[Niall]

Originally Posted by Angus

I know exactly where you are coming from. I searched long and hard for a state school that I would be happy for my kids to attend, but in those days you had to live in certain catchment reas and I was offered the worst school in my area and it was my only offer. That is what prompted me to look at the private option and both my sons won scholarships based on academic ability. *Most private schools today still offer scholarships to those who cannot afford to pay the fees.

You will know that virtually every Labour MP hypocritically sent their own children to private schools, whilst advocating state schools for the masses. I doubt there's a single one of them that doesn't have private health care. So much for a fair and equal society and THEIR faith in state education and the NHS. "Do what I say, not do what I do" was the motto of the Labour Party.

There are a lot of excellent state schools, but in my day I did not have the option of choosing which one my children attended, since I could not afford to move out of the catchment area I was in. Like any good parent, I wanted the best for my children and I make no apology for choosing the private option. If I had the money I would also invest in private medical care. I am currently in the middle of a medical negligence claim against the hospital that treated my brother who recently died of cancer. He was treated abysmally and I want someone to acknowledge that, accept blame and apologise. The NHS is an utter shambles and it's about time we adopted the American system of medical health insurance which would ensure a better quality of care than what we have now.

People who bang on about social equality are usually the first ones to take full advantage of private schooling and private healthcare when they can afford it. I would never presume to remove freedom of choice from people as to how they spend their disposable income.

Okay fair play to you and what happened with your bother, I'm deeply sorry to hear that, but how you can sit there and claim that the American way of running things would be better baffles me absolutely.

I just don't understand. Have you not seen the obscene amount of money the average American is forced to fork out just for drugs? Operations are a whole other story. I read about a family once who had to sell their house just to get father treatment he needed. No-one should ever be forced to consider things like that. Healthcare should be something offered to everyone unconditionally..

And then there's the other matter of the health system being run as a business. The patients become customers and profit takes precedence over the quality of service provided to the patients. There are countless stories about American HMO's denying their customers service simply because the company is too stingy to fork over the money for an operation/medication/treatment which the person is actually covered for.

All in all the NHS, despite it's flaws is actually a healthcare system that is far superior to that in the US and to adopt their way of doing things would be to make a seriously large step backwards in how we run things.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Angus

The trouble is that the NHS does not offer consistent good healthcare - it very much depends where in the UK you live. My brother unfortunately was the recipient of negligent, incompetent healthcare consisting of misdiagnosis and protracted delays for hospital appointments which resulted in his cancer being so far advanced that it was inoperable and terminal within two months of eventual diagnosis. Anyone in their right mind who could afford it would choose private healthcare over the shambles that is the NHS.

I'm sorry about what happened to your Brother,infact your story sounds so similar to what happened to my Grandad.

The NHS stinks and it needs to be demolished.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Niall

Okay fair play to you and what happened with your bother, I'm deeply sorry to hear that, but how you can sit there and claim that the American way of running things would be better baffles me absolutely.

I just don't understand. Have you not seen the obscene amount of money the average American is forced to fork out just for drugs? Operations are a whole other story. I read about a family once who had to sell their house just to get father treatment he needed. No-one should ever be forced to consider things like that. Healthcare should be something offered to everyone unconditionally..

And then there's the other matter of the health system being run as a business. The patients become customers and profit takes precedence over the quality of service provided to the patients. There are countless stories about American HMO's denying their customers service simply because the company is too stingy to fork over the money for an operation/medication/treatment which the person is actually covered for.

All in all the NHS, despite it's flaws is actually a healthcare system that is far superior to that in the US and to adopt their way of doing things would be to make a seriously large step backwards in how we run things.

The NHS is chock a block with bureaucratic management, earning megabucks salaries and running it as if it were a business. This is ALREADY happening in this country. Instead of a blanket national insurance contribution which disappears down the bottomless pit of the NHS, we should have the choice to make contributions to other forms of healthcare insurance. Bully for you if you think the NHS "works". In my experience it does not.

For it to work effectively the bureacracy at the top needs to be pruned right back, budgetting across all regions should be consistent, so that a patient can be confident they will receive the same level of care wherever they live, and there should be far more transparency when it comes to decisions made that are literally life and death. I had to fight tooth and nail to get my brother's GP and hospital records, and now I have them I understand why they were so reluctant to make them available. The mistakes made were shocking, and the lack of concern, and lack of urgency they showed was criminal. Needless to say a court case is on the cards. It won't bring my brother back, but those responsible for failing him will pay for it and hopefully they won't be allowed anywhere near other sick folk who, like, my poor brother, trusted the NHS to give him prompt and appropriate treatment.

