Update on health Crisis

by Ms Harney Tue Apr 17, 2007 19:26

Only joking.

Tonight on the radio- Ms Harney stated that she would go ahead and advertise
the consultant's positions because the consultants were not playing ball- or
words to that effect.

Hence- The present minister for 'Health and Children' (Old Folks Homes/Pharmacy/Biotech)
will advertise (possibly internationally) the jobs to fill the proposed amalgamated
hospitals. The consultants are not happy. Ms Harney is unhappy too.

O well- there is an election coming and we may get a new Minister for Health
and children.

They should really look at the role of the HSE, its appointments, its remit
and how it has driven what was a national health service into the ground
especially in terms of the creation of private concerns/universal health
insurance and abdication of responsibility by the State to the individual.

Maybe someone would write a book on Ms Harney's tenure- not of
course Ms Niamh Farrell (spouse of Minister Mc Dowell and author of
an unimplemented report on health for which she was paid thousands.
That was for Minister Martin who took up the job of Industry and employment
in 2004)

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Apr 17, 2007 20:02

Everyone must know by now that Mary Harney is about privatising the Health service. Her plan to give speculators public lands and tax incentives is outragious. That will immediately copperfasten the two tier system which favours wealth and will set in train a process that will see the public sector slowly wither while private for-profit health grows. Visit the US to see the result, whole communities who now have to depend on charity to get health care. A disgraceful consequence of the "everyman for himself" ideology of Mary Harney and co. As for the HSE, that has been populated with boot boys with instructions to bully health workers into accepting lesser conditions in readiness for the private sector to exploit.

And as I write this the HSE has just run two advertisements on RTE. One advising people to wash their hands to control the spread of disease and the other telling parents how to raise their children. This latter ad is both offensive, silly and patronising and one has to wonder, with all the difficulties that abound in Health at present, what in god's name is the HSE running ads such as these for. It appears they intend to do anything other than providing a Health service that people can access when they need it and based only on clinical need.

With regard to the antics of Ms Harney, it is obvious that she now sees her own future in the private health sector as the electorate will surely reject her in the election. Harney will then move seamlessly into a number of high paying positions within the Private Health Sector that she has worked tirelessly over the past couple of years to create. Like I said, It's "everyman for himself" time with a vengence.
Every sane person must support the nurses and it has to be said that SIPTU did not exactly cover themselves in golry yesterday. Standing in the same room with that leech was one thing, but sitting through a speech that included words of praise for SIPTU members while other workers are out fighting the fight smacks of the scab no matter how you look at it.

by Ms Harney Tue Apr 17, 2007 20:10

Consultants- top echelon refusing to do the business with Harney.
Nurses- workers not respected by Ms Harney.
Junior Doctors grossly overworked- only ones in the EU to work 60-80 hour week.
Impact threatening strike.
Amalgamation of the hospitals for profiteering.

Yep! Ms Harney has suceeded where others have failed, she has single-handedly
brought the Irish health system to its knees. but by so doing she has united the
disparate elements and pay levels within the system.

Now it Beggs the question why are SIPTU not supporting the health sector?

by Liberty Hall Langer Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:17

How is failing to rescind an invitation to a Minister to speak at a conference an act of scabbing? Harney attended the 2005 INO conference and was invited to the 2006 INO conference.

SIPTU - by far the biggest health union - and the government are party to a collective agreement, which the INO is not party to. Members of both unions (who made the decision) are entitled to enter or not to enter such agreements, and everyone else is then entitled to criticise such decisions. But it is not an act of sabotage for a union which is in such an agreement to use the procedures under the agreement to advance claims for members.

by Ummm Tue Apr 17, 2007 22:35

A+E waiting lists down 40%. Not bad.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Apr 18, 2007 08:37

Liberty Hall Langer asks,

"How is failing to rescind an invitation to a Minister to speak at a conference an act of scabbing?"

Under normal circumstances any Trade Unionist worth his/her salt would not come within an asses roar of this parasite who has spent her entire political life worker bashing and creating unfairness and difference. She is now about the business of handing health over to her buddies to profit from. Before that can be progressed , health workers have to be brought to heel. At present, workers are in dispute witgh Harney and on every occasions that she has appeared to comment on the situation, she has sought to bad mouth and generally tell lies regarding what is happening. Under these circumstances, it is my view, to have such a person attend a conference is a stab in the back to fellow workers and is therefore "scabbing".

by Ms Harney Wed Apr 18, 2007 09:42

what are ye going to do about it?

There was an all-out for Gama- Irish Ferries.

Public service workers are treated like slaves to profit a burgeoning private
system- this effects the whole health service but no- Labour/FG are
obviously interested in retaining the HSE/universal health insurance
issue and continuing the Centre-right policies of FF.

The only recourse is to use the vote against the people who
are instigating these policies.

So- no-one can be arsed with the Psych nurses and INO who have
genuine grievance on OUR behalf against the corrupt minister?

Is that the situation - ICTU/SIPTU/Green/Labour/WSM/SP/PBPA

can ye organise a piss-up in the brewery?

by To Langer.... Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:23

there was such a thing as solidarity and SIPTU know the health service
are ground down- they know it and they are willing to invite the
Minister to speak when she is using the HSE to advertise for new
consultants. When the unelected HSE are smearing the nurses.

SIPTU are standing by watching this bullying behaviour and doing
nothing- funnily enough if the shoe were on the other foot, I am
pretty sure that the iNO would support SIPTU.

SIPTU are no longer a union- they are a part of the problem.

by Liberty Hall Langer Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:53

Jim

The NUJ had a minister at a recent delegate conference saying that the govt won't budge on union recognition or on copyright matters. How is that different? And can you explain when inviting Harney to a conference became an act of scabbing? Clearly you think it was sometime between the INO conference in May 2006 and SIPTU Nursing's conference in April 2007, but a clearer idea of the date would be useful. Do you think that ministers should be disinvited to any union conference when there is any public sector dispute? We won't be inviting many ministers then, will we? Then we can sit back in our shining purity and pat ourselves on the back.

As for 'by To Langer...', SIPTU certainly has its problems, but is the only union I see actively recruiting and organising private sector workers, including workers at private hospitals and nursing homes. Any kind of political/industrial strategy which begins by writing off the biggest union in the country should be left in your toy-box.

by Liberty Hall Langer Wed Apr 18, 2007 13:04

Jim

Just heard that Harney is to address the PNA conference tomorrow: http://www.pna.ie/News/news49.htm

Perhaps you'd better get on to them and accuse them of scabbing on their own strike!

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Apr 18, 2007 13:17

Liberty Hall Langer asks,

"The NUJ had a minister at a recent delegate conference saying that the govt won't budge on union recognition or on copyright matters. How is that different?"

To my knowledge there was no dispute on. Having said that I am of the view that no member of the PD's should be invited to a trade union function. Can you not recognise enemies of working people. The PD's have set out to weaken the position of the worker at every hands turn so as to maximise profits for their friends. And I remind you that they have no mandate from anyone to do so. They are currently at 2.5% in the polls.

You go on,

"Then we can sit back in our shining purity and pat ourselves on the back."

What exactly are you sitting back in now?

But more importantly, the failure of SIPTU to cancel the inviation has now the capacity to put health worker against health worker because whether you like it or not, those that are taking on Harney are saddened by the antics of SIPTU on this occassion. In addition, a cancellation of the invite would have sent a clear signal to Harney that the workers in the health service are united and prepared to support each other. The complete opposite message has now been sent.

You finish by stating that SIPTU are " organising private sector workers, including workers at private hospitals and nursing homes" Privatisation will always work against the interests of the worker in these servcies and also against the interests of the worker in need of medical care. Therefore, SIPTU should be in the vanguard fighting against privatisation itself.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Apr 18, 2007 13:31

Liberty Hall Langer

Is the PNA the same as SIPTU? The PNA is an association of a single category of worker. It does not surprise me that they invited Harney to their conference. I expact a lot more by way of worker solidarity from SIPTU.

by non-siptu member Wed Apr 18, 2007 13:34

Langer is out ot defend SIPTU and have a dig at anyone who exposes SIPTU for the shower of muppets they are.

SIPTU sold out in Partnership and are now in bed with IBEQ and the Government.

I am also disgusted that a member of a trade union can defend mary harney and her appearance at any conference. You clearly have no idea how negotiations are conducted if you think the minister is required to be present.

Ministers talking at Union conventions/seminars/ etc etc are there for the PR.

Harney is a disgrace, her actions contemptable and her outlook vehemently at odds with those of the workers. A clear signal should have been sent to her that she will find no comfort from any union.

Beggs a lot of questions of SIPTU and their slimy antics of cosying up to those in power.

by Liberty Hall Langer Thu Apr 19, 2007 09:06

Jim

The PNA is not part of SIPTU, it is an independent union in dispute with the HSE and is working with the INO in their campaign of work stoppages. Like SIPTU Nursing, they represent a single grade or type of worker. According to your reasoning, the PNA are scabbing on themselves. Perhaps in your next post you would have the grace either withdraw the scabbing allegation or extend it to the PNA.

Yes, Harney is an enemy of working people, as are the rest of the PDs. FF and FG are not stacked to the roof with friends of working people - should we never invite them to speak, either? Further, should we never listen to our enemies? You might like to look up what, say, Jesus Christ or Nelson Mandela had to say about that view.

Non-SIPTU member would like readers to think that SIPTU leaders agreed to the national agreement without members having a say in it, which isn't true. Whatever one thinks of it, 72pc of members voted to enter into the agreement. Finally, since Harney is not a recent convert to privatisation or union-bashing, presumably you believe that if it was wrong for SIPTU to invite her in 2007, it was wrong for the PNA also to do so in 2007 and for the INO to invite her in 2005 and 2006? Let's hear you criticise those unions too.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Apr 19, 2007 09:31

Liberty Hall Langer

I have no problem criticising anybody who has anything to do with Mary Harney or the rest of the parasites that make up the PD's. Are you saying that SIPTU allow others to set it's standards?

