I would argue that the very existence of the NHS stifles competition
Does it have free health care ?All of europe has free health care, most of europe has better health care (according to WHO rankings), none of them have an NHS.
most of europe has better health care
Does it have free health care ?
most of europe has better health care
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
The WHO ranking was in 2000, the NHS was still recovering from the Tories
most of europe has better health care
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
The WHO ranking was in 2000, the NHS was still recovering from the Tories
Well, we can sit here arguing over who's statistics suffer the least fiddling.
Or you can acknowledge the basic point, that the NHS is a means to an end, not the goal.
All of Europe has social healthcare, better, worse, the same, none of them have an NHS.
Argue why the NHS is the best method, sure.
Instead people are arguing why we should protect the NHS, on the erroneous logic that - No NHS = No healthcare.
Well, we can sit here arguing over who's statistics suffer the least fiddling
Read the Indy article. It says the NHS is actually the best and is the 2nd cheapest in the research.
Britain slips up marginally on its “timeliness of care” and ranks a shocking second to last for the “healthy lives” indicator, which had looked at life expectancy, infant mortality and death rates for conditions treatable with medical care.
The top two performers, Britain and Switzerland, have vastly different systems. Britain has a single-payer government monopoly, supplemented by private medical and hospital insurance for a small share of the population. Switzerland has mandatory private health insurance, described for an American audience by Professor Regina Herzlinger in her 2007 book. In 2007, Swiss voters rejected single-payer health care by a huge margin.
Who joins the U.S. at the bottom of the list? Canada! Canada has the most government-dominated single-payer system: There are no competing private insurers that offer access to privately paid physicians or hospitals, like in Britain.
Except, one thing in that picture looks very peculiar. The UK, the poster child of frugal and immaculate perfection, scored almost as bad as we did in the only domain that can be regarded as an outcome: health. The bon vivant French people, with the worst access to care and horrific patient-centeredness, seem to enjoy the healthiest lives of all
most of europe has better health care
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
The WHO ranking was in 2000, the NHS was still recovering from the Tories
Well, we can sit here arguing over who's statistics suffer the least fiddling.
Or you can acknowledge the basic point, that the NHS is a means to an end, not the goal.
All of Europe has social healthcare, better, worse, the same, none of them have an NHS.
Argue why the NHS is the best method, sure.
Instead people are arguing why we should protect the NHS, on the erroneous logic that - No NHS = No healthcare.
What has happened to the AS of old? The one that plays devils advocate? I really hate to say this but I agree with what he is saying..
All of europe has free health care,
most of europe has better health care
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rn-countries-with-us-coming-last-9542833.html
The WHO ranking was in 2000, the NHS was still recovering from the Tories
Well, we can sit here arguing over who's statistics suffer the least fiddling.
Or you can acknowledge the basic point, that the NHS is a means to an end, not the goal.
All of Europe has social healthcare, better, worse, the same, none of them have an NHS.
Argue why the NHS is the best method, sure.
Instead people are arguing why we should protect the NHS, on the erroneous logic that - No NHS = No healthcare.
What has happened to the AS of old? The one that plays devils advocate? I really hate to say this but I agree with what he is saying..
Coz AS is making perfect sense.
It is nigh-on impossible to have a sensible debate about healthcare in the UK / GB, because most people cannot distinguish "NHS" from "healthcare". Which is why the Tories had to ringfence the NHS funding - regardless of any positive / beneficial outcomes, it would be political suicide to be perceived to be threatening it.