> As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%.
If you exclude private insurance the US still pays a lot, at about 8.2%
The US has by far the largest spend per capita, yet has average life expectancy.
You misinterpret or spin the data from your link. Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare". What is "healthcare" as defined in this PR piece from the UK government? Where do factors like average wait time to see a specialist or have surgery weigh in?
I could take those same numbers and say, "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world, all while allowing all its people the complete freedom to control their own health outcomes."
For the record, I'm not a health libertarian, but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week.
> Look again and you'll see that, as far as compulsory spending goes the US and UK spend roughly the same percentage of GDP on "healthcare"
Yes, that's the point. The US government spends more on healthcare, but that huge spend doesn't cover the whole population.
> "The United States does a better job of assisting it's poorer citizens into the highest quality healthcare in the world,
Why does the US have such poor mortality figures if health care is so good and if everyone can access it?
> but I'd sure as hell take it over health authoritarianism, and the UK government proved that's what they have last week.
In the US cases of medical futility the doctors announce their plan to remove life support and if the parents disagree they have to go to court to stop it happening.
In the UK the doctors need to get the agreement of the parents, and if the parents don't agree the doctors have to go to court. In that court process the family can get legal aid (if they meet the financial test) - Alfie Evan's parents went through 7 legal firms, and they had expert counsel of a well respected silk and two juniors. But also Alfie had his own legal representation.
Alfie Evans had 16 months of excellent health care, followed by robust legal protection to make sure his best interests were looked after. His family are poor. He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.
> But also Alfie had his own legal representation.
What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism.
> He wouldn't have got anything like this in the US.
Absolute nonsense spread by someone who has no knowledge of the American system. A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals with some of the best doctors in the world, and other charities house the family, for no cost, during treatment. You know, like the Vatican offered, and the parents accepted, but apparently you're government decided it was time for Alfie to die.
> How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?!
The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests.
This system has been tested by international courts -in Europe- and they've found it works to protect the rights of the child.
> You know, like the Vatican offered,
No. The vatican offered the same end of life care he was getting, with the additional burden of a long difficult journey.
> A child like Alfie is given free medical care from one of many charity hospitals
I've already linked a page in this thread that shows this to be false.
You keep saying "government", but the UK government wasn't involved in any of the cases (apart from the EU ones).
> The child is not property. The child is a human, and has human rights. Those rights are protected. The child has his own independent legal representation to look after its best interests.
How humane of your government to decide that a toddler must starve to death.
Have you ever had a naso-gastric tube fitted? It's not pleasant. Doing this in order to prolong life when the case is medically futile is cruel.
Also, it's far better that the hospital has to go to the courts to get permission to do this than the situation in the US: the doctors announce their plan and the parents then have to go to court to stop it happening.
> What?! How does an infant/toddler receive legal representation arguing for the plug to be pulled, outside of the wishes of his parents?! That is the very definition of authoritarianism.
So, arguing the doctors' point of view of a terminally ill child's best interests is "authoritarianism", and arguing the parents' point of view is not? OK.
Simple answer to your question: It is for _doctors_ to assess if there is any realistic hope of recovery from an illness and if not, when palliative care is the best option. They're not perfect but it's the best that we have.
Terminal illness happens to us all eventually, you have to face that. It happens to children too sometimes, you have to face that too.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
If you include private insurance:
> As a percentage of GDP, the UK spent less on healthcare than USA, Japan, France and Germany and a similar percentage to Canada. The USA spent the most on healthcare as a percentage of GDP at 16.6%.
If you exclude private insurance the US still pays a lot, at about 8.2%
The US has by far the largest spend per capita, yet has average life expectancy.