Comments on: Bi-partisan?

By: The Crewser

The Crewser — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:34:50 +0000

Gordon, thats taking extrapolation to a whole new level. Value for money and Labour Party policy would be poles apart.

By: Dan Sullivan

Dan Sullivan — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:05:29 +0000

Bipartisan in Harney’s mind means support whatever the government is doing. If she wants the support of the opposition then what aspects of the opposition’s policies from the general election that would be in conflict with her current policy will she implement. None, and since she got re-elected to government she doesn’t have to but that also means the mess is entirety hers to fix.

I agree with the point above about the HSE. Harney didn’t put the HSE in the hands of some focused group of benevolent dictators, she gave it over the same shower of incompetent bureaucrats that had been running the healths boards. Harney spoke of how difficult it was for her to get information, but somehow that won’t happen again. What actually did she do to ensure that?

And for the information of those who talk about vested interests, the greatest group with a vested interest in the health service is the public and what is wrong with they having a vested interest?

By: Gordon Davies

Gordon Davies — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:17:04 +0000

Glad to see that Crewser supports Labour party policy for universal health insurance…the only way to control capitalists eager to make money from other peole’s ill-health.
Gordon

By: Crocodile

Crocodile — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:48:02 +0000

‘I would suggest to you that, that is what Health service reform is all about. Getting value for money’
Of course it is, Crewser. For the PDs, that’s what life itself is all about.

By: The Crewser

The Crewser — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:04:56 +0000

I would suggest to you that, that is what Health service reform is all about. Getting value for money. Its a pity all parties in Dail Eireann would not give their support to such an ideal.

By: Tomaltach

Tomaltach — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:20:08 +0000

Crewser, you say There must be private investment in Healthcare but it must be carefully controlled.

But how can it be controlled? If the government cannot control the administration and spending within its very own system, how can it be expected to control a private sector?

By: The Crewser

The Crewser — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:17:24 +0000

An the we could let Enda and James Reilly loose on the Health service. What a nighmare prospect that would be. There must be private investment in Healthcare but it must be carefully controlled.

By: Gordon Davies

Gordon Davies — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:05:31 +0000

Harney will never get a inter party agreement on health until she puts an end to her socially divisive and medically inept project of using public funds to build and subsidise private hospitals in the grounds of public facilities.

She has repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance of how large administrations function. Somebody should loan her a few elementary text-books on the sociology of organisations.

her resignation would be a start… which should be followed by the resignation of this Government.

Gordon

By: The Crewser

The Crewser — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:49:47 +0000

FG man Reilly is part of the Doctors lobby group one of those “vested interests” I talked about previously. He appears more like a property developer than a shadow spokesman on Health. Oops maybe he is a property developer in his spare time. One does not really know where his interests lie at this stage.
And Sarah I know various politicians in all parties want centres of excellence in their own constituencies but what is required from the leaders of the opposition is a bit of courage and a bit of bravery. If there was all party agreement on something like this it would get rid of the “home town” element whether its Bev or Michael Ring.

By: Colman

Colman — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:58:53 +0000

It is a system failure and it is largely caused by “vested interests”. The problem is that a good portion of the TDs are closely linked to the vested interests in question.

The system has been set up to fail by successive generations of TDs and voters who want services in their district andt jobs in their constituencies. Clientism is the particular curse of our electoral system.

To fix it we would need to

* Admit and acknowledge that the health service has been used as a job factory for decades. There are days that I think that the fucked up decentralisation plan was partly intended to offset the job losses that rationalising the health service would cause down-country.

* Pay-off unneeded admin people or redeploy them to do something – anything – useful. I don’t care what.

* Discuss what health service we want, how much it costs and to what extent we can realistically provide it on an all-Ireland basis, possibly relying on consultants in larger EU countries for some of the more obscure cases (which would probably be a useful initiative at an EU level – wonder if it already exists?) Our population is too small to support the best possible care for the weird and wonderful cases.

* Stop pretending that we can have low taxes and good public services. If we want a good standard of universal health care then we need to pay for it. If we want one where the rich get good care and the poor die screaming let’s say so and be done with it: instead we get a half-assed policy of piecemeal privatisation and bullshit. Frankly, I’m getting to the point where I won’t care which we choose – I’ll pay more taxes or I’ll buy health insurance.

In the end of the day the Irish electorate voted for the incumbent government, more-or-less, even though they must have known that they were being lied to.