You ask,

"Harney is an enemy of working people, as are the rest of the PDs. FF and FG are not stacked to the roof with friends of working people - should we never invite them to speak, either? "

The answer is no. What can these people say to a trade unionist that could be of any interest ?

by non-siptu member Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:29

“Non-SIPTU member would like readers to think that SIPTU leaders agreed to the national agreement without members having a say in it, which isn't true. Whatever one thinks of it, 72pc of members voted to enter into the agreement”.

SIPTUs executive committee negotiated the Nation Wage Agreement/Partnership/Toward 2016 with IBEC and the Government, THEN went to its members at conference with a recommendation to accept in FULL. They did not have a mandate to accept before they negotiated with IBEC, nor did they call ongoing meetings to discuss the progression of the negotiations with its members.

They simply put it to Ballot with a full recommendation and the usual sigh of ‘Its best we can get’

Toward 2016 is a substantial document and requires a lengthy study to uncover the erosion of workers rights contained within and at the behest of IBEC. Most alarming being the provisions to ‘Outsource’ when Management see fit, completely bypassing the IR instruments previously used and overturning specific LRC recommendations. Collective Bargaining is now a non starter in any future structural reviews with any of the state and semi-state bodies and the Unions negotiating position has been severely compromised. Sacrifices to ensure competitivness and economic growth?

I fear SIPTU members placed far too much faith on its ‘Top Table’ and voted for it accordingly.

It’s actually a credit to your membership that 28% where far more cautious and less trusting of Beggs and co.

Regardless all this is far from the original point of Support for the Nurses and the exposé of the PD agenda of wrecking the Health Service.

I wonder where Langer stands on that issue when he’s not being an apologist for SIPTU and Harney?

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Apr 19, 2007 10:50

Before we got distracted, J Aubrey asked is Harney the "Worst minister for Health and Children ever"

The problem is she is not a minister for Health at all, but a Minister for money making and money makers. She is now about to add suffering to the list fo things that the parasites can profit from.

by J Aubrey Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:03

Its about time the cards were re-shuffled.
The last Bertie shuffle moved Heritage.
It moved art.

I do not want Ms Harney in the Dept of Children.

She gives me the willies- and not in a good way.

by Liberty Hall Langer Thu Apr 19, 2007 17:43

Jim

You went beyond criticism - you accused SIPTU, and on a public forum, of scabbing by having the Minister of Health speak at their nursing conference. Let's see again if you have the intellectual honesty to accuse the PNA, one of the unions presently engaged in work stoppages, of scabbing, for doing precisely the same thing. if you don't (and it would be quite mad if you did), you ought to withdraw the scabbing allegation against SIPTU.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:45

Langer,

You connot compare the PNA with SIPTU. SIPTU is the Union that Larkin formed to free workers from grinding poverty and exploitation by the PD's of his day. Larkin demanded that all workers stand together. This message he spread throughout the British Isles and Ireland. Larkin was very successful in getting support for Irish workers from workers in the UK. For this the employers denouced him as "the man responsible for introducing revolutionary syndicalism into Britain". Workers supporting workers. The old trade unionism of tip toeing around was gone. Trade Unionism had taken on the decisive new dimension of recognising that workers were a class that needed to unite to get their fair share. The immediate consequence of this new solidarity was to give a huge push for the creation of a society based on equality. While still a way from that, Larkins influence greatly improved the workers lot. Harney, like Thatcher before her, wants to undo all that.

Have SIPTU honoured the wishes of their founder regarding their silence and inaction during the current dispute? If they could not bring themselves to engage in "revolutionary syndicalism" as Larkin advocated, the least we could expect is that they will not consort or comfort the workers tormentors

As for an apology, go suck a lemon.

by amalgamation Thu Apr 19, 2007 19:54

ATGWU are going global.

can someone fill in the details there is a huge amalgamation.

am assuming that it has a government lackey element and lots of testicles
thats why the nurses are ignored- not enough testicles - except in the leadership.

add details please....

all unions should be 50% gender balanced unless there is a union for catholic
priests and gay steel workers (I am simpsons fan!)

by brotherdot Thu Apr 19, 2007 21:45

Poor Langer, coming here expecting facts and reality to have a place in a union discussion. Do you not realise that these people have read books about Larkin and heard people bitching about SIPTU. How can real life and logic have any place here.

Of course the PNA are scabs - Des Kavanagh keeps sneaking past himself when he's on the picket line, so confused is he as to whether hes part of SIPTU.

SIPTU should stop organising those health care assistants and private health workers because by far the best thing for true trade unionism, the sort you get from story books and pub gossip, is for those people to accept their lot until the one true perfect union comes along.

As for that T&G with their masonic inspired amalgamation they have this awful habit of organising these male workers and then allowing them to select male representatives - no to the one big union, yes to gender quotas.

You have shown yourself up, Langer, as somebody completely divorced from makey up posturing by not taking the opportunity to attack Mary Harney without any content - are you also in the pay of the Beacon Group?

Perhaps if Liam Doran got political advice from Indymedia rather than Fine Gael the nurses would have won this one by now - but then again, maybe not.

And maybe if SIPTU had got advice from messers Aubrey and O'Sullvan they would have done as their members instructed them to while ensuring they did not hamper the efforts of other trade unionists who have elected to use other tactics. Actually no - cos thats what they are doing. The dangerous brothers above don't believe in that democracy and solidarity stuff - not when you can use primary school rants about labour history to have a go at trade unionists.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Apr 20, 2007 08:20

Brotherdot is surely a member of SIPTU, defend the institution regardless while Mary Harney toys with them. She has again said that she has instructed her bootboys to put out for tender the construction of private hospitals on public lands full in the knowledge that this will exacerbate the two-tier health system, with people offered faster and better treatment if they can afford to pay for it. Those without will have to do with what is left. This is Harney and her friends giving the two fingers to trade unions and anybody else that is supposed to be concerned with social equality. If Larkin were about he would recognise this as a return to the days of Victorian values in which the worker was controlled and subdued and in the event of becoming ill, was treated no better than an animal. Why do I and many like me have no confidence that SIPTU will tell Harney that their members will not work in or co-operate in any way with these new symbols of a class structure which values those with money above those that don't. Or had the thought of challanging Harney in a meaningful way on this issue not crossed the minds of Larkins successors? Is Trade Unionism today no more than getting a pay rise every now and then. A space at the trough stuff ?.
With regard to the barb about quoting history, methinks that a bit of reading would not go amiss in the boardrooms of Liberty Hall today.

by non-siptu member Fri Apr 20, 2007 10:02

Brotherdot has resigned himself to defending Mary Harney and then has the gall to preach as a sterling voice of trade unionism?

Would you ever get a grip?

You are whitewashing the growing feeling of betrayal within SIPTU itself as the members realise they voted for a lousy deal in Towrd 2016 and where sold this by the second-hand car dealers of the leadership.

You then attack those who want gender equality under a veil of sarcasm? What a principled chap you seem.

I think we all know who should be held up for ridicule here brotherdot and that’s you.

Harney should not have been invited to Nurses convention it’s that simple. She should not have been given a platform to talk shite, insult those in attendance and attempt to convince them that they deserve less and should work harder.

She represents everything that Trade Unionism has fought for a century, but brotherdot just dismisses that as the position of some barstool historian. Unbelievable.

Brotherdot and Langer have exposed themselves not just as apologists for SIPTU but now for Harney.

And they call themselves Trade Unionists?
Will we be seeing you on the picket-lines showing solidarity anytime soon?

by brotherdot Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:20

no history, no knowledge, no grip on reality.

Lets ignore Harneys speech at the PNA conference - doesn't fit with kiddies attacks.

Lets ignore the predominantly male membership of the T&G (the anti-partnership union I am actually proud to be a member of - though it has no bearing here) - not when we can use this to have a dig at unions in general. In fact if you want to have a go at a union for gender imbalance maybe you should start with the INO. A least SIPTU has a female nursing official.

Lets ignore what SIPTU said at their nurses conference about co-location and privatisation - in fact why read any of their material when we should all be screaming traitors and sell outs as loud as we can.

Or maybe this type of shite should be ignored until such stage as the posts start discussing what actually happens rather than the standard infantile cliches.

Maybe somebody could expain the diference between Haney attending the SIPTU conference and attending the INO and PNA conferences - or are we back to all unions are scabs, even the ones on strike?

by non-siptu member Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:31

Lets just ignore you and your transparent attempts at distraction in your defense of Harney and Siptu.

Or can we expect to see you out on the picket lines in a show of solidarity anytime soon?

by INO Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:32

Details of the Pickets are on the ino site and in the press.

Patients join too!

by C Murray Fri Apr 20, 2007 18:48

Fifty seven hospitals and psychiatric institutions will be picketed next week.
Its called an escalation- PD/FG/and Lab are blithely tossing the ball on stamp
duty all over the media.

The consultants are meeting on Sunday to decide on escalation of their strike
action.

The INO has questioned the negative use of media by the HSE in relation to
accusing nursing staff of bad practice- they have re-iterated that any accusation about
the health of patients must be dealt with through establsihed channels and not through
a proxy media war.

Meanwhile the Minister for Health is staying in her position and not budging.
Bertie Ahern met with nurses leaders for five minutes yesterday on a
constituency tour.

So why are the politcal parties and SIPTU ignoring an escalating health
crisis, when it is obviously an election issue in:-

Crumlin (amalgamation)
DSE (amalgamation)
Monaghan (loss of essential services)
The details are at;-

http://www.ino.ie

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Apr 20, 2007 19:32

Well brotherdot, the oracle has been consulted. The SIPTU airwaves have been scoured in pursuit of any morsal that might give some indication that SIPTU are ready to defend the Health Service.

