You guys are tilting at windmills here. I didn't advocate for anything except common sense. Unless you value money more than lives, this system is clearly shite, but the author doesn't acknowledge that, probably due to politics.

The budget is part of the system. If you assume unlimited resources, then every system will work flawlessly.

You still haven't answered whether you're advocating for improving or starving the NHS. Although if you're intent on shitting on the NHS as if it's intrinsically bad (regardless of budget), I would strongly suspect you are advocating for more private health care, and vote conservative.

Feel free to elaborate on what your common sense dictates as a solution.

It’s only common sense to present the pros and cons of policy. You don’t seem to even think it’s worth your time to take an actual stab at estimating the cost of death, and so it’s only common sense to think you haven’t thought your way through this at all. You’re still arguing this is a budgetary concern without acknowledging the fact that your policy may actually result in a worse budgetary concern.

You know what’s also common sense? That death isn’t a good thing. More death = worse society. Bad society = no money.

The budget is also part of the insurance system. The problem is that you seem to think that resources should be expected (or demanded) to become infinite once healthcare is managed by the state. Insurance companies have turning you down for care as a priority.