NHS ranked 'number one' health system

[psyquest]

its total bullshit. The french health system is miles better.

I am a brit, been in France for over 10 years, I can categorically say the french system is way better.

1. You can see your GP same day and even within 3 hours
2. You can have a doctor or pedriatrician visit your place within 3 hours even at night.
3. You can see a specialist doctor same day, at worse next day.
4. You can book for radios, scanner and any type of tests same day or worse next day.
5. you do not go into a 6 months waiting list for an operation
6. important operations are done rather quickly... not waiting 6 months or for it to be life threatening

etc etc etc.

and also: you are fully reimbursed with your work insurance (pay 0) and it cost about 40 euros per person for a complete comprehensive cover that includes ALL operations, all dental work, all eyes specialists + cover the cost of glasses completely. If you are not working, you have a fully comprehensive free state cover.

[AeneasBK]

its total bullshit. The french health system is miles better.

I don't doubt it, is it true that doctors are not allowed to advertise their practices, and if you need a doctor you call a national line and they will give you contact details of the nearest available, or have I got that slightly confused?

[Deleted]

Your right, the parents aren't scientists but they are mad. The bottom line is the parents wanted to subject the kid to experimental treatment that has never been shown to in any way help kids with the condition this kid is suffering from. Medical experts believe the kid would not even survive the jounrny to the us to be experimented on.

I don't know how things are in your country, but here we have laws intended to protect children from mad parents such as these selfish idiots.

The biggest issue is that the child already has catasrophic brain damage, so even if the treatment totally cures him, he'll still be a vegetable requiring machines to keep him alive.

[Teleros]

If by distortion you mean like putting out drugs that kill even more people then yea

Yes it's a distortion, but at the same time that doesn't mean that GlaxoSmithKline or Pfizer et al will be trying to kill people (!). If you really want to stop the big pharma companies from doing that though, the simplest solution would be to hold the suits personally responsible, rather than holding "the company" responsible. This would be quite a big change in US corporate law though, and would have all sorts of ramifications in other sectors of the economy (ohai, 2008 banking crisis...).

In addition, even if you decide to keep the FDA, there's no reason in principle that the FDA approval process can't be sped up a good deal (eg, allowing drugs that foreign nations have approved). For that matter, why not make exceptions for people who are terminally ill but of sound mind? "We've not finished testing this drug, it's not approved *anywhere*, but you're going to die anyway, so if you want to give it a shot, sign here..." seems a humane approach to take, TBH.

I think you didn't read what I wrote, it already exist and has for years now it doesn't work it is just a campaign line. Also insurance companies exists across state lines under different subsidiaries and names they have no reason to compete with themselves.

Oh I see what you mean.

I'm not really sure it is just a campaign line though, especially given what you said above re the same company operating under different names in different states. Wal-Mart and Microsoft don't have separate subsidiaries for such-and-such a state, nor does Google or Ford... but healthcare companies do. Why, if they're all part of the same big market?

The answer of course is that the states still have separate (or largely separate) markets. A lot of those headlines about insurers pulling out of Obamacare exchanges in certain states but not others make little sense otherwise, for example.

Your insurance company gives you a list of doctors you can go to. When you deal with smaller insurance companies that list is usually a lie when you call the doctors they tell you they don't accept that insurance it is a huge problem.

If they lie then sure, time to take a few scalps IMHO.

My point rather is that you said there's no free market in picking doctors. I admit I was thinking mostly about what would happen in an actual free market system as opposed to the clusterf--- the US operates under ATM, but regardless of that, if your insurance company gives you a list of, say, 50 doctors that accept their insurance, you still have a choice as to which to visit. And let's not forget that if you're willing to pay cash, the list is even larger, unless all the doctors within reach accept your chosen insurance.

Which you get from that list your insurance company gives you.

You said that nobody would be shopping around when your doctor recommends a course of action. This is obviously false, as shown by people trying to get second opinions from different doctors.

False that statistics does not count for people who are under insured

Under-insured by what standard? I mean, Obamacare mandates that the ALL women get insurance in case of pregnancy, which is silly if you're a nun, or a lesbian, or what-have-you. Would they be under-insured if they could opt out of pregnancy insurance?

Still, never mind such cases. Suppose you're a young, healthy and fit person with no family history of early onset diseases and the like. Why buy a whole raft of insurance that you won't need until later in your life? Oh sure, you might be unlucky, but it's not like you can't get DNA tests done for half the nasty stuff if you're worried about it. Point is, that's your choice to make.

