I agree but they have increased the cost of consultant contracts in the last year with no added benefit to wait times from what I can see.I am delighted that spending hasn't increased on healthcare. Those working in the sector have to start to act like adults and accept the majority of the responsibility for the shocking state of the health service, especially considering that it's one of the best funded healthcare systems in the world with amongst the best paid employees and has very high staffing levels.
People are very focused on the DoH/HSE spend but relatively little is mentioned about the huge money we pay for private insurance. It all comes out of our pockets one way or another, so we should be looking at our overall health spend per capita.
No, the Private System props up the Public System. I pay for healthcare through my taxes and I pay for again with private health insurance.People are very focused on the DoH/HSE spend but relatively little is mentioned about the huge money we pay for private insurance. It all comes out of our pockets one way or another, so we should be looking at our overall health spend per capita.
The public system props up the private in many ways, so those who have no/low insurance are effectively subsidising both the well-heeled with VHI MegaPlan Z as well as those with medical cards, etc.
No, the Private System props up the Public System.
I pay for healthcare through my taxes and I pay for again with private health insurance.
Yes.
This is the Annual Market Report 2022 from the Health Insurance Authority.
It doesn’t show the total premiums paid in 2022 – not that could I see.
If there was no private system the State would have to provide the services it currently provides.In what way?
Okay, so that's the point. What don't you get? Sorry if that sounds curt but I don't see how anyone other than a teenaged socialist could possibly think that the private system is being propped up by the public system.Yes, that's the exact point being made.
The private system largely cherry picks the high-margin, lower-cost, lower-risk activity. The HSE is the provider of last resort, so when insurance runs out (and it often does) then the HSE picks up the tab. For example, patients who have private cosmetic procedures and end up in ICU costing 6 figures. The cost of delivering care privately is not always cheaper either, so there are hidden costs to the individual, the insured as a whole, and to the exchequer.If there was no private system the State would have to provide the services it currently provides.
Okay, so that's the point. What don't you get? Sorry if that sounds curt but I don't see how anyone other than a teenaged socialist could possibly think that the private system is being propped up by the public system.
Agree with Purple. Was told recently by an employee of Mater Public that the difference between it and the Private is shaded. HSE parients are regularly referred to Private for treatment,the Private System props up the Public System.
Yes, when the subsidy runs out the HSE covers the rest of the cost.The private system largely cherry picks the high-margin, lower-cost, lower-risk activity. The HSE is the provider of last resort, so when insurance runs out (and it often does) then the HSE picks up the tab.
That's a tiny sum in the overall context of the billions spent on private healthcare.For example, patients who have private cosmetic procedures and end up in ICU costing 6 figures.
I agree. Healthcare is extremely bad value for money.The cost of delivering care privately is not always cheaper either, so there are hidden costs to the individual, the insured as a whole, and to the exchequer.
I apologise. I was asking an honest question. I don't see how a private system which gives billions of additional funding on top of the public system can be seen as anything other than a subsidy of that public system.There is no point in discussing further if you can't be civil. No-one else here is personalising it or using ad hominems.
Are we not talking about the greater dependency?
Across the board, does the private health sector have a greater dependency on the public health sector or vice versa?
Also, elective treatment covered by private health insurance in order to avert, resolve or ameliorate a particular condition will presumably lessen the burden on the public system that would have materialised in due course had that treatment not been undergone in the first instance.If I have a lump or a heart attack and I use my private health insurance to receive treatment then there is no cost to the State. If I don't have private health insurance then I use the public system and there is a cost to the State. Ergo the private health service subsidises the public health service in that it reduces the amount of health services consumed within the public system.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?