads would be high-minded puritanical politics given the reality of public transport services.

Again, I am not familiar with the issues sorrounding Shell to sea, but it is certain that this will go ahead. Ensuring that it is done with the highest regard for safety is the most the Greens can hope for at present.


However, to facilitate the increased stigmatisation of mental illness and the creation of a two tier healthcare system is too much.

If we want to live in harmony with the rest of the planet, we must first create human harmony and this requires equality. That is why these are green issues and issues which I feel the Green party cannot give ground on.

And it would be a wonderful start in government for the Greens to facilitate change in these areas.

For a pluralistic party like FF, colocation should also be a non-runner and locating the central mental hospital in the grounds of a prison should be abondoned by anyone with a conscience and insight into human nature and the damaging effects of stigmatisation.

btw, what would I not give for green policy to be implemented in mental health. John Gormly as a junior minister in this area would mean more CBT, less pychiatric drugs and a more holistic approach to mental health issues with community services and properly funded muiltidisciplinary teams supporting people in communities increasingly replacing inpatient admissions and general improvments of standards and patient care.

Bring on the change, but don't comprimise on basic principles.
The Green party will get its chance, and if patience is neccessarry they should be patient.

[Sea Shanty Irish]

Some truly exellent points in this post - agree with most (though not all) of them. The overall approach is great - am guessing that something similar is going on with the coalition negotiations.

Trick in this card game will be knowing when to hold 'em, and when to fold 'em . . . hope the Green team doesn't have to walk away, let alone run!

Personally think that the the majority of the Plain People of Ireland are highly allergic to the notion of combining mental hospitals and prisons . . . and think merging The Joy with Leinster House makes more sense!

[FutureTaoiseach]

Considering that 54% of us have health-insurance, the argument against private-hospital co-location as somehow only benefiting a small elite group in society is plain daft. The Greens should drop their opposition to this. It took 2 yrs to build the private Beacon Hospital and 12 years to build the public Tallaght Hospital. The reality is that the public-sector is - by definition - intrinsically inefficient. Even in France - that most socialistic of countries (whatever about its govt being theoretically centre-right) - 30% of the hospitals are private, providing 15% of the bed-capacity. The patient should not be forced to wait ten times as long for more beds because of leftwing ideologues in the Green party. They face a choice between remaining a party of protest - something that the election has shown will only get them so far - or a responsible party of government. Retaining the present-system means continuing with a policy that leaves 20% of beds in public-hospitals occupied by private-patients. Co-location will allow in future for these patients to be treated in private-hospitals, thereby freeing up beds in the public-hospitals. That is why 51% of the public in a recent poll a few days before the election back co-location.

If the Greens won't play ball, then FF, the PDs, Bev Flynn, JHR and Lowry can go ahead on our own. If they refuse to compromise then they will have shown the electorate that a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote for nothing more than a party of protest and they will be wiped out in 2012.

[Lulu84]

Considering that 54% of us have health-insurance, the argument against private-hospital co-location as somehow only benefiting a small elite group in society is plain daft. The Greens should drop their opposition to this. It took 2 yrs to build the private Beacon Hospital and 12 years to build the public Tallaght Hospital. The reality is that the public-sector is - by definition - intrinsically inefficient. Even in France - that most socialistic of countries (whatever about its govt being theoretically centre-right) - 30% of the hospitals are private, providing 15% of the bed-capacity. The patient should not be forced to wait ten times as long for more beds because of leftwing ideologues in the Green party. They face a choice between remaining a party of protest - something that the election has shown will only get them so far - or a responsible party of government. Retaining the present-system means continuing with a policy that leaves 20% of beds in public-hospitals occupied by private-patients. Co-location will allow in future for these patients to be treated in private-hospitals, thereby freeing up beds in the public-hospitals. That is why 51% of the public in a recent poll a few days before the election back co-location.

If the Greens won't play ball, then FF, the PDs, Bev Flynn, JHR and Lowry can go ahead on our own. If they refuse to compromise then they will have shown the electorate that a vote for the Greens is a wasted vote for nothing more than a party of protest and they will be wiped out in 2012.

Interesting that the percentage of the public who support co-location is almost equal to the amount that have private health insurance. Might it be the people people who have the luxery of affording private health insurance that are quite happy to support a (an even more) two-tiered system of health care? And that the people who know they're about to be left behind, even more disadvantaged in an already shambolic system, aren't so enamoured with the idea?


And 51% is such a negligble majority it can hardly be used as a basis for continuing with this ridiculous idea.

[ivnryn]

And 51% is such a negligble majority it can hardly be used as a basis for continuing with this ridiculous idea.

It was something like 51% for and 38% against (can't remember the exact against figures), so it wasn't on a knife edge.

Also, even if it was 51-49, then yes, under democracy, that is a reason for continuing with the idea.

On the other hand, there is a question of how strongly people support it. If the question had been to rank co-location on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 being fundamentally against, 5 being don't care and 10 being completely in support), I am not sure it it would have averaged greater than 5.

[tumeltyni]

Seriously, why don't people recognise that co-location means private patients not taking beds from public ones? Surely that's a good thing?

[Pax]

Seriously, why don't people recognise that co-location means private patients not taking beds from public ones? Surely that's a good thing?

That's the spin but it's not the reality. Wherever it was tried the public system suffered. In effect the private acted as a tax on the public system. It increased inequity and decreased efficiency.

[Pax]

Colocation is, I believe, the most important issue in the negotiations along with the location of the central mental hospital alongside a prison.

If I was involved in negotiatians for the Greens, I would not give ground on these issues.

While the popular perception of the green party is that their raison d'etre relates to the environment, this is not the case. Green thought and policy extends far beyond this.

For a similar thread see here