Q. When do you know you've got an NHS advocate beaten in a health debate?
A. When they bring up the USA.
If there is no better defense of the socialist system than that the USA is worse, then we really are at the point where reform is not only logical but necessary. For a comparatively ridiculous argument, let's consider a reasonable argument we might put forward, and the equivelant argument that the converted use against NHS reform.
"We need to clean up Moss Side in Manchester."
"No, Benghazi is worse."
What, really? So because our system isn't the worst in the world, we shouldn't even consider reforming it? This isn't, of course, what the far-left are proposing. What they suggest is simple, that the only problem with the NHS is that it just isn't funded well enough.
In order for this claim to stand up to scrutiny, there would need to be no other healthcare system in the world which achieves better results with less money than is in the NHS. We already know that healthcare systems which have more spent on them can do significantly better, but in order to convince the NHS advocates, we're going to need to get past the idea that the issue is simply funding, and it goes deeply into inefficiency.
I've been seeing a lot of that study putting the NHS second behind the Dutch system (which is very similar to the one I advocate). I found the statistics behind the survey, and thought we should have a look at that data and how it really portrays the NHS.
I'm going to lay out all the areas where we succeed (1st to 3rd out of 7) and fail (5th to 7th out of 7) and we can look at where we picked up points. To clarify, some of the quantifiers are given in a negative tone and some positive. 1st is always 'best' and 7th always 'worst'. I've italicised a few which I think deserve attention, and annotated, but I'm putting everything here.