God, what a load of whining.

Following the claims of the No side in the referendum, a large part of the electorate came to the conclusion that having an "Irish Commissioner" was important and voted accordingly. Now - presuming Lisbon II passes - we will have one.

You'd think that the assorted "Left" groups and their supporters who campaigned for a No would be delighted at this, wouldn't you?

After all, all their efforts will probably ensure that Mary Harney ends up as "Health Commissioner" where she'll unleash a cross between the worst excesses of the HSE and the "Brussels Bureaucracy" on us all. One that comes with medical bills that will be "closer to Boston rather than Berlin" in keeping with her stated preference in this regard.

Still, it makes all the effort of the No campaign worthwhile I am sure...

Paul R wrote:

God, what a load of whining.

Following the claims of the No side in the referendum, a large part of the electorate came to the conclusion that having an "Irish Commissioner" was important and voted accordingly. Now - presuming Lisbon II passes - we will have one.

You'd think that the assorted "Left" groups and their supporters who campaigned for a No would be delighted at this, wouldn't you?

After all, all their efforts will probably ensure that Mary Harney ends up as "Health Commissioner" where she'll unleash a cross between the worst excesses of the HSE and the "Brussels Bureaucracy" on us all. One that comes with medical bills that will be "closer to Boston rather than Berlin" in keeping with her stated preference in this regard.

Still, it makes all the effort of the No campaign worthwhile I am sure...

I don't give a monkeys about Lisbon. To me this is one gigantic red herring. Harney is the issue here, not bloody Lisbon and the bullshit surrounding it. If the rest of Europe wants to go ahead without us, it will find a way to do that. We are nowhere near as important as we like to think and our comtempt for Europe means that the main players will ignore us. And rightly so.

Slim Buddha wrote:

Paul R wrote:

God, what a load of whining.

Following the claims of the No side in the referendum, a large part of the electorate came to the conclusion that having an "Irish Commissioner" was important and voted accordingly. Now - presuming Lisbon II passes - we will have one.

You'd think that the assorted "Left" groups and their supporters who campaigned for a No would be delighted at this, wouldn't you?

After all, all their efforts will probably ensure that Mary Harney ends up as "Health Commissioner" where she'll unleash a cross between the worst excesses of the HSE and the "Brussels Bureaucracy" on us all. One that comes with medical bills that will be "closer to Boston rather than Berlin" in keeping with her stated preference in this regard.

Still, it makes all the effort of the No campaign worthwhile I am sure...

I don't give a monkeys about Lisbon. To me this is one gigantic red herring. Harney is the issue here, not bloody Lisbon and the bullshit surrounding it. If the rest of Europe wants to go ahead without us, it will find a way to do that. We are nowhere near as important as we like to think and our comtempt for Europe means that the main players will ignore us. And rightly so.

Fair enough, you don't consider it an important issue w.r.t. Lisbon. The post-referendum opinion polls though showed the "Irish Commissioner" issue was important to a large part of the majority No voters. Now that issue is to be addresses to keep them happy.

As a result, we could end up with Mary Harney having an even bigger stage to operate on - and yet, many of the leading "Left" spokesmen and women assured us all during the campaign that there would be no negative consequences to a No vote, didn't they?

I do hope they are celebrating the results of their efforts...

Paul R wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Paul R wrote:

God, what a load of whining.

Following the claims of the No side in the referendum, a large part of the electorate came to the conclusion that having an "Irish Commissioner" was important and voted accordingly. Now - presuming Lisbon II passes - we will have one.

You'd think that the assorted "Left" groups and their supporters who campaigned for a No would be delighted at this, wouldn't you?

After all, all their efforts will probably ensure that Mary Harney ends up as "Health Commissioner" where she'll unleash a cross between the worst excesses of the HSE and the "Brussels Bureaucracy" on us all. One that comes with medical bills that will be "closer to Boston rather than Berlin" in keeping with her stated preference in this regard.

Still, it makes all the effort of the No campaign worthwhile I am sure...

I don't give a monkeys about Lisbon. To me this is one gigantic red herring. Harney is the issue here, not bloody Lisbon and the bullshit surrounding it. If the rest of Europe wants to go ahead without us, it will find a way to do that. We are nowhere near as important as we like to think and our comtempt for Europe means that the main players will ignore us. And rightly so.

