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!

bloss if Lord Bungle had to have something doen on teh NHS he would be in a top London hosp, with a top consultant, a private room and a nurse on tap.

he would not slum it in a general ward with the rest of us. the NHS would not expect him to, nor would his doctors or anyone else.

I have cared for lords (more than once) in NHS wards, they did not take the isolation rooms, it was not offered or asked for.

whereas if lord bungle did have to go on the general ward with all teh plebs, him and his ilk would be making pretty damn sure the general ward was a clean and happy place to be.

It'd never happen though.

I beieve the system we have in this country with both NHS and schools works pretty well though, and a lot better than a lot of other places.

i still say we are lucky. And we will never be in a position where the rich and powerful do not wish to buy better services for them and theirs.

SOrry haven't had a chance to read whole thread -so apologies if this has already been said. THe folk who can afford to go private aren't the big users of the NHS - its fact that there is a clear link between poverty and levels of ill health, so a load of richer people going private doesn't relieve the NHS of much! The reasons that private healthcare is so appealing (shorter waiting times/higher resources per patient) would disappear if more people used it - it simply couldn't afford to keep itself running.

WIth private healthcare - do people pay for their medicines or still use NHS prescriptions? Do those with private healthcare still use GPs/A&E/Family planning etc?

Also - its the NHS who have paid for all the training for private doctors, so its the NHS who are effectively subsidising private healthcare.

But as there are a finite number of consultants, surely their splitting nhs/private work means that nhs patients get a raw deal - the lists are longer, they have to wait longer, while the private patients have a shorter list and get to see the same consultant more quickly?

Doesn't going private simply mean you can push in at the top of the list and be seen more quickly? Whereas if the consultant did no private work, nhs patients would be seen more quickly?

Or is it that the NHS can only afford a certain number of consultant hours and therefore it doesn't make any difference if the consultant sees private patients or not? He/she would simply be on the golf course for longer?

private healthcare = private prescriptions.

i was in boots once behind a woman who was having a massive strop. she had handed in her private prescription and the pharmacist had asked her for about £200 for the drugs. Customer couldn't believe it "but I paid £150 for a private prescription and now this? this is ridiculous! it can't be that much! what do you expect me to do????"

I go private because I want better services for me and, particularly, my family (and, as far as healthcare goes, it comes with the job). There are few people whose principles are so strong they will not want the best for their own children if it is within their means. In an ideal world, superb services would be available for everyone. But this isn't an ideal world and I am not going to deny my family the best of what's around because it would be more equitable to do so. Life isn't fair. The NHS would not be better off if I decided to use it anyway. Private schools is a more complicated argument as inclusion may help to bring failing schools up a little but at great cost to many who thrive in a private school environment. But despite that, when it boils down to it, I think there aren't enough resources as is, so spreading them thinner isn't going to help in the long run.

Xenia - in my experience of lawyers and law firms, the partners are not there for the fun. They are there because they have 3-4 children in private schools whom they then need to support going on to university, at least two homes and wives to keep. Most childless partners I know retire well before they are 50. You are unusual. If they won the lottery, they would not be there tomorrow, like most people!

if NHS consultants did not have the option of making good money with their private practices, many would not stay. they'd be off abroad or doing something else. these are some of the most brilliant and talented people in the land. £80K (particularly in London) won't be enough to keep them.

smallorange many docs and nurses that get into private work would semi retire from the NHS anyway if the private work wasn't there. Well the docs would, and the nurses are (in my experience) done with the NHS and if the private work wasn't there they'd work as medical equipment reps, do agency, or have a total career change. They are done with full time NHS! private doesn't take them away from it, they're already gone.

I think that a lot of people who are less well off are less able to fight their own corner - less money to pay for legal advice, for one thing, but also often less well educated and therefore less able to express themselves, or have a lesser sense of entitlement, and are less likely to stand up for themselves. Add to this people newly arrived to the UK who can't speak English very well.

So, if you have state sector services catering only for the poor, standards slip, because patients/parents/whoever are less able to kick up a fuss and be listened to.

I don't think it should be this way, but I think it is.

Yes that's exactly what I've been trying to say starkadder, you put it better

"Everything in th private system except perhaps thuggery is done better."

I want to design a monument to Xenia. I'm thinking something along the lines of Nelson's Column, Only larger than any mere man.

But the maternity care position disproves this argument surely starkadder? The proportion of people going private for maternity services is miniscule. Many wealthy, well educated and generally privileged women I know use the NHS to have their babies. They suffer under the same, sometimes appalling conditions everyone else does. The staff will do their best, but beyond that, they are hardened to the complaints. There is just not enough to go around.

@vanitypear (nice name btw) - I don't think that having rich, privileged people in the same system means that system will be great, though. I just think that removing rich people means that it will get worse.

Loads of people go private though to have their babies.

And many others supplement NHS care with things like private doulas or have homebirths ie take control for themselves.

Yes I think one of my friends paid for a private room when she had one of hers.

So there is already a 2-tier system within the NHS? I thought that was what they always said they wouldn't / couldn't have.

No private rooms at my hosp but i like being on big wards

I don't think loads of people do go private. Not compared to say the proportion who use private education or have BUPA etc, which in some walks of life are the norm.
Most of the mums I know who will be sending their kids to private school look a bit who-do-you-think-you-are if you confess to private maternity.

Well I don't know any stats i can only speak from my own experience.

Do BUPA do childbirth? If the insurance companies won't cover it then that would be one reason it happens less.

Also like I say with maternity people supplement their NHS with extras and/or just use teh NHS midwives and do it at home. There are more options there than for other types of thing.

People having babies is a very different kettle of fish to all the other things you see doctors/go to hospital for so I'm not sure that it is a good example to use for NHS vs private stuff.

If someone drives a Bugatti, or has a chauffeur and a Rolls, they aren't doing me a favour as they sweep past my little Ford KA. Same applies to healthcare and education.

The insurance companies don't cover birth unless c-section is medically required.
That was why I used the example - to counter a comment below that said if wealthier people with more of a sense of entitlement used state services, they'd be improved.
I said the wealthier DO use NHS maternity services but from what I can tell they still have really shocking experiences just like anybody else. The sense of entitlement doesn't seem to help there.