American using Britain’s NHS (2015)

> In the US, I've always been able to see a specialist within a few days. Score one for America.

This is really, really heavily dependent on where you live and the number of doctors and specialist doctors in the area.

I live in a mid-sized city. If I need to see a typical general practice doctor for a routine problem (coughs, etc.) I can usually be seen the same day, but I'll probably have to wait a 2-4 hours depending on when I go.

But if I need to see a specialist (allergist, dermatologist, sleep doctor, etc) and it's not a life-or-death emergency, it's usually a six-week to six month wait for an opening. It literally took six months before I was able to see a dermatologist last year.

My only other option is to drive 2 hours away to the next (bigger) city that has a medical school and a large concentration of doctors. Sometimes you can get an appointment in a few days if you're willing to drive. This is actually what I've started doing when I'm referred to a specialist.

And if you live in a rural area, even routine medical care can be difficult to come by. Many towns will have a small clinic staffed by a doctor who lives in the community, but often this doctor may have rounds where he covers several communities in a geographic area. So, for instance, he may only be in the office in your nearest town Mondays and Thursdays. So if you need to see a doctor and the local nurses can't handle it, you either have to wait or drive to wherever the doctor is that day.

Where I grew up in East Tennessee, we also had a volunteer service called Remote Area Medical [0], which provided free service to very remote areas of Appalachia. I remember going to the Knoxville airport with my Dad once and seeing their DC-3 fueling up for its next trip.

[0] https://ramusa.org/

It's a moving target, because need continues to grow as the population ages. We're in largely uncharted territory, so it's difficult to make long-term cost forecasts. You could always find ways of spending money to improve a healthcare system, so it just doesn't make sense to pick a number ex nihilo. We do have other, better means of determining what a reasonable level of healthcare spending might be on a year-to-year basis.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence have determined a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000 per additional Quality-Adjusted Life Year. This threshold is a little bit arbitrary, but it's a reasonable rule-of-thumb as to what treatments provide a net benefit to society. Based on this figure, we can start to calculate a reasonable overall NHS budget from the bottom-up - the NHS needs enough money to provide all the healthcare interventions that NICE has determined to be cost-effective.

In addition to cost-effectiveness, we also have benchmarks in terms of quality of care. It might not be clinically significant if someone has to wait three weeks for a GP appointment about their psoriasis or six months for knee surgery, but it matters to the patient. We know that wait times have been going up and patient satisfaction is going down, which is a reasonable indication that the system is underfunded. It wouldn't be reasonable to aim for instant care and 100% patient satisfaction, but we should at the least hope for stability rather than regression.

The question of affordability is perfectly fair, but the UK doesn't spend an exceptional amount on healthcare by the standards of equally-developed nations. As a proportion of GDP, our spending is roughly average for OECD nations. In absolute terms, we spend about 25% less per patient than Germany or Ireland. We can clearly afford to spend a fair bit more before we start feeling the pinch.

I think that it's perfectly reasonable to spend a few tenths of a percent of our GDP to try and take the pressure off the system and get the quality metrics back to where they were in 2015. If costs start spiralling out of control, then we need to have some difficult conversations about what kind of care we're going to ration, but I think that conversation is premature if we haven't first tried a modest increase in spending.

People who really love "our NHS" eat right, exercise, and get enough sleep... The rest are just trying to score cheap political points.

That's kind of where it loses me. We already have a system very similar to single-payer for our veterans and it is notoriously inefficient, bloated, and unpopular. What many are clamoring for in the US is already being tried in the US and failing exactly the way opponents claim it will.

Evidence that it works well in other countries is worth considering, but it in no way proves such a system would work well here. It'd probably work well in states that are similarly culturally homogenous (like Vermont or New Hampshire), but the discussion always seems to be at the federal level.

I think what we need is more freedom for experimentation. Pick maybe a city or county and make it eligible to sidestep all of the federal and state regulations and build/create their own. Some will undoubtedly shoot for a libertarian approach while others might imitate the NHS. See how the costs and outcomes compare. Gather more evidence in a more relevant way.