> "Constantly comparing the NHS to it, or worse, implying that people face a binary choice between the US system or the UK system, is a fallacy that ignores the

> "Constantly comparing the NHS to it, or worse, implying that people face a binary choice between the US system or the UK system, is a fallacy that ignores the highly capable and often very efficient healthcare systems in other countries. Which don't seem to suffer the same ills of the NHS." I'm glad you could admit that the NHS wasn't the worst system out there. As for better systems, I'm not saying the NHS is perfect, what I am saying is that it can be improved by stopping the drive towards privatisation, as this drive is making the NHS less efficient at spending money on healthcare, not more efficient. Furthermore, even with these inefficiencies, the NHS continues to offer a cost-effective service, and I don't even need to use the US healthcare system to compare it to. The UK spends less per person on healthcare than France and Germany, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_h... The NHS isn't a money pit, it's a bargain. If you made it more efficient by getting rid of the privatisation efforts, it could be even more of a bargain. > "PFI boiled down to a complicated kind of loan that let Labour do what it always seems to try and do: massively increase spending on the public sector without raising taxes. No surprise that they paid a very high interest rate for such a thing." This is where your partisan bias is blinding you. PFI wasn't just popular with New Labour, it's been popular with the Conservatives that replaced them in power. If the Conservatives are supposedly more fiscally responsible, why do they continue to use expensive PFI schemes to fund government spending? http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/18/george-osborne-backs-pfi-projects http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/18/george-osbor...