Undoubtedly those at fault were the US suppliers and also the UK procuerers who failed to check the source properly.
You cannot blame those who actually used the contaminated blood.
They, like the recipients, have to trust the supply chain.
The biggest disgrace of all was tthat it was covered up for so long

That is the nub of the matter. Free at the point of need is something most of us would agree with.

Are there better models out there to deliver that? Quite possibly many European countries have great healthcare systems which are either partly or fully privatised. Some of those countries are socialist / left leaning and don't seem to have a problem with this.

In this country we cannot have a sensible debate about alternate systems. It's a pity that someone like the BBC doesn't do a proper investigation into what other European countries do and the pros and cons for that system versus ours.

I think one of my issues with the current model is that too many people (including myself) do not pay anything for healthcare because we don't pay tax. If we had a proper National Health Insurance scheme then all adults should pay something for their healthcare.

How much each person paid and who would be exempt is another debate but I don't buy into the argument that just because I paid tax last year I get a free ride this year. Try telling an insurance company they should pay your home contents claim because you paid your premiums in the past.

If anyone has any knowledge of the systems in France, Germany, Scandinavia etc. I would be interested to hear.

[Link]

"Emotional testimonies from people infected with HIV and hepatitis have been heard at the start of the inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.

The public inquiry is looking at how thousands of NHS patients were given infected blood products during the 1970s and 1980s in what has been dubbed the worst-ever NHS treatment disaster.

In a video played to the inquiry, one man described how he felt he lost his entire life after finding out at the age of 43 that he had been infected with hepatitis C when he was a child." (BBC website, 24 Sept 201

I feel sorry for people who got given infected blood supplies.
I was given a transfusion after a successful operation in 1984 (aged 16). As I watched TV from my bed, a news article came on about how blood supplies had been contaminated with HIV/AIDS. I didn't get infected (yet), but I would share some thoughts.

I really needed that blood transfusion, and as soon as I was 18 I began repaying the debt by donating. Some people have religious beliefs which prevent blood transfusion, but when you need it,..your mindset may change.
Having given around 58 units, in 2005 I was banned from giving blood. This was because they haven't yet found a reliable technique for testing of BSE (mad cow disease). This , in theory, can lie dormant in the bloodstream for many, many years, and as I had a transfusion in 1984, I am deemed "high risk".

(nearly there)

So my point is this. The people claiming compensation for getting infected blood. Has their life-span been extended because they had a transfusion. In probably most cases 'YES'. If they had been given free-choice at the time of having a transfusion, knowing the risks, probably most would have said 'YES'.
Science is developing, and our knowledge is getting better all the time.
So why are people suing those trying to help save their lives ?
It's like A&E staff being sued for giving the wrong medical treatment.
You can only work with what you have at the time. These people claiming compo should have been left to die. Just my opinion.