hsrob said:
That's a big 'if' from what I hear and there are a number of other countries that provide care that's about as good and it's free or heavily subsidised for all citizens. Australia has a mixed public/private system, the public system is essentially free but there are advantages in the private system, primarily direct consultant care and shorter waiting times for elective surgery/procedures. The government provides incentives, for those that can afford it, to take out private health insurance to free up resources in the public system. All medical training though is done in the public system though so it still retains much of the expertise and many consultant doctors work both in the public and private systems. The up-shot is that you receive a comparible level of care in the public and private systems but care is quicker to access in the private system (often nicer facilities too). Treatment for emergency or life-threatenig conditions in the public system can be accessed without delay and for free. The system is very good if not perfect, but we do pay for it through our relatively high tax rates. My experience is that many Americans have this fear of socialised healthcare based on the belief that the standard of care must suffer and can't possibly match the costly healthcare in the US. I have met any number of US doctors who have come to Australia and leave with a very different impression, quite staggered by the standard of care delivered in the public system. Again it's not perfect but an example that sociliased healthcare is not always the demon that some people make it out to be. |
My god.
Please write to the British government and explain this to them. Explain to them that the NHS, while great for routine procedures, is vastly inferior to private care, and therefore that private care should not be treated like the embodiment of Satan on earth.
It sounds to me like this would cost you less than the NHS costs us, and it's the best of both worlds.