[nickdothutton]

I don’t think NHS funding has ever been “cut” in the history of the service. Sure, budget has been reduced from what was promised or intended, but every year the total spent has either increased or very occasionally been static [1].

Oh, and anyone who has actually had to use the NHS, or perhaps had a relative use it, particularly at the end of their lives, will have been very quickly disavowed of the idea that it is “world class”. This is not to say a US model is desirable (the US has the worst combination of various constituent practices/rules/structures) but other models are possible. The Dutch for one.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-42572110

[throwaway290]

If there is an increasing number of people (including older people) with immigration, healthy birth rates and extending lifespan, not increasing the budget at corresponding speed (let alone keeping it static) is in all ways that matter effectively cutting it.

[origin_path]

A common claim but utterly wrong. Population grew by 6.3% since 2011 years:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populati...

NHS budget grew in the same period 53%

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-...

Even if you ignore the massive injection for COVID it grew 39%. The NHS has far more money per pop than ever before in its history yet it cannot meet even the most basic expectations that a third world country would have, like people actually being seen by a doctor in a timely manner if they collapse on the street and an ambulance is called out. Let alone less urgent stuff.

That's why the idea Palantir or any company would ever want to "steal the NHS" is delusional. The NHS is a bottomless bonfire of money, it's the USSR in healthcare form and works just as well. The more money it gets the more dysfunctional and broken it becomes. Nobody in their right mind would want to steal such a worthless thing.

[throwaway290]

What part of my statement is wrong?

[origin_path]

You claimed the budget didn't keep pace with population growth but it more than did. Even an aging population doesn't change needs by such a large amount.

[throwaway290]

I actually made no claim about NHS in particular. I only pointed out that if the number of people (and heavy service users in particular, like old people) is increasing then not increasing the budget appropriately is the same as cutting it.

I don't know if it kept up or not, but the comment I replied to mentioned that in some years the budget was static so unless UK population somehow stopped growing or becoming older the effective budget per user has been effectively cut in those years.

But to your point, you may say population increased by 6% but you ignore the fact that thanks to life standards having increased there's also an ever-increasing number of old people who don't count as population increase but do increase the burden on the NHS.

[swexbe]

A balanced budget doesn't matter?

[mebutnotme]

When the number of users you are serving goes up and the services each user uses increases due to age, then a balanced budget is in fact a cut in per user and especially per user service terms.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

No, it does not.