Fair enough, you don't consider it an important issue w.r.t. Lisbon. The post-referendum opinion polls though showed the "Irish Commissioner" issue was important to a large part of the majority No voters. Now that issue is to be addresses to keep them happy.

As a result, we could end up with Mary Harney having an even bigger stage to operate on - and yet, many of the leading "Left" spokesmen and women assured us all during the campaign that there would be no negative consequences to a No vote, didn't they?

I do hope they are celebrating the results of their efforts...

Even if, God forbid, Harney is sent to Brussels, and she takes it, she will be as ignored and sidelined just as much as McCreevy has been, especially over the last 2 years. You see, the political philosophy they both espouse is deeply, deeply unpopular in Europe and Ireland, like Britain, is seen as being too pro-American for the heavy-hitters of France and Germany to allow any meaningful power be allocated to anyone from Ireland. Especially a neo-liberalist non-entity like Harney.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

Slim Buddha wrote:

Indeed. The neo-liberalist economic ideology, so beloved of McCreevy and Harney, has been shown up to be a crock of crap and the main reason we are in the shit we're in. This ideology is bankrupt nonsense and all practitioners and advocates of it should be put out to pasture immediately. They are way, way past their sell-by date. Primary among these are the afore-mentioned Harney and McCreevy. The have alsolutely nothing to contribute and are a considerable burden on society, especially at a time when we need to eliminate waste.

My best mate and hiking buddy is also a long-time member of the Labour Party and an active Socialist Party supporter too.
He's been lashing me with this line for about 4 months now.

I was too to distraught to offer any resistance but you know, I'm begining to get a pain in me hole with it now.

The reason this "neo-liberal crock of crap" was voted in in the first place was because of the complete cock-up socialists made of the economy thru the 70's and 80's.

There are no saints here.

Its as obvious as hell that the "Left" way failed and that the "right" way failed.
One system strangled entrepreneurs to death and the other turned them into raving lunatics.

The answer is in the mix. It has to be.

We had "socialists"??????? When? Who? Dick Spring???

BTW, Johnny, I agree with you on the mix solution. Run properly, it is a marvellous system. I witness that every day.

We have lots of guff from the Harney haters on this thread, but never a why or at least never a why that stands up. Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded?
If you could fluff it out with a little more than bile, that would make it all the more interesting.

tonys wrote:

We have lots of guff from the Harney haters on this thread, but never a why or at least never a why that stands up. Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded?
If you could fluff it out with a little more than bile, that would make it all the more interesting.

Co-location: duplication and anarchic delivery of services, higher costs for the tax payer.

Slim Buddha wrote:

We had "socialists"??????? When? Who? Dick Spring???

Well there were a few in the 70's and 80's.

Ministers for Health, 1947 - present



Listed below are all people who have held the position of Minister for Health or Minister for Health and Children since the establishment of the Department of Health in 1947.
NameTenure

Dr. James Ryan T.D.	January, 1947 - February, 1948
Dr. Noel Browne T.D.	February, 1948 - April, 1951
Mr. John A. Costello T.D.	April, 1951 - June, 1951
Dr. James Ryan T.D.	June, 1951 - June, 1954
Mr. Thomas F. O'Higgins T.D.	June, 1954 - March, 1957
Mr. Sean MacEntee T.D.	March, 1957 - April, 1965
Mr. Donagh O'Malley	T.D. April, 1965 - July, 1966
Mr. Sean Flanagan T.D.	July, 1966 - July, 1969
Mr. Erskine Childers T.D.	July, 1969 - March, 1973
Mr. Brendan Corish T.D.	March, 1973 - July, 1977
Mr. Charles J. Haughey T.D.	July, 1977 - December, 1979
Dr. Michael Woods T.D.	December, 1979 - July, 1981
Mrs. Eileen Desmond T.D.	July, 1981 - March, 1982
Dr. Michael Woods T.D.	March, 1982 - December, 1982
Mr. Barry Desmond T.D.	December, 1982 - January, 1987
Mr John Boland T. D.	January, 1987 - March, 1987
Dr. Rory O'Hanlon T.D.	March, 1987 - November, 1991
Mrs. Mary O'Rourke T.D.	November, 1991 - February, 1992
Dr. John O'Connell T.D.	February, 1992 - January, 1993
Mr. Brendan Howlin T.D.	January, 1993 - November, 1994
Dr. Michael Woods T.D.	November, 1994 - December, 1994
Mr. Michael Noonan T.D.	December, 1994 - June, 1997
Mr. Brian Cowen T.D.	June 1997 - January 2000
Mr. Micheal Martin T.D.	January 2000 - September 2004
Ms. Mary Harney T.D.	September 2004 - present

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

We have lots of guff from the Harney haters on this thread, but never a why or at least never a why that stands up. Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded?
If you could fluff it out with a little more than bile, that would make it all the more interesting.

