What can you tell us Yanks about Healthcare in the UK

A case in point is the railway system here. Much better under British Rail. Hopeless and expensive now that its privatised. British Airways is the opposite. Better privatised, but is the exception.
.

speaking of the railway industry, I actually use that as an example of how privatisation isn't always the best option (and especially pointed to an American who seemed to see "nationalisation" as a George Orwellian thing;

If you want to see a real-life Nationalisation and Privatisation at the same time, your best bet is to look in the history of British Rail, i'll write down what I've remembered;

secondly, what's exactly wrong with nationalisation? 1984 was merely a worse-case scenario of what happen, to compare anything to 1984 is simply ridiculous.

When the railways in Britain has been nationalised into "British Railway" (later as British Rail) in 1948, they immeditally replace steam engine in favour of diesel and electric power, less freight train in favour of passengers service as the main aim of the railway despite 1/3rd of the network closed down in the UK, it was a very drastic move, but allowed the railway to evolve into what we have now as a passenger service, had that not happen, it'd be more like the American railroad (more frieght less passenger), unfortuantely there were lots of problem, especially financial-wise, and most especially controlling the railway in such a scales that it was diffcuilt to maintain the entire network, the other problem is that certain bosses of British Rail end up creating mistake (much like politic really, Bush government made some mistake, and the Obama government end up trying to fix it), netheless it did bring improvement to what appear to be a declining industry due to the increase of motorised vehicles.

1994 come the privatisation of British Rail, the Conservatives were in power (for quite a while) and were losing the support of the people, the prime minister predicted that the railway would improved drastically once it been privatised as a last ditch effort to leave a mark, the railway is now split to it's original network around the UK to focus on smaller area.

this bring drastic improvement as locals railway company were about to focus on their line as oppose to having a big network focusing on the entire of the UK, the railway were improved, train running on times, newer rolling stock due to the company being able to pool their resource in focusing the best finanical way to improve the railway, if one railway company made a mistake, the other railway company are likely not to be affected (unless they're sharing the same route), the downside is this;

less rolling stocks, extreme congestion at peak hours, highest fare cost in europe due to companies milking money from their customers, price varies depend on railway companies, not by distance. (i.e. a single 50 miles trip on South West Train cost £7.50, whether a similar distance on East Midlands Train cost a whopping £12).

So in conclusion, each different approach bring different result, does not necessary mean one is superior to the other, it just mean it have a different pro and con.

Was British Rail at the time is comparable to Orwellian's worse case senario of privatisation? far from it.