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

[tryingtobemarrypoppins2]

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!

There are inequalities, but that particular post was responding to the implication that giving birth on the NHS is a 'terrible, appalling experience'. I had a NHS birth in a MLU with 1:1 midwife care, my own room, excellent aftercare etc. Couldn't fault it. Didn't stop it hurting though!!

In fact, someone else mentioned their private birth, and the only difference was that I didn't get offered a champagne breakfast. But tbh, I was more in the mood for a cup of tea and slice of toast.

"My only experiences of the NHS in the last 15 years have been pregnancy or birth related. TBH those experiences were so horrific that I would pay almost anything now."

"Oh for goodness sake. Why would paying money make giving birth any easier? It hurts, get over it!! "

You have no idea what quattro's experiences were, yet you assume that she is saying that it hurt. Anything could have happened to her or her babies, or she could (as I assumed) have been talking about lack of post-natal care type stuff.

She gives no clues in her post what happened, you immediately jump down her throat accusing her of being weak. I know from other threads that you have a real thing about childbirth, but really, this is a thread about state v private, quattro's post was throwaway, you don't actually know what experiences she was talking about, so just give it a rest.

ImSoNotTelling - I still don't understand how the improvement would happen though. What's the mechanism? How would a rich person going to a particular hospital help it? Are they going to employ more nurses for when they know the rich person is arriving or something?

For example, we're waiting for an appointment at the hospital to have DD retested for allergies. Originally we went through the choose and book system and had a "choice" of 2 hospitals in Bristol. The choice was completely uninformed (on my part). I've no idea which is "better" or why so I picked the one with some hope of parking the car there (we live about 20 miles away). It took a few months of "sorry no appointments" letters before we got the first appointment.

We tried to go private (insurance through work) - arranged the financial side of it but then the paediatrician said he wouldn't see her (not sure why) and she should go to the RUH in Bath. The RUH "lost" the first (faxed) referral and, when I complained, said DD shouldn't be on 2 hospital waiting lists for the same thing but they would "graciously" allow me to stay on the waiting list because we'd been waiting so long. We've heard nothing from them since last April.

We finally got an appointment last July in Bristol for the tests and successfully had one in October. I thought we were ok then because we were "in the system". They said to bring her back in 4 months for a retest (so Feb/March). Unfortunately they gave us the "wrong" piece of paper for rebooking so no appointment was made. I rang up after a couple of weeks and they had no record of her but the earliest they could do was June 2010. I said ok but wasn't really happy. In the last couple of weeks I've had a letter saying they've cancelled that appointment and made one for September 2010 but that I can ring up for cancellation appointments. I've been ringing every couple of days but no luck so far so she'll have waiting 11 months, not 4. I should point out she's 19 months old now so she'll have been waiting half her life for her next test.

My point is, how would money help in this case? How should Lady CokeFan get her daughter seen more quickly?

I'm not sure what you mean about 'real thing about childbirth' lol, other than it's something most women experience in their life.

yes - this thread is about state v private, which is why I have just pointed out that NHS births can be totally 'as good as' private ones. I've also had a Csection on the NHS and a baby in NICU as well - I thought the doctors and nurses were bloody fantastic.

You didn't just point out that NHS can be as good as private. You took another woman's statement about her maternity and births on teh NHS and told her to "get over it". When you didn';t even know what had happened. Anything could have happened. It was a thoughtless post.

cokefan are you asking about how I think they get a better service now, or how they would if they had to all go to their local hospitals?

cokefan what I'm getting at is, imagine you are the queen, trying to sort out your daugthers allergies, do you think you would be having these problems?

I am sorry to hear you are being messed around.

ImSoNotTelling. Thanks - I know our problems are nowhere near as bad as some people on here but it does get me down sometimes because I feel so helpless about it.

In answer to your question - both things. If I were the queen then no, I wouldn't be having problems getting my daughter seen but I think that's because the hospital would know who I was rather than anything I would actually do myself. The same perhaps applies to famous footballers and other sports people, celebrities, MPs maybe? All together that's got to be fewer than 2000 people in the country and personally I don't aspire to be any of them. I kind of discount them really - they're not part of my life or experience and I view them as exceptions rather than normal people. There's a lot more rich/posh and very rich/posh people than that and I can't see what they can do over and above the 60 million (ish) rest of us.

I don't know how the rich get a better service now either. As far as I know, anyone who wants to get seen by a specialist has to be referred by their GP in the NHS or go private.

I agree. You might have a bit more information just like a teacher in a state school probably knows better than some parents which are better schools but I doubt you get lots of advantage. I can get more attention in some places than say my student children just because of clothes, life experience, knowing what to say and someone incoherent might not get to the point but that's a minor issue.

In fact amusingly I went private for a breast scan once becqause I had to have an appointment out of working hours. That means I waited an extra 6 weeks over the NHS and I paid but even so it was worth it to me as it had to be after working hours.

Violethill - oops.

OK so if the royal family had to use their local hospitals, do you think the local hospitals would be better. If the queen was likely to come in at any moment for her ingrown toenail appt, would the toilets be dirty? That sort of thing.

It would be a combination of greater poitical will to have an excellent service, greater incentive for the hospitals to up their game (as cocking it up for the rich and famous has worse consequences than cocking it up for a normal person), and I suspect that the donations to the hospitals would suddenly go through the roof.

At the moment most of them go private (I just had a long conversation with my mum about it ) or if they are getting referred they will get referred on to the best in the country, rather than the local person IYSWIM.

Only the real top bods I'm talking about here - but really they're the ones pulling the strings for the whole country aren't they?

Think it's a bit pointless to discuss what would happen if the queen had to use an NHS hospital. Security etc would dictate that would be impossible anyway.