Co-location: duplication and anarchic delivery of services, higher costs for the tax payer.

As co-location hasn’t happened yet and we don’t know how it will work out, I take it your objection is on ideological grounds and therefore I suggest we park it for the moment.

“duplication and anarchic delivery of services” As has been shown already on this thread the health service is delivering more with better outcomes than ever before, so it’s hard to see your point here.

“higher costs for the tax payer” Goes along with more & better services and you certainly can’t show where anyone else has done better, in terms of cost per treatment.

tonys wrote:

... Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded? ...

That lowers the bar for Harney nicely tonys. At least you're no longer claiming she's not a failure, just that all her predecessors and all possible alternatives either have or would have failed too. While the former point is at least arguable the latter is pointlessly speculative.

Quote :

[quote="coc"][quote="tonys"] ... Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded? ...
That lowers the bar for Harney nicely tonys. At least you're no longer claiming she's not a failure, just that all her predecessors and all possible alternatives either have or would have failed too. While the former point is at least arguable the latter is pointlessly speculative.

(modded to match coc's self mod - cf)


Don’t slip on your smarm there darling.

I'm not sure darling is appropriate (I am married) but anyway ...

Care to confirm or resile from your acceptance of Harney's record of failure as Minister of Death Health?

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

We have lots of guff from the Harney haters on this thread, but never a why or at least never a why that stands up. Where has she failed where others have or would have succeeded?
If you could fluff it out with a little more than bile, that would make it all the more interesting.

Co-location: duplication and anarchic delivery of services, higher costs for the tax payer.

As co-location hasn’t happened yet and we don’t know how it will work out, I take it your objection is on ideological grounds and therefore I suggest we park it for the moment.

“duplication and anarchic delivery of services” As has been shown already on this thread the health service is delivering more with better outcomes than ever before, so it’s hard to see your point here.

“higher costs for the tax payer” Goes along with more & better services and you certainly can’t show where anyone else has done better, in terms of cost per treatment.

Co-location is happening already. Once contracts are signed/tax benefits allowed the costs are already incurred. From the PD website -

Quote :

Minister says co-location progressing

[Posted: Wed 06/02/2008]

Progress is being made on the development of the controversial co-located private hospitals on public hospital sites, according to Health Minister Mary Harney.

She told the Dail that project agreements for the co-located units at Beaumont, Cork University and Limerick Regional Hospitals will be signed very soon.

The Minister said it is anticipated that the signing of project agreements for co-located units at Waterford, Sligo and St James's Hospitals will be concluded shortly after these.

Connolly Hospital and Tallaght Hospital, are at an earlier stage of the procurement process.

The Minister, in a written Dail reply, said a tender in relation to Connolly Hospital in Dublin is under consideration and an invitation to tender for the Tallaght Hospital co-location project will issue in the near future.

She told the Dail she was satisfied that the Government has a clear democratic mandate for the co-location initiative.

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

coc wrote:

I'm not sure darling is appropriate (I am married) but anyway ...

Rest assured, darling is in no way appropriate.

coc wrote:

Care to confirm or resile from your acceptance of Harney's record of failure as Minister of Death Health?

Are you serious with this nonsense?
If you are, I really don’t know what to say to you that wouldn’t cause a rush of blood to your head or have me pm’ed to death and if you aren’t, please go away.

cactus flower wrote:

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

And I’d agree with him. Most health systems, particularly the systems that are considered successful, France for example, are a mix of privately & publicly delivered service. If it works elsewhere, copy it, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.

As well as the co-location, what about the disastrous mess of setting up the HSE overloaded with "job for life" management posts with undefined content.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

And I’d agree with him. Most health systems, particularly the systems that are considered successful, France for example, are a mix of privately & publicly delivered service. If it works elsewhere, copy it, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.

France does not have a co-location health system. Can you provide any source to link this thread to an example of a successful co-location system directly comparable to the Irish approach?

cactus flower wrote:

As well as the co-location, what about the disastrous mess of setting up the HSE overloaded with "job for life" management posts with undefined content.

