Tell you what - for avoidance of doubt - here's exactly what Hannan Says:
So, if not the NHS, what? which countries do better? the united States is often said to have a market-based healthcare system. Does it have anything to teach us?
uS healthcare is nothing like as bad as is sometimes believed in europe. It is a myth, for example, that it does not provide for the poor. the uS government spends more per capita on healthcare than any major european government apart from Germany. A far more serious objection is the sheer cost of uS healthcare: 16 per cent of GDP. the uS system is burdened by too much litigation, regulation and producer capture. we can do better.
So how about europe? while there are several models of healthcare on the Continent, most of them tend to involve a mixture of private and state provision and to be founded on health insurance. Insurance-based systems are demonstrably better than the NHS, but they, too, are expensive. Defenders of the NHS claim that the expenditure on the Continent is the only reason why the NHS performs so badly in comparison. Actually, we do not need to look across the Channel to see that there is no simple correlation between spending and outcomes: the NHS in Scotland performs worse than that in england on almost every measure, despite considerably higher spending (£2,313 per head in the former compared with £1,915 in the latter in 2006–07).
A system seldom looked at is that of Singapore, a wealthy, developed, Commonwealth nation. Singapore boasts health outcomes that surpass those of many european nations, yet spends only 3.5 per cent of GDP on health compared with Britain’s 8.4 per cent.
Singapore operates a system of health savings accounts which puts ultimate power in the hands of doctors and patients. Instead of relying on a government-funded or insurance-based scheme, Singaporeans save money in accounts dedicated for personal healthcare. Combined with low-cost catastrophic insurance cover, health expenditure is managed by the individual in association with his or her doctor. is avoids the rationing and waiting lists intrinsic in the NHS, as well as the bureaucracy characteristic of insurance-based systems. of course, the state acts as a safety net for those unable to save enough to meet their heath needs, but most people are able to manage their health needs without the government. the Singaporean government pays for only 31 per cent of health expenditure.
when people need treatment, they go directly to the healthcare provider they wish to see. they pay for this treatment from their savings accounts. In the event of catastrophic illness that would overwhelm a savings account, the insurance system pays the bill. Catastrophic insurance differs from traditional health insurance in that it is not accessed every time you see a medical professional. Catastrophic insurance is seldom, if ever, activated, so premiums are kept low.
once Singaporeans have enough in their savings accounts to meet future expected needs, they no longer have to pay into their account and so have an incentive not to overspend. Because Singaporeans benefit if they moderate their health spending, they are cost-conscious and will shop around for a medical provider who offers good value for money. this price sensitivity reduces health costs more effectively than rationing agencies such as the uk’s National Institute for Health and Clinical evidence (NICe).
Amazingly, Singapore provides this great health system with fewer doctors, nurses and bureaucrats per capita than most developed nations, suggesting an efficiency that is lacking in centrally-planned or insurance- based models. this is a health system for patients, not doctors’ unions.
Which, quite categorically, does not support your claim that he worships the US system, or that he wants us to emulate it.... and guess what, his claim that the Singapore model is more efficient is supported by the WHO report linked to above! 
Now, I've commented on here before that I personally think that the way forward for the UK is that we go back to the model of a national insurance system without centralised/state delivery - which is left in the hands of the private and mutual sector - however regardless of my opinions, the fact is that the claim by either Ernie or Fred that either I or Hannan want to see a US model, can be seen to be utter bollocks 
neo con propaganda outfit.
