|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 15:32:21 GMT
I agree However regardless of your background or school you go to pupils need to work and also be kept in check at home. I bet there was a difference between what most parents at Crosby and Croxley pushed their kids or made sure homework was done etc Kids can succeed in all environments. I understand it may be harder in state school but kids need to understand that they have to work hard in school get the quals they need for work. There are good teachers out their working in less than perfect conditions. I’d say the bad kids are a minority. In general they do a great job The bottom line is always parents. Teaching children self discipline and responsibility is what good parents do. You get nowhere without hard work is something I've drilled into mine. 100%. I see it all the time. Kids whose parents have actively gone out of their way to teach them that: Teachers are out to get them School is designed to make you stupid Beware of the staff, they're trying to trip you up Don't take any tellings off, stick up for yourself and fight them tooth and nail You don't have to do anything you don't want to do If you get a detention then let me know immediately and I'll kick off until it's rescinded School is a waste of time It's frustrating because by the time they come to us in secondary, that mindset is already practically impossible to reverse. They're so full of resentment, mistrust and anger that you can hardly get them to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 15:38:23 GMT
That's the issue for me. Education in it's original form was to give everyone enough knowledge and skills to work in a factory. Education based on 'what job can you get with this' will always be low-quality, because it doesn't base itself in contentment of people or indeed in truth, because we don't know the jobs of 10 years in the future. Education should be free for all throughout life, and it should be there to better yourself. Education up until 18 should be based around skills and depth of knowledge. In physics in particular, plenty of people get straight 9s in GCSE, and can't deal with University or careers in physics because they have only learned to remember facts and how to answer specific questions. Until we base education on wanting people to be conscientious, creative, and happy in later life, enjoying what they want to do, we will always have the same problems. Don't chat bullshit, if it's free, who's going to pay us? I certainly couldn't afford to carry on teaching kids without my monthly pay. Or do you mean funded through taxation? Because that's not free, you're just saying someone else should pay for it. Fine, it should be funded through taxation. If people want to go to college/university/etc and better themselves, at whatever point in life, I think they should be able to. Obviously that is a long way off, but still how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 22, 2019 15:43:24 GMT
The poorer children locally got an excellent education from 4 local grammar schools until Labour put a stop to it. I know people who are not rich but make sacrifices to send their kids to private schools. Sometimes to avoid the unpalatable alternative to destroying their lives in the company of morons who don't want to learn, are hellbent on being disruptive and basically fuck other children's lives up and this is before the bullying is taken into account. This is the world that Corbyn's Labour aspire to. It's a honourable aspiration but not unfortunately taking into account the real world out there. It also begs the question why you don't teach in a state school. The problem there is because around grammar schools, house prices rise, students at private prep schools do better in entrance exams, and you end up getting a more wealthy demographic entering anyway. I think it's better to pump the money into the state sector that it needs, and at least attempt to educate all, rather than accepting that the rich are hugely disproportionately likely to get opportunities. I don't teach in the state sector because my mental health wouldn't cope with the stresses. I accept this is a bit hypocritical but I put quite a lot of work in (at least for an early career teacher) to come up with ideas and concepts that could help physics education for the whole sector, state and private. That's not true about property prices simply because grammar schools are not catchment based schools , outstanding state schools are based on catchment so they will affect property prices . Our local grammar schools accept pupils from neighboring counties that abolished them .
