Saving private rights

This week, I saved the NHS a few quid, freed up several appointments for those in greater need, and emitted less carbon than I might have done. According to some, that was terribly wrong of me. 

Say what?

My crime was to go private, to eschew the money-blackhole behemoth that is the NHS, to jump the queue, to seek advantage over others because there was room on Hubby’s credit card. Needless to say, I don’t see it like that. For me, I was exercising my freedom of choice, and supporting wider society by tangibly helping the NHS and its patients. Polish my halo.

Let me explain. Suppose there are four people, Frank, Ernest, Bill and Ben, who need medical attention at the same time for the same condition. An NHS GP can see Frank on Tuesday, Ernest on Wednesday, Bill on Thursday and Ben on Friday. Ernest decides to go private and secures an appointment elsewhere for Monday, meaning Bill is now seen on Wednesday and Ben on Thursday. So while Ernest has ‘jumped the queue’, Bill and Ben are now seen earlier than they would have been, and Frank has neither gained nor lost. In other words, the availability of private healthcare meant that three people were seen more quickly and no one was delayed.

This is not a problem, except for socialists. One person gained more than three others because he had money, and this perfectly natural, reasonable, logical situation is an ideological cannot-compute for lefties. For them, everyone should be treated the same; no one should have an advantage simply because they have more money. The flag is red. The skies are dark.

What’s the point of doing yourself and your family proud by earning a bit of extra money if you can’t spend it to your own, and others’ as it happens, advantage. Then again, maybe Ernest doesn’t have more money than the other three; maybe he just chooses to spend what he has on private healthcare rather than indulge in foreign holidays, designer clothes and an ‘executive’ home.

Ernest going private secures other advantages in addition to freeing up appointments. Suppose the treatment for the guys’ condition costs £500 each. Ernest pays a private doctor for his procedure. Frank, Bill and Ben don’t pay a penny for theirs; instead, the burden falls on all taxpayers, including Ernest. He’s not only paid for his own treatment but has partially paid for everyone else’s by saving the NHS ‘his’ £500 and paying again through his taxes. If you want to talk about fairness, private medical bills and insurance premiums should be tax deductible!

There’s more. By going private, Ernest was treated much sooner than he would have been on the NHS, meaning less chance of things getting worse and requiring longer or additional treatment down the line, on the NHS. Give that guy a medal.

Simples? Nope.

Socialists aren’t done yet. They argue that the NHS doesn’t have enough doctors and nurses, because they’re working for the private sector, and it’s people like Ernest who are facilitating such shortages. Ummm, if there were more doctors and nurses in the NHS, they’d have to be paid for by the tax payer, thus diverting funds away from defence, education, universal credit, etc. And the NHS would be even bigger, more unwieldy and more inefficient. Ernest has in fact saved the NHS, and its patients, from … well, from itself.

The private-public situation doesn't work perfectly of course. There are arguments against NHS doctors 'moonlighting' in the private sector, and the NHS wastes squillions on agency staff. In other words, there are more medical staff available, it's just that they're not employed (full time) by the NHS. This smacks to me of failure of NHS executives and senior management, not the private sector undermining the fundamental structure. 

I was subjected to similar state-versus-private finger-wagging when Mum went into a nursing home last year, paying privately. She didn’t qualify for state assistance, with which we had no problem because she could afford to pay (at least for a while) and was able to choose the home she wanted and when she was admitted. I was told in no uncertain terms that this was wrong and that everyone should get the same standard of care whatever their financial situation. Again, what’s the point of having any money saved up if you can’t spend it to make yourself and your family more comfortable? As long as everyone is guaranteed an acceptable standard of care, then if some people want to pay for extras above and beyond ‘acceptable’, then what’s wrong with that? Socialists suck all the joy, and motivation, out of life.

I almost forgot to justify my claim that, by going private, I emitted less carbon. I can’t speak for Frank, Ernest, Bill and Ben but, in my case, I did my back in and, separately, decided I’d had enough of my foot. The NHS process would have seen me drive to my GP, taking up a double appointment because of two separate ailments, then drive to two specialists for two different assessments, then drive again for the actual treatments. I make that five car journeys for five appointments, at least. As it turned out, because I decided to go private, I drove once to a specialist whom I knew did the whole-body musculoskeletal thing, and he could look at my back and foot at the same time. I chose an appointment that enabled me do several other things in Milton Keynes that morning, thus ramping up the carbon savings. Not only did he diagnose my foot there and then without referring me to someone else, he carried out the treatment as part of the same appointment; no additional journeys required. The back will need several trips to the osteopath and a physiotherapist, but the first one I easily booked for later in the week, meaning treatment starts asap so reducing the risk of long-term complications, as argued above.

The downside of this little caper was that the foot-treatment consisted of two injections in the sole, close to the toes. Ouch. Double Ouch! My yoga breathing came into its own, and it worked; my pulse didn’t change one jot, and my blood pressure after the event was high for me but considered fine for your average xx-year-old: remarkable after two painful injections.

The only thing I can think of that’s more painful than foot injections, apart from the hit on Hubby’s credit card, is the socialist mindset.