Private education and healthcare

[LeafUsAlone]

I'm just curious as to why they are considered morally indefensible when people being able to afford better quality clothing, houses, safer cars etc aren't commented on in the same way?

Considering both private healthcare and education doesn't necessarily mean a better quality, why do people get so annoyed over them?

I think you might need to look up the meaning of that term.

I would be dead if I'd had to rely on the NHS.

Interesting how you think you have any knowledge whatsoever of how I spend my money.

I’m not telling you how to live your life. I’m telling that poster how I choose to live mine.

@justasking111
"Saints preserve me from champagne socialists"

Really odd the way some folks are so morally offended by people on the left who have money.

Can't understand the logic.

It's like if you have money you HAVE to agree with anything that protects privilege and deepens inequality.

The private schools near you do not reflect all private schools. Many private schools do have small class sizes. The private schools that do not are still benefiting from the trappings of what private education offers. We are also not discussing individual private schools, we are discussing private education as a privileged system in general.

Neither are morally indefensible. Some people just cannot grasp that others choose different things in life than them. It’s as simple as that really.

I genuinely hope that you're never in the position that I was. I choose to prioritise private healthcare over cars, clothes, holidays, takeaways etc. My DC would have been left without a Mum if I didn't have private healthcare. Principles don't count for much if you're 6 feet under.

I have seen some big name public schools that think it is still OK to recruit PhD students to teach secondary aged pupils in the grounds they must be super-bright. They are also very cheap as unqualified. However academics aren’t always great teachers and GCSE and A level preparation is quite technical these days. Without suitable training, these teachers are not able to prepare pupils adequately and it is possible some of them under-perform as a result. I have also known a very bright student whose very famous private school advised him poorly, with the result he made the wrong A level choice and only got one university offer. There is no way that would have happened in the state sector around here, as sixth form colleges specialise in making sure kids A level choices align to their career ambitions.

Hair shirts?

I don’t really understand to be honest. People who use private healthcare and private education contribute twice to society. Once by paying in and again by opting out of the services they’ve paid for. Haters gonna hate.

That's a reasonable position if you choose to completely ignore that well off people increasingly turning to the private sector in the UK is impacting on the provision of NHS care (because the private sector is hoovering up larger and larger numbers of shortage clinical staff) and contributing to an explosion of health inequality.

And if you choose to ignore that as an institution private education undermines any claims the UK makes to being a meritocracy, entrenches privilege across the generations and is deeply unfair to children.

That's not to blame you - it's completely reasonable to want your use both private healthcare & private education.

But it's reasonable to accept that in doing so you're contributing to the perpetuation and growth of structural inequality. (Which you may not care about AT ALL).

Once again, I’m not telling you how to live your life nor have I judged you on it, so there is no need to get defensive.

Society will always be unequal. If you make everyone go to state school, house prices will shoot up around the good schools and you’ll have a two tier state system with richer kids going to the best schools. This is what I think will happen if the next government puts VAT on school fees.

Aren't many of the arguments based on the idea that the impact of private education in particular isn't neutral - and that objections come from a social policy rather than a fiscal policy point of view?

You do not opt out – both are still available to you whenever you wish to use them. That’s a privilege. There are also no emergency services available in private healthcare, so one can most definitely not opt out of A&E and emergency ambulance services.

Furthermore, in using NHS for healthcare in other non-essential ways you can avoid pushing up your premium for private health insurance. Also a privilege.

When people access private healthcare, it does not affect the health outcomes of those without.

When people pay for private education for their children, it has an impact on the success of other children in obtaining limited Russell group university places, training courses and jobs. This is not fair.

Some universities try to mitigate this inequality by offering more places to state school students, but these students still have to attain the same A level grades.

I love how people are trying to justify the existence of private schools by trying to say they are not better than state schools. A fool and their money are easily parted then! If private school does not buy lifelong advantage and privilege it begs the question what exactly are people paying for?

The idea that it's not an issue for university admissions falls down when you realise that top universities have 30-40% of students from private school when only 6.5% of children go to private school.

Also, a well funded class of 30 children from families who value their education and don't have SEN is a world apart from an underfunded class of 30 where several have undiagnosed SEN, some are diagnosed but have really high support needs (but probably no EHCP) and several children are borderline neglected by parents who just don't care. They probably have to share TA time with another class and have almost certainly run out of gluesticks.

The issue of private schools providing SEN education is a tricky one though. Really there should be enough state provision for SEN students, so it shouldn't be necessary for people to turn to private education. Sadly that's not the reality we live in but that's a rant for another day.

I got a private consultation in two weeks that would have taken 12-18 months on the NHS. Getting what you need quicker is objectively ‘better’.

Ditto physiotherapy. I get what I need because I pay for private weekly appointments. If I used the NHS, I’d wait months for a course of up to 6 sessions. Getting the treatment I need to manage chronic pain is ‘better’ than being woefully undertreated.

@Didimum I don't understand why you think I'm being defensive? I don't have any need to defend making a choice where I avoided dying. I agree with you that its up to you what choices you make in your life. And it's up to me what choices I make for myself and my family.

I'm just saying that choosing or not choosing to pay for private healthcare (assuming you can afford it) may be a life or death decision. I genuinely hope that it doesn't end up that way for you like it did for me. But sadly more and more people are going to die if they rely on the NHS. I'm not willing to take that risk with my health or my family's.

When people access private healthcare, it does not affect the health outcomes of those without.

It does when those in positions of power to aid public healthcare choose to use private for themselves and their families.

"Society will always be unequal. If you make everyone go to state school, house prices will shoot up around the good schools and you’ll have a two tier state system with richer kids going to the best schools. This is what I think will happen if the next government puts VAT on school fees"

1. The fact that inequality exists is not an argument for society refusing to make attempts to reduce inequality.

1. There are ways to address selection by postcode - such as fair banding and lottery selection. And the best comprehensives in the country still have more kids in FSM than any mainstream private school in the UK.

1. The whole 'state schools will be overwhelmed by kids from private schools after VAT imposition is nonsense. Private schools have double the number of staff per pupil than state schools. This means they have plenty of scope to cut costs to absorb the cost of VAT for parents by reducing school fees. Private school fees have increased by 20% in real terms since 2010 with zero fall in pupil numbers.

Also many state schools have falling rolls anyway. There are undersubscribed state schools in almost every borough.

I think you are being defensive because you’ve written a fairly long paragraph defending it. I am not saying people should not use private healthcare, I’m saying I don’t think it should exist. Those are two different things.

And when they get transferred into emergency NHS care because their private surgery didn't go as planned and that means a bed becomes unavailable for someone on the NHS waiting list.

I totally understand why people are turning to private health care when NHS waiting lists mean they are really suffering though. It just shouldn't be necessary.

You're simply wrong.

People with money access diagnostic services in the private sector, then often return to the NHS for care, meaning they get care NHS quicker than people who can't afford private diagnostic services. It's a way of jumping the waiting list.

And privately educated children trample over the backs of brighter kids in the state sector who haven't had the privilege of expensive educational hothousing, in the competition for the best university places and jobs.

And all the research bears this out.