Comment by wat10000
1 day ago
The listed figure is about 3,500£ per year per person. Seems quite low for what it is.
For comparison, the US government spends something like $5,500 per year per person on health care, and doesn't come even remotely close to covering the entire population with that spending.
OK, so what? The US also has a much higher GDP per capital and is the world leader in pretty much everything related to space. If the UK wants to avoid being left behind then they need to adjust priorities. Or they can stick with stagnation.
The point is that this "bottomless pit" you describe is not actually very expensive in practice. You imply that too much is spent on the NHS. Based on what?
If the UK wants to have a place in the future global economy then they're spending too much on things other than space launch. The NHS is one of those other things. In order to achieve different results they would have to reallocate spending priorities, and generally shift from a managed decline policy back to a growth policy. But if UK citizens prefer to have continued stagnation then that's also an option.
1 reply →
As I was saying the other day, I think the main problem with the NHS is misallocation of funds. It receives a lot of money and has some good buildings (when it doesn't sell them off), yet that doesn't always translate into good patient care.
However the notion that we have a binary choice between American style healthcare where you pay through the nose and the NHS where you wait for years is a false one. It would be better to study continental Europe and Japan maybe.