Roper-Harrison

Make sure you point out to the officer who processes you at POE that you have been married two years so he gets your classification correct. Sometimes they are on auto-pilot and get it wrong, then you have to get it all corrected after the fact. 

Whether you receive a CR1 or IR1 is determined at the point of entry. If you have been married for two years on that date then you will be granted an IR1 (10 year card). 

That's why in adopting a single payer system, the US should look at these as well, and look at the healthcare systems in countries like Japan and Sweden. 

I don't know that I or anyone else has an answer to the question of sustainability other than to say that it's a standard that seems to get applied by free market supporters who have difficulty understanding the morality of the various issues they oppose. If you believe as does The Federalist and the author of this particular article that free markets exists and that they eventually solve all human problems, socialized medicine is and always will be anathema. If on the other hand you embrace the concept of certain inalienable human rights and class accessible and affordable healthcare among those rights - as do I - and, further, understand that free markets simply do not exist in the current global economy  - if indeed they ever did - then universal healthcare is an existential necessity. People do seem to find ways of making existential necessities sustainable. Clean air and water might be an example. And there are certainly others all of which would be, and in fact are, roundly condemned in every issue of The Federalist. Sometimes the first step in considering the sustainable nature of something is in considering the source of the arguments being proffered. And I understand that I too am a source.
 
That said - the NHS is not just the fifth largest employer in the world it is also the single largest employer in the UK (England/Scotland/Wales) with about 1.6 million employees. That truly is amazing. And on the face of it I'd say should be subjected to a major amount of scrutiny. But big numbers in and of themselves are not the bottom line. The Federalist article attempts to condemn the idea of universal healthcare on the basis of a couple of anecdotal situations using those particular situations in an attempt to tar the entire system. Poor form; very poor form. 
 
When considering policy to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number it helps to set the anecdotes aside-  good and bad - and consider something a bit more evidentiary. A 2014 study by the US-based Commonwealth Fund is illuminating. You can find it here. And this chart comes from that study:
 

 
As you can see UK ranks 1 or 2 in all but one category - and that one is a bit hard to explain - and as far as cost per person goes is second only to NZ. Every system shown here is universal care except one - the US. You can see where it stands in the rankings. I believe this chart also provides an answer to your question about quality of care. As for a patient's right of appeal - yes, they have a right to second and third opinions and these rights are exercised. Additionally there is a private healthcare market in UK if one cares to available themselves of it. There is certainly no need to travel outside the country to gain access to healthcare that is non-NHS provided. Having said that people do travel abroad for elective healthcare for he simple reason that it's much less expensive. US citizens do the same. If you live in SoCal and need a dental implant you can pay from 3-5k USD for it in US or you can also drive to Tijuana and get first class treatment  - including expedited border crossing in BOTH directions for a fifth that amount. And no, you  won't get mugged.
 
 

As perverse as it sounds I suspect you're correct. The one thing that trump seems to be expert at is creating chaos. Mainstream pols hate chaos. Predictability is the name of the game. When the center is constantly failing there is no where to hide. Taking action is the only real defense. It will if nothing else be an interesting battle.

I find it funny how people find the employment at the NHS surprising without considering how instead of a single organization, we have an entire business sector that has grown to deliver healthcare. The sector here in the USA has millions of people working in it. Insurance companies, CMS, VA, hospital systems, private practices, chronic care facilities. Those are all separated, fragmented and therefore have insane reduncies.
 
While I have no doubt the US-version of an "NHS" would be quite a bit larger than the UK version, it would pale in comparison to what we have now if you were to add everything up.

At the end of the day, history will read that Trumps presidency triggered a shift in public opinion that enabled Universal health care.  Not saying it should be that way but we actually have attention on the absurdity of  the situation.  We are paying more and getting less. 

This is where the "Equity" point hits in the Commonwealth Study. Queues can always be shortened if the number of eligibles is parsed to a fraction of the population. 
 
