UKIP - The Future - Volume 4
Discussion
NoNeed said:
PRTVR said:
NoNeed said:
orgive me if it has already been asked, but how can you stop this health tourism? as I see it anybody can come here for a holiday and then get sick and I sincerely hope we have not turned into the sort of people that will send a nurse to somebodies bedside to tell them we have decided to let them die due to a location on their birth certificate and that no further help is available, and if we do turn into such people I will live the rest of my life in shame.
What like the rest of the world ? Get Ill in America and the first thing they require is your travel insurance or your credit card, it even applies to some European countries, could we not make a stipulation of visiting the UK having travel insurance ?Nice.
Then there is the question of how much should or will we pay to treat people who have not payed into the system, especially when health care costs are spiraling out of control.
I struggle to see the problem with travel insurance, when I go abroad I always have cover, the cost is minimal compared to the total holiday cost.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'd like to know where 35-40% comes from too Scuffers. From the report ~600 homosexual men were infected while abroad and ~1000 heterosexual men and women were infected abroad.This makes 1,500 or around a quarter infected abroad.
So 35-40% seems a massive over estimate, not the 'low end of the scale'
The number of 'health tourists' (I'm assuming by this you mean foreign nationals infected abroad coming here for treatment) would probably be less than this because this will include UK nationals who are infected abroad.
Where are your figures coming from??
PRTVR said:
The NHS is not a International health service, the idea that the rest will raise their standards will not happen, my son was in Canada that has a similar system to us, his son took ill, he has duel nationality, along with a Canadian passport, but was still required to pay for his treatment.
Then there is the question of how much should or will we pay to treat people who have not payed into the system, especially when health care costs are spiraling out of control.
I struggle to see the problem with travel insurance, when I go abroad I always have cover, the cost is minimal compared to the total holiday cost.
I would much rather the rest of the world aspire to have a health service as good as ours than us aspire to have a health service as poor as theirs.Then there is the question of how much should or will we pay to treat people who have not payed into the system, especially when health care costs are spiraling out of control.
I struggle to see the problem with travel insurance, when I go abroad I always have cover, the cost is minimal compared to the total holiday cost.
NoNeed said:
PRTVR said:
The NHS is not a International health service, the idea that the rest will raise their standards will not happen, my son was in Canada that has a similar system to us, his son took ill, he has duel nationality, along with a Canadian passport, but was still required to pay for his treatment.
Then there is the question of how much should or will we pay to treat people who have not payed into the system, especially when health care costs are spiraling out of control.
I struggle to see the problem with travel insurance, when I go abroad I always have cover, the cost is minimal compared to the total holiday cost.
I would much rather the rest of the world aspire to have a health service as good as ours than us aspire to have a health service as poor as theirs.Then there is the question of how much should or will we pay to treat people who have not payed into the system, especially when health care costs are spiraling out of control.
I struggle to see the problem with travel insurance, when I go abroad I always have cover, the cost is minimal compared to the total holiday cost.
NoNeed said:
steveT350C said:
NoNeed said:
orgive me if it has already been asked, but how can you stop this health tourism? as I see it anybody can come here for a holiday and then get sick and I sincerely hope we have not turned into the sort of people that will send a nurse to somebodies bedside to tell them we have decided to let them die due to a location on their birth certificate and that no further help is available, and if we do turn into such people I will live the rest of my life in shame.
I doubt many people coming to the UK for a couple of weeks holiday contract HIV and get diagnosed while they are here.
k off and die.The elderly UK tax payers who have paid most in during their working lives and now need it the most are the ones suffering.
They paid for it, they should be a priority. Anything else is just unfair.
You are right that other countries should aspire to what the UK has in the NHS.
PRTVR said:
But paying to that people from all over the world makes our system poorer, taking money that could be used to treat people from this country, can I ask what you have against travel insurance?
OTOH, in the case of HIV not treating people costs more in the long term because they infect others.PRTVR said:
But paying to that people from all over the world makes our system poorer, taking money that could be used to treat people from this country, can I ask what you have against travel insurance?
I have nothing against travel insurance, indeed it is essential for many people, I never go abroad without it.That said there will be a day where we can visit any of our European partners without worrying about these things as they will continue to improve and want a system as good as ours.
However that is all besides the point as the people we are talking about can't afford to fly in and many have probably arrived hanging on to the underside of a lorry, asking somebody that can't afford to arrive using normal transport methods to buy insurance that wouldn't even cover their transport of choice is daft.
These people are in most cases suffering not only poor health but extreme hardship and are trying to escape that. If we get them fit and they stay they will pay into the system just like everybody else as the alternative of going home may not appeal.
I think we have a very nice and well advanced society and your proposed step backwards is not one I would like to see happen.
There are other alternatives such as the payment for treatment coming from the foreign aid budget which would have more than enough to cover it, but just saying no isn't nice it isn't our (the British) way.
cookie118 said:
I'd like to know where 35-40% comes from too Scuffers. From the report ~600 homosexual men were infected while abroad and ~1000 heterosexual men and women were infected abroad.
This makes 1,500 or around a quarter infected abroad.
that's not the same question though is it?This makes 1,500 or around a quarter infected abroad.
infected abroad does not equal immigrants.
other problem is the report you quote is also guessing.
as I keep saying, there are very few hard number to be had on any of this.
the point is though, even if I am 50% out (and I personally think I understated it), it's still a large enough sum of money to make the total health tourism cost of £1.4Bn banded about look laughable, unless your now going to suggest that apart from HIV there is no other health tourism?
As for who should pay, it's called travel insurance for tourists, and health insurance for immigrants, just the same if you go to most other countries in the world.
