Vote winning party policies

Unfortunately I have observed a two tier health care system developing for some time in the UK I know of quite a few who have drawn on savings for essential operations because they cannot wait for years with debilitating health conditions. Those who do not have that option are left to suffer. It seems to me that private health insurance has always been part of the plan since this government has been in power, and they are ideologically committed to it.

Will it improve things……
Well dental treatment has gone down the private/insurance route, where excellent cosmetic, restorative treatment available to those who can pay huge costs, or expensive insurance whilst the those who can’t are unable to access even basic dental treatment.

Who would have thought that in an affluent country such as ours folk are reduced to removing their own teeth or waiting for many years in pain for essential surgery.

However, the people who do pay for their treatment is then allowing someone who can not pay to get their treatment earlier. I am not saying that is correct or how it should be, but the person who can not afford to pay will be overjoyed if they get their treatment earlier purely because a person has paid privately for theirs. One of our AC actually went in for an operation to a private hospital very quickly but on the NHS

There is a major flaw in this argument - which is that there is a finite number of Doctors, Surgeons, hospital beds, operating theatres, etc. Those who pay to jump the queue, do not shorten NHS waiting lists, they are only taking priority over those who may be in more need of urgent treatment.

love0c

Alegrias I do understand where you are coming from. However, the people who do pay for their treatment is then allowing someone who can not pay to get their treatment earlier. I am not saying that is correct or how it should be, but the person who can not afford to pay will be overjoyed if they get their treatment earlier purely because a person has paid privately for theirs. One of our AC actually went in for an operation to a private hospital very quickly but on the NHS.

It doesn't work like that! Private health care doesn't mean there are more staff or facilities to treat those who pay for care. It means queue-jumping and available staff not being available for those who can't afford to pay. It also means that those who can afford to queue-jump don't have an incentive to improve the service for the majority.

Snap Granny23. We've made the same point. It's a false argument.

This is an old article but it highlighted how many MPs have links with private health care companies www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g6982

Polices what polices

Keir Starmer today relaunched his version of Labour.
How many times has he done this, now? Seven? Eight?

His speech contained no substance at all.

Starmer lays out his ‘vision for the country’.
Everyone ‘should’ have this that & the other. How are you going to deliver change? Where are the fully costed policies?

Does that include Palestinians? What about anti-Zionist Jews, you know those that oppose crimes against humanity such as apartheid!
How about true progressives who want a kinder, fairer society.

You are a racist & a proven liar & should be NOWHERE NEAR POWER
(I agree)
just like Johnson!

Twitter

A lot of private heath care comes as part of employment package especially if you work for a large company, they want you back working ASAP. A lot of private hospital staff work both NHS and do agency /bank shifts.
Private Schools, have you ever stood at the private day school gates with parents who hold down extra jobs to pay for it? No long holidays, or flashy houses they are just investing in their children. Plus paying their working dues. It the individuals choice.

With respect to private schools...

It doesn't matter to me what people have to do to get their children a private education. Friends of mine have spoken proudly about how hard they work, how many things they have given up - all to get little Johnny to the better school.

Well little Johnny deserved the same education as everybody else, and it shouldn't depend on parents with more money, or their ability to work harder. The fact that we think people should work two jobs just so that their child gets a good start in life is disgusting.

Children deserve a good start in life whether their parents are super-rich or long term sick who can't work. Private education is the sign of a warped and unfair society. IMO.

Have you ever stood next to people who do a second job because they need to pay for a roof over their head, food and heating?

No, the people at the private school gates are paying for an advantage which most people can't afford, however many jobs they have.

Farzanah

Unfortunately I have observed a two tier health care system developing for some time in the UK I know of quite a few who have drawn on savings for essential operations because they cannot wait for years with debilitating health conditions. Those who do not have that option are left to suffer. It seems to me that private health insurance has always been part of the plan since this government has been in power, and they are ideologically committed to it.

Will it improve things……
Well dental treatment has gone down the private/insurance route, where excellent cosmetic, restorative treatment available to those who can pay huge costs, or expensive insurance whilst the those who can’t are unable to access even basic dental treatment.

Who would have thought that in an affluent country such as ours folk are reduced to removing their own teeth or waiting for many years in pain for essential surgery.

Private health cover, since the NHS inception has always been available. No one, not even a Labour Gov would take that choice away from people. Don’t let’s forget the PFI initiative, which in itself is costing millions, started by Major, greatly enhanced by Blair. As for those in private care, who need NHS input, what do we do about those who go overseas for cosmetic reasons, and arrive home with infected wounds, and as in one case, a breast implant which had burst on the flight home. Do we also not treat them because they were private.
In many European countries all must have some form of insurance, as well as state input, for medical care. I agree the Government, of whatever colour, should increase spending, but we should also be prepared to pay more.

I thank the statue of Nye Bevan every time I am in Cardiff for the NHS. My daughter is an insulin dependent diabetic, with all the concommitent health risks, but the one thing she does not have to worry about is the cost of the insulin which keeps her alive.
She is, of course, unable to move to the USA, as she could not afford to buy what she needs, and is uninsurable. Be careful about the risks of that happening here.
Oh - and don't get me started on how life can be in the States if you give birth to a child with significant medical needs...

