You thought Callaghan and Wilson were better than Attlee
Wow. Callaghan was in charge for the 'winter of discontent', despite Blair's unpopularity over Iraq and Brown's unpopularity with the whole country circa 2010, the 'winter of discontent' is arguably the biggest disaster that a Labour (okay it was a coalition) PM has faced.
And as for the subsidising, are you saying someone with cancer who cannot afford the operation, should not receive it? Come on. There's being right-wing but there's being a compassionate human as well.
I'll try to tread carefully because it sounds like you might have had a friend or family member who had cancer and was saved by the NHS. If that's the case, you should stop reading this post because what I'm about to say might offend you.
These are just some of the points I want to make:
The evidence strongly suggests the NHS would help more lives and save more cancer patients if it was in private hands. Most modern medical breakthroughs are made thanks to the rich selfish greedy private sector – the pharmaceutical companies conducting drug trials, the privately owned American hospitals and universities, the billionaires like Bill Gates and middle-eastern Sheikhs donating to hospitals, research operations and non-profit services. There are only a few people, like Steve Jobs, who could afford the most top notch cancer treatment in the world. It only helped him live two years longer than the average joe but does that mean he should have been denied the treatment? Do we have the moral superiority to tell him how to spend his money? In theory, he could have saved thousands of lives with the money it cost to keep him alive just two years longer. On the other hand, the millions he paid to UCLA is now being invested in more research and more breakthroughs.
No-one is a humanitarian. If anyone believed ten other lives were worth more than their own, they'd first sign their organ donation card and then commit suicide. The ordinary human is not a humanitarian, he's lazy, selfish and greedy. But even if I was the most sensitive generous humanitarian in the world, I still have to make choices based on priorities. Let's say I have a million pounds and I could choose between saving the lives of three British cancer patients or twenty African children with tuberculosis, which would I choose? Even the ideal world is bounded by numbers and facts and the ruthless fact is, in a zero sum scenario, one man's salvation is another man's tragedy.
You have to be able to appreciate the gulf between the ideal world and the real world. Medicine, as unfortunate as it may be, is a service just like any other and even more unfortunately is one of the most expensive. Yes, we have the medical knowledge and technology to save certain cancer patients and if we can then we should - it seems obvious. Problem is having the ability to save lives is not the same as having the capability to save lives. The amount of time, money, energy, personal sacrifices, moral sacrifices that were made to get to the level of medical knowledge we're at today is unquantifiable. Lives are being lost because smart students, who could have researched the cures to lethal diseases, choose to study art, music, history or engineering instead of medicine. That doesn't make them criminals anymore than the billionaires who would rather hire people to clip their toenails than save lives.
Anyway, I've rambled on longer than I should have and you probably stopped reading paragraphs ago. I just can't help rant about socialists who believe they have the humanitarian high ground. In an ideal world healthcare would be 100% private but, as I've already said, in the real world even I would let governments subsidize. If that's not enough and it makes me a heartless sociopath then so be it.