Cavey wrote:
we're *still* bobbins..?.
You keep asserting this, but I don't know where you're getting it from.
http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key- ... on-the-nhsQuote:
International comparisons
In comparison with the healthcare systems of ten other countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and USA) the NHS was found to be the most impressive overall by the Commonwealth Fund in 2014.
The NHS was rated as the best system in terms of efficiency, effective care, safe care, coordinated care, patient-centred care and cost-related problems. It was also ranked second for equity.
However in the category of healthy lives (10th), the NHS fared less well.
Current health expenditure in the UK was 9.78 per cent of GDP in 2015. This compares to 16.91 per cent in the USA, 11.08 per cent in Germany, 11.01 per cent in France, 10.76 per cent in the Netherlands, 10.59 per cent in Denmark, 10.16 per cent in Canada, 9.05 per cent in Italy and 9.00 per cent in Spain.
Current expenditure per capita (using the purchasing power parity) for the UK was $4,015 in 2015. This can be compared to $9,451 in the USA, $5,343 in the Netherlands, $5,267 in Germany, $4,943 in Denmark, $4,614 in Canada, $4,415 in France, $3,272 in Italy and $3,153 in Spain.
The UK had 2.8 physicians per 1,000 people in 2015, compared to 4.1 in Germany (2014), 3.9 in Italy (2014), 3.8 in Spain (2014), 3.5 in Australia (2014), 3.4 in France, 3.0 in New Zealand and 2.6 in Canada (2014).
The UK had 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 people in 2014, compared to 8.2 in Germany, 6.2 in France, 3.0 in Spain, 2.8 in New Zealand and 2.7 in Denmark.
Average length of stay for all causes in the UK was 6.9 days in 2014. This compares to 16.9 in Japan, 9.0 in Germany, 7.8 in Italy, 7.6 in New Zealand (2013), 6.6 in Spain and 5.6 in France.
If your only metric for a healthcare system is value for money, then I can see a valid source for concern. But it absolutely should not be the only, or most important metric.