Before Obamacare insurance companies could drop you after the fact you were sick which lead to tons of medical bankruptcies.

That rather depends on the details of the cases in question though.

Also note that after Obamacare, insurance companies are either pulling out of entire states, or raising the premiums and deductibles so high that there's hardly any point doing business with them in the first place:

If an insurance company thought your cancer was getting too expensive they can just stop paying and there was nothing you could do about it.

Honestly that sounds either like fake news, a criminal act by the insurers, or a horribly mangled story. I can see an insurance company not wanting to pay for a customer once the current contract ends, but to break a contract sounds like something from the rumour mill.

They were dying from lack of healthcare because insurance companies would not cover you once you reach a certain age or the price would be so high you couldn't afford it.

Because that's how bad a bet you were, or are.

Remember, the insurance company isn't there to be nice. They're betting that you will put in more than you take out, and that they can make money. You're betting the opposite. If the actuarial figures for someone like you are that bad, why should the insurers - who have a legal duty to their shareholders to make money, I should add - insure you when the odds are so heavily against them making money? It's madness.

Now sure, some employers might be happy to do this for valued staff or former staff, and heck, maybe the insurers will cross-subsidise you a bit using money from healthy young people. But never forget that they're in the business because it is a business.

It was also pretty bad for young children born with genetic defects or diseases because that counts a a pre- existing condition.

Well duh :P . I mean, it's about a pre-existing as you can get :P .

Insurer: We're betting that you won't be ill.
You: I'm already ill.
Insurer: No bet, stop trying to cheat on us.

If you want to argue that it's unfair that businesses out to make a profit should behave rationally, fine... but there are plenty of ways to turn that argument around as well. I mean, why are you so selfish that you'd rather screw pensioners who've saved their whole lives out of their incomes, just so you can pay less insurance? God knows it's not like there aren't charities and non-profits out there who work tirelessly to help those at the bottom. Not to mention schemes like Christian Healthcare Ministries, which is almost like Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but for the members' health bills.

[Bigbazz]

NHS is good for free, but it's not what it used to be. There's a woman around here who was denied treatment lately for cancer due to the costs, whole town had to come together to pay for her treatment.

[Draco-Onis]

Oh I see what you mean.

I'm not really sure it is just a campaign line though, especially given what you said above re the same company operating under different names in different states. Wal-Mart and Microsoft don't have separate subsidiaries for such-and-such a state, nor does Google or Ford... but healthcare companies do. Why, if they're all part of the same big market?

it's to give people the illusion of choice where there is none.

The answer of course is that the states still have separate (or largely separate) markets. A lot of those headlines about insurers pulling out of Obamacare exchanges in certain states but not others make little sense otherwise, for example.

Insurance is all about risk, republicans have done everything they can to sabotage Obamacare once they took charge. Some states have not taken the medicare expansion, the white house has done everything from cut advertising for enrollment already paid for to not publish deadlines. Obamacare collapsing because republicans are doing it so it will be interesting to see what they do if Trumpcare fails to pass.

If they lie then sure, time to take a few scalps IMHO.

it is not exactly against the law so no scalps to take here.

My point rather is that you said there's no free market in picking doctors. I admit I was thinking mostly about what would happen in an actual free market system as opposed to the clusterf--- the US operates under ATM, but regardless of that, if your insurance company gives you a list of, say, 50 doctors that accept their insurance, you still have a choice as to which to visit. And let's not forget that if you're willing to pay cash, the list is even larger, unless all the doctors within reach accept your chosen insurance.

Pay cash? you clearly have no idea how much an doctor visit can cost in the US especially a specialist (General - $200+ specialist - Thousands).

You said that nobody would be shopping around when your doctor recommends a course of action. This is obviously false, as shown by people trying to get second opinions from different doctors.

how is it shopping when you don't know prices?

Under-insured by what standard? I mean, Obamacare mandates that the ALL women get insurance in case of pregnancy, which is silly if you're a nun, or a lesbian, or what-have-you. Would they be under-insured if they could opt out of pregnancy insurance?

look up barebone plans before the ACA, it is what you are referring to but the caveat is when you do get sick your prices and coverage can change.

