This whole argument (on both sides) misses the point. The 1945 Tory manifesto, like Labour's, promised "a comprehensive health service", free at the point of use. But the parties disagreed radically on how it should be run & on the role of state/private provision. They still do.
It's true that the original NHS Bill, as designed by Bevan, faced considerable opposition - often from medical professionals - but that opposition focused on qs like who owned the hospitals, nationalisation of charitable organisations, GPs' pay & conditions, and private practice.
Arguing about who founded the NHS or whether there's a secret plot to abolish it distracts us from thinking abt how the NHS is financed, the role of private companies & the future of social care. The parties have *very* different views on this, which deserve more serious scrutiny
