4 ms·
> Especially in Europe where the existence of a national healthcare system is not a religion but a norm. An NHS-type system is not at all the norm in Europe. C
by vinay427 6y ago
> Especially in Europe where the existence of a national healthcare system is not a religion but a norm.
An NHS-type system is not at all the norm in Europe. Comprehensive and universal health insurance or even single-payer health insurance are not the same as the single-payer (mostly) single-provider system in the UK.
In most of the Germanic countries, for instance, the norm is closer to the multiple-payer multiple-provider system in the US in structure, albeit most certainly not in outcomes due to some important tweaks.
- DanBC 6y ago> single-provider system in the UK England doesn't have a single provider system. I don't know about Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland (they each have health systems that are devolved and thus separate).
- vinay427 6y agoI did specify "(mostly)" which I think is rather accurate. It's rather close to a completely single-provider model (in each of the constituent devolved regions, as you note) compared to the system in Canada, for instance. > With largely public or government owned providers, this also fits into the 'Beveridge Model' of health care systems, sometimes considered to be single-payer, with relatively little private involvement compared to other universal systems. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare#United...