4 ms·

Do Rich People get to have their own Private Healthcare Services & Hospitals separate from the NHS? --> If yes, nobody cares about this in a position of power.

oriettaxx 4y ago
:( yes, they are still living in a bubble: do not care at all for what they call "peasants". From the other side I think non-rich (and the many just poor or poorer) do not get angry enough since they do realize it's hard for many others (Ukranian and Russian e.g.): I guess we still have to wait awhile until somebody wakes up and reckon "the king is naked". btw: Nigel Farage is not sleeping well
gmac 4y ago
Yes, but not really for urgent care. All Accident & Emergency (ER) departments are NHS-run, so everyone can expect poor state provision to bite them when they're most in need. For education, on the other hand, rich people and MPs can indeed fully opt out. And private schools still have charitable status.
- mytailorisrich 4y ago
  Well, private schools take approx. 550k pupils out of state schools while parents still pay the same amount of tax. Since the state system spends about 6.7k per pupil this means either (a) that the state saves 3.7b a year, or (b) that the state could spend an extra 380 pounds per state school pupil with the money. My conclusion is that private schools are helping tremendously but are singled out for ideological reasons/politics of envy. Many families who send their children to private schools could not afford a 20%+ in tuition fees, so would fall back on state schools and the net effect on state schools/government finances would be negative. It's different for healthcare because, first as you mention everyone has to go to NHS' A&E for an emergency, but also now the same facility/professional runs both NHS and private services. If you need to go to (NHS) hospital for potentially important checks and analyses they'll tell you the next appointment available is in 3 months on the NHS or next week privately. Dentists will say that they don't take new NHS patients but will happily see you the next day privately (that one is purely because NHS charges have not been increased in 10+ years so that dentists don't want to bother with so little money anymore). If private healthcare had to be provided only in fully private facilities then potentially it could help. But, same as for schools, the state should not take the opportunity of fewer patients to cut spending. All that being said, at the moment the main issue at A&Es and hospitals seems to be a massive surge in the number of patients.
  - gmac 4y ago
    Despite apparent savings to the public purse, private schools remain pernicious in a bunch of inter-related ways: * Per the comment up-thread, private schools allow the rich and powerful to insulate themselves from a failing system. If these people’s kids were at state schools, you can bet state schools would be better resourced pretty soon. * Relatedly, private schools perpetuate social stratification and reduce social mobility and equality of opportunity. Rich parents buy better education for their kids, who get better jobs, and stay rich. * Rich kids mix with other rich kids, rarely encountering poor kids. This gives them a distorted understanding of how the world works, and a lack of empathy for the poor. See this extraordinary paper in the American Economic Review: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 * Because rich and middle class kids get filtered into private schools, poorer kids lose out on the positive peer effects those kids would have had on their education. For these reasons, I think one could reasonably argue for a ban on private schools. But at the very least, I think we should stop providing generous tax advantages to them. In my eyes the public benefit (which is the normal test for charitability) is vastly outweighed by the public costs.
    - mytailorisrich 4y ago
      None of your bullet points are factual and pragmatic, they are all based on belief and ideology. A counter, more positive take, is that if state schools actually pushed all pupils then the middle class wouldn't be looking for alternatives. The existence of private schools is not what creates the issues the state system suffers from, which is potentially lack of funding (but as per my previous comment, private schools actually help on that front) and but also too often a culture that does not promote effort and ambition (which is what those who choose private schools are after). Education is first and foremost down to the parents and values learnt at home. The greatest filter is there and those who prioritise education will make their children succeed. An anecdote: When my daughter was in (state) primary school she did not do that well in maths and was put in the lower set group. When we asked the school what they did in the lower set in order to push pupils up they effectively replied "nothing, we just sort pupils according to ability, some children are not very good at maths". So here you have it, they give up on 8 year old pupils. So we did what other parents do: additional private tuition (which the majority of families can actually afford) and ultimately the school self-congratulated themselves for moving our daughter to the top set because she improved so much. Obviously, we looked for alternatives for secondary school. It's not a question of being 'rich', it's a question of priorities.
Moissanite 4y ago
I previously thought UK health care was 2-tiered, where people can pay for private health insurance if they so choose and get better treatment than the NHS. Since getting private cover for myself, I've discovered that it is (at least) 3-tiered; for us plebs who can afford regular health insurance, you get all the inconvenience of dealing with your local GP as a required first-line step, plus all of the bullshit related to dealing with insurance companies who try to weasel out of paying for anything. I assume truly wealthy people get a different, considerably better standard of care and can shrug off the insurance company interaction (or get their staff to do the leg-work).
- Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
  There are a very small number of private intensive care units (I spent some time in one of them a few years ago, for complicated travel-insurance-related reasons). AFAIK they are all in London. Any other private hospital may have the facilities to perform routine operations, but relies on the NHS to pick up the pieces if something goes dramatically wrong. And even the private ICUs in London probably aren't as well-equipped as a major NHS teaching hospital.
valdiorn 4y ago
No such thing a private A&E cover. If I accidentally chop my finger off I have no choice for a private provider to stitch it back on. I go to the same place as everyone else. I'm actually really worried about having an accident right now because the wait times are insane at all the hospitals around me. Anything other than acute trauma, I can pay to go private (just did, after getting a really bad bacterial infection in my sinuses) and see a GP, get diagnosed, get a prescription for whatever I need.

