Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

We have discussed matters ideological and non-ideological. I am of the view that this is an ideological matter. That was highlighted by the Minister's statement to the effect that this is an expensive commodity. That is the problem. It is not a commodity nor should it be perceived as such. Decent health services are very important and should be a right for people. Such services involve providing for people when they are at their most vulnerable. That is what we should aim towards. I agree with the Minister's point about everybody being a taxpayer, although I hate that word. People are human beings and citizens and they all pay taxes. To a certain extent, they are paying towards the provision of private health insurance. I accept that point. The key aspect is that most people who take out private health insurance do so because they are of the view they must so as a result of the public system not functioning.

If the Government genuinely wants to address this problem, the way to proceed is to strengthen the public system. It is not doing so. The Minister stated that what is being done involves trying to make it somewhat fairer. If the other side of the equation involved building up the public system and making it something in which people could have confidence, there would be something to his argument. The exact opposite is happening and the public system is being slaughtered. If anything, people probably feel that if they could afford private health insurance, they would take it out. At precisely the moment at which they may be contemplating going down that route, higher insurance premiums and the Minister's removal of the tax break have made it more difficult for them to do so. We do not have hard evidence - neither, I suspect, does the Minister - about what will be the effect on the margins. Working families are being hit for €80 here, €100 there and €500 for the property tax, and all of these costs accumulate. While the Minister, as he sits in the Department of Finance, might think that a certain measure might involve a small hit, in cumulative terms it might be the thing which tips someone over the edge. In that context, the measure in this regard is unfair and wrong if it is not going to be accompanied by additional resources being invested in the public system.

I wish to comment on the Government's commitment to move towards a system of universal health insurance. Most people think that such a system would be available to everybody and would involve individuals paying for health services according to their means. In terms of that longer-term project, it is incumbent on the Minister to put to the people the options with regard to whether - from a financial and every other point of view - this is the best way to deliver a health service for everybody. It is also incumbent on him to put forward and cost the alternatives and indicate how well they would deliver health services. Some of us believe the way to proceed fairly and deliver a universal health system would involve proceeding on the basis of the National Health Service model in Britain. Such a system would be funded through progressive income taxation and not by means of a health insurance system that would allow private companies to cream money off the top. The latter is the case in America, which spends more on health than any other country. There are massive problems in the context of the lack of universality of health services for US citizens.