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 22, 2019 15:45:44 GMT
Don't chat bullshit, if it's free, who's going to pay us? I certainly couldn't afford to carry on teaching kids without my monthly pay. Or do you mean funded through taxation? Because that's not free, you're just saying someone else should pay for it. Fine, it should be funded through taxation. If people want to go to college/university/etc and better themselves, at whatever point in life, I think they should be able to. Obviously that is a long way off, but still how I see it. Everyone is able to better themselves. Some people just can’t be arsed
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 22, 2019 15:48:42 GMT
The problem there is because around grammar schools, house prices rise, students at private prep schools do better in entrance exams, and you end up getting a more wealthy demographic entering anyway. I think it's better to pump the money into the state sector that it needs, and at least attempt to educate all, rather than accepting that the rich are hugely disproportionately likely to get opportunities. I don't teach in the state sector because my mental health wouldn't cope with the stresses. I accept this is a bit hypocritical but I put quite a lot of work in (at least for an early career teacher) to come up with ideas and concepts that could help physics education for the whole sector, state and private. That's not true about property prices simply because grammar schools are not catchment based schools , outstanding state schools are based on catchment so they will affect property prices . Our local grammar schools accept pupils from neighboring counties that abolished them . So young and full of answers. The lad needs to spend some time around the problems
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 15:50:42 GMT
The problem there is because around grammar schools, house prices rise, students at private prep schools do better in entrance exams, and you end up getting a more wealthy demographic entering anyway. I think it's better to pump the money into the state sector that it needs, and at least attempt to educate all, rather than accepting that the rich are hugely disproportionately likely to get opportunities. I don't teach in the state sector because my mental health wouldn't cope with the stresses. I accept this is a bit hypocritical but I put quite a lot of work in (at least for an early career teacher) to come up with ideas and concepts that could help physics education for the whole sector, state and private. That's not true about property prices simply because grammar schools are not catchment based schools , outstanding state schools are based on catchment so they will affect property prices . Our local grammar schools accept pupils from neighboring counties that abolished them . Completely fair, I stand corrected on that point! But house prices in general are certainly more expensive around grammar schools. If not for catchment it may well just be rich people wanting their kids to be able to walk in to school!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 15:54:07 GMT
Fine, it should be funded through taxation. If people want to go to college/university/etc and better themselves, at whatever point in life, I think they should be able to. Obviously that is a long way off, but still how I see it. Everyone is able to better themselves. Some people just can’t be arsed Okay let's say you wanted to go into a job that required a degree, and you were, say, 30 years old. Would you be able to afford to take 3 years out of your job, living off student loans that just about pay for rent and bills, with nothing left for food and uni supplies, in order to do that? Education should be a right, not a privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 15:54:46 GMT
Don't chat bullshit, if it's free, who's going to pay us? I certainly couldn't afford to carry on teaching kids without my monthly pay. Or do you mean funded through taxation? Because that's not free, you're just saying someone else should pay for it. Fine, it should be funded through taxation. If people want to go to college/university/etc and better themselves, at whatever point in life, I think they should be able to. Obviously that is a long way off, but still how I see it. They can and they do, and it's funded through loans. Very cheap and affordable loans. It's a nonsense that people should be able to go and do a three year jolly, squandering grants and making really poor financial decisions, and everybody else has to pay for it with no consequences for those doing it. If you want an education, brilliant. There's plenty of help out there as it is, but there's also accountability and a reliance on personal responsibility. It discourages people from doing frivolous studies and theoretically means that you'll work harder, since the buck stops with you.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 15:58:02 GMT
Fine, it should be funded through taxation. If people want to go to college/university/etc and better themselves, at whatever point in life, I think they should be able to. Obviously that is a long way off, but still how I see it. They can and they do, and it's funded through loans. Very cheap and affordable loans. It's a nonsense that people should be able to go and do a three year jolly, squandering grants and making really poor financial decisions, and everybody else has to pay for it with no consequences for those doing it. If you want an education, brilliant. There's plenty of help out there as it is, but there's also accountability and a reliance on personal responsibility. It discourages people from doing frivolous studies and theoretically means that you'll work harder, since the buck stops with you. I came out of university £1500 into an overdraft, because my loan didn't pay for my rent and bills fully. I got extra from my parents who absolutely couldn't afford what they were giving me so I could get food, and occasionally go out. University is not a 3 year jolly. It's brilliant and fun and well worthwhile, but it's also a fucking difficult grind, especially in some subjects. What is frivolous? Studies that are traditionally 'frivolous' cost universities nearly nothing. Almost all of the £9k a year from every student subsidises STEM subjects. Besides, since when did doing a degree only benefit the person doing it? People going to university benefits everyone. Graduates themselves pay disproportionately for that privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:02:12 GMT
