Starmer claims he wouldn't use private healthcare

[SadOhShea]

In the leader's debate Starmer claimed he wouldn't use private healthcare to help a loved one in a dire situation if they were on an NHS waiting list "and he felt like it was the only option".

Surely this is a lie, right? He's just saying what he thinks voters want to hear?

Wouldn't anyone who could afford it go private for a loved one in this situation? Also isn't it morally better to use private healthcare if you are very wealthy like he is and so you're not clogging up the NHS and taking the place of someone who genuinely doesn't have the option?

I just thought it seemed an insult to the intelligence of the voters to think he wouldn't use private healthcare for a loved one.

I'm saying if he is going to fight on his "morals" taking £7.6k pa per child for something he could easily afford that could give a poorer child a leg-up doesn't sit right. Particularly when grammar schools create such bad schools around them.

I don't agree with his morals and I don't personally feel he has ever really had them tested.

Do you think then that access to schools and the nhs should be means tested and above an income threshold people should pay accordingly? What’s the minimum income needed to survive? Earn above that and pay out. It would be a society of the rich and those on full benefits being ok and gradually most would be in the too poor category with having to sell their house and use savings to pay for health and schools. Healthcare is unavoidable for most people and it would be unaffordable.

Well he hasn't so far used it and hes no spring chicken so why would you assume he will in the future?

So principles don't matter? He pays taxes like everyone else. He should use the state system. He's better placed to know its problems than someone who sends their children privately

This is so wrong!

You realise that the privatisation, and breakdown of the NHS started before Conservatives were in recent power. Tony Blair started the introduction of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) was a notable development during this period. PFIs were designed to fund the building of new hospitals and healthcare facilities by leveraging private capital.

Also, have you forgotten the turmoil that NHS dentists faced in 2006 when the Labour Government introduced a new contract for contracted health service dental practitioners. Other than from hospital or community-based dentists, all NHS dental work is carried out by independent contractors who are responsible for providing their own buildings, equipment, materials and staff.

You need to look further back than just the past 10 years. Labour was outed for exactly the same reason you want to out conservatives for now.
They are both the same!

If you want real chnage - vote for a new party!
#VoteReform

Yeah right. I bet he has an NHS dentist too!!

In lifesaving situations the NHS is your best bet, so I believe him completely. Plus, many people are ideologically opposed to private healthcare.

Oh the irony considering a private healthcare owner is one of the biggest donors to the Labour Party.

Not that morally opposed to it then!

The alternative to my taking out a loan to pay for a hysterectomy would have involved having to give up my career and live off the state - I couldn’t have carried on working for the period of time that it wouId have taken to reach my turn on the waiting list. I suppose that would have been preferable?

Do we think Rishi has ever used the NHS ?
Do his kids go to a state school ?
The point being why is it ok for Sunak to pontificate about public services when he never uses them ?
He’s a multimillionaire PM that sends his children to an exclusive private school that costs tens of thousand pounds a year.
His family never has to use an overcrowded chaotic NHS.
What a man.

I simply don’t believe him, no.

labour politicians are in a difficult position on this, much more so than for education IMO because on education they, like others with the resources, can pay to live near popular schools or live near and help DC pass tests for selective secondaries.

Perhaps he and his family haven’t recently had the need for many health services for health issues for which waiting times are long, services poor or not available. Health services are still there for some things but not others, eg child and adolescent mental health.

That's how I interpreted it.

He was saying that no one should have to and he wants to address this.

And he wouldn't just use private funds to solve his problem - he wants to solve it being a problem.

Although I had an issue with the question seeming to ask about emergency care - which isn't available privately! It's elective OPs only.

Hence why Johnson was in nhs hospital with covid.

I can guarantee that absolutely nobody will be voting based on this one element.
Seriously who cares?
Ooh I was going to vote labour because after 14 years of Tory rule I feel like I’ve been screwed over, but wait, KS says he wouldn’t use private health care. So now I’ll vote Tory even though I feel like they haven’t done enough to make my life better.
No wonder the country is screwed if this even enters your thought process.
As a working person I will be voting for the party who make life better for me and others who actually keep this bloody country afloat.
No those who do not need to work.

Also I do not care if you pay to use private health care. So long as you are paying into the NHS then go for it.
Ditto private education.

And then there would have been posts about how Starmer is a hypocrite for using private healthcare for family members.

Not necessarily. Some people have principles, it doesn't stop him loving his family. Love doesn't equal money

Some people feel very strongly about it.

We get some free private healthcare through my work. There is a guy at work who refuses to use it on principle. He hobbled around for 18 months with a painful knee issue which required a routine op and was available to him privately for free. By the end of the 18 months he was on a crutch.

I have only had to use private once, for ds’s severe acne. I had the consultations free through work healthcare and paid around £500 for 5-6 months of private prescriptions as GP couldn’t issue them (roaccutane). He started treatment around 9 months ago and is now clear of acne and we hope it was treated quickly enough that the facial scarring will fade. He is still on the nhs wait list. I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again as a choice for minor issues if I could afford it. I know that isn’t an option for many people.

It is possible to fully support the NHS and use private too. I have family members who have needed care that must have cost tens and tens of thousands for the NHS to provide, for some, like my mum and dad the care was great, for two young women in our family with different health issues it was so inadequate it caused life long, life changing disabilities. I would happily pay more NI for a better NHS as we or our loved ones will all probably need it one day.

So if Starmer or anyone else was refusing blood transfusions/other treatments for family members on grounds of principles you would feel the same?

As various people on this thread have pointed out its possible to believe in and support state backed health care without requiring family to be martyrs and risk their future health and life expectancy to our beliefs (which in practice is usually what such principles require).

I personally agree with your views.
The main issue I have is the lack of consistency - he won't use the private system but the Labour Party states that they would use the existing capacity in the private system to support the delivery of NHS services. If everyone adopted his approach, would there be then a private sector to complement the private one?
The analogy with education is clear - but his approach and that of his party is completely different... unless that they are also planning to tax private health provision and they are yet to tell us.

Sorry... meant to Waite "to complement the NHS one"

But does anyone do that? Does anyone really think "I will send little Johnny to that private school so someone can have his place at the local comp." Or do they think the private school is better and will give their child an advantage so they will pay the money.

There is also the issue that it isn't just up to him. His wife might decide to use private health care, she might take one of their children to consult a private doctor. I'm assuming he isn't some sort of despot at home who controls everything his family does.

As someone in a grammar area, we went private because of grammar schools. In dd's primary she was bullied for being dyslexic and for not going to the tuition classes. Passed KT/11+ but didn't want to go anywhere near the queen bees. If you live in a grammar area the other schools are not "normal" comps, they do far worse on average than areas that do not have grammar schools. We decided to go private because of this. If she didn't have SEN she could have benefited from grammar just like Starmer's kids but there's a snobbishness there I'd not want her to take on. Far more SEN and diversity in her private school. I would much rather she could go to a normal comprehensive.

His kid isn't in a bog standard comp! Try super selective grammar with something ridiculous like 6% FSM when the neighbouring school has 44%.