AIBU to not be remotely bothered that Rishi has private healthcare

[MXVIT]

I'm really not - it's an absolutely ridiculous thing for us to be getting worked up about.

He's the prime minister - of course he has private healthcare. Leaders of the country need to be fit and well and therefore need the best healthcare money can buy - we can all agree the NHS is not that - and thats a separate conversation.

By that logic lets ban all childless babysitters, all dogless dogwalkers.

Honestly as a country I feel we're that addicted to getting ourselves into a frenzy over everything that we're focussing on the wrong things.

The narrative of "the poorest of society don't have this - so NO ONE CAN" is getting more and more common lately.

Yes. But the inference from several pp's is that they only exist to make profit for their shareholders, or members of the government, and that is clearly wrong.

YANBU.

I couldn't care less about his healthcare.

I think people who can afford to go private should do so. It takes a bit of weight off the NHS.

They provide private healthcare and charge a lot. They are not a charity.

That's a very valid point.

We used to have a widespread "non profit" sector, also with life insurance companies (Standard life etc) and building societies, which were "owned" by their members/customers, which unfortunately were "demutualised", i.e. the customers voted to sell them for a quick profit!

Perhaps we should be striving for a return to that model (without the ability for customers to vote to sell and profit!).

I really don't think the current model is working as we have the extremes of either govt ownership or international/institutional investors in lots of services/industries. The "mutual" model is a more middle ground.

I never said they were a charity. Although, checking on-line, I see that Nuffield Health IS a charity. So there - sticks out tongue.

Anyway, I give up. Reality is obviously lost on you lot.

She didn't say they were charities.

Not lost on all of us. I understand the "mutual" model and it's worked well for decades in lots of different services/industries. Unfortunately, modern "big business" doesn't like it, and customers/shareholders were greedy enough to vote for demutualisation to get their grubby paws on the windfalls! At least there are still a small number of mutuals around, and whilst there are some, we can only live in hope of a return, especially now that we can see the damage caused by global investors who only want to churn a profit for themselves.

He might be evasive on the private GP question but then half the Labour front bench can’t really give the definition of a woman. That’s pretty weaselly too….

@KnittedCardi I said Bupa was not a charity. It is not a charity.

Mutuals came out of the trade union movement. Because the government provided very little welfare, people got together to help each other out.
But they only ever helped people on lowish incomes, but not the poorest.

Lots of "Mutuals" helped everyone, i.e. the life insurance firms, the building societies, etc. They were used as much by the rich as the poor.

Perhaps the trade unions would be more useful if they tried to restart the mutual movement for the good of everyone, rather than causing misery for normal people and just always wanting more for their own members? They'd get a lot more support!

Mutuals came out of the trade union movement. They may also have been used by the rich but that was not why they were established.
Trade unions continue to fight for their members.

The more unequal Britain gets, the more ordinary people need to fight to protect their own interests.

If the leader of the country were to depend on the NHS for his and his family's healthcare, he might use his power to ensure that it works properly

But trade unions make things more unequal because they fight for only their own members. What about people who aren't in a union? Who fights for them? With the increase in self employment, and smaller employers, and of course people who don't have jobs, unions are becoming very "niche" and helping to create inequality between those in a union and those who aren't.

Great whataboutery, well done.

Anyone is free to join a Union. It's a bit like paying for private health insurance.

trade unions make things more unequal because they fight for only their own members Also this is bollocks - all the Rail, NHS etc workers will get a rise if the strikes by Union members result in a rise - the rise won't be just for members - workers who choose not to join the Union get it too.

Just a point of order on private health companies making money. Let's look at BUPA for example, or Nuffield, both very active in hospitals, dental, and care homes. Both are "not for profit" organisations. Any profit made goes back into healthcare.

BUPA is mainly an insurance company and does not have any hospitals in the UK - these were sold 15 years ago to Spire, a FTSE250 company with shareholders, which is the second largest provider of private healthcare in the UK. The largest is Circle (formerly BMI) which is also a private company with shareholders.

Circle won a bid to run a NHS hospital, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, in 2011. To say that this was not a success would be an understatement. It received the worst rating for 'caring' that the CQC had ever given. The period in which Circle was operating the hospital was described as "a disaster" by the GMB union. The then chairman of the British Medical Association remarked that "What has happened in Hinchingbrooke shows that the responsibility of running a critical public service can never be handed over, and so the insistence on private providers as a potential solution to problems facing Hinchingbrooke was always misguided."

Bupa care homes have also been the subject of public scandals.

Union membership in the Public sector is high - T&C's and pensions are generally very good. But they don't get private health insurance.

Union membership in the private sector is low - T&C's will often not be as good, and pensions definitely aren't. You can however negotiate your own pay and T&C's, and be rewarded for performance, and you get private health.

Choices.

Not everyone in the private sector gets private healthcare.

Far from it! Supermarket workers are “in the private sector” for example!

I think people who can afford to go private should do so. It takes a bit of weight off the NHS.

It also takes staff away from the NHS and promotes healthcare rationed by price. The largest private provider in the UK is Circle, which employs over 8,000 people, including 6,000 consultants. The second largest, Spire, presumably has a similar number of employees.

Just think what the NHS - with current vacancies of over 120,000 - could do with these staff.

"The narrative of "the poorest of society don't have this - so NO ONE CAN" is getting more and more common lately."-

This. This is what I agree with you the most on. We've become a world of whingers. I thought this when Boris was in office and more so now. We aren't looking at the fact that inequality will always exist. It even existed in communism. That Brisbalsingh lady got slated because she said levelling up isn't always Oxbridge.

He refuses to answer because it has absolutely bloody nothing to do with his job as prime minister. It's a private matter.