And good point on considering the employment levels in the US healthcare system as a whole. Too, if the sustainability of anything can be questioned then the growth of non clinical personnel certainly should rise right to the top of the list.

Commonwealth Fund is a great organization that produces a lot of really good studies on quality in medicine. Good reference.
 
A couple of points on this topic:
 
1. The fact that the NHS is such a large employer is not really a big deal. Yes it seems crazy how big they are, but if you compared it to the number of people employed in the private health insurance industry PLUS medicare/medicaid in the USA it wouldn't look quite so impressive. Private insurance industry alone employees over 2.5 million people, which doesn't include a lot of hospital system employees, doctors or the public health system we do have in the USA. 
 
The growth of "Non-clinica" support staff in US healthcare has been staggering, and honestly leads to a lot of wasteful spending.
 

 
2. Having a "Public Health System" doesn't automatically create need for medical care that didn't exist prior to the system existing. A common complaint/worry with Obamacare was how inundated doctors and resources would be when suddenly more people would have insurance. The act of obtaining insurance doesn't generate the need for healthcare. That need existed before those people had insurance. The only thing a public health system does is make that need more transparent, and establishes a responsibility to respond to the need instead of just ignore it.
 
Our queues for many procedures in the USA may be shorter, but that is unlikely because we magically better able to get through the same number of cases. Because our care is fragment we have many people who have a need but can't even get into queue for a procedure. That means the queues tend to be shorter, but not because we have handled it better. We just ignore those who can't get in line.
 
Unfortunately studying the "true need" (prevalence) of any particular disorder/disease requiring therapy has a hard time including those who don't present for care, and those who have no insurance are less likely to present for care.

I don't know that I or anyone else has an answer to the question of sustainability other than to say that it's a standard that seems to get applied by free market supporters who have difficulty understanding the morality of the various issues they oppose. If you believe as does The Federalist and the author of this particular article that free markets exists and that they eventually solve all human problems, socialized medicine is and always will be anathema. If on the other hand you embrace the concept of certain inalienable human rights and class accessible and affordable healthcare among those rights - as do I - and, further, understand that free markets simply do not exist in the current global economy  - if indeed they ever did - then universal healthcare is an existential necessity. People do seem to find ways of making existential necessities sustainable. Clean air and water might be an example. And there are certainly others all of which would be, and in fact are, roundly condemned in every issue of The Federalist. Sometimes the first step in considering the sustainable nature of something is in considering the source of the arguments being proffered. And I understand that I too am a source.
 
That said - the NHS is not just the fifth largest employer in the world it is also the single largest employer in the UK (England/Scotland/Wales) with about 1.6 million employees. That truly is amazing. And on the face of it I'd say should be subjected to a major amount of scrutiny. But big numbers in and of themselves are not the bottom line. The Federalist article attempts to condemn the idea of universal healthcare on the basis of a couple of anecdotal situations using those particular situations in an attempt to tar the entire system. Poor form; very poor form. 
 
When considering policy to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number it helps to set the anecdotes aside-  good and bad - and consider something a bit more evidentiary. A 2014 study by the US-based Commonwealth Fund is illuminating. You can find it here. And this chart comes from that study:
 

 
As you can see UK ranks 1 or 2 in all but one category - and that one is a bit hard to explain - and as far as cost per person goes is second only to NZ. Every system shown here is universal care except one - the US. You can see where it stands in the rankings. I believe this chart also provides an answer to your question about quality of care. As for a patient's right of appeal - yes, they have a right to second and third opinions and these rights are exercised. Additionally there is a private healthcare market in UK if one cares to available themselves of it. There is certainly no need to travel outside the country to gain access to healthcare that is non-NHS provided. Having said that people do travel abroad for elective healthcare for he simple reason that it's much less expensive. US citizens do the same. If you live in SoCal and need a dental implant you can pay from 3-5k USD for it in US or you can also drive to Tijuana and get first class treatment  - including expedited border crossing in BOTH directions for a fifth that amount. And no, you  won't get mugged.
 