The NHS is dying on its feet, it is a lumbering bureaucratic machine that has lost touch with its purpose. IMO just because it sometimes works for some folk, does not make it reliable or effective. I dread ever being diagnosed with anything life threatening, because it really is a lottery as to whether I would survive.

[Me. I Am Salman]

No frickin way

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Angus

The NHS is chock a block with bureaucratic management, earning megabucks salaries and running it as if it were a business. This is ALREADY happening in this country. Instead of a blanket national insurance contribution which disappears down the bottomless pit of the NHS, we should have the choice to make contributions to other forms of healthcare insurance. Bully for you if you think the NHS "works". In my experience it does not.

For it to work effectively the bureacracy at the top needs to be pruned right back, budgetting across all regions should be consistent, so that a patient can be confident they will receive the same level of care wherever they live, and there should be far more transparency when it comes to decisions made that are literally life and death. I had to fight tooth and nail to get my brother's GP and hospital records, and now I have them I understand why they were so reluctant to make them available. The mistakes made were shocking, and the lack of concern, and lack of urgency they showed was criminal. Needless to say a court case is on the cards. It won't bring my brother back, but those responsible for failing him will pay for it and hopefully they won't be allowed anywhere near other sick folk who, like, my poor brother, trusted the NHS to give him prompt and appropriate treatment.

The NHS is dying on its feet, it is a lumbering bureaucratic machine that has lost touch with its purpose. IMO just because it sometimes works for some folk, does not make it reliable or effective. I dread ever being diagnosed with anything life threatening, because it really is a lottery as to whether I would survive.

So you really think the introduction of an American system would remedy all of those problems? Maybe the bureaucracy of the NHS causes problems but that's something that can be fixed. I know the NHS has lots of issues that need to be sorted out - heck, my hospital is Queens in Romford. Have you heard the problems the maternity unit has been having?

It's just that an American system would just cause more chronic problems. You'd have people fighting with their insurance companies just to get treatments which they are rightly covered for which the company doesn't want to pay for. Then there would be the problem of actually paying for things, the cost of pills would skyrocket along with operations themselves. The companies over there also give people BONUSES for denying sick people healthcare!

You should watch Michael Moore's film 'Sicko'. It exposed all the disgusting failures the American HMO's had made and all the profits they were making. It was awful.

The answer to the NHS's problems isn't to wave a magic wand and be rid of it.. that in my opinion would just cause further problems elsewhere that are much much more widespread..

[CharlieO]

I agree with it completely. It gives a more beneficial consumption than if more affluent people just spent their money on flashy things to create more of an obvious divide.

People act as if the parents who send their children to private school haven't worked for it. They work bloody hard to send their children to a good school. How would it be fair for the child of a hard working family to be sent to the same school as someone with lazy unemployed parents because they can't be bothered to get a job.

People have the right to have it better. The role of price is to allocate resources to those who can afford it. Otherwise we would be half communist.

[CharlieO]

And it is not true that just because you are sent to a private school means you are guaranteed an affluent life. It is such a misconception.

[CharlieO]

What we also have to remember is parents who don't utilise the state school system still in technicality pay for those who do's education. So if schooling and healthcare could only be free more people would take the stance of there is no point to work and then funding would go down and the whole system just wouldn't work.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Niall

So you really think the introduction of an American system would remedy all of those problems? Maybe the bureaucracy of the NHS causes problems but that's something that can be fixed. I know the NHS has lots of issues that need to be sorted out - heck, my hospital is Queens in Romford. Have you heard the problems the maternity unit has been having?

It's just that an American system would just cause more chronic problems. You'd have people fighting with their insurance companies just to get treatments which they are rightly covered for which the company doesn't want to pay for. Then there would be the problem of actually paying for things, the cost of pills would skyrocket along with operations themselves.

You should watch Michael Moore's film 'Sicko'. It exposed all the disgusting failures the American HMO's had made and all the profits they were making. It was awful.

The answer to the NHS's problems isn't to wave a magic wand and be rid of it.. that in my opinion would just cause further problems elsewhere that are much much more widespread..

Well IMO it's about freedom of choice, and if those that can afford private healthcare want it, they shouldn't be castigated for it. I have lived and worked in America and can assure you the system works fine. No doubt they have their horror stories too, but they can probably be matched by the abundance of horror stories our NHS can offer. The system of health care insurance in the UK works brilliantly in the private sector, and I don't see why a national one could not be implemented which offers more choice and flexibility.

