In reply to Big Ger:
> How do people in countries where there is no NHS manage?
Pretty well in some of them. This comparison figure is worth a look - annual budget on the left, life expectancy in the right.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_system#/media/File%3AHealth_systems_...
Summary and take home messages -
1) The NHS delivers comparable bang for buck as most first world comparator nations, but has less funding than most of them and as such has less achievements.
We should fund the NHS more.
2) The USA's system is a hideously expensive under achieving disaster.
Any attempt to Americanise the NHS should be strongly resisted.
3) Japan has apparently got an amazingly efficient health care system - which may partially result from lifestyle differences (any experts to chime in?).
It seems entirely reasonable to expect more from the NHS for its funding level however see 2 above before blindly stumbling down the wrong path.
To over generalise, my problem with the state of this debate in the UK is that we have two diametrically opposed camps who are both wrong. One rabidly pushes the NHS as the best world leading health system and the other wants to make it better by being more American.
Let's have a rational, evidence based plan to gradually improve the NHS and the nations health (action on which may or may not be led by the NHS, with Cuba presenting a viable model for a proactive health service based approach to lifestyle driven public health increases.)
Post edited at 16:06