 

I don't know that I or anyone else has an answer to the question of sustainability other than to say that it's a standard that seems to get applied by free market supporters who have difficulty understanding the morality of the various issues they oppose. If you believe as does The Federalist and the author of this particular article that free markets exists and that they eventually solve all human problems, socialized medicine is and always will be anathema. If on the other hand you embrace the concept of certain inalienable human rights and class accessible and affordable healthcare among those rights - as do I - and, further, understand that free markets simply do not exist in the current global economy  - if indeed they ever did - then universal healthcare is an existential necessity. People do seem to find ways of making existential necessities sustainable. Clean air and water might be an example. And there are certainly others all of which would be, and in fact are, roundly condemned in every issue of The Federalist. Sometimes the first step in considering the sustainable nature of something is in considering the source of the arguments being proffered. And I understand that I too am a source.
 
That said - the NHS is not just the fifth largest employer in the world it is also the single largest employer in the UK (England/Scotland/Wales) with about 1.6 million employees. That truly is amazing. And on the face of it I'd say should be subjected to a major amount of scrutiny. But big numbers in and of themselves are not the bottom line. The Federalist article attempts to condemn the idea of universal healthcare on the basis of a couple of anecdotal situations using those particular situations in an attempt to tar the entire system. Poor form; very poor form. 
 
When considering policy to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number it helps to set the anecdotes aside-  good and bad - and consider something a bit more evidentiary. A 2014 study by the US-based Commonwealth Fund is illuminating. You can find it here. And this chart comes from that study:
 

 
As you can see UK ranks 1 or 2 in all but one category - and that one is a bit hard to explain - and as far as cost per person goes is second only to NZ. Every system shown here is universal care except one - the US. You can see where it stands in the rankings. I believe this chart also provides an answer to your question about quality of care. As for a patient's right of appeal - yes, they have a right to second and third opinions and these rights are exercised. Additionally there is a private healthcare market in UK if one cares to available themselves of it. There is certainly no need to travel outside the country to gain access to healthcare that is non-NHS provided. Having said that people do travel abroad for elective healthcare for he simple reason that it's much less expensive. US citizens do the same. If you live in SoCal and need a dental implant you can pay from 3-5k USD for it in US or you can also drive to Tijuana and get first class treatment  - including expedited border crossing in BOTH directions for a fifth that amount. And no, you  won't get mugged.
 
 

It most certainly is a move in the right direction. But we were comparing the US system of healthcare to that provided in UK by the NHS. The UK population is at about 66 million. 100% of those people are covered by comprehensive healthcare that is essentially free. And yes, taxes are higher in UK but not by much. Most of the difference is because of healthcare - and it is a very tangible benefit. In US not only do we have the equivalent of one third the entire population of UK uninsured, many of whom burden our ER services and drive up our hospital costs, but we also the remaining insured members of our society devoting a substantial portion of their income to health insurance which covers only a portion of their expense. It's only recently via the ACA that our situation was ameliorated to a degree but it's still woeful compared to NHS. 

There always are. Unavoidable. But policy should not be based on horror stories and anecdotal discussion. It should be based upon solid evidence and in this case drawn to benefit the most number of people for what to me are obvious reasons but most certainly because the healthier the populace the better off the world. There is no perfect healthcare system from the standpoint that everyone will always get the best and safest care under all circumstances. Doesn't happen anywhere no matter how hard we try. But we must try. Judged on global standards the US healthcare system does not rank very high and for the richest nation in the world that is simply reprehensible.

Well, let's see. I'm a USC married to a Brit and presently a resident in England under a spousal visa which runs through July 2019. As a condition of approval for this extended stay I was required to register with NHS and pay a 500 GBP surcharge - about 800 USD at the time - for all service I received during my stay.  There are no other charges levied. No co-pay. No deductibles. Nada. This includes all medicines for me, since I am over 60. Again, no additional charges. That works out to about $28/month for healthcare that is in every sense comprehensive and, based upon my personal experience, readily and immediately available. My spouse, a British Citizen, pays about 20 GBP a month to participate in NHS. She gets the same services I do except that she must pay 8.5 GBP per prescription for any medicines she is taking - she is under 60.
 