The NHS is not a "free" service, it is a compulsory component of the National Health Contributions and we all have to pay. I would prefer that there was some individual choice as to where that money went. There should always be health care available as a safety net for those who are completely unable to provide for themselves, but if people want to opt out they should be allowed to do so.

It seems to me that the worst care is reserved for terminally ill patients who are tacitly seen as a nuisance by the NHS and quickly referred onwards to hospices. This happened to my father years ago, and more recently to my brother. Hospices receive no government funding whatsoever and have to rely totally on fundraising and handouts, yet they are expected to do the job that the NHS should be doing, offering palliative and respite care, and dignified end of life care to people who have paid into the system for decades.

Such a subject is always bound to be emotive and I can only speak from my own personal experiences of the NHS, few of which have been satisfactory, never mind good, and my opinions on its lack of credibility as a reliable, adequate and consistent deliverer of good health care are based on those experiences.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by Angus

Well IMO it's about freedom of choice, and if those that can afford private healthcare want it, they shouldn't be castigated for it. I have lived and worked in America and can assure you the system works fine. No doubt they have their horror stories too, but they can probably be matched by the abundance of horror stories our NHS can offer. The system of health care insurance in the UK works brilliantly in the private sector, and I don't see why a national one could not be implemented which offers more choice and flexibility.

The NHS is not a "free" service, it is a compulsory component of the National Health Contributions and we all have to pay. I would prefer that there was some individual choice as to where that money went. There should always be health care available as a safety net for those who are completely unable to provide for themselves, but if people want to opt out they should be allowed to do so.

It seems to me that the worst care is reserved for terminally ill patients who are tacitly seen as a nuisance by the NHS and quickly referred onwards to hospices. This happened to my father years ago, and more recently to my brother. Hospices receive no government funding whatsoever and have to rely totally on fundraising and handouts, yet they are expected to do the job that the NHS should be doing, offering palliative and respite care, and dignified end of life care to people who have paid into the system for decades.

Such a subject is always bound to be emotive and I can only speak from my own personal experiences of the NHS, few of which have been satisfactory, never mind good, and my opinions on its lack of credibility as a reliable, adequate and consistent deliverer of good health care are based on those experiences.

Well it would seem that neither one of us is going to convince the other.

If you've lived and used the american health system and have encountered no problems then I don't really have much to say, but for me the stories I've seen and heard just cause me to think how can a country with such massive power and resources be so heartless to those that need care the most?

About it being a very emotive issue, I have to agree with you. I haven't really had bad experiences with the NHS tbh. Everytime I've had a problem it's been sorted by them quick and easy so I can't really complain. I understand where you're coming from though.

I do think everyone should pay for the NHS though, regardless of whether they pay for privatised care or not. The NHS, from my personal experiences, is a perfectly good system. But thats just me I suppose.

[Niall]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I agree with it completely. It gives a more beneficial consumption than if more affluent people just spent their money on flashy things to create more of an obvious divide.

People act as if the parents who send their children to private school haven't worked for it. They work bloody hard to send their children to a good school. How would it be fair for the child of a hard working family to be sent to the same school as someone with lazy unemployed parents because they can't be bothered to get a job.

People have the right to have it better. The role of price is to allocate resources to those who can afford it. Otherwise we would be half communist.

But the divide it causes is something greater than any material possession. It gives children that do go to private school an advantage education-wise over others and thats something that just doesn't sit right with me. Everyone should have a level playing field at school and have an equal chance at a start in life. It just doesn't seem fair to my mind.

And it would be completely fair! Just because the parents have worked hard doesn't mean that their children are superior to that of a couple who are unemployed.

Also that doesn't always work. In fact it just solidifies inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you left the role of price to allocate things to people I bet the corporations would overcharge obscenely for everything.

[Ammi]

My OH had to have an endoscopy (tube down his throat). He was informed that the anesthetic would be the equivalent of drinking 10 pints of beer in 5 minutes, so he would not be able to drive home afterwards. We had not long moved to a new area, didn't know anyone and I had a toddler and a 3 week old baby, so couldn't accompany him to the hospital. It wasn't a problem, the hospital said, they would arrange an ambulance home. Well, they didn't arrange an ambulance home, they didn't allow him any 'recovery' time in the hospital after the procedure, they didn't ensure he got safely into a taxi. What they did do, was to ask him if he had any cash to get a taxi, and then gave him directions to where he could get one. Thankfully, he managed to get home safely on his own, as I doubt anyone would have helped him. He just appeared to anyone seeing him as drunk. He literally fell out of the taxi when he arrived home...but thankfully he was ok. That was NHS.

