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.

Well it’s a good thing his family are free to ignore him and do whatever they want. He can eschew private care if he wants, but he won’t actually have the power to stop a family member from getting access to whatever care they need

What has that got to do with me asking if people really decide to send their child to a private school to be kind by leaving a state school place for someone else?

Presumably young Master or Miss Starmer passed the exam and got the place, good for them.

And that is exactly why the original question was stupid.

Because they create sink schools around them. He is participating in the divide between the rich and poor in his exclusive area of London. His morals seem to be quite selective.

Tories getting desperate again, what with D Day and all. It won't fly.

Its a false comparison.

In education the affluent who opt their normally able DC out of the state system are making a luxury purchase (which currently has tax breaks). State schools lose the parents often best place to advocate and support them. Every child is entitled to a school place, local authorities are obliged to find a place if needed, they are not making the luxury choice in the absence of other provision. Choosing a selective state school has a similar impact as they cream off the same demographic.

These parents are not trying to work around a multi year waiting list to talk to someone about possibly being considered to get a school place and then being told you are not clever or stupid enough to meet the latest rationing criteria in bureacracy which benefits from religious adoration. The only point at which that comes close to comparison is for DC with significant special needs which are not being met.

People are using their life savings paying for health care because it simply isn't available to them, not because they want nicer curtains in the hospital room.

The comparison is not as far fetched as you present, at least in the mind of many people. Especially when you move away for generalities and into specifics.
For instance, someone choosing to give birth in a private hospital or to avoid waiting for treatment for a non-life threatening but discomforting condition is not that dissimilar to someone choosing to send their kids to private school because they believe it caters better for them.

Focusing on what the posters were referring to (the impact on resources in te state sector), both education and health are goods provided by the state (rather than public goods in the pure sense) and people choosing private provision free up resources in the state system.

As for your point on advocating, if you think that able advocates would drive quality in the state education sector rather than poor investment and management and limited resources (personally I don't agree), why wouldn't the same happen with education? And surely the same would apply to grammars (which Stammer has personally benefited from)

I think if his child developed a life threatening or very painful illness and the nhs waiting list was too long, he'd be at the private hospital in a heartbeat. The child's mother would likely insist upon it - I know I would!

And of course, the power to insist on nhs only, for relatives, isn't solely in Starmer's hands and he knows it. His family have their own money and ability to make choices. When push comes to shove, he knows his family will be able to choose to put their own wellbeing ahead of whatever he says now and he can just say it was out of his hands if the situation ever arises

Exactly - making a moralistic point that many people around the country have had to choose to do because they have faced terrible situations didn't sit right. I bet he didn't move to his 2mil mansion without thinking his kid could get into the super selective that gets better results than a lot of privates for moralistic reasons either. If his kid hadn't got in or had SEN I suspect his view on private schools would have been very different, just as much as in different circumstances he would have had to use private healthcare for part of his care at least.

Its very much as far fetched as I present.

Making the consumer choice for the privileged version of education actually denudes the state provision. The fact that its granted special tax breaks unlike any other commercial organisation reduces the overall tax take for public expenditure.

85 year old Bert using his life savings to pay for his hip replacement is also preserving his own life and health when the state fails to provide the treatment they tell him he has paid for.

That mealy mouthed rationing term "non-life threatening but discomforting". is used to describe many conditions which prevent people from working and paying taxes and which are debilitating and life threatening and ultimately cost the NHS far more money to treat the consequences of failing to treat. Posters have posted about them on this thread.

When I helped pay for my nieces's mental health treatment it was because her life was at risk and the NHS didn't want to know. CAMHS told her mother that "girls don't get ADHD" and she would "grow out" of the anorexia that nearly killed her. That wasn't making a choice for something that "caters better for them" - the NHS simply didn't offer anything for a life threatening condition.

There is no point of comparison with that and the consumer choices in education. A comparison would be choosing private because you had a nicer room and a better menu - ordinary people paying for private treatment do so in the main because they can't get help from the NHS.

"There is no point of comparison with that and the consumer choices in education. A comparison would be choosing private because you had a nicer room and a better menu - ordinary people paying for private treatment do so in the main because they can't get help from the NHS."

Unless you are in a grammar area and given sink schools as the only options if your child has SEN, for example. If you have the choice, just as everyone who got into the grammar did, you avoid the schools that are only there and only as bad BECAUSE of the grammar being there.

Would ignore the unnecessarily confrontational tone in your language and just reiterate that they are not completely different. There are examples of private health and private education that are similar and there are indeed people choosing private healthcare because of the experience (birthing) as well as people choosing private schools because it will improve the quality of life of their users (eg, bullying).