The words spoken at the recent conference have been digested. We were treated to such as, "SIPTU General Secretary Joe O’Flynn has called on the Government to abandon its plans to give private developers tax breaks and public land to build hospitals on state health care campuses."
He said that the “almost continuous attack”on public services by some politicians and media commentators was part of the softening up process to sell off important parts of our hard won social and physical infrastructure at knock down prices to private operators."

He told the assembled that,
“Nowhere has this been more the case than in health, where I have to differ strongly with the Minister for Health and Children, Mary Harney, over plans to provide public lands for private hospital development.
And then he showed that he clearly understood what precisely was going on by saying that this was part of the effort tto, "spread the plague of a two-tier regime ever deeper into the health system."

Great stuff, but nowhere can we find a warning being issued that SIPTU will not co-operate in any way with these co-location hospitals. These facilities are not just privateers deciding to build private hospitals. This is the government spending millions of tax payers money to greatly expand private health with the obvious danger that this will cause the National Health Servcie to wilt. That is the intention, Harney and friends want a privatised system and are working tirelessly to achieve that. In the circumsatnces any trade union would be justified in breaking off from national agreements. The ongoing privatisation of everything is an all out attack on the workers of the country.
And need I point out that dispite the call from SIPTU to Harney to cancal the co-location plan, we hear today that she has ordered that tenders be invited to start the process here in Sligo. So much for partnership and all that. And so much for the repect that Harney has for what SIPTU think.

You can snigger all you like about the INO-but at least they have now taken this "worker basher" on. We all should be giving them our unqualified support. If they loose, we will loose the National Health Service. A victory for Harney would lead to that.

by C Murray Mon May 21, 2007 09:20

This morning the Hospital consultants have begun their strike action, as a consequence of Ms
Harney allowing the HSE to advertise new consultant positions within new wage
agreements and terms of reference (its been in the National Newspapers)

The 'work to rule' will not effect patient care but they are no longer cooperating
with the 'business' and decision end of their service.

The Gardai too are threatening strike in an act of horizontal support for the nurse's
call for parity of esteem and genuine concern for the buckling of the national health
service.

on an unrelated note - any FGers around??

What does free health insurance for all under 16's mean?

Medical card coverage and an operating health system would be preferable,
please see 'Sicko' by Michael Moore which explores the difference between
wealth creation and a natioanl health system, it comes under the banner of
State responsibility in the care of the individual.
:-)

by John Boy Mon May 21, 2007 14:44

Now, I'm not one to jump on a bandwagon but do hospital beds actually cost that much or what's the problem?

I re-read that and it sounds incredibly naive but I ask because of this: my mother is currently undergoing chemotherapy and the old hospital has been replaced by a new one next door. The Oncology ward is bigger and there is more space between beds, but no more actual beds. The shortage of beds means that you could be waiting in a room for 4 hours before undergoing 4 hours of physically draining treatment. I think most patients would forgo the extra bit of room to allow another bed or two in.

Of course, there is always someone in a worse position and so on but I suppose it just seems farcical.

by C Mon May 21, 2007 15:16

A little kid age of six with CF from Crumlin will lose her accident and emergency access
to health treatments under the rationalisation and amalgamation programmes.

Her mother told me today that they cannot drive her to the Mater if it goes ahead,
but they will have to use a bus due to the appalling traffic situation in the car-park
ear-marked for the new children's hospital.

we are therefore talking about a child age of six with no access to intervention with
her health problems. no emergency access and no transport to the new hospital.

one kid.
her parents have two votes.

CF- is cystic fibrosis.

by Damage Limitation Sat Sep 01, 2007 09:41

The Worst Minister for Health in the History of the State.
She has run down the health infrastructure for profit.
She has allowed the HSE to become an unelected cabal who cream profit and hide
people like Dr Neary.
She has put the profit of the multis before patient care, each and everytime.
She has started charging fees of 12,000 for Doctor training makinng it an elitist career.
She is deliberately running down the public sector.

Now Barrington's Hospital like the Lady of Lourdes Hospital has betrayed the patient
and will be hidden like a pil of muck by the FF/PD regime.

Mary Harney- get the fuck out of Health, you are destroying our country.
Where pray tell is the Labour Party?
The socialists?

Labour were last seen avoiding the nurses strike and bringing the country into
political crisis by becoming right wing- underscoring the policies of the right
including univerasal health insurance and profiteering.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:14

This is ranting. The health service has its failings and various bad cases come to light but in general it delivers free or affordable high quality health care to people who need it when they need it. By world standards it is not bad and there is no guarantee that a service organized along socialist line would be better. It could be a lot worse. The record of NHS type services in general is not better than a mixed public private system backed by a a community rates health insurance system. The problems in Barrington's were a quality control issue in a private hospital - these things happen from time to time in both public and private institutions. I would say Haughey was the worst Minister for Health in modern times. It was him that sold the ranch to the consultants and gave them such an attractive contract that all these years later we are still trying to get out of it.

by Damage Limitation Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:31

She is a titular head of a corrupt service. She has shown willing to sacrifice patient
wellbeing to corporate profit. We are facing consultant hikes, elitist university courses.
Loss of local services, an unelected cabal (whose Cork HQ burnt down) having political imperative
in decision-making and agreed, Skeptic on one thing- the issue started with Haughey.
=FF
Privatisation for profit.

FF have chosen to call themselves a republican party and style themselves on the
worship of the military aspects of 1916, but in terms of retaining basic health and education
services to the kids of this country, they have shown themselves to be only interested in enriching
their friends and governing from behind a media-led PR service.
O, btw- you are right, it was a rant.

Where I live we are losing community hospital services and our Children's Hospital
this wonderful de-centralisation plan is executed by the offices of the HSE and the move
of Our Lady's will be to the Mater grounds, which are inadequate to the needs of a National
Children's Hospital. They will be placed in a car-park with no transport infrastructure
and a big corporate handshake to the Taoiseach whose constituency will benefit
financially. As to The Neary patients and the Barrington's Patients, both of the groups
are women. One group suffered womb removal during labour and the other it appears
have had screening for breast cancer bothced up.
Where pray tell is the patient care in these situations- putting the private pay packets
and damage limitation PR connivances of the inept minister for health before
the rights of the patient is where its at.

Mary Harney has done nothing to show that patient care is top of her health agenda.
She seeks meeting with shareholders and boards, sells lands and retains the PPP
constructions of the FF party, which amounts to staff demoralisation and consultant
profit. The patient is last on the list and in the event of a disaster like Drogheda and
Cork has little recourse.
Enough shite.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 01, 2007 17:22

The HSE is an executive body - policy is still made by the Minister for Health. The problems in the service did not begin with the establishment of the HSE - the Health Boards were pretty ineffectual. Only Harney can really take on the consultants. She has nothing to loose politically and she has the bottle for it. She is the one minister of which they are afraid. What the hell did Martin or Cowen or the rest of them ever do in that job in terms of taking on powerful vested interests; making unpopular decisions or bringing in structural change. One has to be pragmatic also - it does not matter greatly whether facilities are public or privately owned or (horror of horrors!) for profit. What matters is the delivery of quality public services with reasonable value for money.

by Damage Limitation Sat Sep 01, 2007 19:19

The Health service executive is an unelected cabal whose under-serviced offices
in Cork went on fire, these headquarters were apparently attacked by an arsonist
who shoved 'something' in the letterbox.
we should not speak of 'de-centralisation' of the higher/medium civil services,
in the ten years of FF power they have given (like the US) unwonted powers
to unelected cabals such as the HSE, the NRA and IBEC. They have abdicated
duty of care to the patient and the citizen to these cabals and they have introduced
frameworks such as the PPP for retaining the Status Quo. Mary Harney ensured
through her PR that media coverage of the Barrington's scandal would be seen
to be dealt with as she did with Neary, but the fact is privatisation and lack of
patient care by an uninterested government and a profit centred cabal
has proven (again) that patient care is secondary to:
1. damage Limitation.
2. Profiteering through attracting corporate sponsorship and pharamceutical
controls over big industrial hospitals and institutions.

Bertie is ultimately responsible- his election slogan-
' Lets Take the next Steps Together' was nauseating because the stock market
which old people's money goes into is in convulsions and the health care
system is inadequate to patient need.

by Sceptic Sat Sep 01, 2007 20:08

The HSE is a quango – no official body like that is elected. However it is accountable to the Minister, to the Dáil, to the PAC and less formally to the media and to the public sector unions. You misunderstand the difference between policy organs and an executive body which implements policy and runs the systems. Elected bodies did run the health service and were found wanting. NRA is something similar while IBEC is an employers organisation. One could argue about the partnership process by passing the Dáil but that is another matter. Bringing Neary and Barraingtons’ into a macro debate is to bring in red herrings. PPPs were a feature of the system before the HSE – if they are suitable they should be used where they better serve the system. They can work well – look at the new road between Mullingar and Enfield for once example. The system in Ireland has always been a public/private mix which has always evolved. Its too sweeping to say that Harney is privatising hitherto public services and in any case it is an non-ideological practical approach which matters rather than getting incensed at private sector involvement in medicine. Besides you can’t run a public system without bodies like the HSE – its pretty well the only way. The NHS behemoth is massive and is the biggest employer in Europe. Proportionally the HSE is a lot smaller.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:55

"They can work well – look at the new road between Mullingar and Enfield for once example."

Is that the road that was handed over to a Spanish national and on which citizens of this country must pay to travel on?

