Ok lets say for one minute the group does not have a hidden agenda.

Which survey would you say has the most credence? WHO or Commonwealthfund?

As I said before, I have no idea.

BTW. I'm not knocking the NHS or disagreeing that the US system falls woefully short of what a good health care system should be. It's the survey that's flawed..... and then some.

Well, let's leave it at that then.

If I can have my tuppence worth on the Commonwealth Fund report.

First you have to extricate the report itself from the Guardian headline and report which was undoubtedly heavily biased. The Commonwealth Fund did not find that the NHS was the 'best in the world'. Apart from anything else, they only compared 11 countries.

Secondly, although the NHS came top overall, it is still very worrying that the NHS came last but one on its raison d'ȇtre -- keeping people alive. A more valid headline (but perhaps more suited to the Daily Telegraph) might have been "Only US Worse than NHS at Keeping People Alive".

I think the Commonwealth Fund produces one of these reports every year. The Fund is about getting a better healthcare system for the USA, which is laudable. But, on methodology, the authors do not, as far as I can tell, do any original research. They just compare and number crunch any national reports that are available. The quality of the report will therefore depend on the quality of the original research, and it is very probable they are not always comparing like with like.

As I've already pointed out the "keeping people alive" comment is also The Guardian's spin on things.

I don't think that is 'spin'. It is a reasonable summary of:

What else would you call it?

Was that when they spoke about the NHS Death Panels?

From todays Independent...........

NHS funding crisis: Boss warns of £75-a-night charge for a hospital bed - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

Tough choices to be made. Would you be happy to pay £75 a night B&B for a hospital stay? I think I'd rather pay that than see waiting lists extended. Means testing on the horizon?

From the article.........

<Although detailed plans on charging patients for “bed and board” have not been drawn up, another senior NHS source suggested the fees could be means-tested, and set at around £75 per night>

<NHS bosses are also understood to be considering letting waiting lists increase further, which could see a return to routine one-year waits for procedures like hip and knee operations.

This would allow surgeons to prioritise patients with urgent needs, while also releasing pressure by driving wealthier patients into seeking private treatment.>

You missed out this part of the article:

"A Department of Health spokesman said: "The NHS will remain free at the point of use. We know that with an ageing population there's more pressure on the NHS, which is why we’ve increased the budget by £12.7bn over this Parliament and are investing in community services to keep people living healthier at home for longer.”

A spokesman further added: “These proposals are not under consideration.”

I do agree something has to give. Spending clearly isn't keeping up with the demands of an ageing population.

So someone made a comment in an article about something that isnt going to happen, wow

I doubt if any political party would endorse these suggestions ( well not before the election ). and yes something has to give. What, where, when and who it will affect remains to be seen.

BTW, 'The Independent' are running a week long series of articles on NHS funding. Thought provoking for those inclined and worth a read for those who care.

Give it a rest mate. You're going to make yourself ill.

You're probably right.