At the risk of some thread drift, I have to ask akenaton just how the NHS is being abused by doctors and consultants. All the hospital doctors I knew during my 28-odd years in hospital work were highly dedicated and worked very long and often stressful hours.

The NHS provides free and (almost) all-inclusive health care at the point of delivery for comparatively cheap instalment payments (which don't even have to be continuous). And it is expected to do much more nowadays than it did in the past. So yes, it does cost the government a lot to run. But despite what Murdoch and Cameron would have us believe, I think front-line care is highly cost-effective.

If (or perhaps I should say when) we change to a US-style health so-called system you will find that the cost of insurance policies, which in most cases will provide only partial cover, will be absolutely crippling for all but the top 5% of earners. A service which relies heavily on high levels of government expenditure is not necessarily inefficient. Conversely (and again with reference to the US) a commercial service which is funded by high levels of private expenditure is not necessarily efficient.

I hope that your post is not trying to suggest that the US might be better off not to have a national health care system.