Pete C wrote:

I therefore expect that if the NHS was funded to the same level that
the private sector was, queues would disappear quite rapidly!

Unfortunately the NHS problem is not funding, but capacity. There is a
distinct lack of Drs, Surgeons, experienced nurses, beds etc and a
surfeit of politicians, managers and paperwork. It is not fast to
install more capacity with a 10 year training leadtime and where the
staff working conditions are frequently poor, leading to fast turnover
of personnel . Throwing vast amounts of taxpayers money at the problem,
as is currently being done, achieves very little.

A voucher system IMO doesn't work. OK for the odd broken leg etc, but
hopeless for the individual with say, MS. The strength and desirability
of the NHS lies in its meeting a need for cost effective "adequate"
lifetime health cover for the UK citizen and having the buying power to
control drug companies desires for unlimited profits. IMO where it falls
down is in its inability to limit demand to major essentials and to
force people to cater for and pay for their own trivia. We understand
that free motor cars are unreal, we have to accept that free unlimited
healthcare is also unsustainable.

Insurance systems as in the US, lead to 1/3 of Americans having no
health cover. They just hope they survive to Medicare! If these people
had healthcare, the US system could not cope as they also have major
staff shortages. Now, they are finding that their(like our) shrinking
company pension schemes are ruling out medical cover when retired!!
Health costs there, are (and have been for some years) rising at around
13%pa! No company pension fund can sustain these costs. Neither of
their political parties are prepared to grasp the taxation nettle of
providing a national health system of any type. An older American lady I
met had her own solution to very high drug prices, she was going to die
rather than pay that much!!

I believe the Australians have come up with a compromise system, can
someone enlighten us?

Regards
Capitol