Born in the UK?

[anonymous-user]

Kent Border Kenny said:

Conservative voters have been getting called some pretty terrible things in recent months, and it’s only natural that now that they realise that they are the largest voting bloc in the UK that they feel able to speak up again.

Look at what you yourself have written; you know nothing about most people’s life stories, yet based on a few posts that you disagree with you are happy to insult them while claiming that they lack empathy.

Where’s yours towards people who disagree with you on the best way forward for the UK?

Hmmmm

Kent

Clearly got a few quid

First name Ken

Recentish member possibly coinciding with new found liberty

Surname isn’t Noye is it ?

Keen to ascertain before deciding if I should disagree with you or not !

[Pan Pan Pan]

Eric Mc said:

And we have rules about that. Or are you not aware of that?. The NHS is not open to all comers.

If you read further up the thread you will see how the NHS charges non UK residents for services provided.

If you seriously believe that the NHS is successful in claiming back all the fees owed from non UK residents, I would suggest you don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.
You might explain how the NHS differentiates between those who have paid into the system all their lives, and those who have only been here a few months / years, and have paid little or nothing into the system, because as far as I can see, the NHS only treats people in terms of their medical needs, not on how much they have paid into the system.
But in any set up you could care to mention, if some are paying in the full amount for their ability to use it, whereas others come in, who have paid, or are paying little or nothing into it. the service provided MUST be compromised by those who are using the full range of the services but who have paid little, or nothing into it.
This is why those who choose to live a benefits funded lifestyle are doubly bad, Not only do they pay little or nothing in, but often take the most out of it.
Those who are genuinely ill, or on hard times are who the benefits system was set up for.
.

[Countdown]

Pan Pan Pan said:

A key difference is that the indigenous people of the UK of all colours, and creeds who work in this country, will have been paying into the system for all their working lives..

Apologies if this is stating the obvious but not all "Indigenous people of the UK, of all colours and creeds" will have been paying into the system for all or some of their working lives. The average indigenous person is a net recipient of public funds rather than a net contributor.

[Mrr T]

Pan Pan Pan said:

If you seriously believe that the NHS is successful in claiming back all the fees owed from non UK residents, I would suggest you don't live on the same planet as the rest of us.
You might explain how the NHS differentiates between those who have paid into the system all their lives, and those who have only been here a few months / years, and have paid little or nothing into the system, because as far as I can see, the NHS only treats people in terms of their medical needs, not on how much they have paid into the system.
But in any set up you could care to mention, if some are paying in the full amount for their ability to use it, whereas others come in, who have paid, or are paying little or nothing into it. the service provided MUST be compromised by those who are using the full range of the services but who have paid little, or nothing into it.
This is why those who choose to live a benefits funded lifestyle are doubly bad, Not only do they pay little or nothing in, but often take the most out of it.
Those who are genuinely ill, or on hard times are who the benefits system was set up for.
.

You really should stop reading the Daily Express its clearly affecting your health.

This link was posted earlier.
https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-mu...

Not sure what you mean about only getting treatment when you have paid in enough? Do you mean no one under the age of about 25 should get treatment

The report above is amusing since it shows about 50% of health tourists are expats.

It's funny we are current part of the EU under which the EHIC and S1 systems allow access to other members health service but paid for by the country of the individual. Its a really good idea but we seem to be leaving.

[Eric Mc]

He's obviously of the persuasion that if you don't pay, you don't get - which means 50% of so called indigenous population wouldn't be able to get anything either.

I just see an attitude such as this as abhorrent , mean minded, isolationist and downright disgraceful. I LOVE the fact that the NHS generally treats first and asks questions later. I deplore the idea that ANYBODY would be left, possibly to die, just because they hadn't racked up the necessary credits.

If the NHS fails to recoup all the money it might be able to claim back, I don't really care.

As you should have seen above, in some cases people do very much have to pay up front. So it 's
by no means a "free for all". That is just Daily Mail type, small minded, mean spirited, obnoxious propaganda.

[Digga]

Countdown said:

Digga said:

lassy.

I will ignore you in future.

Really?

Not sure what Ive said that seems to have upset you......

I felt an oblique accusation of racism where I can assure you, hand on heart, none was either explicit or implied. I will allow you the benefit of the doubt.

Countdown said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

A key difference is that the indigenous people of the UK of all colours, and creeds who work in this country, will have been paying into the system for all their working lives..

Apologies if this is stating the obvious but not all "Indigenous people of the UK, of all colours and creeds" will have been paying into the system for all or some of their working lives. The average indigenous person is a net recipient of public funds rather than a net contributor.

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

You need to change the word indigenous to resident.

[Digga]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

You need to change the word indigenous to resident.

If you are a citizen you are a de facto native, surely?

[Eric Mc]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

You need to change the word indigenous to resident.

If you are a citizen you are a de facto native, surely?

Not legally. You are "naturalised".

