2 Billion pounds for Syrian aid given by David Cameron.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's like you seem to be either saying everything is ok because we still have teeth straightening so we must have enough funds (even though there's been deaths, waiting times, inadequate care and so on directly blamed for lack of funding)

You've gotten this entirely backwards.  If you -did- have to choose between sending 2bil to syria, and quality healthcare (which you don't) there would -still- be some point where you could(and would) do some combination of both...admittedly, to the cost of yourselves.  You could say "sorry, not enough money for comprehensive dental right now, we're helping syria".  

-But you don't even get to say -that- until it's actually the check to syria that's put you in a bind.

Or you're saying it isn't the fault of a lack of funding, which is fair enough to have that opinion but all the articles I gave links to contradict that opinion.  They are saying the bad treatment is due to lack of funding, and if there is a relationship between bad treatment and funding and the funds are being spent on Syrian aid that does mean there is a relationship between the two things.  Obviously not just these two things, I have previously said, and not just in this thread, that I believe the government misspends lots and lots of money.

I'm not saying that it isn't a fault of the lack of funding, but that the lack of funding is not caused (and will not be caused) by the 2bil in foreign aid.  You yourself clearly know better...you're obviously familiar with the concept of pork.

Or you're saying it doesn't really matter because Britain can just sort of get this money anyway just by the sheer virtue of being a first world country, to which I would say that doesn't seem to be the case, if they could get the funding anyway we wouldn't have doctors and nurses on strike now and a poorer level of health care than we used to, since health care is very important.

This dispute is not over the fiscal ability of your government to fund your nhs, it's about their willingness and competency. I'm looking at the gov revenue and spending, latest budget of wiki. 672b in, 744b out (140b on health)......I think that can accomodate NHS improvements and 2b foreign aid. If it can't..check to see how many hands are in the till.

Any comment along the lines of:

"Why are we sending foreign aid when our own citizens are battling subpar access the health services" misses the point entirely. It's not representative of anything. I'm sure you can find people who try to really hitch that wagon to that horse, and I'm sure you can find organs willing to print their ad copy, but it hides some really, really shitty implications.

I'll answer it (and every possible permutation thereof) right now and forever nonetheless. Because that's what haves should do, when have nots need help...because you can, because whats bad for the world is bad for you, and because sending them 2bil means all the world to them, and a fraction of a percent to you. It's just a damned good investment. You can still have your NHS, and you can still improve your NHS.