.

[Jacob]

You mean the better off have more disposable income and therefore they should pay more for every service they receive

No. They should pay more tax, because they have more money. People with no money can pay no tax. People with little money can pay little tax. People with the most money should pay the most tax. It's not difficult to understand and it's how the world works.

and yet you complain about them for instance educating their kids private schools?

No. I complain about under investment in state schools.

....
I suppose you won't want them to use private healthcare even though by doing so it relieves some of the burden on the underfunded and failing NHS?

No it doesn't. Relatively easy and routine work gets done privately, nowadays expensively paid for by the state - the taxpayers. The difficult stuff gets done by the NHS. The NHS has been gradually privatised over a number of years

The same as you don't want the wealthy to benefit from sending their kids to private schools even though it reduces the burden on the state education system. T

No. They should not have charitable status and should be subject to the same imposed standards as state schools so that we have a level playing field. As it is the wealthy get massive assistance in exam results and tend to dominate top University entrance. The result is they are over educated beyond their ability with the glaringly obvious effect of having blatantly idiotic old Etonians in positions of power and influence throughout the land. You know who they are just as well as me.

Unfortunately the world isn't fair and some are dealt a better hand than others but effectively punishing those who are more successful than others through social vilification seems a rather shallow, narrow minded tribal approach to life.

Punishment has nothing to do with it. Nor vilification or tribalism. Anyway it's the left who attract most vilification. You shouldn't feel so sorry for yourself!

I have a silly mantra that I have no right to someone else's hard earned money! That's just how I think I'm afraid.

So if you fell on hard times you'd just grin and bear it? Shuffle off and die? Do you not use publicly paid for facilities such as the road network, to name just one? Do you have a private army or do you rely on the police and the armed forces? Do you think the nation's health was better before the NHS ? and so on ad infinitum
It's very odd how often one has to explain to some people how the world works, as though they've only just dropped from the trees and started walking upright!

 

[johna.clements]

Your comment was to the effect that the rich deliberately limit the education of the poor to avoid competition with their own children. So I ask again, what evidence do you have to support that statement.

@Jacob has already replied.

How do you explain the massive reduction in further education spending since 2010.

 

[ey_tony]

So if you fell on hard times you'd just grin and bear it? Shuffle off and die?

I don't feel sorry for myself, far from it. I have no expectations of the state other than to provide the basic services for which I and millions of others have paid for with their taxes and I've always believed that I alone am responsible for how my life has turned out. If others have done better in life than me, then that's not their problem, it's mine!
Envy is a particular nasty burden to carry through life.
I do however firmly believe that we should as a caring society take care of the poorest in or society or those who through no fault of their own be it physical or mental health issues are unable to help themselves.

I've always done without in order to protect myself and family from the rigours of hard times and never expected anyone else to bail me out because I wasn't circumspect in my spending..
I started with absolutely nothing, always lived within my means, earned enough early on in life by doing without luxuries in order to buy things outright including my homes and never had credit unless it was interest free, in fact if I applied now for credit I'd probably have a very low credit rating because I've got very little credit history other than through domestic bills.

I have no issues with Socialist policies per se, some have been very good and should be applauded. My issues are with those who subscribe to the divisive Socialist line of thinking as I find the the majority of supporters inevitably resort to personal attacks and vilification of anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative or when they run out of coherent arguments. In football terms, they inevitably end up playing the man rather than the ball. Not a very nice trait to say the least.

As for level playing fields. I came from a poor background so had to drop the idea of further education in my teens in order to earn a living but I promised myself a decent education at some future point so started with foundation courses in maths and sciences with the OU and then when the time was right I applied as a mature student and was accepted into the local university on a full time three years honours degree course in Geophysics.
I had a very basic education at a Catholic school which was arguably worse than the education provided by the state schools at the time.
My school even had to negotiate with the local secondary modern in order to use their woodwork facilities. We certainly had no science labs or the likes
but it never held me back.

I know several families who send their kids to private schools. They are far from wealthy, in fact many are struggling desperately to afford to pay the fees and live an almost pauper's life in order to send their kids to those schools. They do without luxuries such as holidays or fancy cars and even struggle to pay everyday bills so not everyone who has had a private education has come from a wealthy background. Many have only received their education because their parents have done without.

A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.

 

[Jacob]

.......

A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.

Yes the OU was brilliant. Founded by the Labour party to make education more accessible - open to all in fact! Paid for by the tax payer. One of Labours greatest achievements. Certainly Harold Wislon's. That's socialism for you!
I did a few too. Last one was MST 121 Maths a few years ago. Felt I was getting rusty.