In States I am a Medicare recipient - single payer for geezers. Medicare is also a paid service for recipients. It varies by year but this year it's running about 120 USD/month. I'm also a Social Security recipient so this amount is deducted from my SS allotment each month. I, like the vast majority of Medicare recipients (and all current wage earners), contributed to it over the course of my working career. It's a little more expensive than NHS and a bit more complicated what with it's various benefit partitions and the separate drug areas that are at additional cost. Too, I know of no Medicare program that covers 100% of the expenses incurred although some come close if you're in a position to take advantage of them. For one VA Medical Services are generally free except for co-pays. VA bills Medicare for the services it renders to Medicare recipients. If. like me, you are eligible to receive VA services it's a way to avoid using Medicare Part D - Drugs. Prescriptions are available through VA at (presently) 8 USD each. There are also now vision and dental benefits available. The other situation I am aware of is Kaiser Permanente Southern California. I lived in Los Angeles prior to moving to UK and was a member of the Kaiser HMO. In SoCal - but not everywhere in CA or other Kaiser Service Areas - there is no member premium for Medicare recipients. There are nominal visit and prescription co-pays that for me averaged about 35 USD/month. I have nothing but good things to say about both the VA and Kaiser services I received.
 
Based upon my personal experience in my now year here in UK I rate NHS as comparable to any of the services I received through VA, Kaiser, and, over most of my life, the private healthcare system in US. One can find horror stories anywhere, including in the most exclusive medical units in my former neighborhood in Beverly Hills. But the fact is that the more people who are covered by healthcare services the healthier they are. The Brits are a healthy lot and certainly no less so than their American cousins. Seems to me the big difference is that the citizens here are not held financially hostage to the pharmaceutical industry or to private medical practices and health insurers. The cost/benefit profile of NHS  (and, I suspect, nearly all single-payer systems around the globe) is significantly more positive than that of the US private healthcare system.
 
I'm not certain what we're going to do when we migrate back to US. Our monthly healthcare costs will skyrocket even though the service we receive will not in any manner change. So far as I'm concerned that's a travesty.

I don't know that I or anyone else has an answer to the question of sustainability other than to say that it's a standard that seems to get applied by free market supporters who have difficulty understanding the morality of the various issues they oppose. If you believe as does The Federalist and the author of this particular article that free markets exists and that they eventually solve all human problems, socialized medicine is and always will be anathema. If on the other hand you embrace the concept of certain inalienable human rights and class accessible and affordable healthcare among those rights - as do I - and, further, understand that free markets simply do not exist in the current global economy  - if indeed they ever did - then universal healthcare is an existential necessity. People do seem to find ways of making existential necessities sustainable. Clean air and water might be an example. And there are certainly others all of which would be, and in fact are, roundly condemned in every issue of The Federalist. Sometimes the first step in considering the sustainable nature of something is in considering the source of the arguments being proffered. And I understand that I too am a source.
 
That said - the NHS is not just the fifth largest employer in the world it is also the single largest employer in the UK (England/Scotland/Wales) with about 1.6 million employees. That truly is amazing. And on the face of it I'd say should be subjected to a major amount of scrutiny. But big numbers in and of themselves are not the bottom line. The Federalist article attempts to condemn the idea of universal healthcare on the basis of a couple of anecdotal situations using those particular situations in an attempt to tar the entire system. Poor form; very poor form. 
 