I had a very minor op in a private hospital, it was fine but the accommodation was decidedly 3 star - crap sandwiches for lunch, no champagne in sight.

After many years of having my smear tests at my local GPs with no problems, my private consultant lost my smear test and told me just to have another one at my GP.

It's not as if the average better off person has access to gold plated service - I'm sure they don't lose the queen's test results but I shouldn't imagine that kind of service trickles down very far.

I'm still no more enlightened as to how hospitals could be improved by the very presence of better off people. I've walked into plenty of NHS facilities and thought 'ewww', but I don't notice the staff going 'oh my god there's a middle class person here, quick, tidy up'.

Nope - I think if the royal family had to use the local hospitals it wouldn't help anyone else except them (same goes for any high profile person).

If the queen was in ward 8 for the week you can bet that that's where all the HCPs would be. Wards 1-7 would be left with whatever was spare at the time so that's a negative for anyone else in at the time. Afterwards I think everything would go back to normal so zero impact on anyone else's care (I'm not saying this is what the queen would want - just an indirect influence). What you're really asking for is the queen to show up anonymously at any hospital at any time - sort of like a snap inspection - which is never going to happen.

I know someone who knows someone who's mother's cousin's friend told them... (you get the picture) that when a certain famous cricketer hurt his ankle and got taken to the local NHS hospital they opened up scanners, got consultants in etc. all at the drop of a hat, pushing everyone else in the queue back. He used the NHS facilities. Did that help anyone else? Has the hospital got any better?

Sophie Westex, Edward's wife was transferred to an NHS hospital when she either had or lost the first baby wasn't she ?
Pretty sure that made zero difference.

Exactly. The famous celeb will get the best treatment possible and business will go on as normal for the other patients.

If we're not talking royalty or premiership footballers, just bog standard rich geezers in gold buttoned blazers, I think they'd get exactly the same service as anybody else.

I am using the queen as an extreme example of the top % of this country who hold the majority of the money, power and influence and who do not currently use the NHS. And what would happen if they had to use it, and teh local one not being sent off to top London hosps.

The hospitals would be better funded from both the public and private purse and would have to absoutely adhere to standards as they would have no way of telling who was coming through the door next. Which would benefit everyone.

If a wealthy influential person needed a certain type of treatment or specialist equipment then suddenly donations would materialise to enable those things to be bought, which would benefit everyone.

There are two situations - cokefan your example of teh cricketer is what happens now - and you are comparing it to my idea of what it would be like if everybody had to use their local place irrespective of who they were.

But I can see I'm not putting it very well

Where's the extra money coming from though? Are we turning the rich people upside down as they come through the doors?

If they're not paying for private treatment then are they paying extra (in addition to taxes) for the NHS service that you want to be the same for everyone?

The hospital might not know who was coming next but if they recognised someone with power/influence then they'd give them the best treatment. Why would that make them treat anyone else better?

Personally I don't think more money is always the best way. Better organisation, definitely but I think there's a lot of waste in any big organisation. A lot of the time it's the care and attention, whether in health or education, that leaves an impression on people and I've no idea how you make that equal for everyone.

The hospitals would be better funded from both the public and private purse.

Rich people would donate to the hospitals that their families used in order to try and ensure a good standard for when they need to use it.

People in power - house of commons/lords would vote for more cash to be diverted towards NHS as it would benefit them/their sponsors/people who have influence over them.

More attention would be given to making sure money was being spent properly and everything was tickety-boo.

You are seeing it as one person going there. My example was if everyvody had to go there (which is never going to happen) that things would improve.

I can see I'm struggling to make you see what I mean.

The people with influence and power always make sure that the things that matter to them and their families are working very nicely thank you.

In fact if it was the case that everybody had to use their local NHS, the people with influence would simply go private abroad instead, I'm sure. or something else would happen to see to it that they somehow got better than everyone else.

So the question is whether if more of the rich used the NHS would it improve? I think quite a few do actually. I'm realatively well off and I do and I choose not to have private health insurance although that's because I know it's cheaper for me to pay if I needed private care and chose to have it. The argument is supposed to be that if the rich knew how awful the NHS was they would insist it be improved but they've no idea because they opt out. I don't think they do largely opt out for most types of care.`

Nor do I think private school mothers like I am would be spending loads of time in state schools if we had to send children there. We work full time with long hours. We are used to paying for the best of things. We outsource. I want a school to deal with the chidlren. I don't want to be in the school making up for large classes or even going on school trips.

Ok then you would pay someone else to go on at the school or donate money to see that it improved.

You wouldn't send your children to a failing school and just shrug and accept it, I'm sure.

I seem to have somehow got stuck arguing a theoretical position that is never going to happen

Never mind...

Most parents who don't like what their children are getting at school either change school or, if that is not possible, supplement their children's learning with tutors, extra-curricular activities and a rich home environment. Trying to change a school is a bit pointless as, if you make any progress at all (doubtful), it will probably come too late for your children to benefit.

As I said upthread^ my folks are very vocal, politically engaged MC types. But they didn't get involved in my school life at all. They just let us get on with it.

I do understand the point you are making ISNT, I just don't agree with it.

I had my second child at Frimley Park Hospital in Surrey, a week after the Countess of Wessex had her second child by elective section. The whole place had been repainted, recarpeted, the operating theatre had been re-equipped to the point that the theatre staff still weren't 100% surehow it all worked. The atmosphere in the antenatal clinic was hilarious in the weeks leading up to it; I wonder if the hospital managers feared having their heads chopped off if everything wasn't perfect. Of course NHS hospitals and schools would be better if not-just-plebs had to use them, obvious IMO. (I work in the NHS)