Because politicians have made it their mission to chip away at the NHS over decades. This doesn’t say anything about the efficacy of statutory healthcare.
But it’s quite relevant to the question of whether you can just assume that some country will foot the bill for your health care needs at old age, and therefore you don’t need to worry about health expenses if you retire early. Rising costs of health care systems are a serious problem in most developed countries. “Eh, I’ll just move to Europe in old age” is not really a comprehensive plan to ensure you get good healthcare far in the future.
It does. In every public-healthcare country, this happens. Because incentives are stacked against delivering to the patient and for increasing spendings. It’s the tragedy of the commons.
I wouldn't use the Netherlands as a great example either. The family doctor model is slowly disappearing, replaced by private clinics. It is relatively difficult to get appropriate treatment for anything, and there are long waiting queues even for intake appointments. It has only been getting worse in the past decade.
> Public healthcare isn't a free for all, its regulated, actively managed and budgeted.
Not what I mean. It’s racist. Public jobs are being reassigned in a racist way to help whoever the currently-elected leader wants to favoritize, and, as the NHS ad says: “This is us, now”, clearly demonstrating a no-whites ideal (NHS’s intentions, not mine).
Public health funnels money from people who paid to get coverage, to, on one part, those would be rejected in a normal system (non-insured people) because it’s easier to say yes when it’s diluted; to to, for the second part, people self-selected by the group of currently-employed people, ie in the UK it means that normal people are selected with all criteria but protected classes (the legal term, “protected classes”, I mean) have priority for those jobs.
You may pretend the NHS is not racist, but the NHS actions speak for themselves.