Still, never mind such cases. Suppose you're a young, healthy and fit person with no family history of early onset diseases and the like. Why buy a whole raft of insurance that you won't need until later in your life? Oh sure, you might be unlucky, but it's not like you can't get DNA tests done for half the nasty stuff if you're worried about it. Point is, that's your choice to make.

because the whole point of insurance is to cover being unlucky, the human body is not like a raft you don't have the option of choosing if a car hits you or if you fall down a flight of stairs and break something.

Honestly that sounds either like fake news, a criminal act by the insurers, or a horribly mangled story. I can see an insurance company not wanting to pay for a customer once the current contract ends, but to break a contract sounds like something from the rumour mill.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/iss...or-to-the-aca/

http://time.com/money/4763609/pre-ex...nditions-ahca/

Not knowing or having what they deem a pre-existing condition is a breach of contract on your part so they are legally no longer bound by it.

Remember, the insurance company isn't there to be nice. They're betting that you will put in more than you take out, and that they can make money. You're betting the opposite. If the actuarial figures for someone like you are that bad, why should the insurers - who have a legal duty to their shareholders to make money, I should add - insure you when the odds are so heavily against them making money? It's madness.

Thank you for summarizing why health insurance and the free market is a bad thing, unless you think profit should always be before people living in a market where there is no competition.

If you want to argue that it's unfair that businesses out to make a profit should behave rationally, fine... but there are plenty of ways to turn that argument around as well. I mean, why are you so selfish that you'd rather screw pensioners who've saved their whole lives out of their incomes, just so you can pay less insurance? God knows it's not like there aren't charities and non-profits out there who work tirelessly to help those at the bottom. Not to mention schemes like Christian Healthcare Ministries, which is almost like Kickstarter or Indiegogo, but for the members' health bills.

Yes people should rely on charity and hope they get enough money for their children or themselves so an insurance company can squeeze as much money from people as possible

[Teleros]

it's to give people the illusion of choice where there is none.

How? It's not like a Montanan can choose between the Montana branch of ABC Insurance and the Californian branch. So there's not really any illusion.

Insurance is all about risk

Yes, which is why pre-existing conditions (for example) should be discriminated against. Anyway, this was a bit of a non sequitur to the rest of the paragraph, so moving on...

republicans have done everything they can to sabotage Obamacare once they took charge.

Well duh, they see it as bad, no-good, very bad, wrong, evil, very very bad... you get the drift. If you think law X is a terrible law, wouldn't you try to overturn it? Of course you would! Now, you might be wrong about whether law X is terrible, but so long as you believe it to be terrible, that's how you'll act.

Some states have not taken the medicare expansion, the white house has done everything from cut advertising for enrollment already paid for to not publish deadlines. Obamacare collapsing because republicans are doing it so it will be interesting to see what they do if Trumpcare fails to pass.

Obamacare was in trouble the moment it passed, to be fair. Premiums rose a lot under Obama, deductibles rose a lot under him too, companies pulled out of various state exchanges, Obama himself unilaterally - and illegally* - delayed the employer version of it by a year, blah blah blah.

*Even if you view this as a sensible thing to do, it doesn't change the fact that the law was plagued by problems from the get go. I mean, if it hadn't been plagued by problems, it wouldn't have needed to be delayed a year.

it is not exactly against the law so no scalps to take here.

Even in the USA, a breach of contract ("yes we cover such-and-such a condition - nah we lied, sorry mate") is illegal.

Pay cash? you clearly have no idea how much an doctor visit can cost in the US especially a specialist (General - $200+ specialist - Thousands).

Write a cheque or do a bank transfer, whatever. Details.

I take it you're conceding the fact that you do, in fact, have a choice as to which doctor to visit ?

how is it shopping when you don't know prices?

You... ask?

"Excuse me, I'd like a second opinion about something, would that cost much?"
"Well let me see, I charge so much an hour, or a standard fixed fee of this amount, or maybe I'll do it for free if it's trivial or whatever..."

look up barebone plans before the ACA, it is what you are referring to but the caveat is when you do get sick your prices and coverage can change.

I think it'd depend on what benefit you got from paying in before you got ill. I mean, if you take out "barebones" cancer coverage, get cancer, and your premiums go up before you get any benefit, then honestly that sounds more like a scam than insurance. On the other hand, if you do the same but get some other illness, it seems more reasonable to me.

because the whole point of insurance is to cover being unlucky, the human body is not like a raft you don't have the option of choosing if a car hits you or if you fall down a flight of stairs and break something.