Everyone is able to better themselves. Some people just can’t be arsed Okay let's say you wanted to go into a job that required a degree, and you were, say, 30 years old. Would you be able to afford to take 3 years out of your job, living off student loans that just about pay for rent and bills, with nothing left for food and uni supplies, in order to do that? Education should be a right, not a privilege. There cannot ever be such a thing as a "positive" right, ie that it is enshrined in law that somebody can have something, because on that line, somebody else will be forced to pay for it or to otherwise provide it. If we agree that money is a physical representation of someone's time (labour and skill), then confiscating it under the threat of violence (which is what taxation essentially is) is slavery. On a long enough time scale, if you are guaranteeing something as an inalienable guaranteed right, you are also implying that the government have the right to force providers of services to do that against their will. If you are in healthcare, education, any of these services that you seem to be saying are right, you need to watch your back, because if there's a shortage of providers, you'll be made to work extra hours etc to fulfil that right. It's a nonsense. You can only ever protect negative rights, so nobody can prevent you from seeking access to education, but you cannot promise someone that they will 100% get it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 22, 2019 16:04:30 GMT
They can and they do, and it's funded through loans. Very cheap and affordable loans. It's a nonsense that people should be able to go and do a three year jolly, squandering grants and making really poor financial decisions, and everybody else has to pay for it with no consequences for those doing it. If you want an education, brilliant. There's plenty of help out there as it is, but there's also accountability and a reliance on personal responsibility. It discourages people from doing frivolous studies and theoretically means that you'll work harder, since the buck stops with you. I came out of university £1500 into an overdraft, because my loan didn't pay for my rent and bills fully. I got extra from my parents who absolutely couldn't afford what they were giving me so I could get food, and occasionally go out. University is not a 3 year jolly. It's brilliant and fun and well worthwhile, but it's also a fucking difficult grind, especially in some subjects. What is frivolous? Studies that are traditionally 'frivolous' cost universities nearly nothing. Almost all of the £9k a year from every student subsidises STEM subjects. Besides, since when did doing a degree only benefit the person doing it? People going to university benefits everyone. Graduates themselves pay disproportionately for that privilege. It’s a choice though. You could have gone and trained as a plasterer. It’s hard work you know but it does pay quite well I know a hardworking plasterer who works his bollocks off because he wanted his son to have a private education. He carried on working his bollocks off to ensure his son could have a half decent time in university. That boy ended up having a great start in life that many other plasterers children do not. I chose the army over a levels and uni. CHOICE Some kids choose fucking about in school. Some kids choose wasting 3 years fucking about in university.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:06:15 GMT
Okay let's say you wanted to go into a job that required a degree, and you were, say, 30 years old. Would you be able to afford to take 3 years out of your job, living off student loans that just about pay for rent and bills, with nothing left for food and uni supplies, in order to do that? Education should be a right, not a privilege. There cannot ever be such a thing as a "positive" right, ie that it is enshrined in law that somebody can have something, because on that line, somebody else will be forced to pay for it or to otherwise provide it. If we agree that money is a physical representation of someone's time (labour and skill), then confiscating it under the threat of violence (which is what taxation essentially is) is slavery. On a long enough time scale, if you are guaranteeing something as an inalienable guaranteed right, you are also implying that the government have the right to force providers of services to do that against their will. If you are in healthcare, education, any of these services that you seem to be saying are right, you need to watch your back, because if there's a shortage of providers, you'll be made to work extra hours etc to fulfil that right. It's a nonsense. You can only ever protect negative rights, so nobody can prevent you from seeking access to education, but you cannot promise someone that they will 100% get it. Nope. Healthcare should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. Education should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. There are plenty of people who would be teachers and doctors if the job wasn't a hellhole of despair.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:09:40 GMT
I came out of university £1500 into an overdraft, because my loan didn't pay for my rent and bills fully. I got extra from my parents who absolutely couldn't afford what they were giving me so I could get food, and occasionally go out. University is not a 3 year jolly. It's brilliant and fun and well worthwhile, but it's also a fucking difficult grind, especially in some subjects. What is frivolous? Studies that are traditionally 'frivolous' cost universities nearly nothing. Almost all of the £9k a year from every student subsidises STEM subjects. Besides, since when did doing a degree only benefit the person doing it? People going to university benefits everyone. Graduates themselves pay disproportionately for that privilege. It’s a choice though. You could have gone and trained as a plasterer. It’s hard work you know but it does pay quite well I know a hardworking plasterer who works his bollocks off because he wanted his son to have a private education. He carried on working his bollocks off to ensure his son could have a half decent time in university. That boy ended up having a great start in life that many other plasterers children do not. I chose the army over a levels and uni. CHOICE Some kids choose fucking about in school. Some kids choose wasting 3 years fucking about in university. It's not nowadays though. Companies are asking for higher and higher levels of qualification to get jobs. Are you saying that if I didn't happen to have a dad who worked hard and sent me to private school and helped me through uni, I should therefore restrict my opportunities in life and go and do something I am either not wanting to do or not good at, because surely we should aim for a world where fewer and fewer people have to make a choice like that?
