Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
be comforting to know I could do so if I wanted to
depends entirely on the quality of the paid services and the relative quality of the State run services
100% with the education
and anyway, all i've done is asked a question without stating my own personal opinion. so yeah, pipe down.
yours often stall at the mid-20s mark because people are tired of your style.
some people might want to continue with state education on principle; some might rather spend their money on other things.
SOMEONE got out of bed on the wrong side this morning!
he's not started his thread with a completely ridiculous assumption about other people's views or a link to a Telegraph story.
some people would pay for health care, some wouldn't. some would pay for private schooling, some wouldn't. there's a difference of opinions. do you want me to draw you a pie chart to illustrate?
(dentistry aside, where there's little choice at the moment anyway), but only if there was a definite benefit and reason to do so - not just because I'd get a bit more of the doctor's time or a room to myself. NHS has been fine on the odd occasion I've had to use it, physio waiting list aside (and my needs sports clinics are generally better anyway).
Doubt I'd pay for private education unless my kid had particular special needs that weren't being met by the state sector, although never say never I guess.
(a) only if i needed physio or some sort of dentistry or something
Private school no
although generally in their case they're happy to admit they function well in spite of their education, rather than because of
Is your experience of privately educated people based on The Bash Street Kids comic strips?
by their socio-economic/class/race/religious background isnt it.
does this mean we'd get on 4.5 times out of 10?
Anyway this is silly. Bye.
and i know i can 'socially interact' with everyone that I meet. Kind of resent the implication that because i went to private school that I cannot interact with certain folk, granted I went to school with a lot of wankers but i think that your ability to interact doesn't come from your school/education but rather your homelife and parental upbringing.
and i never thought my friends at either school hindered or improved my social interaction, they were just my pals and that was it. Before I ever went to school and during school my parents always instilled in me what i think i needed to interact with all.
with regards to social interaction as my friends did and that its not just as simple as saying its just your friends.
have you ever met him?
As i mentioned above there are certainly a lot of wankers that attended my school but there are lots of wankers at all schools private and state but i don't like it when folk just generalise about an entire group of folk.
privately educated people are generally able to socially interact with people from pretty much all stratas of society.
They tend not tend to suffer from inverse snobbery either.
However, one is conversely of the opinion that you should take that opinion and fuck it up your prejudiced, ill-informed arse.
shove some salt up your arse too.
wouldn't want to put my kids at such a social disadvantage as that
dunno about private healthcare - the nhs is great but i can see the advantage of having access to both
For schooling, if the local schools were crap I would, but there are places where the states schools get better results than the independent ones.
For healthcare, I suppose if someone particularly needed it, but I don't know if I'd go private just because I could.
I've used the NHS all my life and I'm still alive
I went to a pretty ropey state school and went to one of the best universities in the world. Probably wasn't as well educated as the private school kids but I could hold my own when they couldn't handle their drink and got lairy
in which some dinner party guests are arguing over which one of them is the most middle class:
- “Well I’m the most middle class person here because my parents worked hard to scrape together the money to send me to an independent school.”
- “Well I’m the most middle class person here because my parents could have easily afforded to send me to public school but didn’t, because they disagreed on principle.”
- “Well I’m secretly gay.”
I fully intend to pass it on to the next generation by lying about my profession
Feel free to this this.
b) no, not likely. unless the state school was weak ass shit or something. i went to a pretty shit school that sclowly became good when i was there and is now ace. it probably helped me no end.
i know some right pricks who went to private schools. it depends on the other half and what they would want. if it stopped me getting my hole then i'd reconsider.
a private consultancy appointment, scane and private physio care I would without a doubt assuming i can afford to never be without it again. The difference is incredible.
