Reply #30: It's true that the Observer report wants to reform the British NHS

[muriel_volestrangler]

but it's also worth pointing out it wants a European system, and repeatedly says how bad the American one is:

The reality is that many other systems fail in one or more of these criteria, as NHS defenders are quick to point out. For example, the US system is often accused of providing an inferior service for people on low incomes or imposing insupportable burdens on the chronically sick.
...
To ensure full access to the poor, all those below a certain income - in particular the unemployed - will have their insurance premiums paid for out of general taxation, as for example happens in Netherlands, and has recently been introduced in France. This ensures that the poor have access to the same hospitals and doctors as the rich, rather than being relegated to a 'sink service', as can happen in the US, and is rapidly happening in the UK. Health care would indeed be a genuine single-tier service.
...
To make sure that the cost of insurance doesn't fall unduly heavily on people with lower incomes who don't qualify for free insurance, the insurance premiums should be income-related. This redistribution from rich to poor is standard practice in almost all social insurance schemes (but not in countries like the US that depend on private insurance). Depending on the scale used, it is quite possible to create a system of paying for health that is as progressive as general taxation. The sliding scale of contributions will also make it far more politically acceptable.
...
The cost of insurance should be paid by individuals themselves, as happens in Switzerland. France and Germany have shown that relying too heavily on employers to pay social insurance can create a "tax on jobs" that can damage employment, and have been taking measures to redress this. It will also prevent the problems of the US, where health cover attaches to a particular job, leading to 'job lock' and damaging labour market inflexibility. Making people pay personally makes it easier for them to stay with the same insurance scheme when they move from job to job, or as they move in and out of the labour market.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/nhs/story/0,1480,679722,00.html

The "one in five" and "one in four" figures are presumably accurate (The Adam Smith Institute, while far right, does have a decent reputation), though it's not clear exactly where they came from. British spending on health has historically been the lowest of the richer Euorpean countries (eg France, Germany Italy, Netherlands etc. - it may have beaten Greece and other countries woth a lower GDP), and waiting lists have been a real problem (getting better now, with more expenditure - but the statistics are difficult to obtain and trust). Note the stats were from 2002. If I find reliable stats from 2004, I'll post them.