Unless you think the NHS are burning the extra money, there are more services offered than before.
It may feel like there's less, because there's more people now, so the increase in services is offset by the increase in population. But that's also not a cut.
There's a fundamental design issue with any system that combines free healthcare with free movement. Neither party is interested in changing this situation, but Labour don't even pretend to try - they have adopted policies at their conference of essentially eliminating all immigration controls. It's hard to imagine what kind of budget a nationalised health service would require given no constraints on served population. Effectively it requires an infinite budget.
Not really, free movement has lead to more tax take to be spent on the health care system.
Health spending in every country has increased per capita (inflation adjusted), in the UK it has too. But in the UK, for 40 years, been way under that of countries like France, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, and of course the U.S. The rate of increase hasn't increased either.
This isn't an issue of (typically working age) immigration - indeed that offsets the problem. It's an issue of an increasingly older population costing more per head. In the UK there's also an issue that people stay in hospital too long because of a failure in social care.
It may feel like there's less, because there's more people now, so the increase in services is offset by the increase in population. But that's also not a cut.
There's a fundamental design issue with any system that combines free healthcare with free movement. Neither party is interested in changing this situation, but Labour don't even pretend to try - they have adopted policies at their conference of essentially eliminating all immigration controls. It's hard to imagine what kind of budget a nationalised health service would require given no constraints on served population. Effectively it requires an infinite budget.