Britons, how do you feel about your health universal health care system?

It's very good. It isn't perfect by any means and this type of system would probably not suit the US but you do need a way of looking after your health in a way that does not conflict with the profits of major corporations.

I suggest a national system based on some form of federal procurement. Essentially, the federal government will establish a health care system that corporations or individuals can buy into. If the company that you work for does provide health care then you can have that system or opt out and have the federal health care. If you opt into federal health care then the company that you work for will contribute. If you don't have a health care at work then you can pay a reasonable fee taken every month from your wage before tax, making your health care tax efficient.

The federal system will appoint a not for profit organisation to provide affordable health care. They will appoint staff on good (not extortionate)wages. They will provide decent care to a high standard. They will not deny care because you forgot to mention that you once had flu and didn't declare it. They will not refuse care because the procedure you require is considered experimental. In fact they will not refuse any reasonable request for care. Some procedures will probably be rationed because of their extreme expense, but with your present system there is a good chance that your medical insurance would try and wriggle out of paying anyway.

I know that a lot of Americans dislike Socialised health care but when you have cities with higher post natal death rates than some African cities then you have to do something.

You are supposed to be the land of the free, if you die of treatable disease because your Doctor wants a new Porsche and you can't afford to pay for his paint job, how free are you?

I think the NHS is a fantastic institution and it is something that many British people take pride in. I think that in any civilised society care for the sick ought to be a right rather than a privilege and I much prefer our system to the USA where you get much less for your money and nothing is guaranteed.

The NHS isn't perfect, like most systems there are flaws although these flaws are pretty minor and in general the NHS is a great organisation with good priorities and a high standard of care. There is also private sector for those who choose to pay extra for more attention, luxury etc.

As far as I understood Obama was just bringing in some new kind of insurance over there which is a shame because I really think your country as a whole would be better off if you adopted a system similar to ours.

I find it sad that alot of americans are treating this as a political left vs right wing issue and trying to brand national healthcare as socialism the real issue should be choosing the system under which the sick would be better off and I think the statistics show overwhelmingly that system is universal health care.

I don't think so, I think (hope) there will always be interests here that would stop it. It doesn't matter that just the President wants it, Congress has to pass a specific law requiring it as well, and the way our system is set up, you'd have to have a solid majority in favor including a 60 vote majority in the Senate. On such a contentious issue, that will be difficult. Those opposed would use ALL options to stop it. I also think that when the issue comes to the forefront, as it did during the Hillary-care attempt, the American people get educated on the subject and turn against it at a high enough rate that it becomes unpopular. Ask people in England what they think, how they like waiting 6 months for an appointment, or having to pull out their own teeth because they can't even get a dental appointment.

I like in the UK and recently saw an article on CBS news about our NHS. The NHS cares for 60 million people. CBS told of ONE case to present the NHS in a bad light (the story was that the NHS was not satisfied an experimental cancer drug had been sufficiently proven to be effective to warrant funding it for a terminal cancer patient.)

The tale was not typical of British peoples' experiences with the NHS. Nobody is expected to directly pay to see a doctor (for any reason), or to use A&E/ER, maternity services, or any for any surgical procedures (unless wholly cosmetic), or for in-patient or out-patient care.

Americans certainly have more money spent on health care on a per capita basis, perhaps around 3 or 4 times as much, but how fairly is it distributed?

Very few people have to wait more than 24 hours to see a GP, and most ER treatment is concucted as swiftly as it would be anywhere else. With an increase in the use of less invasive surgical procedures, and a reduction in time spent in hospital, the system treats more people than ever, and people on average wait less than ever.

NHS doctors are not tied exclusively to the NHS - they are free to undertake private work, and most do so. Going private here can result in getting exactly the same doctor, performing exactly the same work.

The BMA has been behind the NHS since it was created in 1948, as have the British public, and all serious politicians. Suggesting scrapping the NHS in the UK would be electoral suicide.

btw, I fail to see the difference between paying tax, or paying private insurance (which will be taxed at various stages, reducing the spend on healthcare). The insurance is therefore effectively an optional tax. Surely it is better to make sure no person is left without healthcare.

It's a great institution, one of the things which makes living in the UK tolerable. We don't have to worry about whether our health insurance will cover such-and-such a procedure, we generally get whatever treatment is needed without worrying about costs. A universal publicly-funded system is also much more cost-effective than the USA's insurance-based model.

There are instances where the NHS hasn't approved treatments, either because they're not clinically proven or they are excessively costly for the benefits they provide, but these are pretty limited cases.

It also avoids knock-on problems with the funding model the US halthcare system has. Did you know, for example, that 60% of all personal bankruptcies in the USA are caused by health care costs? (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5530... would not be tolerated for a second in the UK.

Most of us love it and would never get rid of it. While most would agree that it has problems, few would get rid of it. There are some that do think that we should move to a US system but they are very very few.

First of all, Obama is not going to bring in universal healthcare, a fact that many people (including those who voted for him) seem not to realise. He wants to make insurance more available to all.

Second, of course universal health-cover sucks. That is why we in Western Europe have it. We think, hmm, our healthcare system sucks. I know, lets keep it. I guess that is the same with Japan and Canada as well. In fact, if you get a politician who says that they are going to end the system we have, they would never get elected!

FACT - the USA spends more on healthcare PER PERSON than any other nation on the planet.

FACT - the US has higher death rates for kids aged under five than western European countries with universal health coverage.

That means that a dead American four year old would have had a better chance of life if they were born in Canada, France, Cuba, Germany, Japan etc, all of which have universal health coverage.

I have mixed feelings about our NHS, and it really looked after me 5 years ago when I fell off my ladders at work (LMAO) and I really hurt my leg and broke it in 3 places. The nurses and surgeons that put me back together were the very best in the world as far as I'm concerned. They treated me with honour, respect and dignity.

BUT.....

Boy do we pay for it! I also pay into a private scheme now as well because I cannot afford to wait for NHS waiting lists if I need an operation because I will lose so much money being off work sick. SO, I and many millions of other people pay into private schemes too..... not because we're rich either.

The docs, nurses and auxiliary staff that do the maintenance and cooking are all great as far as I'm concerned. It's the wankers that run the NHS and the managers and the cronie contractors and suppliers that make the NHS bad. It could be really great, but it is just a huge black hole that soaks up billions £ like a monumental sponge.

It's one of the best things about living in Britain. It could be better if it were better funded - we pay far less than the French, for example, but it's still outstandingly good, and offers care based on clinical need, not on ability to pay.

Don't believe the Americans, and some stupid or corrupt Brtiish, who run the NHS down - they are politically motivated trolls. or hired liars.

Obama would do far better to build a state health service on the British model than introduce unversal insurance - it has been proved again and again that insurance based systems are extremely wastful and reward the wrong people.

I would not want to be without it, but I do think that the administration is top heavy and sometimes as is always the case with a top heavy admin. things tend to be run for the benefit of the Admin rather than the patient. If USA is going to go for a form of N.H.S they must watch out for this one trap and would advise that hey looked at the French German Swedish systems etc which are very good. Political interference needs to be kept o a minimum

The us health "care" system is basically just about making hmo's richer and richer. What britons don't realize that hmo's can just say: Hey, you're sick, we don't want you in our HMO." Refuse sick people. It's somehow sort of against the law, but they all do it, we recently heard all HMO bosses testify to that in Congress.

US "health care" is ANTI-solidarity. It's everyone for himself/herself, and god for the self-righteous fake christians.

The thing is, we see that 23 out of 24 nations have shown that universal health care works FAAAAAR better than the US system, but repubs need "more proof".