I agree. Still though, it's my body, as the pro-choice people like to say. If I want to take a risk with it (ie not get comprehensive insurance) that's my problem.

Not knowing or having what they deem a pre-existing condition is a breach of contract on your part so they are legally no longer bound by it.

The Kaiser report example of the baby "Alex" was that the insurer wouldn't be covered by the pre-existing condition after the claim was filed, but that this is typically within the first year (as was the case with the baby in question)... this varies from state to state though. In that particular case it sounds like there needs to be some kind of alternative for newborns perhaps.

On the other hand, there's the story of "Jennifer" who won $37M in damages when the insurer tried to screw her out of $185k in healthcare costs. Sounds more like the system working to me, given she won and all.

As for the list of things that count, big deal. Of course if you've a history of migraines you're going to be charged more, because it raises the chance you'll file a claim due to future migraines, to use but one example.

Thank you for summarizing why health insurance and the free market is a bad thing, unless you think profit should always be before people living in a market where there is no competition.

I don't get why you think they can't go hand in hand. Insurers manage to make money competing in a vast number of sectors, and their customers are generally happy as a result. Oh sure, you might grumble at having to pay each year, but you probably do that every time you visit the petrol station or supermarket, so that hardly counts against the insurers.

But provided you have a sound legal system, complete with property rights and at least reasonably clean courts and so on, the only problem is if there is nothing else except the insurers... in which case it's not a free market, because the insurers have probably bribed the government to kill off any charities and such.

Option 1: Free market I want to make money in the healthcare insurance market. You must choose to buy my insurance product, or I will be broke. Also, there are other people competing with me for your money, so I must offer a good product and all that stuff. Bummer, this is harder than it looks. Also, and because the commies keep forgetting this, I'm still a human being and don't actually like to see people suffering or dying, but they seem to think businessmen are all sociopaths, so best to mention this just in case. PS, I also give tons to charity.

Option 2: Obamacare I want to make money in the healthcare insurance market. I must insure you if you ask, so now money going out is more than money coming in, and I'm broke. I will probably try and bribe Congressmen to keep bailing my company out, or outright nationalise it, thus securing for myself lots of money. I might've made more in the long run in a free market, but you can't beat getting into bed with government for financial security.

Option 3: NHS I want to retire on a big fat civil service pension and feather my nest. I will grab as much tax money as possible, and if anyone complains I will scream about hard-working nurses and dying children to the press, whilst steadily expanding my bureaucratic empire. When I see a doctor, I go private, thanks to a salary that's larger than the Prime Minister's.

Yes people should rely on charity and hope they get enough money for their children or themselves so an insurance company can squeeze as much money from people as possible

If you actually had a free market, this would be kind of hard, you realise...

Day 1: Mwahaha, let's raise all the premiums!
Day 2: Oh s---, everyone's switched to our rivals !
Day 3: Argh, the phones are ringing non-stop due to all the journalists! They were even camped outside my home!
Day 4: So our CFO just jumped out the window after taking a look at the share price...

[Draco-Onis]

How? It's not like a Montanan can choose between the Montana branch of ABC Insurance and the Californian branch. So there's not really any illusion.

But that is the problem they have no incentive to compete with themselves and no doctor in California is going to see you with the Montana insurance and vice versa.

Obamacare was in trouble the moment it passed, to be fair. Premiums rose a lot under Obama, deductibles rose a lot under him too, companies pulled out of various state exchanges.

There are price controls in Obamacare they do not go nearly far enough but the fact is premiums and deductibles have risen much slower under Obamacare than before and companies came and went in before the republicans took power.

Write a cheque or do a bank transfer, whatever. Details.

What part of best health insurance money can buy did you not understand? you know what the vast majority of the population doesn't have MONEY!!

I take it you're conceding the fact that you do, in fact, have a choice as to which doctor to visit ?

Just like you have a choice to buy a $1 billion dollar house on a 50K a year salary

You... ask?

"Excuse me, I'd like a second opinion about something, would that cost much?"
"Well let me see, I charge so much an hour, or a standard fixed fee of this amount, or maybe I'll do it for free if it's trivial or whatever..."

What healthcare providers charge are a black box not all places will tell you they are not obligated to nor do they care enough about your business to tell you since they have a stranglehold on consumers.

