Maybe they should take a trip to the good ol' U S of A, and when they come back with 10's of thousands in debt, then we'll take another survey.

The US came further down the poll than the UK. If you are rich there it is wonderful. Chris Rock was on Real Time with Bill Maher last week and he said his dad died with a minimal condition but before he was rich enough to do anything about it. His mum was recently more seriously ill and yet because of his money she survived,

I understand Michael Moore is biased but if people would watch Sicko, they would appreciate the NHS more. Yes he depicts the NHS to be a "wonder drug" as it were, but the principle is there.

Our relatives fought for this country with their lives in WWII and founded the NHS for future generations.

I do think our service is excellent, especially when you think how little we spend on it compared to other countries. France spend a lot more than us, and the US spend way more than us, but unless you are rich the outcomes in the US are worse than here.

Without the NHS, would these people have been alive to take part in the poll...?

I find a lot of the experience of services is down to the individual receiving it. People forget, whether they are at a restaurant, a shop or in hospital that the person providing the service is a human being. If you act like an arrogant tw@t, you'll be treated like one, eventually ignored or given a poor service.

As much as I love the NHS, considering the sheer amount of money that gets pumped into it, it doesn't compare favourably with its European counterparts (particularly in France and Italy) - particularly for things like Cancer treatment.

You forget fouling the food that you are served.

Yes way too many people treat others badly when it comes to getting service.

Sorry, I now want to clarify my earlier post when I said. I think the NHS is a wonderful service, I just feel some of the administrative stuff should be centralised, simplified, and made more lean.

Yes that is probably true of any large organisation. The issue for patients is the impact on front line services.

Trouble is, the NHS has to deal with bewildering amounts of money - with drug costs a significant proportion Clicky. However, the cost of not treating someone is equally bewildering. Whether they are suffering with something that'll take away their ability to walk or their sight, they still need to be looked after by social services, have their homes modified, be provided with a social worker, a carer or nurse. If you spend the money from the NHS budget and in the end the patient can still work and function as they should, then it's a win. The NHS wouldn't spend the £10k on drugs for my mum, but instead the council spent three times as much modifying her home. If they had spent the money on the drug, she could have worked for longer and paid the money back in tax.

Breaking things down to sums of money is a simplistic way of looking at things.

The European health system is good, granted, but how much income tax are they paying? The French pay quite a lot of tax, so do the Canadians and almost everywhere else in the world with a great health service. If you want a better NHS, you have to cough up for it.

That is the key point Gav, no matter how much people complain about taxation over here we're in no way taxed as heavily as EU countries who have better health, and other, public services.

Admin, disorganisation and IT systems that do not work are some of the key areas of waste. Other smaller areas are such as that my GF experienced, who works for an NHS Trust, money is wasted when the NHS has to buy furniture from specific suppliers for quadruple the price you could get a better item from IKEA.

The problem is everyone wants it for free and are not wiling to pay for it through higher taxes.

As for expensive furniture there are public liability arguments why they buy expensive furniture. It has to last and not fail. If a visitor or patient were to have an accident the hospital could be liable for causing that accident.

True, she doesn't work in a hospital BTW, but you're right, the same principle applies on all NHS grounds.

The thing is half of the time the furniture they have to buy is of inferior quality and yet 3 or 4 times the price. I think as soon as companies vie for contracts with Government Bodies they automatically whack the prices up.

That is clearly waste. Though could buying is not really a talent that government possess. They could probably do better by comparing it to as you say IKEA then fining the company substantially for fraud if they try and pass an inflated invoice.

I think we would be surprised how many people would be in favour in paying more taxes for the NHS (providing the media don't get involved moaning about whatever government is in power putting the tax up) We pay a lot of taxes in comparison to the amount that goes to the NHS, so paying double the contributions to that service wouldn't a huge increase. (not saying we should pay double)

Have you ever looked at how little of your council tax goes to fire and police service? It amazes me how little.