A couple of years back my son developed an eye infection that didn't respond to the antibiotic drops our GP prescribed. I took him back a couple of days later and we were referred first to a private ophthalmologist (who we didn't have to pay for) and then to the specialist eye department of the local hospital that same day (associated with the medical school of a world top 20 university) where he was regularly seen twice a week until the condition cleared up.

I know the NHS isn't perfect, and I don't really care whether it is #1 or #10 in some ranking. But what I do know that over the last 20+ years of having a family with multiple serious accidents (rugby, climbing etc.), childbirths etc. they've provided excellent and timely care.

Did I have to wait three weeks to get an MRI scan for a sinus infection that was recurring? Yes I did. Did I care if it was being used for properly ill people in the meantime? No I didn't.

It's not perfect, put it is pretty bloody good.

> It's not perfect, put it is pretty bloody good.

Just to round out my thoughts here, I mainly agree! I lived in London for two years and I was always pleased with the NHS overall.

My main point is that, based on my experience in the USA, advocates of moving to an NHS-style system tend to underplay the fact that there is genuinely a different set of costs, and it is not a magical solution.

I spend lots of time in both the USA and in Greece (which has a mostly-NHS-style system), and I have gotten health treatment in both places throughout my life. Both systems have strengths and weaknesses, and I can totally understand someone advocating for an NHS-style system as the best overall set of tradeoffs available. It's just not without some downsides, and I wanted to point out that waiting times can be a real problem.

I find complaints about wait times for minor issues to substantially underplay the incredible waste, suffering, and death which happens in the US system. Yes, the NHS and similar systems are not perfect. But to conclude with "This disabused me of any notion that publicly-provided healthcare is automatically superior" is, to me, trying to put the two on an equal footing which they very much do not deserve.

Maybe I've misunderstood the point they're making, but it sure seems to be saying, well, we could stop bankrupting and killing people for no good reason, but you may want to reconsider, because you might end up waiting several weeks for a non-urgent x-ray.

I realize that even non-urgent conditions can cause great suffering. But how does that suffering compare to dying from an easily treatable condition because you couldn't afford a doctor? If you can fix the latter at the expense of the former, is that not superior?

Especially since the workaround for long wait times seems to be to pay for quicker private care. If you have that option, then is it actually worse at all? You go from "pay to be seen quickly, or die" to "pay to be seen quickly, or wait." Seems like an improvement.