I agree. Still though, it's my body, as the pro-choice people like to say. If I want to take a risk with it (ie not get comprehensive insurance) that's my problem.

Except when you can't pay society pays for it, emergency room visits that aren't covered increase the cost of everyone's insurance not just yours.

I don't get why you think they can't go hand in hand. Insurers manage to make money competing in a vast number of sectors, and their customers are generally happy as a result. Oh sure, you might grumble at having to pay each year, but you probably do that every time you visit the petrol station or supermarket, so that hardly counts against the insurers.

The US had been experimenting with the "free market" theory for decades, I am not sure why you think that you have some magical insight on how things would be better. The reason government got involved is because things were so bad and even with them involved our results are still awful. If you think free market works please explain how the United States healthcare system has continued to be a disaster. You are sticking to a theory while ignoring countless years worth of deaths, bankruptcies and horror stories that prove it doesn't work. Every country in the world with single payer does better than the US there's no country where this magical free market of yours has worked for healthcare.

[RaoBurning]

Hey, I'd take the NHS in a heartbeat. Better to wait a little while for noncritical treatment than hope and pray I either get hit by a car on my motorcycle, or find employment that offers benefits; an act exacerbated in difficulty by my untreated condition, which I require insurance to relieve.

NHS/public option/single payer/etc. hype, baby.

[Jastall]

As I said though, the pre-Obamacare US healthcare market wasn't exactly a model of free market capitalism either. There was a huge amount of government intervention in the market beforehand, whether through Medicare or Medicaid, preventing competition across state borders, the FDA (which even if you approve of, is still slow and expensive as hell)... You need to go back a decades to find a US healthcare market that isn't dancing to the government's tune.

Problem is Americans try to have it both ways, with a capitalistic healthcare whose numerous holes get patched up by government programs. Leading to the inequalities you see, as well as grossly increased prices, not to mention daily headaches for a good portion of the country as to how their insurances work.

Seems like just cutting the middleman and going public would save both money and worries. But there are way too many existing interests for this to ever happen.

[Ryme]

I'm thankful for the NHS, but have almost nothing but bad experiences with it. My sister was nearly killed due to negligence as well, perhaps I've just seen a particularly bad side.

[Teleros]

But that is the problem they have no incentive to compete with themselves and no doctor in California is going to see you with the Montana insurance and vice versa.

Separate companies have strong incentives to compete with each other, but it seems you're making my point for me - the rather transparent lack of choice speaks to a lack of a free market in healthcare insurance. There are a dozen or so big healthcare insurance companies in the USA, yet typically only a handful dominate in any particular state. Curious, no?

There are price controls in Obamacare they do not go nearly far enough

If they did the insurers would go bankrupt :P .

but the fact is premiums and deductibles have risen much slower under Obamacare than before and companies came and went in before the republicans took power.

Sure, but look a little deeper. The premiums may have risen slower under the new price control regime (funny that :P ), but deductibles have shot up to compensate. Basically the insurers are saying "sure we'll charge you $90 instead of $100, but before we pay for anything, you must shell out $15,000 instead of $10,000". And that's if you can even get insurance with them in your state any more.

What part of best health insurance money can buy did you not understand? you know what the vast majority of the population doesn't have MONEY!!

Stop trying to avoid the issue - namely, that you DO have a choice as to which doctor to visit.

Now, if you want to argue about the lack of money for the "vast majority" of the population, is that why 85% pre-Obamacare had healthcare insurance ?

Just like you have a choice to buy a $1 billion dollar house on a 50K a year salary

What?

You said that under healthcare insurance schemes, you had no choice as to which doctor you visited. I showed why you were wrong, and further added that you could also pay yourself (ie not use your insurance) to broaden the number of doctors you could see even further. So WTF has that got to do with buying billion-dollar houses?

What healthcare providers charge are a black box not all places will tell you they are not obligated to nor do they care enough about your business to tell you since they have a stranglehold on consumers.

In this case we're talking about trying to get a second opinion. In other words "I'm already seeing a doctor, so you don't have that stranglehold on me, but I'm still offering to give you money if you co-operate".

Except when you can't pay society pays for it, emergency room visits that aren't covered increase the cost of everyone's insurance not just yours.

Do you have any actual proof of that?

