US taxpayers pay MORE taxes for healthcare than British taxpayers

[frigidweirdo]

In 2016 the US Federal Government spent $956 billion on healthcare. That's $2,941 per person in the US.

UK Health Care Spending in 2018 - Charts

The UK spends 146.4 billion pounds which is $188 billion a year. That is $2,892 per person.

How is it possible that the US govt spends MORE on healthcare than the UK, and everyone in the UK gets healthcare, but in the US most people don't get healthcare and have to buy private medical insurance?

 

[TheDude]

1. Greed.
2. Americans are less healthy, I'm guessing.
3. I imagine Americans require more mental care.
4. Obamacare sucks.
5. Shitheads in Washington.
6. USA probably allows more stupid shit, like women's birth control & men's Viagra.
7. Immigration.

What I win?

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. Greed.
2. Americans are less healthy, I'm guessing.
3. I imagine Americans require more mental care.
4. Obamacare sucks.
5. Shitheads in Washington.
6. USA probably allows more stupid shit, like women's birth control & men's Viagra.
7. Immigration.

What I win?

Nothing with that vagueness, you're suggesting, not telling.

 

[Spare_change]

In 2016 the US Federal Government spent $956 billion on healthcare. That's $2,941 per person in the US.

UK Health Care Spending in 2018 - Charts

The UK spends 146.4 billion pounds which is $188 billion a year. That is $2,892 per person.

How is it possible that the US govt spends MORE on healthcare than the UK, and everyone in the UK gets healthcare, but in the US most people don't get healthcare and have to buy private medical insurance?

The correlation is faulty and disingenuous ... and the conclusions border on downright lies.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And we get less quality
Less people are covered by percentage
And we're ranked higher...35th!

I wouldn't choose the exact system as the British but maybe the norway, Swedish or Canadian version.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And we get less quality
Less people are covered by percentage
And we're ranked higher...35th!

I wouldn't choose the exact system as the British but maybe the norway, Swedish or Canadian version.

There are other ways of doing it, but clearly the US system is wrong.

 

[Decus]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

 

[Norman]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

 

[Norman]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

 

[frigidweirdo]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

 

[Norman]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

As percentage of GDP, govt of USA doesn't spend more, as I just pointed out in the post you quoted (what kind of a moron am I dealing with?).

Anyway, the problem is with the strong lobby, not with the fact that we don't have a centralized health care system. In the UK the private sector is more efficient, efficient enough to compete with almost free in fact. You just want free shit paid by other people...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here's the biggest problem with the NHS, it all depends on how the govt wants to run it.

Now, we know the Tories will try and run it into the ground and Labour will try and make it worth while. The Tories say it costs too much, which is ridiculous seeing how the US federal govt spends more per person and doesn't treat anywhere near the number of patients. About 9-10% of GDP would seem to be the right number, but the Tories think somewhere around 0%. Labour had it up to 8.5% I think and the system was working well. If you pay for private insurance on top of this you'd still be paying LESS than you would in the US.

The issue here is how much the RICH are paying for it. We all know the rich pay a lot less of a percentage of their earnings for healthcare than they do in the UK. Hence why the Tories are always trying to destroy it.

Really Labour need to find a way to stop the Tories demolishing the NHS every time they get in power.

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

As percentage of GDP, govt of USA doesn't spend more, as I just pointed out in the post you quoted (what kind of a moron am I dealing with?).

Anyway, the problem is with the strong lobby, not with the fact that we don't have a centralized health care system. In the UK the private sector is more efficient, efficient enough to compete with almost free in fact. You just want free shit paid by other people...

Per capita it does spend more. People don't get ill based on GDP, they don't cost more to care for because GDP is higher.

But hey, I just saw your insult.

I'm don't do insulters, bye.

 

[Norman]

The amount of leftist arrogance on this post has again, hit the ceiling.

If you believe it's so great, why not move. And while moving yourself to the right continent, might as well move this thread to the right forum.

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

As percentage of GDP, govt of USA doesn't spend more, as I just pointed out in the post you quoted (what kind of a moron am I dealing with?).

Anyway, the problem is with the strong lobby, not with the fact that we don't have a centralized health care system. In the UK the private sector is more efficient, efficient enough to compete with almost free in fact. You just want free shit paid by other people...

Per capita it does spend more. People don't get ill based on GDP, they don't cost more to care for because GDP is higher.

But hey, I just saw your insult.

I'm don't do insulters, bye.