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:09:50 GMT
They can and they do, and it's funded through loans. Very cheap and affordable loans. It's a nonsense that people should be able to go and do a three year jolly, squandering grants and making really poor financial decisions, and everybody else has to pay for it with no consequences for those doing it. If you want an education, brilliant. There's plenty of help out there as it is, but there's also accountability and a reliance on personal responsibility. It discourages people from doing frivolous studies and theoretically means that you'll work harder, since the buck stops with you. I came out of university £1500 into an overdraft, because my loan didn't pay for my rent and bills fully. I got extra from my parents who absolutely couldn't afford what they were giving me so I could get food, and occasionally go out. University is not a 3 year jolly. It's brilliant and fun and well worthwhile, but it's also a fucking difficult grind, especially in some subjects. What is frivolous? Studies that are traditionally 'frivolous' cost universities nearly nothing. Almost all of the £9k a year from every student subsidises STEM subjects. Besides, since when did doing a degree only benefit the person doing it? People going to university benefits everyone. Graduates themselves pay disproportionately for that privilege. This is life and the reality of university, you knew this before you went into it and chose to do it anyway, there's absolutely no good in complaining about it after the fact when nobody made you do it. The only excuse you could use here is that you didn't know it would be that expensive, but that only shows you didn't research it properly first. I call a frivolous degree one which is undertaken with little to no regard as to how it will affect their employability chances afterwards, of which there are thousands. And yes, an educated society is better than an uneducated one, but that does not mean that it is is right or reasonable to expect fiscally responsible, hard working non-graduates who may well have purposefully avoided university to avoid debt, to pay for someone else to go. Especially if they then drop out and waste the money, or go on to be successful and get to make great personal profit from a graduate job.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 22, 2019 16:12:03 GMT
That's not true about property prices simply because grammar schools are not catchment based schools , outstanding state schools are based on catchment so they will affect property prices . Our local grammar schools accept pupils from neighboring counties that abolished them . Completely fair, I stand corrected on that point! But house prices in general are certainly more expensive around grammar schools. If not for catchment it may well just be rich people wanting their kids to be able to walk in to school! As I've just said grammar schools cast their nets far and wide and service a wide area , we have three grammar schools in our town center and walking to school will not be an option for 99.9% of the pupils
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 22, 2019 16:13:42 GMT
It’s a choice though. You could have gone and trained as a plasterer. It’s hard work you know but it does pay quite well I know a hardworking plasterer who works his bollocks off because he wanted his son to have a private education. He carried on working his bollocks off to ensure his son could have a half decent time in university. That boy ended up having a great start in life that many other plasterers children do not. I chose the army over a levels and uni. CHOICE Some kids choose fucking about in school. Some kids choose wasting 3 years fucking about in university. It's not nowadays though. Companies are asking for higher and higher levels of qualification to get jobs. Are you saying that if I didn't happen to have a dad who worked hard and sent me to private school and helped me through uni, I should therefore restrict my opportunities in life and go and do something I am either not wanting to do or not good at, because surely we should aim for a world where fewer and fewer people have to make a choice like that? No your opportunities were not restricted at all. You had the drive to do it. However your hard work and opportunities were enhanced by your fathers willingness to give you a massive helping hand. I’m sure that there were people on your uni course who had rich parents and did not get loans or use over drafts. The other end of the scale is there were people who came away with more debt than you. It’s easy to look at the rich kids who had it all handed to them but there will be poor kids jealous of the start you had.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:14:30 GMT
There cannot ever be such a thing as a "positive" right, ie that it is enshrined in law that somebody can have something, because on that line, somebody else will be forced to pay for it or to otherwise provide it. If we agree that money is a physical representation of someone's time (labour and skill), then confiscating it under the threat of violence (which is what taxation essentially is) is slavery. On a long enough time scale, if you are guaranteeing something as an inalienable guaranteed right, you are also implying that the government have the right to force providers of services to do that against their will. If you are in healthcare, education, any of these services that you seem to be saying are right, you need to watch your back, because if there's a shortage of providers, you'll be made to work extra hours etc to fulfil that right. It's a nonsense. You can only ever protect negative rights, so nobody can prevent you from seeking access to education, but you cannot promise someone that they will 100% get it. Nope. Healthcare should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. Education should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. There are plenty of people who would be teachers and doctors if the job wasn't a hellhole of despair. To say that these services are rights is to say that the professionals providing these rights have no autonomy over their labour. You are an advocate of slavery.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:19:10 GMT
