> The US spends more per capita on their social safety net than almost all other countries, including France and the UK.

To a vast and corrupt array of rentiers, middlemen, and out-and-out fraudsters, instead of direct provision of services, resulting in worse outcomes at higher costs!

Turns out if I’m forced to have visits with three different wallet inspectors on the way to seeing a doctor, I’ve somehow spent more money and end up less healthy than my neighbors who did not. Curious…

▲

dash2 7 days ago | parent [-]

It's easier to see your own society's faults. The NHS also has waste, most obviously the deadweight loss caused by queuing. I know someone who went back to get treated to her own country. Not remarkable except that country was Ukraine.

▲

eru 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

> It's easier to see your own society's faults.

Neither the US, UK or France are my own society.

I lived in the UK for a few years on and off. I agree that rationing by queuing is less efficient than rationing by money. Singapore does a much better job: they always have a co-payment (even if that's often that just for symbolic/ideologic reasons, and less so for rationing).

▲

bugglebeetle 7 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, because the UK’s two dominant (and right wing) parties have been actively sabotaging it for years, chasing after a despicable dream of homegrown middlemen and fraudsters, envious as they are of the unchecked criminality of their friends from across the pond. Quelle surprise, things have gotten worse.

▲

dash2 7 days ago | parent [-]

Spending grew about 8% a year under New Labour on average, which doesn't seem like sabotage to me.

▲

eru 7 days ago | parent [-]

Also if both dominant political parties are supposedly so against the NHS, why don't they just abolish it?

▲

HPsquared 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

They need to be sneaky. Same with a lot of other unpopular policies which nevertheless (somehow...) have support from "both sides".

▲

tremon 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They need the public to (nominally) assent to it first, otherwise it'd be suicide. They're using the republican playbook: overburden the sector with tasks and regulations while underfunding it, and allow for private competition that is not subject to the same regulatory burden. Then in a decade or so, you can claim that the "free market" works better and the public won't kick up too much of a fuss.

	▲	eru 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		That seems like a weird conspiracy. Why would the parties secretly want to do something that the voters don't like? Are they not power-hungry? By the way, how is that the republican playbook? What does any of this have to do with the desire to remove King Charles as the head of government? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_Ki...