Your whole thread is an insult to intelligence. Per capita is an IRRELEVANT number, because health care costs are indeed related to GDP. USA doesn't buy health care from the UK. Services cost a lot more in countries with a higher standard of living. Not much point in arguing anything if this is the level of understanding of the issues. It's pure agenda driven drivel.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The arrogance, from someone who uses "funny" to try and make a post look bad, is on you, I think you'll find.

You don't me, and you're making WAAAAAAY too many assumptions about me to be able to comment effectively. And no, I don't have the slightest interest to tell you why you're wrong.

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

As percentage of GDP, govt of USA doesn't spend more, as I just pointed out in the post you quoted (what kind of a moron am I dealing with?).

Anyway, the problem is with the strong lobby, not with the fact that we don't have a centralized health care system. In the UK the private sector is more efficient, efficient enough to compete with almost free in fact. You just want free shit paid by other people...

Per capita it does spend more. People don't get ill based on GDP, they don't cost more to care for because GDP is higher.

But hey, I just saw your insult.

I'm don't do insulters, bye.

Your whole threat is an insult to intelligence. Per capita is an IRRELEVANT number, because health care costs are indeed related to GDP. USA doesn't buy health care from the UK. Services cost a lot more in countries with a higher standard of living. Not much point in arguing anything if this is the level of understanding of the issues. It's pure agenda driven drivel.

Fine, the ignore list it is.

 

[Norman]

Wrong about what?

This is a post about health care in the UK, wrong forum... nothing to do with US politics. There is a dedicated forum for govt health care.

Speaking of being wrong. Your OP is completely misguided. UK govt spends almost 10% of GDP on health care (if you had spent more than 10 seconds looking at the tables you would have figured out). Government of the USA spends only 6%, at best 8%... Completely idiotic agenda driven drivel...

What is wrong about it? Everything.

No, this is about the US govt paying more than the UK govt for healthcare, basically it's about the US healthcare system being inefficient and expensive.

I'm the OP.

As percentage of GDP, govt of USA doesn't spend more, as I just pointed out in the post you quoted (what kind of a moron am I dealing with?).

Anyway, the problem is with the strong lobby, not with the fact that we don't have a centralized health care system. In the UK the private sector is more efficient, efficient enough to compete with almost free in fact. You just want free shit paid by other people...

Per capita it does spend more. People don't get ill based on GDP, they don't cost more to care for because GDP is higher.

But hey, I just saw your insult.

I'm don't do insulters, bye.

Your whole threat is an insult to intelligence. Per capita is an IRRELEVANT number, because health care costs are indeed related to GDP. USA doesn't buy health care from the UK. Services cost a lot more in countries with a higher standard of living. Not much point in arguing anything if this is the level of understanding of the issues. It's pure agenda driven drivel.

Fine, the ignore list it is.

Typical leftists, when you have no arguments, ignore!

But if this is your metric, may I suggest move to Algeria? Their health care spending per capita is only a few percentages compared to first world nations, yet they have public health care. Everyone gets health care for just a few dollars, it's the way to go, let's turn America into a 3rd world nation!

 

[PoliticalChic]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.

Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.

The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001. He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.'
Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Daily Mail Online

 

[Spare_change]

It seems that you get what you pay for. The British health care system is called the National Health Service (NHS) - definitely not a desirable system for many patients:

"The number of patients waiting to start treatment at the end of December 2016 was 3.7 million patients. Of those, 1,228 patients were waiting more than 52 weeks. Factoring in estimates for non-reporting trusts suggests the waiting list is just over 3.8 million."

NHS in crisis? The charts that show how health service performance hit record lows in December

The list of poor services and care in the UK is long but here are a few of other examples:

NHS 'waving white flag' as it axes 18-week waiting time operation target

Patients waiting more than two years for hip surgery

Cataract patients face postcode lottery of waiting times for NHS cataract treatment

Is this the system we are trying to build in the US???

.

"A former soldier pulled his own teeth out with a pair of pliers because he could not find a dentist to take on NHS patients.

Iraq War veteran Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment so instead took the drastic action to remove 13 of his teeth that were giving him severe pain.

The 42-year-old, from Beverley, East Yorkshire, had not had his teeth looked at since seeing the army dentist in 2003. He had not been registered with a dentist of his own since 2001. He said: 'I've tried to get in at 30 dentists over the last eight years but have never been able to find one to take on NHS patients.'
Man pulls out 13 of his own teeth with pliers 'because he couldn't find an NHS dentist' | Daily Mail Online

Great system !!!