The Health Care American Dream ...? Or should we stick to the NHS?

I want to try and express my fear about what I believe is happening to health care in the UK. To get across my point it may be worth sharing what little I know about the situation in the USA.
I know that in the US there is an extremely limited 'national health service'; that everyone is expected to have health insurance - a considerable expense for families and individuals; that it costs a fortune just to give birth. There was once a programme on television called ER - but I don't know of any other television programmes or films about hospitals or health in the USA ... (Now think UK - Holby, Casualty, Doctors - I don't watch them, but they do roll off the tongue, without a second to think about it).
I know there was fierce opposition to Obama Care - promoted by Obama to make health care in the USA more fair and inclusive. And by fierce I mean - well, savage! It brought the country to a virtual standstill with public sector workers unable to get paid, because Republican senators refused to agree public sector budgets, unless Obama dropped his plans for Obama Care! Obama held firm, and did not give in to them.
I know of a (elderly) person, in the US who had an operation followed by intensive therapy, due a nasty fall. Luckily, in the fortunate position of being able to pay for health insurance over the years, care was swift and reactive ... and very costly - $10,000 a day. Yes, a day. While in post-op intensive therapy the room was shared with another patient. So, after only 20 days - well, you can do the sums yourself.  This patient was not having to pay of course - it all came out of the insurance. Fantastic you are thinking ... ? Maybe.
But I also happen to know that this patient and his partner spend a good proportion of their lives jumping through 'medical hoops' to the point that I get the impression it has almost become their raison d'etre. A massive and stressfully dominant intrusion into their everyday existence. Every little blemish requires a biopsy. Nips and tucks are apparently 'essential' to their well-being.
Sadly, I think US medical insurance holders are in danger of becoming (if they haven't already!) cash cows.
The providers of medical services have realised they have a relatively large pool of 'middle class, well-heeled people who have all been sold the insurance, and who are paying their annual premiums - and there ensues a beautiful 'dance' between the insurance companies and the medics, who they can milk more and more money from these 'sick' people by persuading enough of them that, for their own good, they need some other procedure, or investigation, or prescription - putting more money into their overflowing coffers.
Okay, you get my point. But stick with me here, because I am about to seemingly veer right off course. But I think it is an interesting, and potentially relevant comparison.
Okay, now - just go and check online, what sort of property you could generally buy in the USA for that $200,000 (the cost of that 20 days of post-op intensive therapy I mentioned earlier) - compare the prices of houses there in the US, to here. I know, they have a lot more space which is why I believe THEY needed some alternative economic driver other than land and property - and what better than people's own health ...
So long as everyone who can afford to pays their health insurance, and the health practitioners can persuade people to follow up every single little ache and twinge - KERCHING!! They are raking it in.
And, perhaps with the housing market and mortgages in the UK looking increasingly unsustainable as a primary economic driver, a back up plan needs to be put in place.
Bye bye NHS. Hello Health Insurance!

Save A Life Programme for ALL Offenders.

A few weeks ago I sent an Email - straight to 'the top'. Yes, I sent it to Michael Gove himself, as I thought this was such a positive, simple, win-win, relatively cheap idea, to contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders, and to give everyone involved something of true value. And after all, going straight to the top where someone is actually in a position to make a decision is often seen as a good way forward.

"Dear Mr Gove

I work in a Probation Office - as a Programmes Administrator, now with one of the new CRC's.
My idea came out of hearing the BBC News recently, an item about the general lack of people knowledgeable in CPR lifesaving techniques. It occurred to me that it could be a win-win situation, if every offender given a custodial or community sentence be required to complete a short 'Save A Life' Programme - as a RAR, or part of every Community Payback Order, Post Sentence Supervision, or Licence on release from custody.
If this was a compulsory condition, think how beneficial it would be ... The Programme could be delivered by 'outside agencies' so needn't take up Probation time. It would be an important life skill - literally. It could be good for offenders' self worth and self confidence - and mean that everyone, regardless of what they had done, their background, where they had come from, or where they were going - would have the ability to save a life - possibly 'paying back in the ultimate way'.
The general Programme could be created to cover CPR, and other useful first aid/life saving actions - such as choking recovery, stopping blood loss, recovery position, and use of community defibrillators.
I hope you will seriously consider this idea, and how it could be implemented to help our society, and also give a positive role to all offenders. It could be very good from a criminal justice system PR point of view - never easy when it comes to the perceptions of the general public and offenders! Imagine: 'He once shoplifted, but last week he saved a child's life'."

I have had no response or acknowledgement from Michael Gove's office as yet, but I would like to see how much enthusiasm there is out there for this as an idea? If I do ever get a response from the Justice Secretary, I will let you know ... but I'm not holding my breath!

Schools - a means to an end, or an end in themselves?

Today in the News is a story about a new Grammar School - well, no, NOT actually a new grammar school, because that isn't allowed. An 'annexe to an already-existing grammar school' in Kent, several miles from the existing school (that gets around the school rules you see) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34535778

I feel a bit frustrated by the emphasis placed on schools - ALL schools, whether private, public, state, free, academy status, or even grammar. The thing is, I went to what was considered to be one of the best schools in the locality, with a high academic achievement, and a selective exam to gain entry. There were (at that time!) a few 'free places' to girls (only) with the ability and right address; others had to pay a high price to 'get in', in the form of school fees. I was popular, and have turned out well (I think), but I didn't excel academically; actually I felt that there was a gaping lack of any sort of pastoral care, and when I look back, I can see that ... let's just say the school had it's flaws. I left at 16, and they were more than happy to bundle me out of the back door as soon as they knew I wasn't destined for the Home Office, the Foreign Office, or some other high profile successful career which they could add to their PR and statistics for their future marketing and reputation. School certainly weren't the 'best years of my life'.

Our own sons on the other hand went to the local very ordinary (ie NOT "outstanding") local market town state comprehensive school, with no extra tuition, very little parental 'control' along the lines of homework monitoring, nagging or checking. What we did do was always encourage them to follow up on their interests. Facilitated what they showed an interest in - for example we bought each of them computers at a quite early age; we took them to participate in chosen sporting activities, music activities, bought guitars, a digital piano. Took them places (but never made them fill out those 'activity sheets for the kids'!) and we always answered their questions if we could. We encouraged them to think, and to think they could achieve and go wherever they wished to get to. We ate together, talked about lots of things over family meals - sometimes light hearted, and other times deep, political even - real-world stuff. Oh, and we put them first - but didn't make them the centre of our own lives, if that makes sense.
They have both done brilliantly in their own ways. One of them went to Trinity College Cambridge, and graduated with a First Class Honours degree and various awards - and is now doing his 'dream job'. The other went the Apprentice route after realising he preferred a more practical hands-on approach, and that he was more driven by earning money, and not mounting up a uni debt. At the age of 21 he's earning more than I've ever managed, and (with a little bit of financial help towards the deposit, from the bank of mum and dad) has organised a mortgage and bought a house.
It's not about the school, or at least only a very small part of it is. It is about the individual - and love, care, support and encouragement to think about what they want to achieve and assist in pointing them in the relevant direction. The main cost is awareness and time.
I'm afraid I can't help feeling all this stuff about Schools is quite honestly something of a red herring!