When considering policy to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number it helps to set the anecdotes aside-  good and bad - and consider something a bit more evidentiary. A 2014 study by the US-based Commonwealth Fund is illuminating. You can find it here. And this chart comes from that study:
 

 
As you can see UK ranks 1 or 2 in all but one category - and that one is a bit hard to explain - and as far as cost per person goes is second only to NZ. Every system shown here is universal care except one - the US. You can see where it stands in the rankings. I believe this chart also provides an answer to your question about quality of care. As for a patient's right of appeal - yes, they have a right to second and third opinions and these rights are exercised. Additionally there is a private healthcare market in UK if one cares to available themselves of it. There is certainly no need to travel outside the country to gain access to healthcare that is non-NHS provided. Having said that people do travel abroad for elective healthcare for he simple reason that it's much less expensive. US citizens do the same. If you live in SoCal and need a dental implant you can pay from 3-5k USD for it in US or you can also drive to Tijuana and get first class treatment  - including expedited border crossing in BOTH directions for a fifth that amount. And no, you  won't get mugged.
 
 

I don't know that I or anyone else has an answer to the question of sustainability other than to say that it's a standard that seems to get applied by free market supporters who have difficulty understanding the morality of the various issues they oppose. If you believe as does The Federalist and the author of this particular article that free markets exists and that they eventually solve all human problems, socialized medicine is and always will be anathema. If on the other hand you embrace the concept of certain inalienable human rights and class accessible and affordable healthcare among those rights - as do I - and, further, understand that free markets simply do not exist in the current global economy  - if indeed they ever did - then universal healthcare is an existential necessity. People do seem to find ways of making existential necessities sustainable. Clean air and water might be an example. And there are certainly others all of which would be, and in fact are, roundly condemned in every issue of The Federalist. Sometimes the first step in considering the sustainable nature of something is in considering the source of the arguments being proffered. And I understand that I too am a source.
 
That said - the NHS is not just the fifth largest employer in the world it is also the single largest employer in the UK (England/Scotland/Wales) with about 1.6 million employees. That truly is amazing. And on the face of it I'd say should be subjected to a major amount of scrutiny. But big numbers in and of themselves are not the bottom line. The Federalist article attempts to condemn the idea of universal healthcare on the basis of a couple of anecdotal situations using those particular situations in an attempt to tar the entire system. Poor form; very poor form. 
 
When considering policy to deliver the greatest good to the greatest number it helps to set the anecdotes aside-  good and bad - and consider something a bit more evidentiary. A 2014 study by the US-based Commonwealth Fund is illuminating. You can find it here. And this chart comes from that study:
 

 
As you can see UK ranks 1 or 2 in all but one category - and that one is a bit hard to explain - and as far as cost per person goes is second only to NZ. Every system shown here is universal care except one - the US. You can see where it stands in the rankings. I believe this chart also provides an answer to your question about quality of care. As for a patient's right of appeal - yes, they have a right to second and third opinions and these rights are exercised. Additionally there is a private healthcare market in UK if one cares to available themselves of it. There is certainly no need to travel outside the country to gain access to healthcare that is non-NHS provided. Having said that people do travel abroad for elective healthcare for he simple reason that it's much less expensive. US citizens do the same. If you live in SoCal and need a dental implant you can pay from 3-5k USD for it in US or you can also drive to Tijuana and get first class treatment  - including expedited border crossing in BOTH directions for a fifth that amount. And no, you  won't get mugged.
 
 

I always thought NHS was bad, US is worse, so I would chose UK vs US bit would much prefer something decent.

Posting so I remember to come back and type a lengthy reply, as someone who has also experienced both.
Lots of BS in that article.... and why did they not have travel insurance?
 
The NHS is far from perfect, and needs massive reform in many areas, but it is a million times better than the utter disgrace in the US. 

Well, let's see. I'm a USC married to a Brit and presently a resident in England under a spousal visa which runs through July 2019. As a condition of approval for this extended stay I was required to register with NHS and pay a 500 GBP surcharge - about 800 USD at the time - for all service I received during my stay.  There are no other charges levied. No co-pay. No deductibles. Nada. This includes all medicines for me, since I am over 60. Again, no additional charges. That works out to about $28/month for healthcare that is in every sense comprehensive and, based upon my personal experience, readily and immediately available. My spouse, a British Citizen, pays about 20 GBP a month to participate in NHS. She gets the same services I do except that she must pay 8.5 GBP per prescription for any medicines she is taking - she is under 60.
 