Although I got whammied by the tax man for it this month.
cos like, there's plenty worse things to spend money on than education and health.
in fact, i really want to be able to afford to send my kids to private school. my old flatmate and i used to have this argument a lot - she went to state school, and i went to private school and then boarding school, and her argument was that my parents "threw away" that money as we both ended up in the same place. well, no, because there is almost no chance of me being here (a good uni) had i stayed in my local comp, it wasn't a patch on her grammar school. i think there a lot of twats that go to private school, yes. but there are so many lovely people that i learned so much about "life" from.
re: healthcare - well, i have no real qualms with the nhs atm, but if i could afford it then why not? as i said above it's a fair thing to spend your money on.
[clears throat, straightens greased hair].."annnd... ahem..If you'll for.. ahem heh...ifyou'llforGIVVVEmee.. pray tell me.."
[makes conspiratorial eye contact with others in the room with a snivelly crooked grin]
"How do you measure success?"
And is therefore morally repugnant.
i'm not trying to be smart. but people who pay for private healthcare still pay taxes, right?
Pushes wages and costs up, gets all the 'best' staff (arguably) and resources, etc.
in terms of experience and skills gained usually from working in the state system. The big stealers!
I already pay for both of these through my taxes and I believe in equity, equality and the state system.
- state schools, for instance
on everyone too, by arguing that people are always necessarily in competition with each other
I'm speaking about an ideal - in reality, I think the parents who invest their money into sending their children to private schools to escape the unknowable, and 'risky' state sector are perfectly placed to improve those state schools they fear so much. And save themselves a great whack of money.
Plus the smartest (if we really have to put it down to university leagues)I've met all went to state schools. I do wonder about all the mediocre privately-educated people that fill up good positions in the country with their attitude that they are a godsend to society (whatever, if that sounds like a chip).
I do not feel disadvantaged in any way. I would like to think that the majority of the people in this country do believe in morals and equity and equality, which is why we have the systems we do in place, and why the majority of people choose to use these systems. It's the minority that always spoils it for everyone.
While I agree in principle to the ideals of equity and equality they just don't appear in practice
and living in a (more or less) socialist country it's easy to see that administrative dogma does tend to bring everything down towards a lowest common denominator
I think competition in education especially is a positive thing and that it's equally positive to see many state schools producing results that rival or better public schools
I'm less comfortable however with the concept of institutions profiting from education and healthcare hence my value-for-money caveat above
basically, choice is better than no choice
because people like you who claim to agree in principle to the ideals of equity and equality actually don't put your beliefs into practise. This makes you a hypocrite and therefore part of the problem.
I live in a country where what you're are describing as the aspirational model has been in existence for 70 odd years and has only VERY recently changed (in the last 5 years) and what is fine in principle simply does not work in practice over time because the whole 'no child left behind' theory translates to 'no child allowed out in front' irrespective of ability or desire for learning
this is an inherent problem of administrative systems being 'refined' to a low-cost, one-size-fits-all package
but can't you see how your above post makes you sound like a hypocrite. You say you agree with the principles of equality and equity but ultimately you think a bi-partisan system where wealth affords you better health and education is the better system. I'm sorry but that to me is massively hypocritical.
to a Government blueprint and accepting their cost-benefit analysis?
and besides, I never said that wealth affords you a better health or education system - I said that the existence of choice and competition keeps both the public and private systems on their toes
on my behalf regarding cost-benefit is hypocritical. I don't think choice and competition are bad things on an even playing ground. However having an enormously unfair monetary advantage combined with tax benefits (such as charitable status in the UK) is inherently wrong when it comes to education and health, two things that I believe everyone has the right to access and utilise.
but seeing as how your responses seem to be based on ideals that show no qualitative assessment of real life experience coupled with quite an imprecise reading of my answer to the original question I doubt very much whether there is any mileage in this conversation anyway
between claiming to believe something and not following through with it in what you do, and claiming to believe something but not being able to follow it through.
I think it's wrong that you should receive better healthcare or education (though I don't accept that private education is 'better' in every sense) simply because you happen to have more money.
