01 Jun '15 16:17>
Originally posted by EladarThe British system has its problems, but it's better than the American system where we spend twice has much for (at best) similar results.
[b]
Data released for the first time showed that across large areas of the country, almost no patients above the age of 75 are receiving surgery for breast cancer or routine operations such as gall bladder removal and knee replacements.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), was also criticised for attempting to change its funding cri ...[text shortened]... is a great way for the new class to milk the working class. All on false promises of security.
The problems with NHS is that by putting government in charge of administering the healthcare, you're begging for inefficiency and bureaucracy.
I do like the British systems' idea of bifurcating the system: If you can pay, you can buy what you like; otherwise, we'll give it to you - but with some rationing and caveats.
I'd like to see a hybrid between the Canadian and British system: The Canadian idea of government paying rather than running the system with the British idea of allowing an unregulated private system for those who can pay and do want it. That would also preserve the profit motive and thus the biggest strength of the US system: the strength of the highest level of services that produces most of the world's best hospitals. The problem with total single payer, like Canada, is that, while care is usually good enough, you do have the occasional person who has to run to Buffalo to get an aneurysm removed rather that wait 7 months.