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 13:58

The nationality of the owners is irrelevant and the fact that there are user charges is less important than that there is a good road deliverer on time while the alternative might be none. The State does not have the capacity or competence to do everything well . Some private projects go badly but then again some public ones too. Had the Galway water supply been privatized and then the problems that arose this year happened there would have been a great hue and cry about the evils of profit etc. But as it was a public sector failure there was no blaming the ownership of the systems for the problems. There are differential standards.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Sep 02, 2007 15:07

At least Sceptic you know what tool is being used to implement current government policy, PPP's, which is more than most, as this policy is being rolled out by stealth as is happening with Health Service.This is a policy developed in the USA and imported here via Tony Blairs UK . The policy is designed to put a gloss on the true cost of running a low tax economy, which incidentally favours the wealthy. In addition, it delivers a situation that runs on two simple rules, Charge what you can get away with and if it can't be afforded it you will not get it.

"The nationality of the owners is irrelevant"

The point is that we the citizens used to own it. Do you not think that if there's profit to be made from it that we the citizens should be the beneficiaries?

"and the fact that there are user charges is less important than that there is a good road deliverer on time while the alternative might be none."( Sounds very like something that Cullen himself would utter)

That's fine if you have the money to meet the toll. What happens if you don't?

"The State does not have the capacity or competence to do everything well"

There is only one pre-requisite for providing necessary services to citizens and that is the will to do so. Given the current state of our economy, we could provide whatever standard of service that those in charge decide is apropriate. Unfortunately the present individuals that run the government do not place a very high value on people. Money is god.

"Some private projects go badly but then again some public ones too. Had the Galway water supply been privatized and then the problems that arose this year happened there would have been a great hue and cry about the evils of profit etc. "

Galway's water problems are caused by lack of adequate state investment. (Expect to see more in the coming period. We are in a pre-water privatisation mode at present.) The tactic is to run down existing services and then bring in a private operator to the rescue. Surely you are not being deceived by this ploy, are you?

"There are differential standards."

You bet there is. The private operator exists only to make profit, while government agencies are there to provide vital services. Spot the difference? And that is why if Harney succeeds in her plan to privatise health, citizens will not be able to access services as they need them but only if they can afford them. Is that what we want?

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 17:11

PPS in their present form were brought in by the Major government but the idea of Design Build Finance contracts is not new even in Europe. Variants have been around for decades. On the contrary the dogmatic notion that the State and only the State can build, design, operate everything is one that has been around for only about sixty years. Before then major projects like railways were built by companies in the main.

“The point is that we the citizens used to own it”. It depends. If a firm builds an asset on land it has bought how can the generality of people own it? If a public asset is sold the proceeds go to the public authorities as the reps of the public.

”That's fine if you have the money to meet the toll”. The decision to have a toll is one for the Government not the builder of the facility. Arguably it is fairer that the users pay rather than increasing the burden of taxation. In the Galway road example the old road is still there and if people don’t want to pay the toll they can use that. But there are other benefits – people benefit from freer movement of trucks which can use it and people can still travel on public transport on tolled roads and benefit in that way even if they are not car owners themselves. There are other benefits – like ambulances can get to sick or injured people faster even if the patients in question never intend to use the road themselves before.

" There is only one pre-requisite for providing necessary services to citizens and that is the will to do so." Bless your faith in the State but it is not widely shared and it takes more than will. The scope of the State is now enormous and keeps increasing – as it does it is logical that some functions that the State has taken over in recent decades can go back to the private sector. The reasons the State took over those functions in the first place has usually gone.

“The private operator exists only to make profit, while government agencies are there to provide vital services.” That provides no guarantee that the agencies will provide adequate services at good value for money. If one does not share your blind spot about profit it is possible to get firms to provide services efficiently, effectively and economically in contract while allowing them a reasonable profit and also saving money all round for the exchequer.

by Mary Harney Sun Sep 02, 2007 18:39

The sole purpose of the PPP is to utilise it to build profit . There are no state guarantees
of good quality of care, this is true, but of course it has't been tried yet in this country. The
state abdicaated care of the individual to the church run institutions almost since inception;
and the enquiries typified by the Church/State indemnity deal and all the hidings and obfuscations
of the Dept of Health and Education are well-known (leading to the Collapsse of the Laffoy
Commisison and one general election). This time FF are partnering with business
both pharmaceutical and building corparitism- putting again patient care behind profit.
This can be seen in the issues surrounding the Cork HSE a(maternity Hospital wrangle).
as to the statement that roads get people to hospital quicker- shite- if the local hospital
has its incubators switched off and women birth in the back of ambulances, then
it does not matter how quick the ambulance is- what matters is the proximity of good
local and dedicated care.
The Thatcherism of abdication of care to the individual is obvious in the collapse
of the NHS in England and the failure of services to respons to the not rich in New Orleans,
where wealth and universal health insurances led to ongoing poverty and ghettoisation.
Its two years since Katerina (29/08/07) and the disaster of the uS admin (who are only
interested i n prfit and wars) response to their own communities stands against Bush (along
with illegality). That wonderful model of capitalism, abdication, enrichment and severe
poverty is shown in the policy of the PD Mary Harney. along with her use of media spin
to flatten out any glitches such as Neary and Barringtons.

by Jim O'Sullivan Sun Sep 02, 2007 19:03

"On the contrary the dogmatic notion that the State and only the State can build, design, operate everything is one that has been around for only about sixty years. Before then major projects like railways were built by companies in the main."

Nobody is using the word "everything" only you. Necessary and vital services is what is being discussed here. The railways, at the point of their invention, were not regarded as such vital services however when they became vital to the nation they were nationalised. Privatisation of railways have seen a dramatic fall in both services and the quality of services and large increases in costs.

"It depends. If a firm builds an asset on land it has bought how can the generality of people own it? If a public asset is sold the proceeds go to the public authorities as the reps of the public."

The people owned the land which is now under the control of a private entity to make profit from. Profit does not fall from the sky, it is taken out of the pockets of people. In this case the toll is in fact a tax.
You didn't answer the question as to why the people are not the beneficiaries of any profit that is to be made out of a public utility.

”The decision to have a toll is one for the Government not the builder of the facility. Arguably it is fairer that the users pay rather than increasing the burden of taxation."

This is hair splitting. The notion that people should be charged/taxed for moving about the place is a dangerous one. Those that must use such a tolled road could also argue that every citizen should be taxed when they leave their houses and walk on footpaths etc. You are presenting an arguement for such a tax.

" But there are other benefits – people benefit from freer movement of trucks which can use it and people can still travel on public transport on tolled roads and benefit in that way even if they are not car owners themselves. There are other benefits – like ambulances can get to sick or injured people faster even if the patients in question never intend to use the road themselves before."

This is evading the central issue and that is that where a toll is in place it is the people how have to pay the additional cost of profit involved. The only real beneficiaries are those that have gaurenteed profits from it. The people are now having to pay for the profit margin as well as the cost of putting the road/service in position in the first place. PPP's place the public at the mercy of profiteers and is an ideologically driven policy. Quite a bit of the profits made invariably find their way into the ciffers of FF and the PD's. A very convenient way of raising party funds.

"Bless your faith in the State but it is not widely shared and it takes more than will. The scope of the State is now enormous and keeps increasing – as it does it is logical that some functions that the State has taken over in recent decades can go back to the private sector. The reasons the State took over those functions in the first place has usually gone."

Those how do not wish to do public service should not go forward for elections. The State is growing in line with the development of Democracy which recognises that individuals have come together in the common good. That coming together costs everybody by restricting behaviour etc. The pay back must be services that are available whenever the person requires them without having to pay for them at that point. It requires to be stated again, that private entities exist to maker profit, not do service. Essentially what PPP's are designed to do is to turn the citizen into a customer and allow a small clique profit.

"That provides no guarantee that the agencies will provide adequate services at good value for money. If one does not share your blind spot about profit it is possible to get firms to provide services efficiently, effectively and economically in contract while allowing them a reasonable profit and also saving money all round for the exchequer"

Do you want to talk about Eircom or maybe Aer Lingus. What about the debacle that is water privtiasation in the south of England?

by Sceptic Sun Sep 02, 2007 20:25

THE PEOPLE OWNED THE LAND WHICH IS NOW UNDER THE CONTROL OF A PRIVATE ENTITY TO MAKE PROFIT FROM. This presupposes that the land was in common ownership in the first place. Most land for road building is in private ownership. Land is switched between public and private ownership all the time. It’s a normal everyday process. In the case of many PPPs the asset reverts to the State in time and in the collocated hospitals the land will not be given over but retained.

PROFIT DOES NOT FALL FROM THE SKY, IT IS TAKEN OUT OF THE POCKETS OF PEOPLE. IN THIS CASE THE TOLL IS IN FACT A TAX. This is just a 19th century Marxist take as if there have been no developments or evolution in thinking on public sector economics in one hundred and thirty years. Profit is the return to enterprise and is a variable. A toll is a user-charge, not a tax. The toll is the price for using the asset provided under the PPP, nothing more. Your equation of the toll with the profit is wrong – only a small element of the toll would represent a contribution to profit. In most instances profits are not guaranteed.

THE NOTION THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE CHARGED/TAXED FOR MOVING ABOUT THE PLACE IS A DANGEROUS ONE. It is not a tax on movement because it is not a tax and besides certain traffic is free of tolls like cyclists and motor cyclists. One is being charged for the use of an asset provided. Tax on cars and petrol are much more of a “tax” on movement and one could just as easily argue against them. One would also have to describe bus and taxi fares as “taxes” on movement by your lights and abolish them.

THOSE HOW DO NOT WISH TO DO PUBLIC SERVICE SHOULD NOT GO FORWARD FOR ELECTIONS. Why not? You just want nobody who does not share your ideological viewpoint to go for election! . Have the politicians you favour got some sort of monopoly on competency in the delivery of public assets and services?

THE STATE IS GROWING IN LINE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY WHICH RECOGNISES THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE COME TOGETHER IN THE COMMON GOOD.
Democracy in itself in no way implies that there has to be an exclusively public ownership approach to assets or services nor does a mixed economy approach imply a lack of collective societal approach to the political economy. Nor does democracy in itself guarantee competent and value for money delivery of public services by the public service. Good intentions are not enough.

