On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:28:02 +0000, Matt
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:

I paid for private primary and secondary education out of income at
highest marginal rate because state education has become woefully
inadequate. I received nothing back from the local authority for
that.

Nor should you.

I disagree. As I said, I was and am perfectly happy to contribute
to the general fund for education in addition to paying school fees.

However, I think that there should be two aspects - funding and
provision.
The funding aspect should be used as a means of collecting the money
based on the ability to pay. That should then be used to provide an
amount of money per child being educated which is sufficient to pay
for that education in a state school or a privately run one operating
on a similar cost model to state schools.

The provisioning aspect is quite different. The state can continue
to provide education as before. The private sector can provide
schools either at the same price point (for which complete funding
from the state would be provided), or for parents who wish to
supplement said funding, schools with smaller class sizes and/or
better facilities.


There should be something at least as a tax break or as a contribution
from the local authority for education. I'm perfectly happy to pay
into the pot for those who wish to use the state system, but I do
think that the state should at least recompense the equivalent amount
spent in the state system to educate a child to those wishing to
choose an alternative.

Just because you choose to not take up the offer of free state
education does not mean that the costs of state provision can be
totally ignored or just "transferred". A state provided
classroom/teacher lying idle or half full because a number of
similarly misguided parents sent their little Jane's and Johnny's to a
private school still carries costs.

It's far from misguided to send a child to a private school. The
results in terms of educational and other outcome are plain to see;
and I found, very well worth the money.




In the extreme this could lead to
closure of the state school and bussing of pupils considerable
distances to alternatives. Closure of a school can have a huge impact
on life in a small village (and elsewhere)

That assumes that it all operates on the same cost model. It is well
known that smaller class and school sizes lead to better educational
results, which is one of the reason why the comprehensive megaschools
have failed so badly.

We ended use of the state system when my daughter, aged 6, and had a
reading ability way ahead of her peers was being deliberately held
back and who was also asked to help the younger kids, aged 5 to learn
to read. This is simply not acceptable.

There is no doubt that more money needs to be spent on education in
order to reduce class sizes. Therefore it would be a positive step if
the range of choice were expanded into the private sector, with
equivalent state funding.




Healthcare is even worse. The same bad principles apply, the state
service is a mess and should have been shut down years ago. All of
the above taxes apply, plus additional ones if an employer provides
health insurance as a benefit.

If you are stupid or greedy or selfish enough to consider private
healthcare then your choice must be for everything and that includes
accident and emergency services. No piggy backing AT ALL on the state
system. If you sustain an injury and there is evidence that you are
in a private healthcare scheme then there should be measures put in
place so you have to wait until the private ambulance turns up. If
you die in the meantime then tough, you made an "informed choice" and
the brochure looked good.

That's just silly bigotry.

In other countries systems of state and private ambulances, emergency
and non emergency healthcare are implemented and work perfectly well
together.



A private room with Sky TV, gourmet food and a nymphomaniac nurse?

I wish. Have you ever been in a private hospital?

The main differences are

- I can go when it suits me, not when the state decides

- I'm not kept hanging around for hours waiting for appointments

- I get a private room that is kept properly clean, several times a
day, so the chances of cross infection are much reduced. Frankly, I
don't want to be ill in the company of total strangers, thanks.

- The ratio of staff to patient is better

- The staff treat me as a person and not as a number who should be
grateful for what the state provides.

- Food is adequate, but far from gourmet.

........... or proper state healthcare for all with the best
facilities and best treatment regardless of the ability of the
individual to pay?

The trouble is that the state doesn't provide proper healthcare. If
it did, then I wouldn't mind.

Again, funding and provisioning should be separated in the same way as
for education. There should be funding from the state system
(collected from general taxation) to provide vouchers for everybody to
use towards healthcare. These should be sufficient for the
individual to obtain healthcare from a state run facility or if they
choose, an equivalent private one. People wishing to supplement the
voucher value with cash or insurance should be able to do so without
penalty.


Private education stinks and so does private healthcare. The sooner
they were *totally* eliminated from British society the better.

That's not very likely to happen, and if it did, then people will shop
elsewhere.

The real point is that the state has become far too big in all of
these areas. In a civilised environment, of course the less well off
people should be helped by those able to do so to some extent.
However, this should not be done to the extent of penalising those
most able to help for wanting to make their own choices.

Therefore, I think that it is quite reasonable for the state to be
involved in the collection and distribution of funding.

I think that it is quite unreasonable for the state to be involved to
the extent that it is in the provisioning of services. It can be a
player, along with others in provisioning, but ultimately the customer
should be able to decide.

The mentality in much of the state run services is that the person in
receipt of services (be it healthcare, education or anything else) is
somehow getting something for nothing and should be grateful for what
they get. It is a classic excuse for providing crappy service and
blaming others for shortcomings that could easily be addressed.

These massive state run organisations are well past their sell-by date
and should be pensioned off as a relic of the 1950s.


--

..andy