The problem with comparing us with the US for example is that you just compare costs. The US is indeed incredibly expensive, but the quality of care is second to none for a very large proportion of people that are treated. Of course the problem comes with the huge swathes of the country that are not covered who get incredibly poor medical treatment.
The care over there is not really any better than here in my opinion maybe more consistent across the board. You can get rather complacent when you use what can only be described as an artillery barrage of tests at all and sundry. There is a certain exactness when you are more limited. Why is this better because when it hits the fan you know the one thing you need to do not the 20 things that some guideline suggests might lead you to the right answer. There is an a comforting alacrity to our approach imo.
To use just your measure then the NHS is hopeless if you compare it to Singapore's health service. They spend less than half as a % of GDP and have one of the best services in the world.
Singapore is a funny system though really rather unique.
As to the OP then most people's advice is sound. Use private if you can afford it to speed up certain things but use it for tests and the mundane. Anything serious then forget it. Also don't presume their care is better - it is often worse. Private nurse to patient ratio is often poorer and in my opinion so is the quality of the nursing - there is also the issue that you will have a doctor doing stuff that they normally would not do and would be designated to a junior or an experienced nurse - e.g checking antibiotic levels in blood. This kind of stuff gets missed more than it should, as it is overlooked, with quite disastrous consequences sometimes. You can't go far wrong in a well-known teaching hospital which attracts the talented egos. But private means you won't wait 5 months for an MRI result or anything silly like that.
