That would be fine if doctors only worked in the private or public system but they don't. They would be assessing their mates who would in turn be assessing them.Basically, the role of the private operators needs to reduce in the medium term, and removing them from the assessment means recommendations are likely to be based on medical evidence rather than financially motivated.
That is incorrect in my experience.
You can be as fat as you like as long as you have the cash.
It will be down to the doctors "clinical" decision. Translated that means if he/she wants the money they will approve the treatment.As long as you have the cash you can have anything you like. This topic is about those who cannot afford the treatment.
It will be down to the doctors "clinical" decision. Translated that means if he/she wants the money they will approve the treatment.
You say that despite all of the evidence to the contrary over decades in this country and elsewhere. Why do you use the phrase "professional doctors"? You you think professionals are less prone to human frailties that the rest of us plebs? Take a look at the tax defaulters list and, this may shock you, but doctors pop up with great regularity. Work on the assumption that they are just the same as the rest of us, no better or worse. Very few are ever sanctioned, particularly is specialist areas.And you can't think of any checks and balances that may deter professional doctors from fraud? For instance, having to fraudently alter blood test results? Or being the doctor with a patients who success rates are below average? Or losing your licence to practice?
There is a reason why medical doctors can command good salaries, it rewards them for their professionalism and dedication, provides them with reasonably well-off lifestyles and in turn reduces their need to act in a corrupt manner.
I absolutely agree that if this is to be state funded, it needs to be taken away from the private operators within a pre-defined amount of time and limits/controls put in place.If it is run by a public only system with everyone concerned getting a flat salary with limits on the numbers of times each person/couple can access the service and with a limit on the overall number of IVF rounds the State funds each year then maybe it could be done but the most likely outcome from this is rich doctors getting richer.
While not appropriate to this conversation, doctors in general tend to rely on professional advice around their finances. They are normally too busy working and earning money to be coming up with schemes on how to avoid/evade tax. They rely on professionals to advise them in this area. Much of that advice can be poor, and what really 'kills' them is they discuss some scheme in the staff canteen with some others and they suggest it to their accountant and all of a sudden they are caught as well. Sheep mentality is definitely at play here.Take a look at the tax defaulters list and, this may shock you, but doctors pop up with great regularity. Work on the assumption that they are just the same as the rest of us, no better or worse.
Don't worry Brendan. Knock-on costs you envisage will be more than offset by the savings made when 8th amendment is weakened and the State ramps up abortion funding.The taxpayer will not just be paying for the IVF, we will be paying for providing for them throughout their childhood because the parents presumably wont' be able to afford that either. And they won't be able to continue living in their one bed apartment, so we will have to provide them with "decent housing" as well. And it won't pay them to work and pay for childcare, so we will have to provide social welfare to the parents as well.
You say that despite all of the evidence to the contrary over decades in this country and elsewhere. Why do you use the phrase "professional doctors"? You you think professionals are less prone to human frailties that the rest of us plebs? Take a look at the tax defaulters list and, this may shock you, but doctors pop up with great regularity. Work on the assumption that they are just the same as the rest of us, no better or worse. Very few are ever sanctioned, particularly is specialist areas.
Diagnosis is based on their opinion after looking at multiple factors. They can just play the emotive card, they are good at that, and talk about the unfortunate people to whom they are peddling their wears rather than the large incomes they are getting from their customers. You will never be more vulnerable, more open to grasping at straws, than when you sit across from them and they are offering you the chance to have a family.
While you may be slightly more reticent when it is your money there is no chance of rationality coming into it when they are asking you to gamble with someone else's money.
If it is run by a public only system with everyone concerned getting a flat salary with limits on the numbers of times each person/couple can access the service and with a limit on the overall number of IVF rounds the State funds each year then maybe it could be done but the most likely outcome from this is rich doctors getting richer.
What's the difference between a corrupt doctor and a professional doctor?I never suggested that there is no such thing as corrupt doctors, merely implied that they are not all on the take. If I was to take a guess, I would say the ratio of corrupt doctors to professional doctors would be very low.
Yea, that's why they insist on cash only paymentsWhile not defending anyone who defaults on tax, I doubt doctors themselves (to a large degree) come up with the 'avoidance' schemes.
I fee sorry for couples who can't have kids or who can't afford to have kids, but...
If they can't afford IVF, then they can't afford to have children.
Those with a medical card* should get free IVF and everyone else should pay.
In the meantime, back on topic, here is the report from the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction
http://health.gov.ie/wp-content/upl...Commission-on-Assisted-Human-Reproduction.pdf
C'mon cremeegg, Carl Marx came up with socialism in 1848. 12 years is nothing!"Back on topic" with a 12 year old report that also does not actually address the topic
I have always received a proper receipt from any medical professional I have ever encountered, no matter how it was paid.Yea, that's why they insist on cash only payments
"Back on topic" with a 12 year old report that also does not actually address the topic. It a report on :
"possible approaches to the regulation of all aspects of assisted human reproduction and the social, ethical and legal factors to be taken into account in determining public policy."
So no mention of taxpayers paying for IVF or not.
C'mon cremeegg, Carl Marx came up with socialism in 1848. 12 years is nothing!
There are lots of things that people can't afford. Should their neighbours have to pay for those as well? 5-10k a year, it would be far more than that!Given the huge financial pressures couples starting out face, it seems really misguided to say that because they can't come up with an extra 5-10k in a year that they can't afford children.
I'm aware of the risk of breaching the posting guidelines here but that's rubbish.The first round is often diagnostic
No, he's posted far more insensitive stuff than that!Wow! Is Brendan's second post here possibly the most insensitive ever?
I think the proposal to pay for IVF is premature though. Until we can reduce waiting lists for essential surgeries, offer more support for home carers and children with disabilities, we cannot afford to fund IVF. People can already claim back 20% on ivf expenses. Maybe start by increasing the tax back.
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?