Harney is part of the problem not the solution

[John_C]

Regarding your observation that " we're only guarenteed a hospital for 15 years", up or down "we" are guarenteed nothing despite the fact that "we" will have forked our a huge portion of the build cost. The hospital will be owned and run by the private entity.Treatment within the facility will be strictly by invitation only.

To be honest, I don't really mind that. I think that demand for hospitalisation is pretty inelastic and if these private hospitals help make sick people better then I'm happy enough with the plan. I'd be concerned if these private hospitals were being used as a front for getting hold of state land, like some people believe, but I think the argument that the whole system will fall apart if the private patients are moved from one place to another is a bit too ideological for me.

[junketman]

I'm yet to be convinced Harney is the person to save our Health Service.

Yes it is an enormous task and maybe even an impossible task. And yes there are vested interests, in fact the whole thing is riddled with vested interests such as the managers, clerical staff, consultants, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and unionised workers of all sorts including for example porters.

Changing work practises is a difficult task and making everyone in the health service more accoutable is difficult. Yes agreed some form of privatisation would be a good thing, making people accountable.

I have no objection to co-location if it means ordinary people wont be on hospital trolleys waiting to be seen by a consultant who is stuck in traffic.

I have no objection to centres of excellence up to a point, that point being the totally random and urban centric positioning of those centres ie, does every centre have to be in the middle of a city where the traffic is at a standstill, there is no free parking and is a hellish journey for people from far away parts.

Harney may have identified the problems and bottleknecks in our health service but fundamentally she has delegated to others such as Dr. Keane and Prof. Drumm and allowed them determine strategies with little oversight from her. Just as Cowan must take responsibility for her reappointment she must also take resonsibility and correct the HSE when they do things such as the bad positioning of Centres of Excellence. You cannot let doctors run the health service because they are like all of us prone to helping out their friends. There needs to be direct political involvement too to keep the vested interests in check.

[hopi watcher]

[quote=John_C]

Regarding your observation that " we're only guarenteed a hospital for 15 years", up or down "we" are guarenteed nothing despite the fact that "we" will have forked our a huge portion of the build cost. The hospital will be owned and run by the private entity.Treatment within the facility will be strictly by invitation only.

To be honest, I don't really mind that. I think that demand for hospitalisation is pretty inelastic and if these private hospitals help make sick people better then I'm happy enough with the plan. I'd be concerned if these private hospitals were being used as a front for getting hold of state land, like some people believe, but I think the argument that the whole system will fall apart if the private patients are moved from one place to another is a bit too ideological for me.[/quote:2he0k33k]

Do you not think that our money would be better spent providing the beds required within the public system where the government would retain full control over them on our behalf? You imply that 'hospitalistion' is 'inelastic', I presume you mean that demand for hospital stay will fall. Unfortunatly it is estaimated that cancer rates could double within the next 20 years. Demand will rise not fall. Your observation that the co-location plan is ok on the basis that it will make sick people better, while well intended, overlooks the fact that these private facilities will only make people better who they choose to treat. Apart from the fact that there are other ways of tackling the problem of bed shortages, private health discriminates and segragates.

And regarding your last sentenance, can you tell us why every tax payer must contribute to the creation of a private hospital which will cherry pick who they treat and what services they will offer? All of the heavy lifting in health will conveniently remain within the public system and that includes the huge costs associated with the training of medical personnel and you won't find any ICU's in these private hospitals either. In fact, if as a private patient, you are undergoing a procedure in a private hospital and an emergecy arises during that treatment, you will be shifted to a public hospital because private hospitals are not equiped to deal with long stay problem patients, they are after all not about making people better, they are about making money. The only ideology that is contributing to the emasculation of our Health Service resides with Mary Harney. She is pushing the American system on this country as part of the neo-conservative fiscal policy which seeks to reduce tax burden on the wealthy. They are vehemently opposed to all citizens sharing the wealth created by the community. The co-location plan is a response to acknowledged bed shortages in the public system however it seeks to tackle that problem by growing for-profit activity in the service, use our money to do so and create facilities that not all citizens can access as a right. It is a convuluted nonsense that will copperfasten inequity.

[hopi watcher]

I'm yet to be convinced Harney is the person to save our Health Service.

Yes it is an enormous task and maybe even an impossible task. And yes there are vested interests, in fact the whole thing is riddled with vested interests such as the managers, clerical staff, consultants, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and unionised workers of all sorts including for example porters.

Changing work practises is a difficult task and making everyone in the health service more accoutable is difficult. Yes agreed some form of privatisation would be a good thing, making people accountable.

I have no objection to co-location if it means ordinary people wont be on hospital trolleys waiting to be seen by a consultant who is stuck in traffic.

I have no objection to centres of excellence up to a point, that point being the totally random and urban centric positioning of those centres ie, does every centre have to be in the middle of a city where the traffic is at a standstill, there is no free parking and is a hellish journey for people from far away parts.

Harney may have identified the problems and bottleknecks in our health service but fundamentally she has delegated to others such as Dr. Keane and Prof. Drumm and allowed them determine strategies with little oversight from her. Just as Cowan must take responsibility for her reappointment she must also take resonsibility and correct the HSE when they do things such as the bad positioning of Centres of Excellence. You cannot let doctors run the health service because they are like all of us prone to helping out their friends. There needs to be direct political involvement too to keep the vested interests in check.

Surely of equal importance is equity of access and co-location will make that position worse. The solution to bed shortages is to increase bed numbers and to ensure equity, the 'two waiting list system' should be outlawed. If people want to have private health treatment, then that's fine, but that should occur outside of the public system. If Quinn Insurance, Vivas etc etc want to build private hospitals to treat their customers that's fine also, providing it is seperated totally from the public system. With regard to your observation that Harney has delegated to others to implement fixes, that is a mile wide of the mark. What Harney is doing is directing policy while trying to outsource responsibility for what she is doing and this begs the obvious question, If what Harney is doing is so good, why is she placing all these quangos and individuals in the firing line? I never have come across a politician who would allow someone else take the credit for doing good!!!

[Aindriu]

Granted, insurance also covers hospital charges, for which you have to pay if you are not a medical card holder, but these costs are insignificant compared to the costs of treatment.

But what about people just outside the threshold for medical cards who can't afford to pay and don't have insurance? What do they do? Die quietly perhaps? There should be NO charges for hospital services! It makes me weep to think that some on here who scream about the rights of the unborn support the crass medical system we have in this country where people have to pay to be kept alive - either through insurance schemes or directly in some way.

[John_C]

You imply that 'hospitalistion' is 'inelastic', I presume you mean that demand for hospital stay will fall.

Sorry for any confusion, what I meant was that I think the demand for hospital beds doesn't rise with an increased number of beds. I think that's what the word 'elastic' means in this context but even if it's not, it's what I meant to say.

Also, if I juxtapose two quotes I think my opinion on the matter becomes reasonably clear;

I think the argument that the whole system will fall apart if the private patients are moved from one place to another is a bit too ideological for me.

they are after all not about making people better, they are about making money. The only ideology that is contributing to the emasculation of our Health Service resides with Mary Harney. She is pushing the American system on this country as part of the neo-conservative fiscal policy which seeks to reduce tax burden on the wealthy. They are vehemently opposed to all citizens sharing the wealth created by the community.

[L.O. Dublin S.C.]

Replace Mary Harney with Jan O'Sullivan. Problem solved.