There are policies that are wildly popular. Free public healthcare is one of such policies in many countries, and perhaps for a good reason.
In real terms the budget is the largest it's ever been, it's a relic of the time when people worked and died shortly (a decade) after retiring, not when they live for 30+ years longer.
A lot of that money has gone on stealth privatisation through inefficient outsourcing of contract staff and PFI of infrastructure.
So the actual standard of care is far lower than the funding suggests. And it has been deliberately run down so a US-style system can be implemented.
So yes, the organisation should be improved, but in the exact opposite direction to the one you're suggesting.
The UK's real problem is that it's run by an out-of-touch inbred aristocracy with vast inherited wealth, working through a political system which prioritises stealth corruption over public service.
They don't see why they should contribute anything to the welfare of the peasants. The obligation is all one way - from the peasants to the gentry.
And there's a layer of middle class professionals who have convinced themselves they're the gentry, even though they can't afford to pay their school fees, never mind maintain a huge estate.
So - private ownership good, public spending bad. More sensible countries don't have this attitude problem, and are proud their public services actually benefit the public.
So public/NHS vs private/US system is a false dichotomy, and "free at the point of use" is a red herring.
Looking at the reactions, this whole threads does exemplifies what the OP said about the NHS being a "religion".
Which it needs to be given the demographic changes you note. It's about 15% smaller per capita than comparable countries spend. That would suggest that we need to increase the budget if we want comparable service.
To bring it to a comparable level to similarly wealthy countries would take an increase in funding of 20%-30%.
These ca. 200 trusts operate with a great degree of operational independence, though they are public entties.
The distinction is important because they are what makes the scale manageable, and it also provides resilience.
Though it also leads to inconsistency and the "postcode lottery" problem where the quality of treatment a patient receives for a specific condition can be extremely variable depending on where they live.
> because if you're employed there is additionnal and mandatory healthcare
Yes, if you are employed in the private sector there is now mandatory additional private health insurance to cover what public healthcare does not.
Healthcare isn't free at the point of use in any case. Things may be automatically paid/reimbursed as the case may be. Private sector is much more involved than in the UK, too, starting from GPs who are all private practices.
The point is that it's not because you have to pay at point of use or because things are more private that you end up like in the US. This is an FUD argument against change.
But it's better to have management failings contained to individual trusts, that are monitored, than to have these failing affect the system as a whole. Not least because it does allow patients going elsewhere as a last resorts.
In addition, I'd say most of this thread is a bunch of people debating what issues there are with the NHS (I don't see anyone claiming there aren't any) with some people for it, and some against it.
A fair few people believe that it is the duty of the state to care for individuals, and that one right that people have is free access to healthcare.
If someone expresses that viewpoint I don't think it's fair to say that they're being religious or dogmatic about it, just like it wouldn't be fair for people to argue that your view (which I assume is for a more privatised healthcare system) is religious or dogmatic, it's a simple disagreement.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.PC.CD?locat... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS?end=2...
There is also a lack of a respected teaching class. With the changes to universities and schools, there is no longer any respect for those with an education and able to teach.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads...
That's quite different from a private practice (like a solicitor here) that you pay directly and/or that seeks payment from health insurance.
One nice perk though is that [private, corporate] jobs offer cushy health insurance as part of the deal as standard really so you can go and see one of the many private doctors in their offices at your choice and leisure.