Walter has a particular advantage: according to independent experts, the Netherlands has the best healthcare system in the world. Not a nation, but IMHO the Alsace region of France has the best healthcare, as do some strange US cities like Rochester, Minnesota. But I digress. Of the 7 First World nations assessed, overall the US came 7th- last- and the UK came second.

In fairness, such stats are always somewhat stale. In 2013, the UK has financial troubles and the NHS is struggling. Now NHS hospitals are offering procedures for a fee for procedures no longer covered by the NHS. This never could have been predicted even 5 years ago: there's a private system for those sorts of aspirations and now the NHS competes with it. I don't know where this will go. I hope it doesn't end up as bad as you say... there are communities and lives on the receiving end of this.

The real problem with healthcare is that laypeople have no real capability of assessing care. I remember a very bad surgeon who warned patients they'd be on crutches for 6 weeks and they were delighted to lose the crutches after 4 weeks. Everybody else got patients off crutches in 2 weeks. Personal satisfaction is important but it's not a reliable estimate of whether you got good care and nor is the number of tests ordered. Tests actually can hurt you- e.g. there's an international debate about the benefits of breast screening vs the risks of radiation on healthy women.

>>When we were living in England we were paying roughly 12% of our salary for national health insurance.

I understood healthcare was funded from the general pool so where did you get the 12%? If you mean the National Insurance contribution, it covers pensions, unemployment benefits, Widows'/bereavement benefits and Maternity leave etc with the NHS only receiving anything left over. And it didn't reach 12% until 2011.

>>I do believe that when we were living in England, we were paying 2 or 3 times as much for our health care as we did after we moved back to the states and received below average quality of health care in England.

2 or 3 times? Figures say the UK pays 8.4% of GDP, way less than the US. But here's a question: was the "excruciating pain" from the UK excluded as a pre-existing condition under your cheap US policy? If not, that seems strange. Never mind, there are no pre-existing conditions now because of O-Satan. ;-)

>>Andy and I have good private health insurance here in the states and we are, by no stretch of the imagination, rich.

LOL.

>>In this country physicians do not set the rates that they get reimbursed. The agreed upon "allowed" amount is agreed upon between the insurance companies (or the government in the cases of Medicare and Medicaid) and the physicians. These reimbursement rates are definitely not insane.

Yes, this is true. Administration consumes up to 40% of a physician's working week and their record-keeping is oriented towards arcane payment rules and liability. The laying on of hands increasingly refers to a keyboard, not the patient. These distractions are regrettable.

>>Any attempt to change the current system should be welcomed? Even if it makes insurance more expensive and medical care less available? You have got to be kidding me.

Inescapable that the US pays more than everybody else despite leaving millions with no cover at all.