In States I am a Medicare recipient - single payer for geezers. Medicare is also a paid service for recipients. It varies by year but this year it's running about 120 USD/month. I'm also a Social Security recipient so this amount is deducted from my SS allotment each month. I, like the vast majority of Medicare recipients (and all current wage earners), contributed to it over the course of my working career. It's a little more expensive than NHS and a bit more complicated what with it's various benefit partitions and the separate drug areas that are at additional cost. Too, I know of no Medicare program that covers 100% of the expenses incurred although some come close if you're in a position to take advantage of them. For one VA Medical Services are generally free except for co-pays. VA bills Medicare for the services it renders to Medicare recipients. If. like me, you are eligible to receive VA services it's a way to avoid using Medicare Part D - Drugs. Prescriptions are available through VA at (presently) 8 USD each. There are also now vision and dental benefits available. The other situation I am aware of is Kaiser Permanente Southern California. I lived in Los Angeles prior to moving to UK and was a member of the Kaiser HMO. In SoCal - but not everywhere in CA or other Kaiser Service Areas - there is no member premium for Medicare recipients. There are nominal visit and prescription co-pays that for me averaged about 35 USD/month. I have nothing but good things to say about both the VA and Kaiser services I received.
 
Based upon my personal experience in my now year here in UK I rate NHS as comparable to any of the services I received through VA, Kaiser, and, over most of my life, the private healthcare system in US. One can find horror stories anywhere, including in the most exclusive medical units in my former neighborhood in Beverly Hills. But the fact is that the more people who are covered by healthcare services the healthier they are. The Brits are a healthy lot and certainly no less so than their American cousins. Seems to me the big difference is that the citizens here are not held financially hostage to the pharmaceutical industry or to private medical practices and health insurers. The cost/benefit profile of NHS  (and, I suspect, nearly all single-payer systems around the globe) is significantly more positive than that of the US private healthcare system.
 
I'm not certain what we're going to do when we migrate back to US. Our monthly healthcare costs will skyrocket even though the service we receive will not in any manner change. So far as I'm concerned that's a travesty.

Well, let's see. I'm a USC married to a Brit and presently a resident in England under a spousal visa which runs through July 2019. As a condition of approval for this extended stay I was required to register with NHS and pay a 500 GBP surcharge - about 800 USD at the time - for all service I received during my stay.  There are no other charges levied. No co-pay. No deductibles. Nada. This includes all medicines for me, since I am over 60. Again, no additional charges. That works out to about $28/month for healthcare that is in every sense comprehensive and, based upon my personal experience, readily and immediately available. My spouse, a British Citizen, pays about 20 GBP a month to participate in NHS. She gets the same services I do except that she must pay 8.5 GBP per prescription for any medicines she is taking - she is under 60.
 
In States I am a Medicare recipient - single payer for geezers. Medicare is also a paid service for recipients. It varies by year but this year it's running about 120 USD/month. I'm also a Social Security recipient so this amount is deducted from my SS allotment each month. I, like the vast majority of Medicare recipients (and all current wage earners), contributed to it over the course of my working career. It's a little more expensive than NHS and a bit more complicated what with it's various benefit partitions and the separate drug areas that are at additional cost. Too, I know of no Medicare program that covers 100% of the expenses incurred although some come close if you're in a position to take advantage of them. For one VA Medical Services are generally free except for co-pays. VA bills Medicare for the services it renders to Medicare recipients. If. like me, you are eligible to receive VA services it's a way to avoid using Medicare Part D - Drugs. Prescriptions are available through VA at (presently) 8 USD each. There are also now vision and dental benefits available. The other situation I am aware of is Kaiser Permanente Southern California. I lived in Los Angeles prior to moving to UK and was a member of the Kaiser HMO. In SoCal - but not everywhere in CA or other Kaiser Service Areas - there is no member premium for Medicare recipients. There are nominal visit and prescription co-pays that for me averaged about 35 USD/month. I have nothing but good things to say about both the VA and Kaiser services I received.
 