I agree that we should pay more Lincslass because our spending on health per head of the population is lower than most G7 countries. However come election time the party that promises lowest taxation usually wins.
My point was that people are ever increasingly being forced down the private route for necessary health care that is readily available to those who can pay. People are taking out loans in my experience because they cannot suffer waiting in pain for treatment.
For example the trend in demand and personal payment for private health treatment has increased in last 10 yrs from about 26 billion to around 42 billion. This does not include money spent by the NHS on private provision.
Private health is a lucrative industry.

This is strong stuff…..

@We_OwnIt

· Jan 4
Who's to blame for the pressure on our NHS? Clue: it's not GPs. The government is wasting time on a health bill that will worsen privatisation when they should be funding and fixing our NHS.

NHS doctor @andrewmeyerson shuts down the government's attempt to blame GPs for delays?

twitter.com/Cherrybeath/status/1478392640525766662?s=20

The Health and Care Bill is going through parliament

Tories have never wanted the NHS although they went along with it reluctantly at its inception. Thatcher wanted to get of it but was persuaded by her ministers not to because it would be a vote loser.

Former neighbours believed that everybody should have what they could pay for. Their son had cancer - dealt with by private medicine until he had a recurrence. Thrown back onto the NHS. Sadly he died. They changed their attitude towards private versus NHS.

That sad story Dinahmo would be replicated thousands of times if we were to go down the insurance route in UK.
I’m sure private health insurance policies that people hold here contain many exclusion clauses. These companies are profit led, not charitable institutions, and their market is growing because of the steady erosion of the NHS.
Many Americans struggle to pay high premiums and there is the additional worry of losing employer health insurance if one loses one’s job.

Despite their wonderful 'healthcare if you can afford it' life expectancy in the US is less for both women and men.

Pre covid it was about 2 years less for both sexes than that of the UK.

True MaizieD. Plus their “wonderful” health care costs are highest in the world.
For example in US in 2021 a standard hip replacement on average = $29,067
in UK = $16,335
Drugs. US - Avastin = $3,930 UK = $470.
For those who advocate an insurance based system I would say be careful what you wish for.

Nobody is answering the OP

My view is that policies have to be good either for the country as a whole or a certain group ( such as the disabled/ children)
But that both main political parties have to have some appealing vote catching policies as well, or they would never be in power.

Exactly lemongrove and that sentiment echoes my comment yesterday at 9.15 am, though I didn't have time to expand on it.
Tony Blair won over many additional supporters in 1997 with his vote winning policy Education, Education, Education. How come? Because rather than getting dragged into silly squabbles over school choices, his emphasis was on pushing up standards for ALL children, particularly in numeracy and literacy in primary schools. Despite my own children being at private prep schools at the time and my teaching in one, I voted for his party at the time because I felt that a good start was what every child deserved. So in this instance what the party felt was right and what suited their agenda was also a vote winning policy on a grand scale, even amongst those who might not have traditionally voted for them.

Hi Boat! Seems a shame your broad question was diverted into a narrow field. Better luck next time!

Kim19

Hi Boat! Seems a shame your broad question was diverted into a narrow field. Better luck next time!

Yes, maybe that is because sometimes people are too stuck in their own preferences to want to consider the wider picture?

Thanks lemongrove and others. I must confess this thread went in a direction I hadn't foreseen.

For what it's worth I am English but think of myself primarily as British. Nether the less I'm happy about Devolution. I think it is bad enough that areas of England that Westminster thinks of as remote have little influence on what happens to them how much worse for nations that are part of the Union whose culture and history are ignored if not suppressed?

If I had a vote in a Scottish Referendum on Independence I would back yes.

But back to my OP.

I am concerned that all politicians are seen by a lot of people as dishonest and out for their own good. In a democracy this is not healthy and going for vote catching policies only makes this worse especially as this is what the press will report it as.

I am not a Keir Starmer fan but thought of him as more or less honest and was disappointed to read that he was emphasising how patriotic the Labour Party is. I don't think this is the real point of Labour.

Yes, back in 1939, most members would have signed up or done useful work in the war effort but when the war was over they would have reverted to the main aim, fair treatment for working people.

I see nothing wrong with going for vote winning policies provided that they are actually carried out. For me privatisation of the rail network and utilities would be a good start.

The following is a little something that I found and it relates just to Southern Water.

"In 2021, Southern Water accounts showed accumulated net debt of £5.1 billion, and a remuneration package for the CEO worth over £1 million (including a bonus of £550,900). The average annual Southern Water dividend payout over the last ten years is £57 million. ... Water is not like any other commodity.16 Aug 2021"

Anglian Water is owned partly by a Canadian pension fund (30%) and partly by Australian companies. Some UK companies also own a part.

"Anglian Water’s CEO, Peter Simpson, was paid £1,544,000 in 2017 in salary and bonuses. In 2018, Anglian Water's highest paid director received £1,921,000 in salary, bonuses and other perks."

"Anglian Water loses 180 million litres of water every day through leaky pipes. Report in November 2021"

I suspect that this story will apply to the other water companies.