Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

The decision by the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children to reject the Health Insurance Authority's recommendation on the introduction of risk equalisation is based purely on her ideological outlook. Risk equalisation is necessary to reflect the older age profile of VHI membership. The Health Insurance Authority recommended the introduction of risk equalisation in light of the damage being done to VHI under the current regime. It concluded that consumers would be better served by the lower premiums that would flow from risk equalisation. Given that the Health Insurance Authority is in place to advise the Minister on these issues, why did she consider it necessary to hire private consultants on this issue? Was it simply because she knew they would give her the results she wanted? I believe so.

The Tánaiste's decision is based on her desire to undermine the VHI. I would be interested to know the extent of the representations made to the Tánaiste by BUPA and Vivas Health on this matter. This is a clear case of the Progressive Democrats rampage against State companies, and the VHI is the victim in this instance. The Tánaiste's actions are likely to lead to an increase in premiums as VHI faces the continued loss of younger members to BUPA. The failure to introduce risk equalisation has the potential to irreparably damage the VHI as it enters a spiral of rising premiums and claims. In the absence of risk equalisation, certain insurers can concentrate on targeting lower risk individuals.

It has been pointed out that the Health Insurance Authority took into account the commercial status of the VHI when arriving at its recommendation that unbalanced risk equalisation should be implemented. This undermines the claims made by the Tánaiste to justify her failure to introduce risk equalisation. Her decision is scandalous and totally unjustifiable. The boom in the numbers of people taking up health insurance is indicative of the abject failure of the Government to reform the health service, ensuring equal and proper access for all. The people of this State already pay over the odds for health care. We pay for it through PRSI and the additional health levy. On top of this we pay for every visit to a GP and 50% of us pay for private insurance as well.

The Tánaiste said that she welcomes this statistic. She should because it is the Government's policy, in particular the long waiting lists, that have driven people into the arms of private insurers. The decision not to implement risk equalisation will only result in a further increase in the cost of health care. Fundamentally my party believes that health care is incompatible with the market. We believe in free health care at the point of delivery based on need, not ability to pay. We believe it is the responsibility of Government to provide health services through the general taxation system. Health care should never be a commodity to be bought and sold. It should be a right. There is no logical reason for the delay in implementing risk equalisation. The Tánaiste has admitted it is inevitable. The delay is purely ideological, facilitating private companies, particularly BUPA, giving it a commercial advantage over VHI. Proper modern facilities provided by the State are the best way to level the private health insurance field.

I acknowledge the opportunity the House has been given to address this motion, however condensed. It is welcome, nonetheless, and I hope the debate goes some way towards highlighting for the public the madness that exists as regards this entire question.

See this speech in context