The US had been experimenting with the "free market" theory for decades

It really hasn't. Or at least, it really hasn't since WW2, when wage controls caused a sudden rise in employers offering healthcare insurance to their workers.

The reason government got involved is because things were so bad and even with them involved our results are still awful.

Not like there's much actual proof of this, of course.

If you think free market works please explain how the United States healthcare system has continued to be a disaster.

Because it's not a free market. Not even close.

= + =

Problem is Americans try to have it both ways, with a capitalistic healthcare whose numerous holes get patched up by government programs. Leading to the inequalities you see, as well as grossly increased prices, not to mention daily headaches for a good portion of the country as to how their insurances work.

Yeah I think that's a lot of it. There's a line I like, along the lines of "Americans love socialism so long as it's not called socialism". Can't remember who said it, but it's certainly true when it comes to healthcare and such.

Seems like just cutting the middleman and going public would save both money and worries. But there are way too many existing interests for this to ever happen.

Actually, I think a lot of the healthcare insurers would welcome it. Nationalisation protects their revenue and if it leads to buyouts by the government, huge windfalls for everyone at the top, who can then quit and find work in other sectors.

[Dundebuns]

I used the NHS a couple of years ago for a minor operation. Knowing that it wasn't life threatening or anything, had to wait about 6 months going from my GP to the knife. Was great, although I had to contradict a doctor at one point but that was an in patient appointment so not too bad. Was surprised by the fact I had to go under general, but the nurses and doctors at hospital were lovely and I cannot fault anything.

Pity we're trying to starve it off though, be electing successive shit head governments.

[Draco-Onis]

Because it's not a free market. Not even close.

Please provide a country in which a free market healthcare system has worked well surely your amazing theory must have been proven true in reality somewhere.

[Teleros]

Please provide a country in which a free market healthcare system has worked well surely your amazing theory must have been proven true in reality somewhere.

Best thing to do would be to look back at various Western countries before the welfare state, TBH. I'm not sure of any systems that survived the mid-20th century's love of big government though.

[Draco-Onis]

Best thing to do would be to look back at various Western countries before the welfare state, TBH. I'm not sure of any systems that survived the mid-20th century's love of big government though.

So the love of big government is the only reason this brilliant efficient and great free market healthcare idea of yours hasn't survived not the millions of people that died under the altar of corporate greed

[Spectral]

So the love of big government is the only reason this brilliant efficient and great free market healthcare idea of yours hasn't survived not the millions of people that died under the altar of corporate greed

The notion that the American healthcare system looks anything like a "free market" is just downright absurd. Whether a free market is a particularly good idea for healthcare or not, it's surely not the perverse system that the United States has managed to create.

[Teleros]

So the love of big government is the only reason this brilliant efficient and great free market healthcare idea of yours hasn't survived

Pretty much.

not the millions of people that died under the altar of corporate greed

What millions?

= + =

Also... just think about what you're saying a minute, because I think it's instructive.

1. Millions of people died prior to government healthcare because of greedy businessmen.
2. Of course, the healthcare market wasn't nearly so dominated by a handful of corporate behemoths back then. Lots of private practices & the like.
3. So tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people were willing to let their fellow humans die when they could do something about it.
4. This includes doctors, nurses, et al.
5. And trade unionists, friendly / benevolent societies, and so on.

So basically... everyone involved in healthcare, from the top insurance CEOs down to the newly-qualified maternity nurses, are psychopaths who would stand by and let you suffer and die slowly rather than make less money.

Uh-huh.

[Elegiac]

Best thing to do would be to look back at various Western countries before the welfare state, TBH. I'm not sure of any systems that survived the mid-20th century's love of big government though.

Oh, you mean when healthcare was not readily available to the majority of people and a huge quantity of lifesaving procedures and medications were costly beyond the reach of the privileged?

[Draco-Onis]

Pretty much.

Or the obvious conclusion your magical free market healthcare system has failed in practice and government has always had to step in because of people dying. Here in the US when elderly mortality rates were through the roof, government stepped in because the private sector was failing and instituted medicare and medicaid saving millions of lives. When the private sector was failing our veterans the VA was created and so on and so forth.

You are just like our republicans here talking about a magical free market healthcare while sitting pretty on their own government insurance. Why don't you move to the US and free yourself from the NHS since you seem to think it is such a horrible system. Oh the horror of having one of the best healthcare system in the world if only you could rank like the US and have the same results as third world countries