It's not nowadays though. Companies are asking for higher and higher levels of qualification to get jobs. Are you saying that if I didn't happen to have a dad who worked hard and sent me to private school and helped me through uni, I should therefore restrict my opportunities in life and go and do something I am either not wanting to do or not good at, because surely we should aim for a world where fewer and fewer people have to make a choice like that? No your opportunities were not restricted at all. You had the drive to do it. However your hard work and opportunities were enhanced by your fathers willingness to give you a massive helping hand. I’m sure that there were people on your uni course who had rich parents and did not get loans or use over drafts. The other end of the scale is there were people who came away with more debt than you. It’s easy to look at the rich kids who had it all handed to them but there will be poor kids jealous of the start you had. That's what I mean. It shouldn't take my parents ruining their lives for 21 years for me to get the opportunities I have done. Everyone should have the chance to get a good education and go to university without worrying about debt, costs, or being able to survive.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:19:30 GMT
Nope. Healthcare should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. Education should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it and those who want to work in it can do so without fear of their work-life balance becoming destroyed. There are plenty of people who would be teachers and doctors if the job wasn't a hellhole of despair. To say that these services are rights is to say that the professionals providing these rights have no autonomy over their labour. You are an advocate of slavery. Do you disagree with the NHS then?
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 22, 2019 16:24:15 GMT
Just listened to that. Education in a Post Industrial Age has got to be different than in an Industrial Age..hence the 'Paradigm' shift in thinking needed. We live in a very different world now than when I left school, economically and culturally. I'm not sure whether the education has caught up with that. The questions being: What are we educating children for? What will be be tomorrow's jobs? How long before we do away with a lot of the bricks and mortar educational establishments? Can't a lot of education be done online now anyway? It seems a very expensive system to me, ok when there were no alternatives but there are now.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:32:30 GMT
To say that these services are rights is to say that the professionals providing these rights have no autonomy over their labour. You are an advocate of slavery. Do you disagree with the NHS then? I think you should have the right to opt out of the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by musik on Sept 22, 2019 16:35:17 GMT
Healthcare should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it Education should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it Have you ever considered Sweden? You would love it here.🙂 However, in recent years we have got problems with queues within the health care, to doctors, and that's about it. We have a rule, a health care guarantee now, saying you will see a specialist within 90 days. And then we have the 90 days treatment guarantee - an operation, medicine or other treatment will start within 90 days after the treatment has been decided. Some people seek a private doctor alternative. They can through money get quicker treatment. But it's a huge cost difference for the patient, £25 for a shoulder surgery within the tax based health care in 4-6 months and £4600 for the same surgery privately, in a couple of weeks. The quality between the sectors is about the same, it's "just" a queue thing ... School. We don't have that many private schools at all, at any level. Noone comes to mind. At university level most, if not all, students take CSN loan from the Central Studying Department. I did too even though I still was living w my parents so I could pay them for my room, food etc, plus books and stuff of course. These loans have rather low interest rates, they're reasonable compared to ordinary bank loans here. I'm grateful for them. But paying for the teachers? I don't know, I can't mention a single school just like that ... Health care, schools, infrastructure, libraries, tele communication, defence ... all tax based here. But going to the dentist only to a tiny minor extent. It can be really expensive.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:36:11 GMT
Just listened to that. Education in a Post Industrial Age has got to be different than in an Industrial Age..hence the 'Paradigm' shift in thinking needed. We live in a very different world now than when I left school, economically and culturally. I'm not sure whether the education has caught up with that. The questions being: What are we educating children for? What will be be tomorrow's jobs? How long before we do away with a lot of the bricks and mortar educational establishments? Can't a lot of education be done online now anyway? It seems a very expensive system to me, ok when there were no alternatives but there are now. Possibly the academia, yes, but going to school teaches you more than that. Daily routines, schedules, discipline, interation with different types of people, working in a group, respect, accepting rules etc. Not possible from a computer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:45:22 GMT
Do you disagree with the NHS then? I think you should have the right to opt out of the NHS. But as you said before, it's slavery right? Because people have to work in it for longer hours to ensure others have the right to healthcare?
