Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 ex…
> 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…
> 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.