If you want your child to be smarter then work harder as a parent to make them smart; teach them to love to read, tutor them extra yourself if you want.
If people are sick they should treated as well as our medical science allows and our society can afford, irrespective of how much money they've made.
Please feel free to call me naive and a berk.
because I believe that education is about much more than grades and extracurricular activities- any fruit of my loins will take its chances with the state sector and I'll make up for any deficiencies as best I can from home.
I am completely hypocritical however, because when it comes to healthcare, I have no qualms about using my BUPA insurance when it comes to things that would otherwise be tortuous on the nhs (e.g. a dancing injury I had which needed intensive physio- in the hands of the nhs would have probably spelled the premature end to my dancing days, but bupa came to the rescue). If a child of mine became seriously ill, I wouldn't hesitate throwing every resource possible at getting it better. Surely that's your primal instinct, albeit a selfish one.
Apart from if my children showed immense potential, and could get into some super elite school on merit where they'd have otherwise unimaginable resources / teaching etc available. Then I might be swayed. But seeing as that would never happen, I can stick with "no". I'm totally going to make my children learn Latin though. Although quite a few state schools seem to be doing that now.
I can say categorically that I'd never send my children to an unremarkable private school (in the UK anyhow). I'm a terrible person really, aren't I?
I've worked for both NHS and private healthcare companies and imo the NHS offer better quality care, offer better training to staff, and make sure staff are up-to-date with latest research. The NHS are constantly audited whereas i never witnessed any 'outside' monitoring of any kind with the private places.
No No No.
but agree with healthcare.
Private Healthcare is only really good for a limited number of things.
I always find it bizarre when, in the midst of a CLASS WAR rant, someone throws the other person's ambivalence/support of private healthcare in their face when they question private education. They're two completely different things, the results of entirely different social processes.
If my state school educated child isn't really getting the best education, I can make up for that pretty well at home. If their cancer treatment is going badly, or if they're on a long waiting list for an important operation, I'm going to be pretty useless at stepping into the breach to help out with that.
a lot tend to not have ICU's
people just saying straight out No or Yes to both questions strikes me as strange. It entirely depends on your situation, alternatives etc at that given time.
It did not take me having a child or a life threatening illness to consider my reactions to them, I would hope that my opinion remained the same wether it was me personally or anyone else
B) Not if there were credible state alternatives in the area. There are still lots of grammar schools in Dorset.
The only people who can afford to say yes to these things should be taxed further to ensure equality for all regarding two of the basic rights of any human being.
private education and healthcare is selfish self serving and elitist x
I can only afford to rent a one bed flat, so I want everyone in the eight bed detached ocean front properties in Sandbanks turfed out of their homes.
I drive a somewhat knackered hatchback, so out of spite I want car manufacturers to stop making and marketing sports cars and luxury saloons.
It's so unfair that some people do their main shop at Waitrose, I want them to be forced to buy chicken tikka lasagna (no seriously, it exists) from Iceland.
Whine whine whine.
For those who don't wish to know the result of the Cold War, please look away now...........
and we (in the uk) live in a very fine society indeed believe it or not comparatively wealth distribution, particularly for social services, should be evenly distributed. Would proportionate taxing for higher earners help this occur? yes (we are pretending there is no local or national government corruption in this argument also).
You can apply for a variety of schools with differing standards and viewpoints across this country already and in an ideal world this would be furthered by the additional funds from public school fees which would be pumped into this private institutions (many of whom class themselves as charities to avoid paying taxes!).
The crux of the argument in my eyes is that I wish for a world where money does not afford children a step up and a better standard of education and indeed healthcare.
By indulging in these excesses myself I would be a hypocrit and would undermine my own beliefs.
Each to their own though I have no issue with peoples opinions and yours are certainly valid.
Doubtless in this brave new socialist utopia, we'll all be living in identikit communes.