Really you are wedded to big government, public sector managerial approach to infrastructure provision as per the 1970s. I’m saying there is a case for a open minded approach in some respects. You mention Aer Lingus and Eircom but neither is a disaster. There are a host of Semi States who lost tens and tens of millions of Irish taxpayers money when in public ownership over many years when the country could ill afford it. For example Irish Steel, NET, B+I Line, Irish Shipping. I could go on.

by Jim O'Sullivan Mon Sep 03, 2007 08:31

"This presupposes that the land was in common ownership in the first place. Most land for road building is in private ownership. Land is switched between public and private ownership all the time. It’s a normal everyday process. In the case of many PPPs the asset reverts to the State in time and in the collocated hospitals the land will not be given over but retained."

All land in Ireland is held in trust only. If you think otherwise, you are in for a rude awakening should the State require any you have in your possession for the common good. CPO's is the system that maintains commion ownership. The Co-located bit about the land being retained is almost funny. Privatate operators will use the land to make profit. We the people will get nothing other than discrimination and segragation.

"This is just a 19th century Marxist take as if there have been no developments or evolution in thinking on public sector economics in one hundred and thirty years. Profit is the return to enterprise and is a variable. A toll is a user-charge, not a tax. The toll is the price for using the asset provided under the PPP, nothing more. Your equation of the toll with the profit is wrong – only a small element of the toll would represent a contribution to profit. In most instances profits are not guaranteed."

Profit is not simply a return to enterprise. Take the Eircom sutuation, since privatisation the public have been ripped off and handed a poor servcie. The utility operates to make profit and not in the common good. Have you had the "subscription service" rip off yet Sceptic?. This is theft with government approval.
A road is a road. I note that you slip into PD mode on occassions by blurring what it is that is being discussed. As regards "only a small element" of toll goes to profit, what is that supposed to mean. All the profit comes from the toll which comes out of the pocket of a citizen who is already paying taxes for the provision of basic servcies-like roads.

" It is not a tax on movement because it is not a tax and besides certain traffic is free of tolls like cyclists and motor cyclists. One is being charged for the use of an asset provided. Tax on cars and petrol are much more of a “tax” on movement and one could just as easily argue against them. One would also have to describe bus and taxi fares as “taxes” on movement by your lights and abolish them."

Of course tolls are a tax on movement. If you want to move over this road you must pay. Denying that fact won't make it go away. You are still making a case for charging people when they leave their homes and use a footpath. With regard to suggesting that bus fares and taxi fares are a tax, this shows that you simply have not got hold of the basic point.

"Why not? You just want nobody who does not share your ideological viewpoint to go for election! . Have the politicians you favour got some sort of monopoly on competency in the delivery of public assets and services? "

Not surprised that you think it ok for people to seek public office for a reason other than to do service.

"Democracy in itself in no way implies that there has to be an exclusively public ownership approach to assets or services nor does a mixed economy approach imply a lack of collective societal approach to the political economy. Nor does democracy in itself guarantee competent and value for money delivery of public services by the public service. Good intentions are not enough. "

Democracy recognises that society is about individuals coming together in the common good and this coming together results in individuals sacrificing certain freedoms to comform to a standard of behaviour that is necessary for the collective to work. It is a recognition that all wealth generated by the collective has contribution from each individual and that it is required that each individual contibutes in a meaningful way to the orderly running of the collective. Democracy also recognises that in order to ensure a fair share of the wealth generated, vital services must be available to each individual as needed.
Again nobody said that the State should own all assets and services. All vital services must be controlled by the State, us, so as to ensure that they are available to each citizen when required and not based on the amount of money the citizen has or has not. Do you have a problem with that?

"Really you are wedded to big government, public sector managerial approach to infrastructure provision as per the 1970s. I’m saying there is a case for a open minded approach in some respects. You mention Aer Lingus and Eircom but neither is a disaster. There are a host of Semi States who lost tens and tens of millions of Irish taxpayers money when in public ownership over many years when the country could ill afford it. For example Irish Steel, NET, B+I Line, Irish Shipping. I could go on."

I am wedded to justice and fairness and am utterly opposed to exploitation and rip off that is currently rampant under the current extreme capitalist regime. It appears that we are actually being governed by Tony O'Reilly and a few friends from their off shore retreats. Profit is all that matters now. I do have an open-minded approach to these matters but a blindman could not fail to see the divisions that are opening up in our society with money and it's acquisition the prime motivating force. Have you failed to notice that violence has exploded with murder now almost a daily occurrance. Respect for human life and the individual have nosedived.
The companies that you mentioned may not come under the name of "vital services" however, in the case of the shipping companies, you are hardly in favour of exploiting vulnerable people as way of profit making, are you?

by Mary harney Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:47

Last week there was a report on the six one new to the effect that courses for doctors in
The Royal College of Surgeons would now cost 12,000 euros per annum.
This disqualifies those from low income households from applying, creating an elitist system
it also only brings in those from abroad who are from wealth backrounds.
The HSE went on record saying that the re-introduction of fees for medical courses
was a 'satisfactory outcome'. The doctor advocates and their spokesperson stated
that it was 'creation of elitism is action' and that they had recommended keeping the courses
frre or granted and introducing a system where young doctors who had just qualified
could pay back any expenses accrued by the state through 'Service', the courses in the RCS
attract high emploment prospects and the money would be re-cycled to the benfit of the
public service'

This was rejected by the State and the HSE- again depriving us of the notion of service,
blatant profiteering ;and of course creating elitist jobs for the children of the wealthy.
It is beyone the ken of a limited woman who can only see finance and it 's accquistion
and does not put patient care and parity on the agenda, to ultimately destroy the
health system for profiting a small group of people, who believe that a deliberate run down
of local services and 'excellence' will attract bigger pharmaceutical budgets through
centralising services. The PPP has broken the unions, sent Labour into the political
wilderness of the centre where they must hock their cheesy wares and put the enrichment of
the few above the duty of care of the State. that is what ten years of FF/PD/Green and
whomever they go to bed with has accomplished. FG nor Labour have stated that they
wish retain a public health system and focus on universal health insurance. One of
those companies has Tony O Reilly as a major shareholder, it is in his benefit to
media manipulate and retain both the PPP and the status quo.

by C Murray Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:22

How many of the nearing 5,000 women who could not get treatment on a dedicated national health
system and were shifted into the treatment purchase fund are waiting for the
results of two separate enquiries into the Midland's Hospital in Portlaoise?
A consultant radiologist has been called into question over the results of breast-disease
breast cancer scans.

5,000 women.
women in Barringtons.
the Neary Patients
The Taoiseach has not commented.
The Minister for Health and children has not commented.

Its FOI now.

A % of patients were in private care because they belieed the shite about a run down
system in Portlaoise. A % of patients were in the treatment purchase fund.
Mary Harney travelled to Barringtons to limit damage and yet she cannot be found about
Portlaoise- is there a difference between the way she treats those who have
breast cancer queries or is the spin department really all out on the 5,000 figure??

The breast cancer treatment scandal yet again indicates the failure of the state in the
provisioning of care to women who are facing again damage limitation, years of enquiry.
Years of compensation- on top of coping with families, their daughters, their illness.

The enquiries are back dated to 2003

by Sceptic Tue Sep 04, 2007 19:36

Neary is over and done with bar the compensation and should not be conflated with every other issue in the services. He was a failure of medical self regulation with Harney has addressed. It was before her time anyway. There is an issue with some scans and diagnostics – this is a quality control issue that has nothing to do with the Treatment Purchase Fund or anything like that. Its important to be level-headed about things. Harney can’t say too much in detail until its known fully what the various problems are. Trying to tack every problem which comes up with an anti-privatisation campaign is risible. Incidentally Neary was a public employee of a public acute hospital.

by - Tue Sep 04, 2007 19:55

-

don't panic - you are healthier than your granny

by C Murray Tue Sep 04, 2007 20:17

Neary is not over for those who have lost parts of themselves to his surgical curiousity
or whatever informed the 150+ unecessary caesarian hysterectomies. An unnecessary
caesarian hysterectomy, as I have written before involves a woman with a healthy
womb having it removed as part of the process of partruition.
It is not panic to ask why a state dedicated to decentralising medical services
and down scaling hospitals locally is not putting the issue of patient care on their
agenda.
up to 1,000 women in Barringtons got suspect scan results.
3,000 in Portlaoise.
2,500 in Portlaoise.

Thats called impact on a personal level, that suggests lack of patient care.
why is she not commenting on the issue?

[for info on unecessary hysterectomy, childbirth choice and maternity services,
suggest that you speak to a woman who has suffered deep tissue trauma, impaired sex life,
inability to have other kids and violation of rights.

by Jim O'Sullivan Tue Sep 04, 2007 20:18

"Harney can’t say too much in detail until its known fully what the various problems are."