I had a brain tumour 9 years ago. At the time my OH had private medical insurance through his employer. After several visits to my GP, who diagnosed eyestrain, allergies and migraines, my OH asked for a specialist opinion, using his private medical insurance. My tumour was diagnosed and removed within 3 weeks. The biopsy (benign) was another 2 weeks later. My consultant explained how fortunate I was that it had been diagnosed when it was and not continued to grow and place more pressure on my brain. He explained everything from the first consultation, all throughout the procedure and the risks involved and the recovery and aftercare to minimise the scarring.
That is Private Medical Care.

It is terrifying to have any surgical procedure...to be unsure of the outcome, to arrange childcare, time off work, the emotional stress on your family. If you have private medical insurance through your employer or you are fortunate enough to be able to afford it, what more deserving 'purchase' than your health or your families health. It should be the same for everyone, yes. An ideal NHS would be the same, but in my experience it is not...not even close.

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Niall

But the divide it causes is something greater than any material possession. It gives children that do go to private school an advantage education-wise over others and thats something that just doesn't sit right with me. Everyone should have a level playing field at school and have an equal chance at a start in life. It just doesn't seem fair to my mind.

And it would be completely fair! Just because the parents have worked hard doesn't mean that their children are superior to that of a couple who are unemployed.

Also that doesn't always work. In fact it just solidifies inequality. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If you left the role of price to allocate things to people I bet the corporations would overcharge obscenely for everything.

But the thing is that private school doesn't guarantee a better education. The education in state schools can be just as good it is just generally the kids in state schools do not try. They muck around because that is what their parents did.

Inequality is life and without it the world would be a much worse off place. If everyone was equal we would have nothing to aim towards.

[CharlieO]

Parents who can afford to send their children to private school also have to pay a bigger tax amount to pay for others schooling. That is far more unfair than the concept of private school.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

But the thing is that private school doesn't guarantee a better education. The education in state schools can be just as good it is just generally the kids in state schools do not try. They muck around because that is what their parents did.

Inequality is life and without it the world would be a much worse off place. If everyone was equal we would have nothing to aim towards.

It might not guarantee a better education but it certainly makes it far more likely

Privately educated children are four times more likely than state pupils to get straight As at A-level, and more than three times as likely to go to university. Just under half of the pupils accepted at Oxford and Cambridge universities come from the 7% of the population educated at private school.

From there it is a short step to the heart of the establishment. Nearly three quarters of judges, about a third of FTSE 100 chief executives, half of all senior journalists and a third of MPs - including the chancellor, Alistair Darling; the education secretary, Ed Balls; and Labour's deputy leader, Harriet Harman - were privately schooled.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ivilege-pupils

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It might not guarantee a better education but it certainly makes it far more likely



http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ivilege-pupils

That is the media's perception not pure fact.

Plus people act as if certain parents have been handed this money. They haven't, they have worked hard so that their children get to go to a better school. The whole world revolves around choices and removing ones choice because the less affluent people complain is just ridiculous.

If all children were sent to equal schools there would just be more bullying ect. Because the parents do not have to pay for school fees so instead their children get materialistic wealth to make others feel more uncomfortable with.

Plus if everyone was forced upon the same standard of education then some parents would be technically paying more for the same standard of school as someone who doesn't have to pay income tax because they don't have a job. This is far more unfair that different prices come to different people based on how hard they work.

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

I agree with it completely. It gives a more beneficial consumption than if more affluent people just spent their money on flashy things to create more of an obvious divide.

People act as if the parents who send their children to private school haven't worked for it. They work bloody hard to send their children to a good school.
How would it be fair for the child of a hard working family to be sent to the same school as someone with lazy unemployed parents because they can't be bothered to get a job.

People have the right to have it better. The role of price is to allocate resources to those who can afford it. Otherwise we would be half communist.

That's unfair. Most families with hard working jobs can never afford to send their sprogs to private schools but only afford to put bread on the table.

I never spend my money on stupid stuff but if I have sprogs in the future I wouldn't be able to send them to private school because I don't earn enough.

[Beastie]

Originally Posted by CharlieO

Parents who can afford to send their children to private school also have to pay a bigger tax amount to pay for others schooling. That is far more unfair than the concept of private school.

I think most people would rather have a high paid job and pay high tax rather than be on the dole. I know I would!

[CharlieO]

Originally Posted by Beastie

That's unfair. Most families with hard working jobs can never afford to send their sprogs to private schools but only afford to put bread on the table.

I never spend my money on stupid stuff but if I have sprogs in the future I wouldn't be able to send them to private school because I don't earn enough.

Yes I do totally understand that. And that is why I do believe that free education is all well and good. However if people can get better I think they should be able too.