If you remove any motivation to be rich, people would have no drive. If you tax into oblivion any wage earned above the average then this would only serve to reduce the average.
When I'm not on DiS, I'm working hard to get promoted at work so that I can make my life more comfortable and so that I can put money aside for my son (currently 7 months old) so that he can go to a very good school, either by moving to a nicer area, or paying for private education.
I don't have private health, and I didn't go to public school, but we live in a capitalist society that drives it's citizens by providing a minimum to all whilst maintaining the option to have more should you have the drive and ability to earn it.
To suggest anything else is borderline communism, which doesn't work with humans.
"tax into oblivion"
"this would only serve to reduce the average" - The average wage, yes. But, if higher taxes on richer folk were implemented, it would be with the presumed payoff of imporving living standards across the board, which would be parfticularly felt by the poor.
Your position is potentially valid, but your argument isn't helped by using an overtly loaded style of language that is hyperbolic toward the effects on one side, but omits to mention the intended effect on the other half of the equation.
i'm on private healthcare under my dad's work insurance and i've seen what it's done for him, and the amount it's helped him, i'd definitely be up for some of that.
however, b) is almost definitely a no. both my parents went to school in the roughest area of glasgow and they're both intelligent, educated people. i went to a okay/good state school and i've managed fine thus far. I think people bemoan the state of schools too much when really they've got a shitty attitude to work. My school was good, but i was in the worst class for the first two/three years - a good percentage of my class was expelled or suspended regularly - i'm doing a degree course and i wouldn't say i'm particularly stupid or lazy. Neither are my parents. People need to take responsibility for their learning and stop acting like little bitches and throwing money at the problem.
Can't think of any reason why I wouldn't. Even though I've read most of the posts in this thread.
Home medication and education. Perhaps even combine them both into meducation. It's the way forward. Little Elvis has broken his leg? Buster, fetch Daddy the shotgun - Elvis' misery must come to an end. The children learn not to break their legs and how to put another, broken child out of his misery. As for educating them in other fields, just throw some powerful hallucinogens at them and hop in the car for our own "Magic School Bus".
I think I might accidentally impregnate a woman on purpose. I've suddenly realised it might be alright to have kids after all.
for leaving muesli on a mountain,
the blame lies with Carol-Anne,
she just lay back boozing.
A: None at all.
Private hospitals don't have intensive care wards. So as soon as something deadly, seriously urgent crops up in a private hospital (complications during surgery etc) it's off to the NHS we go. These folk paying the premium might well be getting a perfectly pleasant level of "service". Calm staff, nice carpet, sky tv. All that jazz. But that doesn't count for much when it comes to the crunch.
The priority of private healthcare is to maximise profit for their shareholders. One key way that's done is by selling as many drugs as possible. Virtually every private healthcare decision will be with max shareholder profit in mind. Efficiency or sensible decisions about quality of life be damned. Just throw more money at the situation and it'll eke out a few more days or weeks of life for you. It is populated from top to bottom by people that focus on money first and sensible, compassionate decisions second. Do you think a private healthcare employee will give you the pure, honest truth about your prospects if you have a terminal condition? Or do you think they'll try to sell you some expensive (profitable) drugs so that you can live for a little while longer - even if your quality of life during that extra few days/weeks will be awful. They don't care: you're paying and paying, more and more. This shizzle happens every single day, over and over.
The priority of the NHS is to maximise the quality of life of the population as a whole. That might well mean that an uber-expensive drug won't be available in order to provide an extra month or two of poor quality life for a terminal patient. But the reason for it will be so that money can be spent on resources that offer 'better value for money'. Virtually every NHS healthcare decision will be with maximum marginal utility of the national health in mind. The vast vast majority of the people that work for the NHS do so because they believe (on some level, at least) in free-at-the-point-of-access healthcare.