Given your apparent access to the inner workings of Mary Harney's mind, could you share with us how long do you think she thinks it will take to "fully understand what the various problems are" ?
Can we take this as a PD admission that Harney has not come to grips yet with the portfolio and therefore the Health Service is in free fall, as appears at any rate to be the case. The Six One news again today was less that inspiring for those anxious about the Health service. Methinks you are on thin ice-stop wriggling is the best advise.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 04, 2007 21:57

Every issue does not call for an immediate detailed Ministerial statement and an immediate "full public inquiry" or a tribunal. It is unrealistic to expect this on every issue of substance. As a PUBLIC ISSUE the investigations into the Neary affair have pretty well concluded. That is in no way to trivialize the seriousness of the issue. Also let’s be realistic - there are tens of thousands of interfaces between the public and the health services each day. By scale the proportion of things that go wrong is very small. Also very up to date technology is involved. Even ten years ago imaging tests would have been very much less available - now such tests are routine in all regions. One has to give the system credit for what it does it get right. Its an imperfect and complex world based on the judgments of fallible humans and things will go wrong from time to time. To be drawing all sorts of doom-laden conclusions and Mary Harney bashing exercises from these episodes is opportunism.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 05, 2007 08:04

"and Mary Harney bashing exercises from these episodes is opportunism"

Now we know you are taking the p***. Harney has been found out. What is she about is deadly dangerous and make no mistake, if she succeeds in her endeavours, which is to bring for profit operators into Health, we know that people will suffer. And how do we know this?- because we can study the American system which she is copying.
And all of this is being done not in the interests of those who fall ill, but in the interests of the wealthy. You cannot deliver universal services, delivered at the point of need with no barrier to access and run a low tax regime at the same time. And by a low tax regime, I mean one in which people can earn a million euro and still legally not pay any tax.
And Harney's integrity and lack of principles were also found our recently. The people rejected PD ideology emphatically lasy May and instead of removIng herself to some backroom out of harms way and honour the wishes of the electorate, she acceppted a part In government to continue to impliment her rejected ideology. A principled politician would have accepted the verdict of the people and would have gone away to rethink their politics.
Harney and the PD's so called mould breaking politics is nothing more than self interest repackaged, pursued with thick necked gusto.

"You can fool some of the people some..." etc etc.

by Brian Costello Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:01

The HSE has announced a ban on recruitment including frontline services staff in an attempt to stay on budget.

The very thing the Health Service needs (Frontline staff) has been denied it to maintain the status quo of inflated bureaucracy, top heavy management, invented departments and an unnessecary swelling of middle management.

Now with the greens on board for Co-location we will see this forwarded as yet another reason why it is needed. The Health service is haemorrhaging money they'll say, we need these PPPs they'll say etc etc. And on it goes.

Still its all we deserve. Any effective opposition to this will eventually become diluted and redundant through sectarian in-fighting and splintering.

Harney and Ahern know this as does the HSE.

by Sceptic Wed Sep 05, 2007 17:04

“THE AMERICAN SYSTEM WHICH SHE IS COPYING”

There are masive and unalterable differences between the American and Irish systems too numerous to mention but in Ireland there is full and free access for all to secondary. Since 1991 all citizens, irrespective of their insurance status, have the right to free accommodation and treatment, including consultant care, in public hospitals. Furthermore there is no equivalent whatever in the US of the community rated health insurance system upon which half the Irish population belong.

AND ALL OF THIS IS BEING DONE NOT IN THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHO FALL ILL, BUT IN THE INTERESTS OF THE WEALTHY
Clichéd nonsense. Both the Treatment Purchase Fund and the co-located hospitals plans are designed to benefit public patients.

“YOU CANNOT DELIVER UNIVERSAL SERVICES, DELIVERED AT THE POINT OF NEED WITH NO BARRIER TO ACCESS AND RUN A LOW TAX REGIME AT THE SAME TIME.”
You can in fact by a dictatorship setting very low wage levels (Cuba) or having a soft currency (eg. ostmark) or having paper rights though the services hardly exist any more (Zimbabwe). You can also run a health system financed by non-tax revenue (Kuwait) or a various models of health insurance and social insurance the bulk of which are financed out of premia or contributions to dedicated funds. (Much of western Europe)

“AND BY A LOW TAX REGIME, I MEAN ONE IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN EARN A MILLION EURO AND STILL LEGALLY NOT PAY ANY TAX.”
That is not a low tax regime – that is a loophole which certain well to do people might be able to exploit to avoid taxation which is not the same thing at all. That is a question of equity not of the height or weight of taxation.

“THE PEOPLE REJECTED PD IDEOLOGY EMPHATICALLY LAST MAY”
They didn’t. There was not much difference between the health policies of the PDs and FF or FG and these parties together did gain a large plurality of votes.

by estimates Wed Sep 05, 2007 17:15

FF are already using the media (Brian Cowen has a close and personal relationship with
Independent Newspapers indeed, he admits meeting them to discuss the direction of
the general election campaign) to prepare us for a tight budget- they are increasing the
tax bands, they are reducing the recruitments in HSE and public servies. the PPP will
be used for the annual estimates , devolved local governments wage bills and the whole
plethora of shite they use to disguise the fact that fiscal policy in a centre-right government
has let down half the population.
One group of people I know have to negotiate the 80euros back to school books fees
cos they cannot afford it on a weekly wage, the other group have two or three kids in
private (@3,500 euros per/year) we have newspapers interpreting for us what is before
our eyes.
enough FF shit.

Hospitals and schools of our kids are run down and FF/Green/PD are the problem.

by Jim O'Sullivan Wed Sep 05, 2007 18:36

"There are masive and unalterable differences between the American and Irish systems"

The point is that Harney has set us on a road which will end with an American style system where money dictates the amount and quality of servcie a citizen receives.

" Both the Treatment Purchase Fund and the co-located hospitals plans are designed to benefit public patients. "

These are mere shams. The NPTF will be used in the interim to reduce the appearance of the waiting times as between those with private insurance and those without. The fact is that citizens are not entitled as a right to anything from the NPTF and the quango that runs it at present have sole right to decide who is treated. In addition, the funds provided for this fund can be reduced or frozen at each budget. The co-location scheme is a determined attempt to boost for-profit activity in Health.

"You can in fact by a dictatorship setting very low wage levels (Cuba) or having a soft currency (eg. ostmark) or having paper rights though the services hardly exist any more (Zimbabwe). You can also run a health system financed by non-tax revenue (Kuwait) or a various models of health insurance and social insurance the bulk of which are financed out of premia or contributions to dedicated funds. (Much of western Europe) "

It is remarkable how you can misunderstand the point with such consumate ease. We don't have the oil of Kuwait or the latitude of a dictatorship. The only way that a State like Ireland can run adequate public services is by having a progressive tax system. The point is that a civilised country should be aiming to provide vital services to all citizens on an equal basis, with access related totally to need. Harney is expanding the power of money to allow a citizen to skip queues and access better treatment. When the for-profit motive is introduced into health service provision the result is that the wealthy are overtreated and the rest are undertreated. The same resources are shared disporportionately which is very wasteful.

"That is not a low tax regime – that is a loophole which certain well to do people might be able to exploit to avoid taxation which is not the same thing at all. That is a question of equity not of the height or weight of taxation."

This "loophole" has existed for years and therefore cannot anymore be regarded as such. It is part and parcel of the present tax code which is based on policy. Loopholes are easily closed. I am talking about "equity" or more precisely the lack of equity.

"They didn’t. There was not much difference between the health policies of the PDs and FF or FG and these parties together did gain a large plurality of votes"

It is just silly to say that the people did not reject PD policy last May. The PD's were wiped out. And again Harney's lack of principle or integrity was outed by her failure to accept that and go away.

by Sceptic Thu Sep 06, 2007 22:37

You are obsessing about the PDs but ignoring that there was no difference to speak of between them and FF, FG on health in the election. The reasons they did badly was that their policies have been mainstreamed not that their polices have been rejected. Do you imagine problems in health began the day Mary Harney went in there. Of course not but you pick on her because of your anti PD fetish. You don’t really care about health – if you did you would welcome the fact that the NTPF has done such good work. To you its not statist enough and therefore has to be rejected. Your message is only socialized medicine delivered through the public sector can be permitted – the idea of someone making their own arrangements and paying for their own medical advice is anathema to you. Equity in the tax system is totally different from the overall tax burden. You want the tax burden to be much higher than it is. But suppose as is the case the people don’t. You can’t admit this and have to go on and on flogging your dead PD horse. Heath does not have to be financed out of tax revenue to reiterate – you ignore the important role that social insurance and compulsory health insurance has in such States as Holland, Germany, Switzerland and France. Some tax revenue is normally involved but your contention that the rate of general taxation has to be high to ensure good health services is a non-sequitor. In France each household has to pay an earmarked 8% of all income for health – on top of the normal payroll and social security taxes. There is no way Irish people would accept that or anything like it. Really your problem is with the Irish people and the choices they make. Get over it. This PD / profit thing you keep going on about ad nauseum is a monumental red herring.

by Mark P - N/A Fri Sep 07, 2007 00:15

Septic

Pay Related Social Insurance (Health tax) in Ireland currently runs in the region of 10% of Gross salary. That is above the earmarked French Health tax equivalent. Our health service by comparison is a joke and amongst our European peers is recognised as such.

Harney is a PD. It is not unreasonable to think her agenda would reflect her political ideology. PDs worship at the alter of privatisation. Harneys husband works for Beacon Health. She is pursuing a course that will transform the Irish Health service into an American Health Service. Profit is her motive.

You are taking out your PD ass.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Sep 07, 2007 09:07

" The reasons they did badly was that their policies have been mainstreamed not that their polices have been rejected."

This is almost funny. Do you not realise that this spin was created so as to allow the ousted something to say.

"Do you imagine problems in health began the day Mary Harney went in there. Of course not but you pick on her because of your anti PD fetish."

The problems of health are complex with bad management by government at the core of the problem.What Harney has brought to it is the ideology of privatisation which will see her friends stick their heads into the trough to gorge themselves while ordinary people will see their access to medical health more and more dictated by money making greed merchants. Have you not noticed that the recent announcement to address what we are told is over-spend targeted the provision of servcies for sick people as the means to address the so called over-spend. Heartless, cold capitalism at work. People come second. Money is god.

"You don’t really care about health – if you did you would welcome the fact that the NTPF has done such good work."

The NTPF is a scam. It is outragious that unelected, unaccountable quangos can decide who can access treatment. The Health Service should have it's own monitoring unit and where people are detected waiting too long, then this unit should act to hasten treatment for such people. It was never necessary to set up such a quango to perform this relatively simple task of monitirong patients as they move through the system.

"To you its not statist enough and therefore has to be rejected"

Wrong. The fact remains that when for-profit is introduced into health, discrimination becomes endemic. Money and not need dictates the level of service received.