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 22, 2019 16:45:58 GMT
How long before we do away with a lot of the bricks and mortar educational establishments? Can't a lot of education be done online now anyway? It seems a very expensive system to me, ok when there were no alternatives but there are now. Possibly the academia, yes, but going to school teaches you more than that. Daily routines, schedules, discipline, interation with different types of people, working in a group, respect, accepting rules etc. Not possible from a computer. Exactly. Children learn all sorts of roles at school.. Academia is just a part of it. Of course, new technology will lead to a different delivery on the academic side but the fundamentals remain. School socialises children for work as well as educating them.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Sept 22, 2019 16:47:22 GMT
I think as Harry has done if you want to spend your money on your children's education rather than say a world cruise, how can that be wrong. Having taught in a couple of Derbyshire LEA schools, a Cheshire snd Staffordshire one I would agree with lilFraise that it can br difficult and challenging. Each school is obviously different..... the Stoke on Trent one that I taught in was by far the most difficult ( discipline) and was under special measures. Having said that a lot of satisfaction can be gained from working with youngsters. Personally I totally agree with Labour for once, I would abolish Ofsted. Too much control from the top, too much FEAR transmitted on teachers, teaching to formula/ the test and less joy and room for innovation. There's private and private ....if I could change anything I would consider sending my children to a Rudolph Steiner school ( much more popular in Europe) .....but emphasises creativity and less structure....in my opinion more geared to children as individuals. www.steinerwaldorf.org/steiner-education/what-is-steiner-education/
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:47:36 GMT
Healthcare should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it Education should be a right, and it should be funded well enough that people get quality access to it Have you ever considered Sweden? You would love it here.🙂 However, in recent years we have got problems with queues within the health care, to doctors, and that's about it. We have a rule, a health care guarantee now, saying you will see a specialist within 90 days. And then we have the 90 days treatment guarantee - an operation, medicine or other treatment will start within 90 days after the treatment has been decided. Some people seek a private doctor alternative. They can through money get quicker treatment. But it's a huge cost difference for the patient, £25 for a shoulder surgery within the tax based health care in 4-6 months and £4600 for the same surgery privately, in a couple of weeks. The quality between the sectors is about the same, it's "just" a queue thing ... School. We don't have that many private schools at all, at any level. Noone comes to mind. At university level most, if not all, students take CSN loan from the Central Studying Department. I did too even though I still was living w my parents so I could pay them for my room, food etc, plus books and stuff of course. These loans have rather low interest rates, they're reasonable compared to ordinary bank loans here. I'm grateful for them. But paying for the teachers? I don't know, I can't mention a single school just like that ... Health care, schools, infrastructure, libraries, tele communication, defence ... all tax based here. But going to the dentist only to a tiny minor extent. It can be really expensive. I very much have, and still would consider it should any jobs in my (hopeful) future career field come up there I wouldn't hesitate to apply! tax-based infrastructure is exactly what I would advocate for, a better state infrastructure so people don't need to use private companies as much, paid for by rising taxes on the higher earners.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:51:45 GMT
I think you should have the right to opt out of the NHS. But as you said before, it's slavery right? Because people have to work in it for longer hours to ensure others have the right to healthcare? Yes, this is correct.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2019 16:53:49 GMT
But as you said before, it's slavery right? Because people have to work in it for longer hours to ensure others have the right to healthcare? Yes, this is correct. Well then we are never going to agree. The problem is not in the right to healthcare. The problem is in the government refusing to fund it properly.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 22, 2019 16:58:45 GMT
Well then we are never going to agree. The problem is not in the right to healthcare. The problem is in the government refusing to fund it properly. The pragmatist in me says that there needs to be a government based service operating in competition with private providers, but ideally the government should not interfere in healthcare at all. It's a very dangerous slippery slope to get people relying on the government for healthcare; it essentially renders Big Statism untouchable.
|
|