You don't think Eton or Harrow convey any advantage at all?

 

[johna.clements]

If people do not have equal access to education then the country is poorer.

If your parents are poor will the sacrifice a lot to help your education.
If your parents are rich will they sacrifice a relatively little amount to help your education.
If your parents are rich will they vote to keep some money to educate you rather than someone else who is more able.

 

[Jacob]

If people do not have equal access to education then the country is poorer.

Could be thought of as "investment in human capital" if you are a capitalist.
Or "empowering" and "releasing individual potential" if you are a lefty.
Either way a good idea.
All the private stuff is just paying for ways to beat the system.

https://www.rebelnews.ie/2019/07/29/why-we-must-smash-the-old-etonians/

 

[selectortone]

Those who do pay private for health or schooling often are on the receiving end of abuse ,despite actually lessening the load on the nation.

The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.

When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.

It was over the road from the big NHS hospital. (Poole General and the Harbour Hospital if anyone's interested.) Chemotherapy was administered at the private hospital but when she needed radiotherapy or to use any heavy plant like MRI scanners they took her over to the NHS hospital where the private hospital had booked slots. It made me wonder how many NHS patients were being denied treatment by these block bookings.

I often saw our surgeon and oncologist scuttling across the road between the two hospitals from the window of her room.

She had a private room, a nice menu to choose from and her own TV. But apart from that the treatment she received was exactly the same as she would have done on the NHS. A little faster too, of course.

The rise of private healthcare in this country is slowly killing off the NHS. My grandad and great-uncle came back from WWI to the Durham mines and slums and thought "what the **** were we fighting for?". They joined the Labour Party and got their skulls cracked and in the case of my great uncle thrown in jail, marching and fighting for all the things we take for granted now - the NHS, state pensions, unemployment benefit, paid holidays, decent housing, refuse collection, sewage systems and all the rest.

Now it's all been privatised, or in the case of the NHS being privatised by stealth. And what have we got? Sewage on the beaches, a ridiculously expensive rail system in permanent chaos, once public utilities now run for the shareholder, not the consumer, and all the rest of what now constitutes our dreary lives. All for a fast buck. What a world.

 

[Jacob]

The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.

When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.

It was over the road from the big NHS hospital. (Poole General and the Harbour Hospital if anyone's interested.) Chemotherapy was administered at the private hospital but when she needed radiotherapy or to use any heavy plant like MRI scanners they took her over to the NHS hospital where the private hospital had booked slots.

I often saw our surgeon and oncologist scuttling across the road between the two hospitals from the window of her room.

She had a private room, a nice menu to choose from and her own TV. But apart from that the treatment she received was exactly the same as she would have done on the NHS. A little faster too, of course.

The rise of private heathcare in this country is slowly killing off the NHS. My grandad and great-uncle came back from WWI to the Durham mines and slums and thought "what the **** were we fighting for?". They joined the Labour Party and got their skulls cracked and in the case of my great uncle thrown in jail, marching and fighting for all the things we take for granted now - the NHS, paid holidays, decent housing, refuse collection, sewage systems and all the rest.

Now it's all been privatised, or in the case of the NHS being privatised by stealth. And what have we got? Sewage on the beaches, a ridiculously expensive rail system in permanent chaos, once public utilities now run for the shareholder, not the consumer, and all the rest of what now constitutes our dreary lives. All for a fast buck. What a world.

Apparently things sometimes go wrong with those profitable routine procedures in the private sector, which they can't cope with, and may be too late by the time they've moved back to the NHS.

 

[Tris]

The NHS needs a complete rethink. My grandfather joined as a radiographer in 1948, at that time he developed all the film's, repaired the equipment in the hospital workshop when required, and set up a school of radiography. He would struggle to recognise the range of equipment used just for imaging the body today, and would be astounded by the cost of it all. When you multiply that increase in cost, complexity and capability across all departments it is little wonder that the NHS struggles to fulfil its original purpose and that's before you take in to account PFIs and privatisation as well

 

[D_W]

The problem there is, the more private hospitals there are, the weaker the NHS becomes.

When my wife was diagnosed with cancer she qualified for private health care through my employer. She had been in the NHS system and when she was transferred to a private hospital we were surprised to see that the surgeon and oncologist she had been referred to under the NHS were the same people in the private hospital.

It was over the road from the big NHS hospital. (Poole General and the Harbour Hospital if anyone's interested.) Chemotherapy was administered at the private hospital but when she needed radiotherapy or to use any heavy plant like MRI scanners they took her over to the NHS hospital where the private hospital had booked slots.

