[cas14655]

> pro-spending / pro-austerity

NHS spending 2009/2010: £124.1 billion

NHS spending 2019/2020: £148.9 billion

> What exactly is the point you are trying to make?

You don't have a clue about what's actually going on in reality. That was the point. Thanks for proving it.

> Pouring money into "diversity" is certainly nothing to do with it

It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. Please let us know how exactly to accomplish this feat.

> Overall resilience of the NHS

People dying right now waiting for ambulances. People dying in spates of cancer and heart disease due to delayed screening or missed treatments[1]. "the NHS is so resilient".

> It's not difficult to draw a straight line from one to the other.

So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care) and then cross your fingers that no bad politicians (ehm conservatives) ever get into power. That sounds like a very well thought out and forward looking plan.

[1] https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-re-at-pandemic-levels...

[johnday]

> NHS spending 2009/2010 [...]

The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation - despite the population growing about 8% in that time - AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.

> It must be nice to be able to spend the same money twice. [...]

Meaningless.

> People dying right now waiting for ambulances. [...]

Yes, well observed. I do know that. The fact that more do not is frankly miraculous - and the fact that many do right now is more testament to chronic underfunding of other public services, especially elder care and social services.

> So your plan is to put all your eggs into one basket (i.e. state-run health care)

No. You have invented that line of thinking. In the UK state and private healthcare coexist. The only way to put all the eggs in one basket would be to erase the public provision of services which, in case you hadn't noticed, is exactly what the conservatives are trying to do.

[cas14655]

You took your time thinking about your excuses. The fact is that you weren't the slightest bit aware of the magnitude or direction of NHS funding. You just assumed it must be down because that's the only reason the godlike public services could fail.

> The numbers you cite represent a real-terms fall after inflation despite the population growing about 8% in that time

Who made the population grow like that? Isn't it usually the same people who tend to champion mass immigration and socialized health care? Have you ever spoken up about the tension between these two issues?

Who made the inflation? Isn't it usually the same people who champion centralized fractional reserve banking with easy money who want socialized health care? Or are you in the inflation threads arguing for limiting inflation to "Save the NHS".

> AND a reduction as a proportion of GDP.

Is that even true? Can you show some math? And who says health care costs have to keep up with GDP? Are we just supposed run faster in place like we are in a hamster wheel where every bit of increased production is just eaten up by rising costs?

> Meaningless.

Sorry, there is nothing else to say here but that if you are fine with frivolous spending in a funding crisis, as you see it, then you are just an idiot.

> No. You have invented that line of thinking

Completely dodging my point.