Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Concerning the editor's choice about the NHS and the BMJ in
the USA.
The majority of US physicians do not support a NHS type system
because although the premise that it offers cost effective care is true,
it is clearly untrue that care is available to "everybody" with the advent
of open and covert rationing due to lack of resources. In the US rationing
by economic circumstance is a blunter instrument, but this may be better
and more amenable to correction than rationing by random factors such as
postcode and ability to work the system in Britain. Except to a few
nationalised healthcare enthusiasts the perception here of the NHS amongst
those who meet British doctors and students visiting is of a decaying
system where overworked, underpaid staff perform miracles with their
limited resources but are progressively falling behind better funded US
health facilities. Unlike a defined benefit insurance plan the NHS is no
better than a lottery for the customer / patient - you have to pay your
money but whether you get treated is up to chance.
NHS not admired in USA
Concerning the editor's choice about the NHS and the BMJ in
the USA.
The majority of US physicians do not support a NHS type system
because although the premise that it offers cost effective care is true,
it is clearly untrue that care is available to "everybody" with the advent
of open and covert rationing due to lack of resources. In the US rationing
by economic circumstance is a blunter instrument, but this may be better
and more amenable to correction than rationing by random factors such as
postcode and ability to work the system in Britain. Except to a few
nationalised healthcare enthusiasts the perception here of the NHS amongst
those who meet British doctors and students visiting is of a decaying
system where overworked, underpaid staff perform miracles with their
limited resources but are progressively falling behind better funded US
health facilities. Unlike a defined benefit insurance plan the NHS is no
better than a lottery for the customer / patient - you have to pay your
money but whether you get treated is up to chance.
Competing interests: No competing interests