The healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom provide interesting comparisons to one another, especially since the United States is considered private and the United Kingdom has a national health system that supply universal coverage. National health systems are theoretically designed to provide accessible, affordable care for all segments of the population, but critics of such systems often question the quality of that care. Conversely, critics of the United States system often point to the fact that affordable, high quality healthcare is not equally available to all who need it (Blizzard, 2003). The differences that lie between the United States and the United Kingdom are the health plans, the providers, and hospitals. It is not strictly an insurance system because there are no premiums collected, costs are not charged at the patient level and costs are not prepaid form a pool. However, it does achieve the main aim of insurance which is to spread financial risk arising from ill health. The costs of running the National health system, which is approximately 104 billion pounds in 2007-2008, are met directly from general taxation. The National health system provides the majority of healthcare in the United Kingdom, including primary care, in -patient care, long-term care, ophthalmology, and dentistry. In the United Kingdom appointed bodies called primary care trust are responsible for the health of a defined local population. Primary care is typically provided by self employed general practitioners who often practice in small groups, with each general practitioner responsible for an average of 1800 members of the local community. General practitioners are typically paid based on capitation and quality points. Although there are walk -in clinics, general practitioners typically act as gate keepers to hospitals and specialty care. Hospitals