I often saw our surgeon and oncologist scuttling across the road between the two hospitals from the window of her room.

She had a private room, a nice menu to choose from and her own TV. But apart from that the treatment she received was exactly the same as she would have done on the NHS. A little faster too, of course.

The rise of private heathcare in this country is slowly killing off the NHS. My grandad and great-uncle came back from WWI to the Durham mines and slums and thought "what the **** were we fighting for?". They joined the Labour Party and got their skulls cracked and in the case of my great uncle thrown in jail, marching and fighting for all the things we take for granted now - the NHS, state pensions, unemployment benefit, paid holidays, decent housing, refuse collection, sewage systems and all the rest.

Now it's all been privatised, or in the case of the NHS being privatised by stealth. And what have we got? Sewage on the beaches, a ridiculously expensive rail system in permanent chaos, once public utilities now run for the shareholder, not the consumer, and all the rest of what now constitutes our dreary lives. All for a fast buck. What a world.

Does it really ruin the NHS, or does it make up for budget shortfalls with the NHS? If overall, the average person gets faster treatment with the combination setup - even if the NHS only patient gets the same speed, the outcome is better.

The mistake is believing that the NHS is ever going to perform like the private system, or that the private system will ever be able to take over fully for the NHS.

I would imagine that all of the things your grandfather fought for, including freedom, you have. And the public benefits that ultimately the public is unable to budget for, you have public private partnerships and your level of disposable income - or society's as a whole - is far greater than it was when those benefits were put in place and all public.

We are in the era where everyone is a victim - everything around you is against you, that kind of mentality. The "I should be able to put this much in and get this much out", and on average, that equation is 1 unit and 2 units, respectively, because things become detached.

We hear the same thing in the US - how much better things were in the 50s or 60s, but the reality is, people lived half the lifestyle and didn't feel entitled to more than that, so it didn't seem like they were fighting a constant budget battle.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...1#:~:text=2.,(ONS) Household Finances Survey.
After adjusting for inflation, the median disposable income level is more than double that of the 1970s. What do you think it is vs. the 1950s? It's probably four times. so why is everyone feeling so victimized having four times the disposable income, after adjusting for inflation?

Because you're not living like your grandfather did, and when you're not living with the thrift and self deprivation, and still not happier, then are you making the right decisions? This isn't just for you, it's for society as a whole.

It's a problem of personal entitlement, and you are generations removed from people who had to work for those benefits rather than getting them built in. The average person probably thinks that after all of those things are in place (state pension, NHS, etc) that's starting at zero, as if they're no cost, and the part of the population who is taking those services and not paying in anywhere near their cost will still be the loudest about what they're entitled to. That will be the average person, and people without much reasoning about how this whole system fits together will find the worst 5% of cases who really are disaffected by the system and pretend that it's everyone.

 

[ey_tony]

Yes the OU was brilliant. Founded by the Labour party to make education more accessible - open to all in fact! Paid for by the tax payer. One of Labours greatest achievements. Certainly Harold Wislon's. That's socialism for you!
I did a few too. Last one was MST 121 Maths a few years ago. Felt I was getting rusty.

You don't think Eton or Harrow convey any advantage at all?

The biggest advantage a parent can give their offspring is not money or wealth, it's teaching their kids the value of education. I lost my parents when they were quite young but their legacy of valuing education lingered with me.
The state education is fine. As well as having friends who are fortunate for their kids to attend private schools, I also have friends who are far from wealthy and their kids go to the local state school but even so, if the state educated kids put in the study with the same rigour as most kids attending private schools, the advantages are minimised, in fact they do as well as most privately educated kids. Some of the state educated kids I know even attend Oxford and Cambridge so state education is no barrier if the student is determined and they have supportive parents.
Unfortunately one can't do much about nepotism but that happens in all walks of life.

Most parents want their kids to do well, I know I did and I made sure they were equipped with an education that prepared them for life.

My oldest daughter wasn't remotely academic and didn't do well at all during her school years which is common but surprisingly her determination paid off and she is now a senior regional inspector of council nursing homes. She owns several rental properties and along with her sister she is the owner of more than one business, drives a Range Rover and recently for fun is part owner of two race horses.
The highest GCSE she attained was a D grade but it hasn't held her back as I understood her needs and taught her business and economics and she is a very successful person in her own right.

My other daughter has a law degree, also owns rental properties and is a partner in two businesses and also drives a Range Rover. She also delivers legal advice at the local university to the heads of social services as laws change.
She too went to a state school and has done well in life so state education is basically just as good as private in most instances.

