4 ms·
> The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national healthcare system is an expensive mistake. Of "the rest of the developed world", only o
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> The rest of the developed world shows that anything short of national healthcare system is an expensive mistake.
Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems.
Canada runs healthcare at the provincial level. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, etc. - all of those countries use private systems that cannot reasonably be called a "national healthcare system", unless you're going to stretch the definition so far as to say that countries like India (and the US) also have national healthcare systems.
- richmarr 8y ago> Of "the rest of the developed world", only one country (the UK) has a "national healthcare system", and even that's a bit of a stretch, because England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have different systems. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. This handy graphic explains in case of confusion: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg/300px-British_Isles_Euler_diagram_15.svg.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Br...
- chimeracoder 8y ago> England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland makes 4 countries, just FYI. ...yes, that's the point. When people talk about "the NHS", as they usually do on HN, they're conflating four different systems (or, more commonly, thinking only of NHS England). The point, in case you missed it is that nobody outside the UK has what can reasonably be called a "national healthcare system" in this context.