Based upon my personal experience in my now year here in UK I rate NHS as comparable to any of the services I received through VA, Kaiser, and, over most of my life, the private healthcare system in US. One can find horror stories anywhere, including in the most exclusive medical units in my former neighborhood in Beverly Hills. But the fact is that the more people who are covered by healthcare services the healthier they are. The Brits are a healthy lot and certainly no less so than their American cousins. Seems to me the big difference is that the citizens here are not held financially hostage to the pharmaceutical industry or to private medical practices and health insurers. The cost/benefit profile of NHS  (and, I suspect, nearly all single-payer systems around the globe) is significantly more positive than that of the US private healthcare system.
 
I'm not certain what we're going to do when we migrate back to US. Our monthly healthcare costs will skyrocket even though the service we receive will not in any manner change. So far as I'm concerned that's a travesty.

There always are. Unavoidable. But policy should not be based on horror stories and anecdotal discussion. It should be based upon solid evidence and in this case drawn to benefit the most number of people for what to me are obvious reasons but most certainly because the healthier the populace the better off the world. There is no perfect healthcare system from the standpoint that everyone will always get the best and safest care under all circumstances. Doesn't happen anywhere no matter how hard we try. But we must try. Judged on global standards the US healthcare system does not rank very high and for the richest nation in the world that is simply reprehensible.

Well, let's see. I'm a USC married to a Brit and presently a resident in England under a spousal visa which runs through July 2019. As a condition of approval for this extended stay I was required to register with NHS and pay a 500 GBP surcharge - about 800 USD at the time - for all service I received during my stay.  There are no other charges levied. No co-pay. No deductibles. Nada. This includes all medicines for me, since I am over 60. Again, no additional charges. That works out to about $28/month for healthcare that is in every sense comprehensive and, based upon my personal experience, readily and immediately available. My spouse, a British Citizen, pays about 20 GBP a month to participate in NHS. She gets the same services I do except that she must pay 8.5 GBP per prescription for any medicines she is taking - she is under 60.
 
In States I am a Medicare recipient - single payer for geezers. Medicare is also a paid service for recipients. It varies by year but this year it's running about 120 USD/month. I'm also a Social Security recipient so this amount is deducted from my SS allotment each month. I, like the vast majority of Medicare recipients (and all current wage earners), contributed to it over the course of my working career. It's a little more expensive than NHS and a bit more complicated what with it's various benefit partitions and the separate drug areas that are at additional cost. Too, I know of no Medicare program that covers 100% of the expenses incurred although some come close if you're in a position to take advantage of them. For one VA Medical Services are generally free except for co-pays. VA bills Medicare for the services it renders to Medicare recipients. If. like me, you are eligible to receive VA services it's a way to avoid using Medicare Part D - Drugs. Prescriptions are available through VA at (presently) 8 USD each. There are also now vision and dental benefits available. The other situation I am aware of is Kaiser Permanente Southern California. I lived in Los Angeles prior to moving to UK and was a member of the Kaiser HMO. In SoCal - but not everywhere in CA or other Kaiser Service Areas - there is no member premium for Medicare recipients. There are nominal visit and prescription co-pays that for me averaged about 35 USD/month. I have nothing but good things to say about both the VA and Kaiser services I received.
 
Based upon my personal experience in my now year here in UK I rate NHS as comparable to any of the services I received through VA, Kaiser, and, over most of my life, the private healthcare system in US. One can find horror stories anywhere, including in the most exclusive medical units in my former neighborhood in Beverly Hills. But the fact is that the more people who are covered by healthcare services the healthier they are. The Brits are a healthy lot and certainly no less so than their American cousins. Seems to me the big difference is that the citizens here are not held financially hostage to the pharmaceutical industry or to private medical practices and health insurers. The cost/benefit profile of NHS  (and, I suspect, nearly all single-payer systems around the globe) is significantly more positive than that of the US private healthcare system.
 
