Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Going private doesn't 'help' the NHS or state education??

261 replies

tryingtobemarrypoppins2 · 07/04/2010 14:34

I really don't know if it is BU to think this! Came up in a rather heated conversation over a meal out with pals last night.....

My thought was "thats a mad suggestion and private anything is unfair on those that can't efford it" but on listening to others soon realised I had no idea at all! Slightly out of my depth!

Perhaps this should be AIBU to vote when I don't know much about politics!

OP posts:
MrsC2010 · 07/04/2010 14:38

Don't know, but I wouldn't class private education and healthcare as being unfair on others who can't afford it etc etc, we live in a free market and that will be the case for many things.

However I do know that growing up my parents didn't use the NHS or the state education system. Any operations we needed were done privately, as were all consultants etc etc. We used out GPs every now and then admittedly. We were privately educated. So we weren't taking up places on waiting lists at hospitals or taking school places from those who couldn't afford private.

You could equally well argue that those who can afford it have an obligation to do so, leaving the 'free' places and care available for those who can't afford to do it themselves.

CowWatcher · 07/04/2010 14:40

Far too difficult a question the be empirically right or wrong.

One side will say that if you pay your taxes but then chose to go private, you are benefitting the rest of the country to the tune of that part of your taxes that will not then be spent on treating or educating you.

Other side will say that by going private you are taking away, by dint of your wealth, resources that would otherwise have been used in treating/educating the general population. Oh and that you are also using your wealth to buy privelige (either health or advantage for your children). It is largely true that in the NHS you wuld be treated by the same surgeon (for example) whether you went private or waited like everyone else. So if no one went private, there would be more appointments for operations so eveyone would get treated sooner. Although that would also mean that everyone would end up in the same long queue.

No eassy answer.

Bonsoir · 07/04/2010 14:40

Every person who pays for schooling or healthcare instead of using state education or the NHS is relieving budgetary pressure on publicly funded services. Of course they are. Politicians are completely aware of this, which is why they do not abolish private education, even when they are red hot socialists.

ShinyAndNew · 07/04/2010 14:40

I'd have thought that if everyone who could afford to go private did so, there would be more funding available for those who need it.

Saying that though if it ever happened I am fairly sure that funding to the NHS and Education would be cut due to having less people to serve.

CowWatcher · 07/04/2010 14:41

Oh and you should definitely vote. No question. To not do so would BU.

lotster · 07/04/2010 14:42

"..private anything is unfair on those that can't afford it" This argument surprises me because it's usually the opposite you hear, that people who can afford it should go private to free up NHS/sate school places??

Either way I will say is how much it irks me when people claim that "those who should afford it should go private" in either case.

People with more money and therefore (in most cases) who are paying a higher rate of tax as a result, have paid for their places in schools or on hospital waiting lists as much as anyone.

violethill · 07/04/2010 14:45

As MrsC2010 says, you can argue many different points of view. That's basically the whole idea of politics!!

It's a good thing that you're thinking about these issues, so that you can use your vote wisely.

Speaking in very broad brushstrokes, I guess you could say supporting the NHS and our state education system is about having a sense of collective responsibility, whereas opting out of those things is more about looking at your own self or immediate family. But beyond that, it's too complex to make simplistic judgements. Apart from anything, there is so much variation within the systems. I am very aware that my children get a very good education for free, better IME than some people pay for, because we don't live in a fair society, and some people have access to better choices than others.

I would definitely recommend keeping on talking and debating these issues though

ShinyAndNew · 07/04/2010 14:46

Is that not ever so slightly selfish though Lotser? Yes you have paid more tax towards and of course it should be available to you if you ever become in a position where you need it, but surely deliberately using those funds just because you paid more into it when you could afford private care is going to mean that yourself and those who cannot afford private care, get poorer standards of care because of budget deficits.

lotster · 07/04/2010 14:55

Shiny - I don't have the money myself for private healthcare or school. God knows we could do with it with my husband's dodgy knees and the seemingly endless investigations in to strange liver results I keep having..

Yes, I would like the gastro specialist to not leave it three months in between each of my appointments (then cancel clinics on me as has just happened) but I would think it unfair to ask certain people to pay twice over in a sense. Wouldn't that be unfair?

ShinyAndNew · 07/04/2010 14:58

It's just the same as the benefits system imo, you pay into it to help the country as a whole and should you need it, it is there.

I don't think it is unfair that those with higher earnings should pay a small amount towards helping those less fortunate. Even if they aren't eligable to use the service themselves.

MorrisZapp · 07/04/2010 15:03

Loads of ordinary people have private health insurance through their employer - I do, anyway. It only covers some things though, generally those that are easy to treat as a one-off. If I develop a serious ongoing condition then I'll be going to the local hozzie.

As far as the education argument goes, I was brought up by socialist parents who always said that it was wrong for middle class parents (ie like them) to opt out of state education as that would mean less resources etc going to the state sector.

But I'm not sure I agree with that now. I don't remember my parents giving my school any resources, or doing any more than any other parent ie turning up whan asked on parent's night. I'm not sure how my school benefited from my parent's input, as they didn't really give any.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'resources' in that context. I'd have thought that there would be more resources in the state pot if more people went private, not less.

