Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwawaylinux 1075 days ago
> Blair’s Labour—for all their faults—at least stopped the bleeding,

Stopped the figurative bleeding and started the literal...

But by stopped the bleeding, do you mean kept at levels comparable to those set by the previous conservative government? I.e., agreeing with the level of funding set by the conservative government.

I find it weird how governments are given a pass in that way. Setting funding from X to Y is a horrific crime, but leaving it at Y when you have the power to change it to X is somehow okay.
1 comments
glomph 1075 days ago
Labour under Blair significantly increased the spending on the NHS compared to the conservative government before them.
link
throwawaylinux 1075 days ago
https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/the-past-present-...

Looks like there has been no slashing going on, even adjusted for inflation and demographics. And the conservative governments after 2010 kept funding at about the same levels as the Labour governments set it at. Fancy that.

I wonder what governments have had to show for this massive 2x increase in adjusted healthcare spending. Vast improvements to the system, surely.

link
photonerd 1074 days ago
Your own source shows that when adjusted for population size/etc the trend has been flat/slightly down.

Now add inflation, that it was underfunded in the first place, and that the charts used start right after a major recession & the beginning of Thatcher…

link
throwawaylinux 1074 days ago
I think about flat since Labour was last in power, yes. And it is adjusted for inflation. Seems to have been no real "defunding" going on. And if it was underfunded in the first place, a 3x adjusted increase in spending must have done wonders for it, there must be significant improvements in key objective metrics since then, have there been?
link
photonerd 1071 days ago
> Seems to have been no real "defunding" going on

Not increasing funding to match inflation is defunding. If you disagree then you’ll be fine working for the sane salary you’d have had in the mid 90s, right?

No. You would not. So either you’re being deliberately obtuse or now you understand

link