I'm not certain what we're going to do when we migrate back to US. Our monthly healthcare costs will skyrocket even though the service we receive will not in any manner change. So far as I'm concerned that's a travesty.

There always are. Unavoidable. But policy should not be based on horror stories and anecdotal discussion. It should be based upon solid evidence and in this case drawn to benefit the most number of people for what to me are obvious reasons but most certainly because the healthier the populace the better off the world. There is no perfect healthcare system from the standpoint that everyone will always get the best and safest care under all circumstances. Doesn't happen anywhere no matter how hard we try. But we must try. Judged on global standards the US healthcare system does not rank very high and for the richest nation in the world that is simply reprehensible.

I think people don't realize that there aren't many horror stories coming out of the US, because we have a large number of uninsured people who never get to see a doctor, unless they go to the ER. As with many of the social issues in our country, people believe that if you ignore it long enough, the problem will go away.
 
Great post, by the way!

Well, let's see. I'm a USC married to a Brit and presently a resident in England under a spousal visa which runs through July 2019. As a condition of approval for this extended stay I was required to register with NHS and pay a 500 GBP surcharge - about 800 USD at the time - for all service I received during my stay.  There are no other charges levied. No co-pay. No deductibles. Nada. This includes all medicines for me, since I am over 60. Again, no additional charges. That works out to about $28/month for healthcare that is in every sense comprehensive and, based upon my personal experience, readily and immediately available. My spouse, a British Citizen, pays about 20 GBP a month to participate in NHS. She gets the same services I do except that she must pay 8.5 GBP per prescription for any medicines she is taking - she is under 60.
 
In States I am a Medicare recipient - single payer for geezers. Medicare is also a paid service for recipients. It varies by year but this year it's running about 120 USD/month. I'm also a Social Security recipient so this amount is deducted from my SS allotment each month. I, like the vast majority of Medicare recipients (and all current wage earners), contributed to it over the course of my working career. It's a little more expensive than NHS and a bit more complicated what with it's various benefit partitions and the separate drug areas that are at additional cost. Too, I know of no Medicare program that covers 100% of the expenses incurred although some come close if you're in a position to take advantage of them. For one VA Medical Services are generally free except for co-pays. VA bills Medicare for the services it renders to Medicare recipients. If. like me, you are eligible to receive VA services it's a way to avoid using Medicare Part D - Drugs. Prescriptions are available through VA at (presently) 8 USD each. There are also now vision and dental benefits available. The other situation I am aware of is Kaiser Permanente Southern California. I lived in Los Angeles prior to moving to UK and was a member of the Kaiser HMO. In SoCal - but not everywhere in CA or other Kaiser Service Areas - there is no member premium for Medicare recipients. There are nominal visit and prescription co-pays that for me averaged about 35 USD/month. I have nothing but good things to say about both the VA and Kaiser services I received.
 
Based upon my personal experience in my now year here in UK I rate NHS as comparable to any of the services I received through VA, Kaiser, and, over most of my life, the private healthcare system in US. One can find horror stories anywhere, including in the most exclusive medical units in my former neighborhood in Beverly Hills. But the fact is that the more people who are covered by healthcare services the healthier they are. The Brits are a healthy lot and certainly no less so than their American cousins. Seems to me the big difference is that the citizens here are not held financially hostage to the pharmaceutical industry or to private medical practices and health insurers. The cost/benefit profile of NHS  (and, I suspect, nearly all single-payer systems around the globe) is significantly more positive than that of the US private healthcare system.
 
I'm not certain what we're going to do when we migrate back to US. Our monthly healthcare costs will skyrocket even though the service we receive will not in any manner change. So far as I'm concerned that's a travesty.