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!

But wealthy peope do give birth privately.

Also it's women who have babies, and like it or not we are still the people with less of a voice in our society, wealthy or otherwise.

If powerful men had to have babies in NHS hospitals I am sure that the service would be superb. Well in fact I think they'd have somehow done away with birth altogether but that's another conversation

Also, I didn't say that if wealthier people used the same services, those services would be improved.

I said that if they stop using them, the services will get worse.

I think there is quite a big difference.

Sorry for misrepresenting your post starkadder

Although I think my point stands. just...

Insurance companies do cover birth if you've been in the scheme for 12 months prior to getting pregnant, I believe they cover the hospital or birth centre and you pay for the Dr's services.

Depends on the policy. Very few will cover the costs of private delivery or any care during normal pregnancy. Generally PMI covers only complications of pregnancy - so if you need a C-section for medical reasons (say, placenta praevia) that might be covered.

Mind you, personally I wouldn't want to give birth at a private maternity hospital, however many celebs use it - if I'm going to be in a hospital at all, I want access to SCBU if anything goes wrong and that means the NHS.

Vanity I think you will find that there are lots of people who could afford an independent education for their children but choose not to. It is quite principled but not unusually so.

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.

Sorry to hear that Quattro but if you want to be really scared, read some of the official investigations into things going badly wrong with the sort of private maternity hospital favoured by celebs... afraid this is one area where the ability to pay makes very little difference indeed. Although a doula might be nice.

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

You are making assumptions violet, which are not warranted. But the point of the thread is to debate whether going private damages the state sector. My contention is that it doesn't and it takes some of the strain off already overloaded public sector services.

I like Edam's car analogy, though. That's almost convincing. But taking the car analogy, what about you being stuck in a traffic jam, Edam? And I've decided not to take to the road but fly instead? Doesn't that ease the congestion on the roads?

Actually my only assumption with that post is that giving birth hurts. Which it does.

I don't think that analogy quite works, Quattro, we are comparing state X with private X, not one thing with a quite different thing... if you want to do transport, it's more like first v. economy on a plane - if disaster strikes, first class passengers are just as likely to die...

Are you suggesting your child was brain damaged Riven because you had an NHS birth? I would dispute that. Private childbirth is an interesting area. In my view it is more risky than state. There have been a good few cases of maternal neglect in private hospitals which did not follow NHS standards. Liked for my last birth hiring private midwives and one twin was born at home but that wasn't to reduce risk. Arguably it was to give me the practical power to increase it really but to exercise my choice in doing so.

All the best emergency care is on the NHS. We are virtually never ill so I don't pay any more for private health although if I needed to I would pay as required. It's like extended warranties and lots of insurance - they make a fortune from you and often don't pay out and studies show it's cheaper not to have it and pay when needed.

I think school lunches are better in private schools too and more sport every day which I suppose relievse the NHS of problems of health with the children so win win all round. Spinach is obviously the answer to all the nation's problems. Bring back popeye. (By the way it was good)

I'mSoNotTelling, I was just playing Devil's Advocate...I don't really see taxes and NI as some sort of savings account we pay into in definite expectation of a return...or a checklist of services we can opt out of etc.

I just think that many people do pay A LOT of taxes, my father being one of them, so to then have taxed him yet more for opting out of/paying up for services that he had effectively already paid for seems a little objectionable. I wouldn't expect a rebate! I've obviously left my socialist hat at home today and donned my 'I'm alright Jack' one instead!

Work related family private health insurance costs around £50 a month - for four people. Not a lot in the scheme of things. Excludes pregnancy related conditions though ... hence NHS experiences, although would pay if it happened again (unlikely). Also excludes as you say, emergency healthcare.

Think that healthcare and schooling are entirely different things. To some extent the private healthcare system is a bit parasitic in that you can't really go private all the way, which you can with education.

Ah, you see I don't eat chocolate and I don't really eat dairy products except a bit of butter and therein lies part of the secret of universal health - in effect the diet of the poor world wide - very rough rice, fish and veg. Then better our food as got the less healthy we've become. Throw in 3 or 4 hours of physical work on the land or walking in the jungle to gather the veg and there's the good health but we don't live like that any more.

And yes they're generalisations although it is true Glaswegians weigh more than the residents of Kensington and that the lower a class the worse the diet in the UK.

You get the last choice of childbirth in the private sector actually - if you want doctors so cautious you will get a C section as a matter of course you pay in the UK. It's an interesting issue. You're never wrong by being over cautious in lots of sectors and yet pragmatic risk taking and the greater good of the greater number can sometimes be the better course on a collective basis that is although most of us don't operate on that basis. We do the best for our own children rather than tucking in 10 of the neighbour's chidlren every night and giving them home cooked meals and supervising their homework.

Not my experience of private maternity. Two natural births, breastfeeding support, all-night nursery and champagne breakfast .

I have not read all the thread as too tired. But I live in the Belgium system where there is no private education (apart from International schools) and all healthcare is "private", to the degree that you and your employer pay for insurance and depending on what service you choose to get, it is reimbursed fully or not.

With regards to schools it works well. Educational standards are high, though as in UK demand for certain schools is high. Even the Royal Family go to State schools!

For health, I can turn up in the morning at ANY Gps surgery and be treated. If I need to see a specialist I only need make an appointment. The max on a ward here I think is 6.

BUT, I have to hand over about 50% of my salary in tax/NI (and I wasn't a higher rate tax payer in UK) and I have no clue what you do here if you are poor....

But you can get all that on the NHS (just bring your own champagne!)

(to vanitypear)