"Equity in the tax system is totally different from the overall tax burden"

What's this?.

"You want the tax burden to be much higher than it is. But suppose as is the case the people don’t."

I want the tax burden at a level that meets the needs of a civilised society to ensure that all citizens have equal access to vital servcies. If this cannot or is not done, that what is the point of community?

"You can’t admit this and have to go on and on flogging your dead PD horse."

We agree on one thing then, the PD horse IS dead.

"Heath does not have to be financed out of tax revenue to reiterate – you ignore the important role that social insurance and compulsory health insurance has in such States as Holland, Germany, Switzerland and France. Some tax revenue is normally involved but your contention that the rate of general taxation has to be high to ensure good health services is a non-sequitor."

All imposed deductions are a tax. Stop splitting hairs. We too have a system of social insurance, it's called PRSI. It can be argued that people who feel that they must take out health insurance are having an additional tax applied to them.

"Really your problem is with the Irish people and the choices they make. Get over it. This PD / profit thing you keep going on about ad nauseum is a monumental red herring."

Waffle. What person would choose to wait years for access to medical treatment. What person would choose to lie on a trolley for hours on end. Privatisation does not impact on those that can afford to pay, it impacts on those who cannot. And what all those who can afford to pay today must bear in mind is , that who knows what tomorrow will bring. The bottom line is, all citizens must have equal access to services as needed. Privatisation, the core PD value, denies that.

by Mary Harney Fri Sep 07, 2007 09:41

Well, I finally came out of hiding yesterday and under advisement did not refer to
the Portlaoise scandal- cos thats what it is - a huge boil of a scandal.

Anyway- I am cutting all local oncology and cancer services in order to centralise.
I personally believe that excellence is what people with money want and despite
the fact that the government does not envisage a transport system every single
Irish person with hard cash will be able to get a helicopter to my new unit.

I have not put a pin in the map yet, regarding centralised location but it does not matter
Poor people don't get cancer, and therefore do not require the services of my top
consultants or the pharmaceutical companies that hock their wares through my department.

Get off the boat- Minister- resign- you discriminate against the poor and have let down
the parents and children whom you claim to represent. Coverage of her speech in
the national dailies.

by Sceptic Fri Sep 07, 2007 19:43

WHAT PERSON WOULD CHOOSE TO WAIT YEARS FOR ACCESS TO MEDICAL TREATMENT?

But in reality you reject a measure that is designed to complement the public system the National Treatment Purchase Fund that takes thousands off such lists and frees up space for those remaining. You go on about quangos but nowhere are there more than in an NHS type system. Besides the NTPF is not a quango but operates to a commercial mandate. Also on waiting lists – there are not inherently unfair if the people at the top are the most needy and, they are inevitable if there is an insistence on free heath care on demand as other rationing mechanisms having been ruled out lines are all that’s left.

ALL IMPOSED DEDUCTIONS ARE A TAX. STOP SPLITTING HAIRS.

On tax I am not at all being pedantic. There is a huge difference between social insurance type financing and income tax because the former is HYPOTHECATED and also creates an ENTITLEMENT. General taxation does neither.

In reality you mantra is “Private bad Public good”; your only solution is high taxation and the whole thing is predicated on your PD bogey. What real difference was there between the FF and PD in health policy in the last lection? None. What happened to all the independent hospital candidates? They went the way of the PDs except more so. So much for your analysis!

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Sep 07, 2007 20:50

"But in reality you reject a measure that is designed to complement the public system the National Treatment Purchase Fund that takes thousands off such lists and frees up space for those remaining."

This is nonsense. The NPTF was set up, not to assist those who are ill but rather to boost for-profit activity in health. As previously pointed out and side stepped, a computer could have been employed to monitor patient's progress through the system and pick up those that are stuck too long on a queue. Direct action could then be taken to address the problems for the patient concerned. The setting up of the NPTF was an approach to the problem of patients getting stuck on waiting lists that would not interfere with the privatiation plan and would grow the for-profit sector by providing a constant flow of patients/business the way of the private facilities.

You then go on to confirm the precise nature of the NPTF by this,
" Besides the NTPF is not a quango but operates to a commercial mandate."

Of course it operates to a commercial mandate, that is the privatisation mindset. To hell with people, it's money that matters.

" Also on waiting lists – there are not inherently unfair if the people at the top are the most needy and, they are inevitable if there is an insistence on free heath care on demand as other rationing mechanisms having been ruled out lines are all that’s left"

Waiting lists in themselves are a symbol of a failure to provide adequate health services for the people. That said, all lists should be graded with the most urgent to the fore.The problem with lists that exist when there is for-profit involvement is that those at the top of the list are those that have money. We get social segregation and inequity.

" There is a huge difference between social insurance type financing and income tax because the former is HYPOTHECATED and also creates an ENTITLEMENT. General taxation does neither. "

Are you seriously suggesting that all social insurance deductions are set aside for the purposes intended. This is not the case. All revenue gathered by the State is put into a central fund and distributed in accordance with that governments policy. Citizenship confers entitlements more so than what taxes are paid.

"In reality you mantra is “Private bad Public good”;"

Never said that as I accept such sound bites are precisely that. What I am saying is that all vital services must be controlled and delivered by the State so as to ensure that the provision of a service takes precedence over all else. When for-profit is introduced, the service element goes out the window as the speculators set about making money, not making people well.

" What real difference was there between the FF and PD in health policy in the last lection? None"

As with the "PD horse is dead" we now agree on two things.

"What happened to all the independent hospital candidates? They went the way of the PDs"

You cannot compare the performance of independents and candidates of a political party with plenty of money to spend on the canvass and who have had close to ten years in Office with all the publicity that brought. That is scrapping the end of the barrel

"So much for your analysis! "

Well if you are seeking to explain the rout of the PD's by pointing to the outcome for independents, than any such analysis is at best very suspect.

by Sceptic Mon Sep 10, 2007 20:56

WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT ALL VITAL SERVICES MUST BE CONTROLLED AND DELIVERED BY THE STATE SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE PROVISION OF A SERVICE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ALL ELSE.

The State is bad at organizing many things and its not just a question of resources. An essential service can be provided by means other than by the State. The fact of State domination of service provision and delivery does not in itself guarantee the service will be provided in a satisfactory manner. It’s a characteristic of State provided services in Ireland and the UK that a free on a point of delivery service will have rationing by queues. This is predicated by economic theory and is indeed a feature of both systems.

THE NPTF WAS SET UP, NOT TO ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE ILL BUT RATHER TO BOOST FOR-PROFIT ACTIVITY IN HEALTH.
The NTPF is a very lean executive agency – it is not a profit making concern. It is also a State entity. It was set up to assist people who are ill and does that. You just object to the fact that some of its treatments (not all mind) are sourced from private sources.

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY SUGGESTING THAT ALL SOCIAL INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS ARE SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSES INTENDED?
Yes this is a feature of various continental European systems and of the Health Levy in Ireland. You seem to be against private provision; social security provision and compulsory health insurance provision. Only a mono delivery service financed out of general taxation will satisfy you. That is a backward looking and narrow minded viewpoint.

by ears Tue Sep 11, 2007 15:20

as soon as is practibable.
from politics.
apparently.
great!

Universal Health insurance is a short cut to privatisation and abdication of responsibility.
it implies choice; but feeds the compulsory aspect of its 'purchase'. Free medical cards to all
kids under sixteen , regardless of their parents income is what a government should be doing.
not fleecing adults for health coverage and backing it up with crap telly adverts and the
illusion of choice in the matter.
as to grown ups- well when ye get to 18 you should be able to choose about health care.

by Sceptic Tue Sep 11, 2007 23:48

You are wrong. PRSI is NOT a health tax – it goes to a dedicated fund - the Social Insurance Fund. It does not go to the health budget.

by Mark P Wed Sep 12, 2007 09:51

Septic.

All taxes go into a central fund, that does not take away from what the tax is intended for or what the public believe/believed it will be used for. You claimed the Irish people would be unwilling to pay a tax on a par with France for Health. The reality is people here think (or where led to think) they already do.

PRSI is a Health Tax. Motor tax is a motor tax. etc etc

Your right wing propaganda and PD apologism will find no home here. You should trot over to Politics.ie and flesh out your economics thesis/dissertation with the other undergraduates there.

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 15:28

This is a quick comment without links on the article above and three others I have written on
Health issues on the Newswire:- (St Luke's Hospital , Parliamentary Question), The Neary Bequest
and on the Barrington's Hospital Scandal. Where I live , we are to lose Our Lady's Hospital
In Crumlin and the Minister did not see fit to reply to the Parliamentary Question on the Lukdoc
service , she 'passed it on' to the HSE. Many kids in the surroundig areas are suffering from
breathing difficulties that require early intervention, one such kid needs regular hospital treatment
for her chronic condition. her mum tells me that if she is to go to an amalgamated Mater car-park
site that she will need to use taxis- cos the hospital grounds are inaccessible by car. asthma
care treatments are currently provided by the Lukdoc service which is a dubdoc service, where
patients on a list with GP can be treated out of hours. There has never been a reply about the
Lukdoc Clinic from either DOHC or HSE. Today, we hear that there are to be huge cut-backs
in staffing levels in Sligo, both nurses and consultants. At time of writing the above article,
the consultants were negotiating the salaries and DOHC and HSE were going to advertise
under new schemes if the pay terms were not agreed. The talks went back to mediation and
negoatiation and collapsed again yesterday. The National radiation services are not going to
be on stream until 2008 and two groups of women are facing life altering medical decisions
due to run down in cancer treatment and uneccesary hysterectomy under the leadership of Ms
Harney. The INO have rightly condemned the state of services and the recruitment freeze.
The HSE is an unelected body, and though Professor Drumm has offered his pay slips to justify the
huge salary hike I am unmpressed with:-

1. John Gormley (ex- health spokesperson of the Greens) who is supporting the FF/PD
collapse of a national Health Service and tabled the parliamentary question.
2. General amalgamation which is running down community care areas.
3.Huge salary hikes that do not support the ordinary staff in the hospitals and the Universal
Health insurance policies of the centrist parties.

