2 Billion pounds for Syrian aid given by David Cameron.

[paulpablo]

When you say the worst of you has it better than they do, I'd disagree, worst off people in the uk are on the verge of death or are missing limbs or blind, things like that, being from a good county doesn't make you immune to health problems.  You're saying they, meaning Syrians, I don't know how you'd judge how a whole nation of Syrian refugees are but I imagine the majority have their limbs, eyesight and more than just a few minutes to live.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.  You think you have it super bad.  I don't.  You think they probably dont have it that bad, I do.  We can continue the duiscussion regardless.

And no I'm really not saying that the money being sent to Syria is causing the problems in the nhs, I'm saying the tax payers money would be better spent on improving the facilities tax payers use.  If the money hadn't been spent on Syria I don't know it would definitely be spent on something important.  I know the problems the nhs has has been blamed on underfunding and under funding is solved by funding, as a simple quick solution. That along with more shrewd spending.

You're definitely saying that the money being sent to syria is a cause for your problems.  You are implicating it as mispent money, better appropriated for the NHS.  You'll need to accept that this is what you're saying - or stop saying it.  

You don't know that if they spent that fraction of a percent on the NHS it would be spent on something important either.  You just told me that they still have dental but people aren't getting cancer treatment.........that they're dying in their beds at hospital.

I think, of the two, I'd demand shrewd spending, rather than maligning syrian aid and setting up a narrative of opposition that is plainly not factual.  

And also I'm not saying they favour Syrian aid over funding the nhs.  I'm saying what I've repeatedly said in this reply and in previous replies, that I think the tax payers money should be spent on services directly benefiting the tax payers most important needs, and charity should be voluntery.

No, ofc they don't favor foreign aid over the NHS....I mentioned that to address -your- concerns, hoping that you would realize that no one in your government would actually send that aid if they had to make a choice between it and funding the NHS.   That they've allocated 140b for the NHS and 2bil for syrian aid -ought- to calm any concerns you have in that regard, but it doesn't..because deep down you feel that syria is getting some peice of the pie that you feel someone else should get....all the while ignoring that this is not only a tiny piece of the pie...it isn't the last piece of pie.

Why do you keep bringing up charity?

For people who don't support taxes at all and don't want to pay for the NHS that would be a too much of a simple statement to be able to judge what they actually mean by that.  I'd have to know their motivation and if they still think other people should still pay taxes or not and basically listen to their arguments beyond that simple statement.

 If they expressed their motivation and it was concern over a situation that was -not- occurring...concern over a decision that was -not- being made....and did not -have- to be made..what then?

I didn't say we have it super bad, I said what I said, you can scroll up to read.

The cause of the NHS problems is people who need medical care and a lack of funding for that medical care has been blamed for inadequate medical care.

Also never said they have had to make a choice between aid in Syria or the NHS. I said I think the money should be spent on the NHS. Both aid to Syria and the NHS will still exist even if this 2 billion was given to the save the polar bear foundation.

I'm not making a very complicated statement I find it bizarre you have manage to come up with so many strange interpretations of what I have said, I'm not saying I have it bad, the NHS will cease if it doesn't have this 2 billion.