And you're kidding yourself if you put major weight on any notion of "efficiency savings". Just take a look at the state of the US. You'll find many more opportunity for cost savings in a private hospital than you will in an NHS hospital before you even consider "efficiency". With infinite resources, there'd be no problem. But that's not the case in a private hospital OR the NHS. So who would you rather makes the really hard decisions of where money is sensibly spent? A highly qualified group of NHS professionals or a combination of private company + desperate family looking for an answer (an answer that's often not really there, in all honesty)?
My gf works for the NHS and briefly worked for a private hospital. In the short space of time she was there, she was appaled at the lack of resources available to staff (decent, up to date library of books, databases, area-wide dedicated manned info/enquiry service etc etc etc). Also, the quality (i.e. qualification level) of staff in equivalent positions in private healthcare is often lower than the NHS, because the NHS offers so many more avenues for learning your profession.
Some folk need to realise that not only are they splashing a heap of their cash on the basis of a vague promise. They're splashing a heap of their cash on advice from a setup that's not structured towards their best interests. The real truth of a situation is often being hidden. It would crudely be described as misselling.
A story, just to emphasise my point: At the private hospital my gf was at, there were some press peeps outside, covering some story or other. An announcement went out. "Can whoever owns the such-and-such car please move it away from the entrance please?" It was parked in a perfectly legit parking space. But it was kinda old and spattered in mud and would've looked bad on TV. Can't have that, can we? What would their potential customers think? A sickening attitude & sense of priorities, and no mistaking.
Having said all this: I'm not 100% convinced that I'd not spend my pennies on whatever it took to stay alive. But if I did splash my savings up the wall for a few extra weeks of life, I'd do it on the advice of an NHS employee rather than a private healthcare salesperson.
...that's a different kettle of fish to healthcare. Healthcare professionals are very often highly specialised individuals with knowledge that you'd not normally have, and in many cases you'd be doing well to understand even the basic underlying principles behind a lot of the decisions being made.
Primary and secondary education differs from this in that most of us are able to more accurately gauge the quality of provision. Schools also differ from healthcare in that they are such a big feature of your formative years. I'm not sure I'd want to send my kid to a school populated by stereotypical 'public schoolboy types' (hello there, preconceptions!). But on the other hand, I'm not sure how likely I am to just blindly settle for any old school. There's every chance that my choice of place to live may well be based on whether it's near a 'good school', which is essentially a form of paying for a certain level of education.
a) Possibly not ever.
b) In principle, no. But possibly maybe. But only as a supplement to any specific shortfall in the available state education in providing reasonable resources for any special needs my kid might have. E.g. That might be tuition for music, or it might be classes where a subject has had a (percieved serious) lack of decent teaching.
But they're ones I've already mentioned, by and large?
I've got a couple of picky comments to make, though.
'best drugs' is a subjective term when you're talking about low rates of marginal return and making quality of life vs longevity judgements.
'better in terms of convenience and comfort' /may/ well apply to the individual and immediate family (as I acknowledged), but it may erode the aims of 'better for the nation as a whole' in allowing it. Thus, the scope for debate on the issue. It's the classic 'where do you draw the line?' scenario.
I think that it's almost certainly fair that folk should be allowed to supplement their NHS care with private contributions. Which I believe was not the case until recently.
I made the first point as well.
i'd defo pay for something like a single operation to be done privately, to skip waiting lists but i dunno if i'd consistently go for private healthcare.
as for sending my kids to a private school, it would depend on where i'm living. i grew up in a nice middle class village. there were problems at my school, but you get problems in any school. if i was still living in london, things would be very different...
For the fundamentalists out there, it's maybe easier to consider this in terms of the less emotive arena of public libraries and high street bookshops.
Libraries have plenty of books. All for free. You might have to wait a little while for some of the more popular books. But hopefully the fact that it's a free service at the point of use will compensate for that small inconvenience, and the knowledge that the service as a whole is pretty darned good value.