SMacK · 07/04/2010 15:05

I think you should pay extra tax on private school fees and private health insurance. If you can buy yourself up a waiting list, or a few good GCSE's, you should put some in the pot for others.

lotster · 07/04/2010 15:08

Hmm, but our benefits system is screwed up Shiny.

If only it were a case of it helping us when we need it, then we're back off to employment but this isn't the case is it? There is a large proportion of people on benefits who remain on them because they can. Whilst also benefiting from free healthcare and free schooling.

ImSoNotTelling · 07/04/2010 15:09

Of course it's not selfish for people who can afford it to use teh state funded services to which they are entitled.

If everyone who could afford it went private, premiums for that service would go down due to scale and more people would be able to afford to go private.

Thus there would be less people using the free services and they would have less money put towards them.

You would also be removing all the people with power ie cash and clout into the private sector and they would have no interest in improving things for the free services.

You would then end up with a truly 2 tier situaiton with good private services for those who could afford it and a shit underfunded free service.

Also remember that part of teh welfare state is why we pay "National Insurance" ie as opposed to private insurance. Keeping services well used across the board actually benefits IMO.

Can you imagine, if 60% of children went to private school, how shit the remaining schools would be?

lotster · 07/04/2010 15:10

good post ImSoNotTelling

Oblomov · 07/04/2010 15:13

Health comes above everything. without health you have nothing. no matter how rich you are.
I can't see the problem with privtae anything. It legalises what would naturally happen anyway. Those with money want the best, want it quicker. And they do get it.

People with money, unless have very good accountants, tax advice, do pay. have already paid into the NHS. by paying tax. as we all do ( well most of us who aren't living in switzerland) If they choose not to use it, but to go private, that is their choice.

ImSoNotTelling · 07/04/2010 15:13

morris people who are interested in their kids educations actually tend to make sure their kids turn up for school and do their homework and so on.

also if things are crap they tend to act to improve things.

take those factors out and you are left in a bit of a pickle.

(not linking cash to being interested in education across the board but if you took out most of the people in work and educated them separately from the children of people not in work then things could get a bit hairy)

ImSoNotTelling · 07/04/2010 15:14

The effect is already there in difference in school results between "nice" areas and not so nice - it would be like that but a zillion times worse.

ShinyAndNew · 07/04/2010 15:17

It's not just in work and out of work though is it? Both myself and DH work, but we could never dream of privately educating our children. There is no way we could afford it. Health insurance is a different matter, we probably could afford that, but we would ahve to cut back on everything a few things, so we chose not to have health insurance.

It usually only very few people who are well off enough to afford to go private.

Oblomov · 07/04/2010 15:17

I have BUPA from work. what a lifepainsaver.
Agree, with lotster, but then most people agree that our benefits system gets taken advantage of too easily.
but can't see how that is relelvant to OP.

wastwinsetandpearls · 07/04/2010 15:21

I think opting out of the state education system does negatively impact the education offered to those in that system. I taught in a truly awful school that was a ghetto of deprivation. The school was surrounded by homes with families who paid for their education. The kids who went to this schoool were mixed almost exclusively with those who were unemployed, didn't give a shit about education or who had been failed by the education system.

If I were to use a free grammar school place however I would feel guilty. I know that if we wanted a selective, exclusive type of education for dd we could afford to pay. Infact I have relatives who frequently offer to pay school fees to dd. So if I did not take a free grammar place someone else who could not afford the school fees could have it.

I also don't like private health but have had to use the private health system as it was a matter of life and death. But by doing so I allowed a crap system to continue. It wasn't even a case of my freeing up healthcare for others it just did not exist. To pay for my healthcare we had to eventually sell our house, what happens to those who dont have a house to sell?

ImSoNotTelling · 07/04/2010 15:22

I was talking about a situation where everyone who could afford it did, bringing premiums down to a point where the majority went private, and what effect that would have overall. Using in work/out of work as a simplistic cut off for the example.

MorrisZapp · 07/04/2010 15:23

Fair points but I'm still not having it really. My parents, despite being articulate and educated, did nowt in the way of vocalising etc throughout my school years. They moaned plenty about this and that but they didn't make it their job to fix it.

I find that the anti private school lobby comes a bit unstuck here. On one hand, they seem very keen to keep the 'good' parents in the state sector. But on the other hand, they dont want to admit that there is a link between income and parenting ability.

There is no reason is there, why a parent on a low income cannot be just as interested in their child's education, and just as vocal and active in the school community, as a better off parent.

So which way is it?

MrsC2010 · 07/04/2010 15:24

I don't agree with paying extra tax on private school fees/healthcare. How does that make sense? You have already made contributions whose beenfit you will not be receiving by opting out.

SMacK · 07/04/2010 15:30

Obviously you haven't made 'enough' contributions for the state system to be good enough for your child. If all parents paid half of what they are paying in private healthcare and education in taxes instead, the education system and health system would be better for all, and more efficient as there would be no profiteers (except for children and society).