As for your comment on the OU I fully agree, it's a brilliant way of learning and I'd recommend it to anyone wishing to take up further education. Unfortunately too many people see school as the only education they need and don't realise that academic education is an ongoing process and can be the key to a far better future.

 

[julianf]

Have either of you looked up the cost of OU degrees recently?

 

[Dibs-h]

A few years ago I did a quick survey of my classmates of that time and getting on for 90% of them were in business for themselves and they had the same education as myself me, so all this left wing level playing field business is mostly clap trap.

Corrected it for you.

 

[Jacob]

Have either of you looked up the cost of OU degrees recently?

Yes. Expensive. As with so many things it is being undermined by the tories, who really have only one item on their agenda - to keep taxation low.
I believe you can get the student loan for it, but it's still a deterrent.

 

[selectortone]

Does it really ruin the NHS, or does it make up for budget shortfalls with the NHS?

In the case of block bookings by private hospitals of major equipment like MRI scanners, radiotherapy units etc, in NHS hospitals, it puts NHS patients to the back of the queue. I have seen this with my own eyes. My wife was dying of cancer so I was hardly likely to object to queue-jumping, but how many NHS second-class citizens have been denied timely treatment for life-threatening conditions because of these practices?

 

[D_W]

Is NHS changing the timeline to collect extra revenue from private sources? If they are, that would seem to be suspect.

or is one of the reasons that the NHS is able to get the volume of equipment they have because of that extra revenue?

 

[ey_tony]

Corrected it for you.

That's awfully kind of you

 

[Terry - Somerset]

It may come as something of a surprise, but the largest "sell off" in the NHS in the last 40 years came under the Blair government - mainly PFI deals.

NHS expenditure over the last 40 years has increased under every administration - in fairness at a faster rate under the Labour government. Whether this was prudent, reckless or contributed to austerity for several years following the financial crisis is debatable.

More fundamentally - what defines the NHS. It was originally established in 1948 to provide health care to all based upon need, and free at the point of delivery.

The original intent was rapidly compromised when it came to dental and eye care. Medical capability has also changed radically without properly addressing how these changes may impact upon the NHS mission.

As the government is accepting responsibility for the provision of health care, how that commitment is discharged should be that which delivers the best outcomes. Cost and quality are the main drivers. Whether it is delivered using state or private sector resources is incidental.

Most would not expect the NHS to run construction companies, farms to grow the food used by hospital kitchens, engineering companies to manufacture diagnostic equipment, etc. Nor do we need them to maintain hospital grounds, manufacture drugs, surgical equipment etc.

To summarise - the NHS has always used the private sector to deliver capability to the public sector.

Providing accountability remains firmly with government there should be no fundamental barrier to private sector involvement. That the NHS is somehow uniquely capable is flawed - they are excellent at many things but for from uniquely able at all.

They could learn much from the private sector - a far better balance of private and public sector capability may produce a better health service.

 

[Jacob]

In the case of block bookings by private hospitals of major equipment like MRI scanners, radiotherapy units etc, in NHS hospitals, it puts NHS patients to the back of the queue. I have seen this with my own eyes. My wife was dying of cancer so I was hardly likely to object to queue-jumping, but how many NHS second-class citizens have been denied timely treatment for life-threatening conditions because of these practices?

On the other hand - the worst thing to happen to me healthwise was complete break of quadriceps tendons in a fall. 10 years ago. Potentially permanent disability unless treated (sewn back together) very quickly 24 hours.
Was rescued by ambulance in deep snow, wooshed off to hosp, examined by teams of people including trainees with clip boards, sewn back together again very quickly. Two nights in hosp and thrown out.
My only complaint was that they kept waking me up in the night to see if I was OK and offering me cups of tea.
Lots of after-care, hosp visits and monitoring with adjustable splints, about a year to recover as it's a big one, worse than bone fracture.
So what?
I found an American chat group on the topic as it's a major sports injury, skiers etc (I just fell down some steps). The stories they had to tell were appalling - insurance checks, delays, enormous bills, delayed operations with bad outcomes , etc etc.
All NHS, I paid absolutely nothing and had top notch treatment.
Happy to pay taxes! All for one and one for all!

 

[Jacob]

It may come as something of a surprise, but the largest "sell off" in the NHS in the last 40 years came under the Blair government - mainly PFI deals.

Blair was a bit of a delusion. All promises and little delivery

....- a far better balance of private and public sector capability may produce a better health service.

The NHS is a brilliant service on a scale unimaginable to private health care and also extremely cost effective. It's become normal to talk it down and sell it off bit by bit.