No-one's saying that we shouldn't have high street book shops, home broadband or whatever. And having them is hardly a sin. But wouldn't it be an utter failing if we, as a state, couldn't manage to muster up the resources to provide a decent basic level of library for folk that can't afford (or justify the expense of) new books or broadband, etc?
Similarly, , but we shouldn't take our public parks for granted or neglect them either.
You might not plan on using these facilities personally, but our society would be poorer without public libraries or public parks. But, pragmatically, I think we can all accept that it's not realistic to say that you can't have a garden or own your own books.
The real problems kick in when you drop below 'critical mass' for provision of a particular service.
IMO, it's the determining of that 'critical mass point' that is the key point for debate.
regarding your bookshop/library analogy; i'm guessing that bookshops and libraries aren't competing to get the best books?
They cream off the custom that is most profitable to them. And in allowing private hospitals to be legal, we're kinda accepting that that's gonna be the case.
By the same (book?) token, libraries aren't trying to chase lucrative market sectors. They're there to provide a universal minimum standard of service.
Some fundamental folk will argue that the base level quality of libraries would be better if book shops weren't around and the spend that they get was taken in taxes and funneled into libraries.
Others fundamental folk counter that by suggesting that without competition from the free market, libraries would get complacent and stagnate.
It's all about deciding, as a nation, what our minimum acceptable levels of service are going to be.
Europe, on the whole, tends toward a higher minimum standard of state provision than the USA does. And, looking at the current issues thrown up by the US healthcare debate, it's interesting to note that it's fairly widely acknowledged that very very few people in the UK would want to switch our current setup for the one they've got in the US. With regard to UK vs US healthcare provision, and tie-ing in slightly with some of the stuff I've said above, the straight up 'taxation to pay for services' angle is only one part of it. De-regulation can easily creep in and have unwanted consequences.
Advertising of prescription medicines in the US is a massive industry. On billboards everywhere, onrotation on TV, etc But why? All in the name of choice. And choice is bandied around as if it's always a good thing. But it's all too easy for companies with massive budgets to distort the truth. That's not such a big deal when one breakfast cereal company brags about their product. Or when a cosmetic company makes bombastic claims based on statistically insignificant claims about their skin cream. But it's a totally different proposition when it comes to prescritpion medication. Lay people are not sufficiently qualified to make informed judgements about many of the claims that are made. It's too easy for companies to twist statistics to suit them.
Note in the UK how there have been some adverts for erectile dysfunction advice? As far as I'm aware, they're not (allowed to be?) mentioning specific brands in the UK at the mo. But they're trying to badger you to "seek advice from your GP" (and at worst, sowing the seeds of inadequacy regarding something that can often be resolved without the need for expensive medication). They're preaching a message and creating company awareness by association. And this is often for drugs that treat what are arguably 'dysfunctions' that have been created quite spuriously in the first place. The US, consequently, has what is often claimed to be an artificially high level of pharmaceutical drug dependency. We need to be careful about avoiding going down this road in the name of a supposed 'choice'.
How much slack do we give to private healthcare interests before it stops being a case of 'choosing to have nice curtains' and 'easing the burden on the NHS waiting lists', and becomes a reluctance to pay up collectively for a universal service?
I've merely presented the reasons for why people might find themselves in a scenario where they might say that curtailment of private health provision might be a good idea.
And I've also presented the reasoning behind the scenario where folk seek to promote private health provision.
If I've gone as far as to outline my own personal position, it hasn't been to throw my weight very strongly behind either side.
I'm of the opinion that the UK ain't a million miles away from the right way to go. I'm certainly not saying anything close to the notion of "banning private healthcare" or making sure that NHS "alternatives are made illegal".
But I am acutely aware of the dangers of any major shift toward the dominance of private healthcare over the NHS. Beyond that I've outlined where I feel private healthcare can be of some benefit.
I'd prefer that you don't tell me what I'm saying. If something's not clear, feel free to question it.