Your first case doesn't have any relation to diversity officers, that's a matter for the courts. The outcome would have been the same regardless. The US has ba

Your first case doesn't have any relation to diversity officers, that's a matter for the courts. The outcome would have been the same regardless. The US has bad healthcare outcomes for a lot of reasons unrelated to their health care system, like obesity - a problem for the UK too. It's not due to basic, fixable stuff like "the hospital has no appointments" or "doctors aren't under any obligation to actually serve patients". "That guy could have got emergency health care - he could have walked into an MIU, or an ED, or he could have called 999." The 999 service that's also in collapse? He'd have been told to piss off and stop wasting NHS time because it wasn't an "emergency", as it'd already been mis-diagnosed as something trivial. He didn't realize how serious it was until it was already far too late. Why are you trying to defend this outcome? It's a terrible, atrocious end for a man who did nothing wrong, and no, this sort of thing is not an outlier. We can see it in the millions of mission cancer diagnoses. Your last points seem to be continuing the previous confusion. You can abolish the NHS and still have healthcare regulations, although the act of abolishing the NHS is itself an act of de-regulation. It means you have fewer of them, not none.