The cancer drugs to which you refer are, almost without exception, those that will do now more than prolong life for another two or three months. However, if people wish to receive these drugs, there is nothing to stop them from buying them, just as they would in the US. They will continue with other treatments on the NHS as well.

There is also nothing to stop people buying health insurance at a tiny fraction of the price paid in the USA (typically between one fifth and one tenth and with much smaller "co-pays") if they wish to supplement any treatment. In the vast majority of cases, this is not necessary and many policies include payments to the policy holder if a claim is NOT made for an illness treated on the NHS.

Compare this with the rationing that goes on in the US, where, as Harvard Medical School has confirmed, a half to two thirds of the bankruptcies are the result of health care costs, where insurance companies withdraw cover from patients who prove too expensive and where millions of people are not covered at all.

The question of health care reform is a matter for the US and I have no axe to grind with that. But spurious comparisons with systems in other countries where there is universal coverage are not helpful. I would respect the arguments of the people who make them (and also those who tell ridiculous lies about other systems) a good deal more if I saw them turning the same critical eye on the American system.