oriettaxx 4y ago

:( yes, they are still living in a bubble: do not care at all for what they call "peasants". From the other side I think non-rich (and the many just poor or poorer) do not get angry enough since they do realize it's hard for many others (Ukranian and Russian e.g.): I guess we still have to wait awhile until somebody wakes up and reckon "the king is naked". btw: Nigel Farage is not sleeping well

gmac 4y ago

Yes, but not really for urgent care. All Accident & Emergency (ER) departments are NHS-run, so everyone can expect poor state provision to bite them when they're most in need. For education, on the other hand, rich people and MPs can indeed fully opt out. And private schools still have charitable status.

mytailorisrich 4y ago
Well, private schools take approx. 550k pupils out of state schools while parents still pay the same amount of tax. Since the state system spends about 6.7k per pupil this means either (a) that the state saves 3.7b a year, or (b) that the state could spend an extra 380 pounds per state school pupil with the money. My conclusion is that private schools are helping tremendously but are singled out for ideological reasons/politics of envy. Many families who send their children to private schools could not afford a 20%+ in tuition fees, so would fall back on state schools and the net effect on state schools/government finances would be negative. It's different for healthcare because, first as you mention everyone has to go to NHS' A&E for an emergency, but also now the same facility/professional runs both NHS and private services. If you need to go to (NHS) hospital for potentially important checks and analyses they'll tell you the next appointment available is in 3 months on the NHS or next week privately. Dentists will say that they don't take new NHS patients but will happily see you the next day privately (that one is purely because NHS charges have not been increased in 10+ years so that dentists don't want to bother with so little money anymore). If private healthcare had to be provided only in fully private facilities then potentially it could help. But, same as for schools, the state should not take the opportunity of fewer patients to cut spending. All that being said, at the moment the main issue at A&Es and hospitals seems to be a massive surge in the number of patients.
- gmac 4y ago
  Despite apparent savings to the public purse, private schools remain pernicious in a bunch of inter-related ways: * Per the comment up-thread, private schools allow the rich and powerful to insulate themselves from a failing system. If these people’s kids were at state schools, you can bet state schools would be better resourced pretty soon. * Relatedly, private schools perpetuate social stratification and reduce social mobility and equality of opportunity. Rich parents buy better education for their kids, who get better jobs, and stay rich. * Rich kids mix with other rich kids, rarely encountering poor kids. This gives them a distorted understanding of how the world works, and a lack of empathy for the poor. See this extraordinary paper in the American Economic Review: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20180044 * Because rich and middle class kids get filtered into private schools, poorer kids lose out on the positive peer effects those kids would have had on their education. For these reasons, I think one could reasonably argue for a ban on private schools. But at the very least, I think we should stop providing generous tax advantages to them. In my eyes the public benefit (which is the normal test for charitability) is vastly outweighed by the public costs.
  - mytailorisrich 4y ago
    None of your bullet points are factual and pragmatic, they are all based on belief and ideology. A counter, more positive take, is that if state schools actually pushed all pupils then the middle class wouldn't be looking for alternatives. The existence of private schools is not what creates the issues the state system suffers from, which is potentially lack of funding (but as per my previous comment, private schools actually help on that front) and but also too often a culture that does not promote effort and ambition (which is what those who choose private schools are after). Education is first and foremost down to the parents and values learnt at home. The greatest filter is there and those who prioritise education will make their children succeed. An anecdote: When my daughter was in (state) primary school she did not do that well in maths and was put in the lower set group. When we asked the school what they did in the lower set in order to push pupils up they effectively replied "nothing, we just sort pupils according to ability, some children are not very good at maths". So here you have it, they give up on 8 year old pupils. So we did what other parents do: additional private tuition (which the majority of families can actually afford) and ultimately the school self-congratulated themselves for moving our daughter to the top set because she improved so much. Obviously, we looked for alternatives for secondary school. It's not a question of being 'rich', it's a question of priorities.

Moissanite 4y ago

I previously thought UK health care was 2-tiered, where people can pay for private health insurance if they so choose and get better treatment than the NHS. Since getting private cover for myself, I've discovered that it is (at least) 3-tiered; for us plebs who can afford regular health insurance, you get all the inconvenience of dealing with your local GP as a required first-line step, plus all of the bullshit related to dealing with insurance companies who try to weasel out of paying for anything. I assume truly wealthy people get a different, considerably better standard of care and can shrug off the insurance company interaction (or get their staff to do the leg-work).

Ichthypresbyter 4y ago
There are a very small number of private intensive care units (I spent some time in one of them a few years ago, for complicated travel-insurance-related reasons). AFAIK they are all in London. Any other private hospital may have the facilities to perform routine operations, but relies on the NHS to pick up the pieces if something goes dramatically wrong. And even the private ICUs in London probably aren't as well-equipped as a major NHS teaching hospital.

valdiorn 4y ago

No such thing a private A&E cover. If I accidentally chop my finger off I have no choice for a private provider to stitch it back on. I go to the same place as everyone else. I'm actually really worried about having an accident right now because the wait times are insane at all the hospitals around me. Anything other than acute trauma, I can pay to go private (just did, after getting a really bad bacterial infection in my sinuses) and see a GP, get diagnosed, get a prescription for whatever I need.