Healthcare System in Great Britain

The National Health System began in 1948 with the aim to provide free health care for the English thus removing health access inequities. This essay considers two strengths of the NHS, being free health and locally responsive health care and two weaknesses being the financial burden and unprecedented pressure on health care resources.

Although it censures the healthcare system we have, Sicko also highlights the healthcare practices in UK. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state located in the continent of Europe. The English ruled over most parts of the world for several decades and set standard for others to follow. It is said that no one in the world is better than the English for quality and service. And such is true for healthcare.

Starting with the organizational structure of the NHS, it is basically an umbrella organization that comprises of four regional branches, in particular, NHS (England), NHS Scotland, Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland and NHS Wales. The financing for all these institutions comes from a universal source, particularly the tax-payer money of residents of UK, although they operate to an extent as self-governing institutions. The treasury allocates money to the department of Health, which in turn allocates money to NHS England (Understanding the new NHS). In other words, the top executives of these four institutions take decisions independently for day to day operations although they abide by broader governing directives applicable to the UK region as a whole. Governance is an important aspect of the operating of the NHS, for without it exploitation by private vested interests is likely to happen. (National Health Service (NHS): A study of its Structure, Funding and Regulation, Strengths and Weaknesses, n.d.)

This movie went around the world to different countries to show the comparisons and differences in healthcare compared to each other and the U.S. The first country that was visited was the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom spends 8.3% of their GDP on healthcare. The citizens pay nothing for premiums, all of it is paid trough taxation. Some services require co-pay, but all young people and all elderly are exempt from drug co-pays. The United Kingdom calls their healthcare system “socialized medicine”; the government provides for and pays for all healthcare. The taxes that Britons pay gets distributed up to different healthcare providers. Since the United Kingdoms’ system is taxed,

In contrast to the United States, Great Britain has a health care system that is focused on the delivery of health care as a human right. Because of this model health insurance is universal for all citizens allowing everyone to have access to care. According to Sick Around the World produced by Jon Palfreman (2008), Great Britain runs a system that allows their people to never receive medical bills. Instead, Great Britain has implemented a national health system where the government runs and regulates the delivery of health care (Shi & Singh, 2013, p. 20). They have universal coverage where all citizens have access to health care under the national health system (Thorlby & Arora, 2016, p. 49). People living in Great Britain can also choose to pay for their own private insurance but only a small number of people select to do so.

Some of the key arguments that exist in today’s NHS are how it is organised and managed, and how it is to be funded. Should the government pay for it? Should the taxpayers pay for it? Or should it be privately run?

By examining both the United States health care system and the British health care system, it will provide insight of which elements of each system are beneficiary and which elements of each system are disadvantages. Therefore, this paper will provide an overview of the pros and cons of each system to decide where improvements need to be made.

Health care in the UK relies heavily on a public market rather than a private driven market; thus, giving free care to its people. NHS services are free of charge to patients in England unless stated (Department of Health, 2013). Free health care in the UK aim to prevent ill health and

This paper outlines the differences between the healthcare systems of the United States and the United Kingdom and expands on what that means for the health and wealth of the citizens of these countries. The U.S. and the U.K. are two different countries with two very different healthcare systems. The U.S. healthcare system is the Affordable Care Act, (ACA) and is the attempt by the U.S. to provide affordable healthcare coverage. he U.K. healthcare system is publicly financed and managed by the National Health Service, (NHS). The U.S. healthcare system is largely private sector whereas the healthcare in the U.K. is public. “The U.S. spends more on health care than any other country in the nation while the U.K. is a country that spends

The United Kingdom utilizes a national health service. This service is government owned and controlled. Most practitioners are employees of the government and hospitals are government run. Taxes provide nearly 80% of the funding for their health program. The remainders of the cost are covered by employee and employer contributions. Most providers and hospitals are public, although there is a small but growing private sector. The citizens of the United Kingdom pay nothing for visits to their physician or hospital stays. They also can choose which providers they want to visit and have “good access to primary care” (Hohman, 2006). The United Kingdom ranked number 18 in overall healthcare (WHO 2000) while spending only 8.4% of its gross domestic product (Kaiser EDU). In a recent poll, 79% of UK citizens “agreed that the NHS provided them with good service” (Health Science Journal, 2009).

Lifestyle choices such as smoking, drinking alcohol, poor diet and lack of physical exercise have many diseases associated with them. In 2006-07, patients with these diseases cost the NHS a combined total of £18.4bn (Scarborough et al. 2011). If the NHS limited treatment to these groups of people, it would be able to invest this money into other areas of need. This could lead to improved facilities for people who become ill through no fault of their own.

To test my theory, I compared the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, and Pakistan. The United Kingdom (UK) was the first country that I chose to examine. Before I had conducted research, I was aware that the UK had a form of universal healthcare. Another reason I chose the UK is because it is made up of four different countries, which include England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I wanted to see how a universal healthcare system would

In 2010, the Scotland Act Established Healthcare Improvement Scotland. This organisation was in charge of healthcare services at the independent level. So far, they have incentivized the rapid development and reformation of health care services in Scotland. It works on the improvement of the quality of the healthcare development based on the scrutiny and constructive criticisms of the Scots. This was achievable because devolution has given Scotland a chance at experiencing better and more specialised services.

‘There was a widespread public expectation that devolution would bring greater policy innovation and divergence between Scotland, Wales and the UK state.’ This essay will assess the situation of divergence and convergence in Wales with a specific focus on the period after the devolution settlement. To fully answer the question the essay shall be divided into several sections. Firstly, before attempting to answer the question it will illustrate what convergence and divergence are and the distinct types of policy areas. It will then look at the choice and the reasons for use of the case study in this essay which is the health policies of Wales. When answering the question this essay will divide the question into two sections, the first part will

The first county I am going to look at is Canada. The health care in Canada is very fair when it comes to the treatment of making sure that everyone has health care. In Canada the health care act implements administration principles to make sure each individual in every province and territory may receive funding for health care services. The five main principles are that all administration of provincial health insurance must be carried out by a public authority on a non-profit basis. They also must be accountable to the province or territory, and their records and accounts are subject to audits. All necessary health services including hospitals, physicians and surgical dentists must be insured. All insured residents are entitled to the same level of health care. There are two types of health care insurance in Canada. These two sectors are the provincial health insurance and the private health insurance. The