The Local services need to be retained for people who have kids and family who need:-
1. Diabetes treatments.
2. post-operative dressings.
3.Asthma and chronic breathing difficulty interventions.
4. Emergency care (including maternity).

The last thing mary harney accomplished before the election was the scheme to build
private hospitals on public lands. Some years ago , an infant died in the back of an ambulance
on route from a maternity unit without a switched on incubator, the sickening run down
in essential local services and amalgamation of those services into big units does not
come near to answering the question of why Ms Harney is still holding office with a
plethora of appalling decisions supported by FF/Green.
She ought resign.

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 15:59

The National cancer treatment radiation services are postponed until 2015...

The Parliamentary Question (tabled by Gormley):- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81630
The Neary Bequest:- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/82055
Nurses:- http://www.indymedia.ie/article/81769

The INO are press-releasing on the Recruitment freeze and the Sligo Hospital situation.
At the time of the run up to the election, very few of the political parties openly supported
the nurses and did not address the issues. FG kept to visiting the hospitals and tutting on the
waiting lists and Labour took on the Private hospital on public lands issue. The Taoiseach
briefly met with leaders at a blockade, but no-one came out and supported the strikes
except the patients and some left-wing parties. The Mater is sending patients to hotels at
the moment. The policy on health of the DOHC is a complete failure, dangerous to the
patient and puts profit before duty of care. The HSE stated in the first link that they
would look at provision of community services in the future. I have the letter, which was
forwarded to me.

by C Murray Thu Sep 20, 2007 16:39

Professor Drumm thinks its ok for the Rotunda to accomodate women who have just given
birth in the local hotels, I wonder do the hotels come with the nurses, the midwifes, the
breast-feeding support, the community of patients who like to compare the labours and all
the other stuff we expect from our maternity units-
(?)

The Professer recently got a huge pay hike which is outside of the agreed salaries,
the recruitment freeze and the cut-backs on essential staff. Many women have used the
excellent Rotunda services, which had and probably still has an operating midwifery clinic
which provided choice in care to women who did not want the services of consultants.
there is no information on which patients have been shifted, private or public, first
time mums or those on the second or third baby, epidural or natural birth. The only
info coming through is that patients from the Rotunda maternity Hospital in Dublin
are being shifted to hotels for continuing care- lovely!

by Jim O'Sulivan Thu Sep 20, 2007 18:16

Now that the true nature of Harney's policy is beginning to emerge (now that the elections are out of the way) it is apropriate to comment further on Sceptics odd contributions.

"The State is bad at organizing many things and its not just a question of resources."

There is no reason why the State should be bad at anything and this is just neo-con bullshite that attempts to evade debate on the issues involved. All problems can be solved by profit makers is the line that we are supposed to swallow. We elect government to deliver accountable services that work.

"An essential service can be provided by means other than by the State. The fact of State domination of service provision and delivery does not in itself guarantee the service will be provided in a satisfactory manner."

Why should we need to have essential services delivered by any other means? We at least have some control over political entities which we can replace if not satisfied with performance. How could the people intervene if the service is dominated by profiteers

"It’s a characteristic of State provided services in Ireland and the UK that a free on a point of delivery service will have rationing by queues."

This is breathtaking claptrap. Queues should only form when services are under pressure or are inadequate for the demand placed on them. The solution to either case is relatively simple if the will to provide such services is present. Harney is deliberately running down the public system so as to allow privateers get a foothold.

"The NTPF is a very lean executive agency – it is not a profit making concern. It is also a State entity."

The citizen has no automatic right to be treated under any scheme run by the NTPF. There is no accountability with regard to issues such as equity and they steadfastly refuse to disclose what they pay per treatment. This is clearly to deny any accurate comparison to establish cost effectiveness. There is no way that the NPTF can be cost effective because they pay for profit entities to provide services that include a profit element.

"It was set up to assist people who are ill and does that. You just object to the fact that some of its treatments (not all mind) are sourced from private sources."

Wrong. It was set up to deflect criticism during the rolling privatisation process of services. It is a quango set up so that it can be easily dismantled if required or indeed privatised. If Harney succeeds in growing for-profit activities in Health Services, the money available to the NPTF can be controlled so as to curtail it's activities. And that is precisely what would happen and particularly if we are lumbered with those that think like Harney.

"You seem to be against private provision; social security provision and compulsory health insurance provision. Only a mono delivery service financed out of general taxation will satisfy you. That is a backward looking and narrow minded viewpoint."

Wrong again. There is no problem with a State agency contracting private operators to provide services when State facilities come under pressure for whatever reason. Health is a vital service and whatever system is in place it must provide a service that reacts to the citizens needs when he/she requires it. The size of the individuals wallet should never be allowed to determine either the quality or quantity of the service. Allowing for-profit entities to dictate what services are available to people and when, will lead to discrimination with the monied skipping the queue. It is well documented that ina privatised system (US), the wealthy are overtreated while the less well-off are undertreated. The undertreated frequently die directly as a result of being undertreated. Are you happy that people may loose their lives because we have a Health Service that puts profit first?

Can you or Mary Harney show a Health Service that is privatised and which treats all the people equally? It is very easy to advocate the introduction of services that require money to access when you have money available. What if those who don't? Are they expendable? Of less value?

And if you need an example of what is likely to happen, when asked to comment on the crazy situation where pregnant women are being booked into hotels due to lack of beds, Harney refused to comment saying that it was a matter for the hospitals concerned. This is an example of a system which we the people are loosing a say in. Nobody is in charge or accountable.

by Sceptic Thu Sep 20, 2007 18:57

Its only early stage mothers who would be in for routine tests which are put up in hotels as an interim measure. In any case a large element of hospital care is in fact similar to a hotel service. The problem is that the maternity hospitals services are demand-led and there is a birth spike. Loads of people, with no prior engagement with the hospitals, many of them non-nationals, just show up at the door prior to giving birth and this puts strain in the system as it would any system. As regard Prof. Drumm his package is within contract including the including the performance bonus. These are minor, if newsworthy, things. A well-rounded view depends on taking in the bigger picture.

I will comment on Mr. O'Sullivan's latest outburst a a later stage.

by Jim O'Sullivan Thu Sep 20, 2007 19:03

No one ought be in the slightest bit surprised at Sceptics efforts to expalin the latest crisis in health service provision. But surely this comment is stretching things, " Loads of people, with no prior engagement with the hospitals, many of them non-nationals, just show up at the door prior to giving birth and this puts strain in the system as it would any system." Careful Sceptic, this thinking could go anywhere.

by Sceptic Thu Sep 20, 2007 21:02

I am not making any sinister point just that planning can be very difficult. The point is it might be necessary to deal with the "hotel" aspect of the treatment of some non-acute cases in a hotel instead of in a hospital ward in order to deal with exceptional demand. But given there is not infinite resources and maternity cases have to be dealt with at the stage they are at something might have to give, in this case the capacity of the hospital to provide in house beds for all comers at any given time.

by Jim O'Sullivan Fri Sep 21, 2007 08:17

"exceptional demand... in this case the capacity of the hospital to provide in house beds for all comers at any given time"

This crisis is created by Harney to facilitate the propagation of the ideology that health is better when privatised. It's part of the proaganda war. That people are suffering anxiety etc as a result is of no concern to Harney so long as she can create another money making opportunity for her family and buddies in the long term. Maybe you have an example of when such extraordinary measures have had to be taken in the past by the Health Service so as to demonstarte that this is a normal glitch and not unique to Harney's reign at Health?

by C Murray Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:02

It is unfair of Skeptic to assume that the women accomodated in private hotels are
'non-nationals who arrive labouring on the doorstep of the hospital'- thats an appaling summation
of a situation wherein a dublin hospital must remove patients from a health care centre of
excellence to a hotel which is manifestly not equipped to deal with post- partruition difficulties:-
in simple terms isolation from other women and such delicate matters of alleiviating symptoms
of that isolation can cause negative repurcussions. After the birth of every child there is an
amazing list of things that the hospitals must do- including registration of the infant, hip tests,
heel prick tests, midwife visits, public health nurse visits, help with early bonding and breast-feeding
(teaching a young mother the basics of 'latching on' being a case in point) and that is all provided
by the hospital .It gets more complicated if the infant has post-partrution difficulties, even
after a normal delivery. I don't think its ok to remove women from a care area that is
specifically geared to fulfilling those necessities to a hotel, its not just 'accomodating' mother
and infant- the issue of providing the staff to ensure that until the mother is let out of the
hospital and all is well to another location is also part of the budgeting factor in this case.
and every child born is entitled as the mother is to the correct care within the public health
care system.. Midwifery staff who are excllent in their care are travelling from the hospital
to a hotel to follow up patient care. That is unacceptable.

by C. Tue Oct 02, 2007 19:47

There are reports tonight that the HSE , [who are an unelected quango with responsibility
for centralisation of services to increase profit margins] are reducing funding to stroke and geriatric
medicine/ therapies to pay for cancer care services.The HSE is run by Professor Drumm
who has not as yet commented on the radio articles that released this info.
[Newstalk 106]

by biotech Wed Oct 03, 2007 15:59

Amgen- [corporate profiteering organisation , http://www.amgen.com] has pulled out of Carrigtwohill.
Interestingly FG are the only political party press-releasing on the loss of jobs and that is being
done through the shadow cabinet's 'Trade and Enterprise' Section. Mary Harney has spent most
of her time in office attracting bio-tech and repelling unions. There is no FF/PD response, yet,
to the local job loss.