Sure, people may be satisfied with their system, but that's all they know. And that goes both ways, for Americans and others.
As someone who has experience both the US system and a universal system, there are things you get in the US system (if you have insurance) that you won't get in other systems.
> As someone who has experience both the US system and a universal system, there are things you get in the US system (if you have insurance) that you won't get in other systems.
I've used the NHS and the parallel private system in the UK. With private medicine everything happens quicker: initial consultation, treatment, operation etc. Inpatients tend to get private rooms, with a food menu, and routine meds like sleeping pills are handed out more freely. However, there are things the UK's private system can't do, probably because it makes no commercial sense. The really big stuff - major surgery like transplants - only happens in the NHS. Roughly one third of UK govt spend is the NHS; ~130B GBP last time I looked. So only the NHS has the financial, human and technical resources for eg heart transplants. Another important point is risk appetite. Private hospitals can choose not to do risky stuff to avoid litigation. The NHS is govt backed, so can take more risk. Ultimately the NHS is budget constrained, so can choose not to offer new and expensive treatments. IMHO the US system can deliver better results than the UK if you're very wealthy. However the UK system will be better for 99% of the population. Disclosure: I'm a British citizen working for a US bank in London, and I benefit from my employer's excellent private healthcare scheme.
I think it's fair to say that the US has the very best healthcare available - but not for everyone and overall healthcare outcomes aren't that great when compared with a lot of other countries