And not all "non life threatening but discomforting conditions" (a description that has nothing mealy mouthed about it - if you know how health systems operate) prevent people from working or paying taxes. It happens in some cases but if I avail myself of private dermatology services (as I have done in the past) to treat my rosacea, I would fall in that case. There are many reasons why people use private health - all very respectable. In the same way as there are many reasons why people use private education, including to maximise the ability of their kids to work and pay taxes.

There are very good reasons why health and education and similarly treated in most countries, including that in both cases using private services frees up resources in the state sector.

Or he could have said, we would not but if I saw my wife/kids/family suffering, instead of waiting 16 weeks, we would then use private HC. then add, labour would improve NHS by ensuring money was not wasted and used more effectively as their plan is. Just shows thatthat most politicians have had a honesty, bypass IMO

I guess he felt safe in the knowledge they were young and relatively fit so not needing these services for a while and not having a Diane Abbott moment

Wasn't his mum seriously ill, his mother in law in a fatal car crash , both looked after by the NHS.

What utter bollocks.

Thank you and many have stated similar. Starmmer must think we are ALL fools falling for that one, IMO

Considering one of the biggest donors to Labour is the owner of a private healthcare company one could say that he is a hypocrite....

The questions is an utterly daft one.

Private healthcare in the UK is not set up to treat people who are in a dire situation. There is no money in it and the risks are too high.

Only the NHS has the facilities to treat those who are the most ill, including the ICU beds necessary for after surgery. For example if you have a newborn with a congenital heart defect, there are around a dozen surgeons in the country with the skills and teams needed to treat them. Private healthcare wouldn't cover it anyone because it invariably excludes congenital conditions and not that many people would be able to afford the 10,000s it would cost.

So actually anyone who would answer yes to the question is insulting the intelligence of voters, or perhaps is not very intelligent themselves.

Where is this private hospital that treats children with life threatening conditions?

The Spire hospitals? The Portland?

The NHS is great at emergency care but there are conditions which are painful and debilitating, that might not kill you, but certainly make you suffer. For ex,I waited 2 years to see an nhs urologist for a bladder condition. If my child had a painful condition and I could get them to see a specialist the next day at somewhere like the Portland, I'd do it in a flash. Any decent parent would! And if KS is saying he wouldn't do that for his kids, I don't want him as PM.

My family member had cancer and had good private health insurance. She was treated in an NHS hospital after considering going private because NHS is safer for that sort of thing. NHS hospitals have A&E and critical care and stuff like that. If you have say a bad bleed in a private hospital they will call you an ambulance to a private hospital.
Adam Kay writes well on the subject.
Personally I would and have used private healthcare but not for stuff like surgery. We are privileged to have the means but it's a disgrace that everyone can't just get what they need in a timely manner on the NHS. I would rather pay more tax and have the NHS work for everyone.

Thank you and good luck

TBH and it pains me to say this, even the dull Labour leader feels money is not the answer and I agree with that and always said things need to change.

I was surprised re the approx 18 months waiting lists in Scotland and up to 24 months in Wales

If I was leading England, the first thing I'd do is force all food manufactures to clearly display the sugar and saturated fat and salt contents clearly on the front packs of foods/sweets colour coded. Importantly this colour coding would be as present but done twice - first lot would be per portion, whatever that portion is as different brands see a "portion" differently to the others. The second colour bar chart would be per 100g of food. This would be much easier to compare and this is why its not being down

if people really knew the amounts of rubbish that was in our processed food, many would cut back to a degree most of the time

the first time we went to France and stayed there for two weeks in our 5 star villa - when we went to buy food we were stagred by the lack of frozen, chilled foods compared to us in England - it was for the better, ie fresh stuff

in time, people would be healthier along with education on health and less pressures on the NHS

We could have a system of centres that supported the parents of young children, that included education about healthy eating among their activities.

Lets see if we can come up with a name for it.

I'll offer you Sure Start, but I am sure others can improve on that.

Exactly.

As I said upthread, my son has rapidly developed a huge curvature of his spine, which if left much longer would cause permanent spinal cord damage. So I would say that's a pretty dire position for him to be in 🤷‍♀️

It is a 12m wait with the NHS just to have an appointment at either the Evelina or GOSH, let alone surgery.

But the NHS surgeons on those teams also do private work at the Portland. So that's the route we are going down, and I don't believe for one moment that Keir Starmer wouldn't do the same for his children.

As I understand, in France everyone pays separately towards their health service.. there is a charge. I don't know the finer details but the care is excellent. When my dm's friend there needed to get to hospital (non emergency) they sent a taxi for her.

What a load of bollocks Kier's talking.. I wonder if his wife would agree with him?

I haven't even bothered to register with my local GP practice but have to fork out for a private one instead. When want to see a doctor I actually want to see one!