[Terminator X]

Immigration will never stop or even slow to a trickle as the Govt are hooked on the taxes imho. Yep MP's are all liars.

No or very little investment in infrastructure though is a problem already looming large and will get worse eg 6k houses planned in our area but fk all road improvements

TX.

[Terminator X]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

So, okay, not under siege perhaps, but it's costing enough that the money could do some serious good elsewhere: https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourists-how-mu...

The NHS budget is £130bn the link suggests improper usage of the NHS costs between £110m and £280m. At its maximum that's 0.2% of the NHS budget of which about half is expats who keep a UK GP registration.

You can still have a decent night out for £100-200M.

I'm glad that sort of figure does not trouble you. That's an awful lot of ordinary people's tax-take.

So definitely not under siege? At about £2 to £4 per year per adult in the UK your not even going to get a good night out even in spoons.

While any waste should be avoided its hard to see how this could be reduced much. Particularly, since about 50% seems to be UK expats who retain a UK GP.

£100m is still £100m. We could buy a new Eurofighter Typhoon for £125m.

That the NHS is a bigger employer than the Indian state railways, tends to skew budgetary perceptions - in and of itself, that is instructive on potential waste - but the problem is not so much the magnitude, but the inconvenience (both to NHS staff and patients) of these incursions.

It's only a large number because the NHS is massive. In %age terms tiny which is more relevant eg they don't actually waste that much.

TX.

[Digga]

Terminator X said:

Immigration will never stop or even slow to a trickle as the Govt are hooked on the taxes imho. Yep MP's are all liars.

No or very little investment in infrastructure though is a problem already looming large and will get worse eg 6k houses planned in our area but fk all road improvements

TX.

No roads, schools doctor's surgeries or concomitant hospital places.

You can't 'stop' immigration, even if you wanted to. We need many skills and even notwithstanding a certain, requisite level of desired immigration, you will never stop illegal immigration. That is not to say that either cannot be controlled better.

however, I'd rather see efforts to reduce the gap of underinvestment in UK infrastructure.

[Mrr T]

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

You need to change the word indigenous to resident.

If you are a citizen you are a de facto native, surely?

Depends what you mean by citizen. If you mean citizen in terms of your passport. UK passport holders are not entitled to NHS treatment unless they are UK resident.

[Digga]

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

Mrr T said:

Digga said:

True. It is more accurate to say all indigenous people, whether born here or immigrant are, by nature of their citizenship, allowed to access the broader welfare state, free at the point of use. Their ability to pay or history of so doing is not a qualifier.

You need to change the word indigenous to resident.

If you are a citizen you are a de facto native, surely?

Depends what you mean by citizen. If you mean citizen in terms of your passport. UK passport holders are not entitled to NHS treatment unless they are UK resident.

Yes, ISWYM so perhaps that's the critical point.

[Eric Mc]

Digga said:

however, I'd rather see efforts to reduce the gap of underinvestment in UK infrastructure.

Amen. That is one thing governments should spend LOTS on.

[Eric Mc]

Digga said:

Yes, ISWYM so perhaps that's the critical point.

Having a British passport confers very few rights to a person. It is certainly not any good at conferring citizenship rights.

[Digga]

Eric Mc said:

Digga said:

however, I'd rather see efforts to reduce the gap of underinvestment in UK infrastructure.

Amen. That is one thing governments should spend LOTS on.

IMHO at least half of the Brexit-causing discontent is 'overcrowding' of infrastructure, which has failed to be upgraded or extended to meet the demands of a growing population and economy.

Boris now has a unique foothold, in constituencies which were previously in Labour control for decades, or even centuries. He must demonstrate some 'payback' to those communities, as many of them feel not only left behind by recent governments and persecuted by previous Tory administrations.

[Mrr T]

Eric Mc said:

Digga said:

Yes, ISWYM so perhaps that's the critical point.

Having a British passport confers very few rights to a person. It is certainly not any good at conferring citizenship rights.

It will when they are blue, it's the red ones with EU on them which are no use.

[KrissKross]

Countdown said:

Apologies if this is stating the obvious but not all "Indigenous people of the UK, of all colours and creeds" will have been paying into the system for all or some of their working lives. The average indigenous person is a net recipient of public funds rather than a net contributor.

I agree with this point, but would you also agree the immigration process should only allow people into the UK that are at least "net contributors" to our state system as a minimum requirement. Which = around £40k annual salary.

[Countdown]

KrissKross said:

I agree with this point, but would you also agree the immigration process should only allow people into the UK that are at least "net contributors" to our state system as a minimum requirement. Which = around £40k per annum as an annual salary.

I’m not sure how that would work in practice. Would they need to have an existing job offer before they were allowed to enter the country? What happens if they lose their £40k job after 1 day/ 6 months/ 5 years? Do they get deported or would they be allowed to remain? What happens if they’ve gained a British family whilst they’re here?

Putting a £40k threshold on immigrants will be great for salaries of hotel staff. It might have an impact on room rates though......