Interestingly, the Library of Economics and Liberty describes Singapore as ‘no libertarian healthcare \paradise\ [noli me tangere quote marks added]‘

Though the blog you link to objects to it, I suspect the point about Singaporean authoritarianism is a valid one. There is no doubting that Singapore would trouble delicate libertarian consciences : it is described by Freedom House as only ‘partly free’ and has experienced only one contested democratic election (in 1993). There is evidence more widely that under authoritarian regimes inflation tends to be artificially depressed without direct government intervention. Whilst I would never compare Singapore (or indeed the Obama Administration, though some are less fastidious here) to the Third Reich, the latter does supply a telling if extreme example of this.

It is also perhaps worth mentioning that Singaporean demand control, by forcing users to pay as far as possible for their own healthcare, introduces incentives that may be valuable from a budgetary perspective but are often thoroughly perverse from a medical one. Note also that this demand control (not price-fixing) is the ‘Medisave’ after which ‘health expenditures rose faster’ according to the HKPRI. Whatever the murky truth about price fixing, it would appear that co-payment is at least as dubious.

“Singapore did not institute provider-side price controls, instead depending upon competition to bring down costs.”

“The price mechanism and keen attention to incentives facing individuals are relied upon to discourage excessive consumption and to keep waste and costs in check by requiring co-payment by users.”

—

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2009/08/dan-hannan-defender-of-faith.html

To take an example from the “We Love the NHS” facebook group:

“I love the nhs, as I was given tremendous support by the staff at my local GP’s surgery when attempting to lose weight. I was able to see the nurse every two weeks in order to check my progress, and I have no doubt that the weight I’ve lost would have taken ten times longer to lose (if at all).”

The author makes the mistake of crediting the success of the surgery staff to the NHS. Under any other system, the clinic would still be running and he’d probably be able to get the new wonder-drug “Alli” on prescription. I cannot imagine that a doctor, a nurse, a paramedic, an orderly, the janitor, (etc.) get up each morning and say to themselves “right, well, I work for the NHS so I’ll work extra hard today!”. On the contrary, the red tape, paperwork and bureaucracy surely gets in the way of treating patients?

Many people seem to take criticism of the NHS as a personal attack on its individual members of staff. This is stupid. I’ve worked for Boots for three years, but if someone criticised the company I wouldn’t be personally offended at all (possibly because I’m responsible for most of the problems in store).

Furthermore, there is some confusion between “The Americans do not wish to implement a British system” and “The British should implement an American system” – they really are completely different statements. I do not think the American healthcare system is ideal, as there is little competition and the HMOs create fairly large monopolies for themselves. Dan Hannan points to the Singaporean system; I personally like the French system where surgeries, hospitals, clinics, etc. are managed autonomously, by a business or a charity, and patients are free to go wherever they please, based on price and/or quality of care. The state then reimburses the cost of the healthcare on a sliding scale, so that the genuinely disadvantaged pay only very little and those who can easily afford treatment are expected to cough up themselves. The other advantage of this is, of course, is that fewer people make appointments for frivolous and unnecessary reasons (such as countersignature of passports and sore throats).