As I understand it and I might be wrong here, she wasn’t responsible for that, one Bertie Ahern stuck his oar in on behalf of the public service unions, not a good move, even at the time, but right now might well be a good time to redress it.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

As well as the co-location, what about the disastrous mess of setting up the HSE overloaded with "job for life" management posts with undefined content.

As I understand it and I might be wrong here, she wasn’t responsible for that, one Bertie Ahern stuck his oar in on behalf of the public service unions, not a good move, even at the time, but right now might well be a good time to redress it.

Yes, hard to know exactly how to apportion blame, but had Mary Harney wanted to put her foot down, form suggests she would have.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

And I’d agree with him. Most health systems, particularly the systems that are considered successful, France for example, are a mix of privately & publicly delivered service. If it works elsewhere, copy it, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.

France does not have a co-location health system. Can you provide any source to link this thread to an example of a successful co-location system directly comparable to the Irish approach?

That was not the point I made, as you very well know.
If your concern is for the piece of ground, I think that’s a very small detail and if anything will help with economies of scale and cut out travelling time for staff & patients. The big picture is whether to have a mix of private & public service or just public service and as I said the best work with a mix, why would we not do the same.

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

And I’d agree with him. Most health systems, particularly the systems that are considered successful, France for example, are a mix of privately & publicly delivered service. If it works elsewhere, copy it, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.

France does not have a co-location health system. Can you provide any source to link this thread to an example of a successful co-location system directly comparable to the Irish approach?

That was not the point I made, as you very well know.
If your concern is for the piece of ground, I think that’s a very small detail and if anything will help with economies of scale and cut out travelling time for staff & patients. The big picture is whether to have a mix of private & public service or just public service and as I said the best work with a mix, why would we not do the same.

The combination of public land (loss of this land will impede the future rational expansion of the public hospitals) and tax allowances for construction of private assets would be two key features of co-location.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

tonys wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Brian Cowen has strongly supported co-location.

And I’d agree with him. Most health systems, particularly the systems that are considered successful, France for example, are a mix of privately & publicly delivered service. If it works elsewhere, copy it, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel here.

France does not have a co-location health system. Can you provide any source to link this thread to an example of a successful co-location system directly comparable to the Irish approach?

That was not the point I made, as you very well know.
If your concern is for the piece of ground, I think that’s a very small detail and if anything will help with economies of scale and cut out travelling time for staff & patients. The big picture is whether to have a mix of private & public service or just public service and as I said the best work with a mix, why would we not do the same.

The combination of public land (loss of this land will impede the future rational expansion of the public hospitals) and tax allowances for construction of private assets would be two key features of co-location.

Facilities & services which we get to use at no capital cost to ourselves, built and opened with services provided at a much faster rate than the public procurement system can manage, with no long term commitment should our circumstances change and we no longer need the service.
Sounds like a deal to me.

tonys said

Quote :

Facilities & services which we get to use at no capital cost to ourselves, built and opened with services provided at a much faster rate than the public procurement system can manage, with no long term commitment should our circumstances change and we no longer need the service.
Sounds like a deal to me.

Tax allowances are a cost. Who is responsible if public construction is slow, inefficient and poor value for money ? The lack of commitment, in so far as it is the case, is likely to lead to the not-so-fast provision of services as has happened with the Public Private housing schemes that collapsed in Dublin.

cactus flower wrote:

tonys said

Quote :

Facilities & services which we get to use at no capital cost to ourselves, built and opened with services provided at a much faster rate than the public procurement system can manage, with no long term commitment should our circumstances change and we no longer need the service.
Sounds like a deal to me.

Tax allowances are a cost..

No they’re not a cost, they’re an unrealised benefit that we wouldn’t have had anyway if the hospitals weren’t built in the first place, which they wouldn’t have been if we didn’t give the tax allowances, you can see where this argument is going can’t you.
In short and not to beat about the bush, what we never had we won’t miss….so to speak.

cactus flower wrote:

Who is responsible if public construction is slow, inefficient and poor value for money ?

The public service unions

If Mr MacNamara or A. N. Other developer owes 5 million tax, and doesn't pay it, but uses it to build a hospital which he personally owns, we have lost 5 million and he has gained a hospital. After any claw back period he can sell it on or convert it into a hotel.

Quote :

The public service unions

did not design the public procurement process, and are not responsible for managing public projects.