In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Until the UK figures out a way to separate the National Health from the
general budget, it's going to be "asuterity"'ed into nothingness.

Since it is funded from the same fund as everything else, and has no
competition, it just spends and spends and provides less services as
money dries up.

Am I right in saying you consider the various private schemes in the US
the model of efficiency?

The only way to fund a system designed for everyone - rich or poor - is
out of general taxation.

Personally, I've been lucky in never needing much in the way of expensive
medical treatment - yet - but what dealings I have had with our NHS have
been favourable. Although it does take some time to get into the system if
it's not urgent. In some ways, no bad thing.
But I've got friends and relations who have needed major treatment. And
all of those are grateful to the NHS.

I have private insurance for my dog. And car. And house. None of those
provides the sort of perfect service those who are opposed to a state
system say they do.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.