The NHS is one of the most efficient health systems in the world.
If you have a life threatening issue you will be seen and treated as well on the NHS as anywhere in the US, EXCEPT it won’t matter if you’re rich or poor, you’ll get the same treatment and it will work out at a literal fraction of the cost to the tax payer - insurance based and tax payer based are basically the same (cost is distributed over everyone contributing) except the government don’t arbitrarily say pay xxx thousand and the stress of “how to pay for this” is removed meaning people can focus on recovery and not on making ends meet.
Anyway. Some of us have been through the NHS a few times. I remember is was kind of ok under the Blair funding, not so great before or after.
That's just wrong. Try actually talking with a UK doctor about their experience instead of blindly following Labour dogma. They don't have the equipment to provide the level of care an American or Swiss hospital can.
It’s not labour dogma it’s a fact that the NHS is excellent and there are numerous international studies that prove that. The pinnacle of medical care in the US is better but only if you can afford it through your insurance or being rich, in the uk it is available for all
The Dutch is also one of the best. Singapore too. You can bring examples pro contra for both types.
I think the regulation that makes a healthcare good or bad, not that it is private or public. Many public healthcares are in Eastern Europe are bad. Some private healthcares are also bad. I still think that a combination of private and public offering is probably the best with regulation being the QA.
My previous comment was to point out that public healthcares can be bad, if it was not clear. Many of my friends do not want to have any nuanced discussion just, public good, private bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands
Sure, once you get passed the useless home doctor (huisarts).