[ppf]

Yes, and it shows. Anything other than critical or emergency care is of a distinctly lower grade. I thought it would be a fun idea to do "healthcare tourism", where I fly in people from other countries to experience nationalised healthcare. US citizens in particular would be horrified.

[eigenket]

It sounds like you should be voting for parties that want to put more funding into the NHS then, right? Its both way cheaper than its "competition" (healthcare in other countries) and apparently lower grade than you want?

To me it sounds like there is a super simple answer to that - don't vote tory.

[ppf]

The NHS is a money pit, with endless layers of middle managers and expensive consultants leeching off the system. I don't think that pouring more money into it will fix anything. I think it currently offers terrible value for money, when you take into account the general quality of healthcare you receive at all stages of your life. Do you have a niggling pain, sports injury, or condition that turns you from a fit active person into someone who can only perform average daily tasks? Tough, you have to wait until it's a real problem.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/28/nhs-manager-allo...

Edit: and to your "don't vote Tory" point - as I've already said, I live in a place (Wales) where the Labour party has controlled the Welsh NHS for decades, and we enjoy about the worst healthcare in Europe.

[eigenket]

The NHS provides very comparable treatment to France and Germany in my experience, given that it is cheaper than both do you have any evidence to back up your claim that it is worse value for money?

I have also lived in Poland for a time, believe me if you think Wales is close to the worst healthcare in Europe you are blinded by your privilege.

I think you and I are used to different standards of evidence. I provided you the statistics showing you that the NHS is cheaper than any G7 country except Italy (which has substantially worse outcomes) you provide me with one guy living in Marabella. You see how I find the first more convincing?

Edit: to address your last point, the government in Wales is pretty much a function of the money they get from Westminster.

[ppf]

I can't speak to your personal experience, but picking on Germany - for a relatively small incrase in GDP spending on healthcare (11.7%, compared to the UK's 10%), Germany has three doctors per 1000 population. The UK has two. Germany has three times as many hospital beds compared to the UK. France has fairly similar numbers to Germany.

50% more doctors, and 3x the number of beds - I'd call that a whole lot better.

It's not deniable that the NHS is "cheaper", and I have not tried to do so. I am saying that the quality of care is not sufficient, and may even be less efficient than other (more expensive) healthcare systems.

Edit: The Euro Health Consumer Index puts UK healthcare at 16th out of 35, putting it below all of the "tier one" countries in the EU. You certainly can't argue that the NHS is providing comparable healthcare to countries like France and Germany, for a lower price.

As for the "Wales can only spend what Westminster gives them" argument - the Barnett formula assumes that the average taxable income to the government per head is the same across the UK. As this is not true, it actually results in relatively more tax revenue going to the nations (like Wales) than the taxes those nations raise, per capita (yes, I know you can make arguments about which expenses the central government defines as "local" and "national" spending, etc etc). Welsh Labour has squandered huge amounts of this money. If anything, I am in support of each nation only having access to the tax revenue that it generates, as that would very starkly show just how under-performing the Welsh economy is (and I say this because I want it to be better. Knowing what the problem is is the first step to fixing it.).