TKF said:
There is no point trying to reason with you on this subject though. You've basically said "Well, yeah, there is no actual evidence but I'm gonna go ahead and make statements based upon estimates, supposition and rumour".
You've been pulled up on it by a number of people so go back into insult mode. Ah well.
Never mind all that.You've been pulled up on it by a number of people so go back into insult mode. Ah well.
Try this.
Should the nhs be having to deal with health tourists at the expense of the taxpayer?
yes/no will do.
4v6 said:
Never mind all that.
Try this.
Should the nhs be having to deal with health tourists at the expense of the taxpayer?
yes/no will do.
YES, YES AND YES.Try this.
Should the nhs be having to deal with health tourists at the expense of the taxpayer?
yes/no will do.
A sick person is a sick person and as soon as we install a payment system whether that be for a rich american who tried to save a couple of quid on his holiday or a sick Chinese man that came here clinging to the landing gear of a 747, it is there then to be expanded, a thin end of the most dangerous wedge.
It is better to show the world what a great country we are and hope we inspire them to a system that is the same.
We do some great work in health around the globe all paid for by me and you, I like that, it shows the world what a developed country can do for others.
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/health-in-d...
I don't want to go backwards, I don't want us to be a nation of self interest when what we are talking about is a very small amount of money. Even if we add what you call health tourism to the foreign aid budget it would still be less than 1% of GDP.
Edited by NoNeed on Tuesday 2nd June 19:20
Bill said:
PRTVR said:
But paying to that people from all over the world makes our system poorer, taking money that could be used to treat people from this country, can I ask what you have against travel insurance?
OTOH, in the case of HIV not treating people costs more in the long term because they infect others.Scuffers said:
cookie118 said:
I'd like to know where 35-40% comes from too Scuffers. From the report ~600 homosexual men were infected while abroad and ~1000 heterosexual men and women were infected abroad.
This makes 1,500 or around a quarter infected abroad.
that's not the same question though is it?This makes 1,500 or around a quarter infected abroad.
infected abroad does not equal immigrants.
other problem is the report you quote is also guessing.
as I keep saying, there are very few hard number to be had on any of this.
the point is though, even if I am 50% out (and I personally think I understated it), it's still a large enough sum of money to make the total health tourism cost of £1.4Bn banded about look laughable, unless your now going to suggest that apart from HIV there is no other health tourism?
As for who should pay, it's called travel insurance for tourists, and health insurance for immigrants, just the same if you go to most other countries in the world.
the estimate Who's estimate-Yours?
is some 35-40% This is very specific for there being no figures, and again who's estimate is this??
(these are very much the low end of the scale figures) What evidence is there for this? Your own suspicions or something concrete?
of new presentations are immigrants what do you mean by immigrants, first or second generation, non british nationals, people already infected coming here?
There are estimates in the nhs report but it references sources etc and has a certain amount of rigour applied to it. If you think there are no reliable figures why do you spout your own with such certainty with no backup from a reputable source??
NoNeed said:
4v6 said:
Never mind all that.
Try this.
Should the nhs be having to deal with health tourists at the expense of the taxpayer?
yes/no will do.
YES, YES AND YES.Try this.
Should the nhs be having to deal with health tourists at the expense of the taxpayer?
yes/no will do.
A sick person is a sick person and as soon as we install a payment system whether that be for a rich american who tried to save a couple of quid on his holiday or a sick Chinese man that came here clinging to the landing gear of a 747, it is there then to be expanded, a thin end of the most dangerous wedge.
It is better to show the world what a great country we are and hope we inspire them to a system that is the same.
We do some great work in health around the globe all paid for by me and you, I like that, it shows the world what a developed country can do for others.
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/health-in-d...
I don't want to go backwards, I don't want us to be a nation of self interest when what we are talking about is a very small amount of money. Even if we add what you call health tourism to the foreign aid budget it would still be less than 1% of GDP.
Edited by NoNeed on Tuesday 2nd June 19:20
brenflys777 said:
Your opinion is absolutely your own business. However as it relies upon others to pay for it, it would be more credible IMO if you give away all your possessions beyond the bare essentials so that no one else is unfairly disadvantaged compared to yourself. If you already do this I applaud your sacrifice but would like to defend my right to not do the same.
You are right, is it only my opinion and no I don't want people to give away all their possessions, what we are talking though is a very very small amount and I would rather that money be spent improving lives and helping people than being spent on the masses of artwork and statues the NHS has wasted massive sums on over the last 10-15 years. In fact I would like to see anything "art" in the NHS being sold in order to improve the service.NoNeed said:
You are right, is it only my opinion and no I don't want people to give away all their possessions, what we are talking though is a very very small amount and I would rather that money be spent improving lives and helping people than being spent on the masses of artwork and statues the NHS has wasted massive sums on over the last 10-15 years. In fact I would like to see anything "art" in the NHS being sold in order to improve the service.
But they wont, nor will they cut the grand salaries and payouts of the troughers. What they will do is queue patients in the corridors and restrict access to some treatments. Oh, and run huge deficits that eventually have to come from somewhere.NicD said:
NoNeed said:
You are right, is it only my opinion and no I don't want people to give away all their possessions, what we are talking though is a very very small amount and I would rather that money be spent improving lives and helping people than being spent on the masses of artwork and statues the NHS has wasted massive sums on over the last 10-15 years. In fact I would like to see anything "art" in the NHS being sold in order to improve the service.
But they wont, nor will they cut the grand salaries and payouts of the troughers. What they will do is queue patients in the corridors and restrict access to some treatments. Oh, and run huge deficits that eventually have to come from somewhere.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff