Nigel Farage was right about health tourism/HIV

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://order-order.com/2015/04/03/nigel-farage-is-right-about-health-tourism/#_@/cWBMqSBErz2_tA

Nigel Farage was right about health tourism


https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/hiv-nhs-tourism.jpg?w=900



Nigel Farage has been round condemned by the commentariat for suggesting that treating foreigners for free on the NHS was not right and that we should, like many other countries, not admit foreigners who are HIV positive.

The cost for treatment for HIV positive patients is some £20,000 or more for anti-retroviral drugs every year. Once HIV treatment is started, patients will probably need to take the medication for the rest of their lives. In total, the cost to the NHS could be up to £1 million per patient if they survive into old age from their early twenties.

Of the 107,800 people estimated by Public Health England (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf) to be HIV positive an astonishing 59,300 are originally from Africa. The cost to the NHS to treat just the foreigners alone with anti-retrovirals would be £1,186,000,000 per annum – and the numbers are rising. Such is the alarm at the cost that 20 Tory backbenchers tried unsuccessfully to amend the Immigration Bill to make it law that before new immigrants enter the country, they must prove they are not HIV-positive and not suffering Hepatitis B – an equally devastating illness that is also incredibly costly to treat. The same demand that Nigel Farage made and George Osborne refused “to dignify with a response (https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/583738856236785665)“.

Go into any London NHS hospital and you will find them full with non-English speakers, truly London is the capital of the world. The taxpayers who pay for the NHS are not stupid the issue of health tourism is something which any NHS user will direct experience of in the waiting room. The issue is a real issue according to the latest poling research Guido could find, with 29% of the population blaming health tourism for long waits at Accident and Emergency, ahead of any government policy failings:



https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/yg-nhs-health-tourism.jpg?w=900


The NHS budget is not yet part of the foreign aid budget, nor should it be. Despite the distaste of the political class, the screams of outrage from the gay lobby and the commentariat, the facts are the facts. On this billion pound question, Farage was right about the facts.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1tHvf3lBB4


My close family when they moved to Australia had to have checks before they were even considered to become Australians, and not only that but they actually had to pay for the health checks themselves which involved travelling to another city to see a Doctor that the Australian embassy had approved as well as having to pay a few thousand pounds for the health check itself. And exactly the same should apply here. If you have HIV, any other serious illness or are over a certain age, you should not be considered for British citizenship: UNLESS you have a lot of money and are able to pay for your own health insurance and care in your old age.

And if Nicola Sturgeon wants to start treating absolutely everybody in the world equally, she should start by giving English uni students free tuition in Scotland.

Thoughts?

[The Don]

I'm quite proud that if you work and live in this country you are able to receive treatment regardless of class or nationality.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm quite proud that if you work and live in this country you are able to receive treatment regardless of class or nationality.

And there speaks the young idealist.

If somebody, as many immigrants do, is only earning £16,000-£20,000 a year and their treatment costs the taxpayer £20,000 a year - where is the logic? That's without mentioning the fact that HIV treatment continues into older age after they are retired and no longer working, as well as other services they also require.

[The Don]

And there speaks the young idealist.

If somebody, as many immigrants do, is only earning £16,000-£20,000 a year and their treatment costs the taxpayer £20,000 a year - where is the logic? That's without mentioning the fact that HIV treatment continues into older age after they are retired and no longer working, as well as other services they also require.

It's not idealism if it's already happening, which it is. The NHS was voted the best healthcare service in the world and our economy is improving and predicted to be the strongest in Europe in the near future. It quite clearly is possible since it's already in practice.

[Aiden]

Just because he stated some facts doesn't make his opinion on who should/shouldn't get free health care correct? Mainly I agree with what he's saying though. I feel that only British citizens (or is it subjects?) should get treatment for long-term health issues. I also feel the people that can claim status as a British citizen should also be made stricter.

[scottish]

And there speaks the young idealist.

If somebody, as many immigrants do, is only earning £16,000-£20,000 a year and their treatment costs the taxpayer £20,000 a year - where is the logic? That's without mentioning the fact that HIV treatment continues into older age after they are retired and no longer working, as well as other services they also require.

half the people making use are junkies who are always taking out 5k+ per year in benefits too.

so can we just kick them out of the country? they're not even contributing 16-20k.

[-:Undertaker:-]

half the people making use are junkies who are always taking out 5k+ per year in benefits too.

so can we just kick them out of the country? they're not even contributing 16-20k.

Oh of course, we have serious problems with welfare in this country - which is why the reforms such as the Bedroom 'tax' are so sensible.

But just because we have our own spongers doesn't mean we then import the problems of the world and pay for both of them, do we?


Just because he stated some facts doesn't make his opinion on who should/shouldn't get free health care correct? Mainly I agree with what he's saying though. I feel that only British citizens (or is it subjects?) should get treatment for long-term health issues. I also feel the people that can claim status as a British citizen should also be made stricter.

Indeed, and as state finances continue to spiral out of control the day will come where we'll not make these savings by choice: it'll be by the force of the IMF.

[RyRy]

Just because he stated some facts doesn't make his opinion on who should/shouldn't get free health care correct? Mainly I agree with what he's saying though. I feel that only British citizens (or is it subjects?) should get treatment for long-term health issues. I also feel the people that can claim status as a British citizen should also be made stricter.

Pretty much my opinion. Whilst he's correct, he tries to make the decision for you, that is shouldn't happen when just pointing it out would be a "huh" moment for many people. It is for me.

[Inseriousity.]

Of the 107,800 people estimated by Public Health England (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf) to be HIV positive an astonishing 59,300 are originally from Africa.

My follow-up to that statement would be:

How many of those 59,300 have HIV before they got here compared to after they were already settled here? Farage tends to suggest that they arrived here because of their HIV and the free access to medical treatment without considering the possibility that if it's particularly prevalent within that community, they could've contracted it while they were already here.

As to the 16000 a year for 20000 treatment, that's what taxation is all about. Spreading the cost of a collective good (health, education etc) between many people so that it doesn't matter how rich you are, everyone will be able to have access to that service.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Of the 107,800 people estimated by Public Health England (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401662/2014_PHE_HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf) to be HIV positive an astonishing 59,300 are originally from Africa.

My follow-up to that statement would be:

How many of those 59,300 have HIV before they got here compared to after they were already settled here? Farage tends to suggest that they arrived here because of their HIV and the free access to medical treatment without considering the possibility that if it's particularly prevalent within that community, they could've contracted it while they were already here.

Given rates among African nations of HIV that isn't too hard a question to work out.

And even worse than allowing them in is this uncosted part: how many people here who are subjects do they then spread the diseases/conditions to?


As to the 16000 a year for 20000 treatment, that's what taxation is all about. Spreading the cost of a collective good (health, education etc) between many people so that it doesn't matter how rich you are, everyone will be able to have access to that service.

That is true... when you are a subject or citizen of a country. But it isn't true of foreigners.

We're told immigration is just wonderful because of the economic benefits, so how does allowing migrants in with costly and expensive diseases and conditions who can't even pay for their own care if they were in full time work all year aound into the country fit with that narrative?

[FlyingJesus]

You can't be proven right about an opinion, and the fact that people come over here for better services/lifestyle isn't one that's ever been disputed. Guido once again making a totally crap article about nothing and pretending to be revolutionary

[Kardan]

Just because he stated some facts doesn't make his opinion on who should/shouldn't get free health care correct? Mainly I agree with what he's saying though. I feel that only British citizens (or is it subjects?) should get treatment for long-term health issues. I also feel the people that can claim status as a British citizen should also be made stricter.

So say there was some guy, not a Brit, but has lived here for the last 20 years, has lived here legally all that time, he's employed, has a family, contributing to society, paying his taxes - he shouldn't get treatment on the NHS because he's not British?

That's just crazy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

So say there was some guy, not a Brit, but has lived here for the last 20 years, has lived here legally all that time, he's employed, has a family, contributing to society, paying his taxes - he shouldn't get treatment on the NHS because he's not British?

That's just crazy.

Nobody is arguing that hence why it is crazy as it is a figment of your imagination.

[Kardan]

Nobody is arguing that hence why it is crazy as it is a figment of your imagination.
Aiden; said only British citizens should have treatment on the NHS for long term issues. I am aware that your posts and the thread overall isn't on about that.

[Aiden]

So say there was some guy, not a Brit, but has lived here for the last 20 years, has lived here legally all that time, he's employed, has a family, contributing to society, paying his taxes - he shouldn't get treatment on the NHS because he's not British?

That's just crazy.

I didn't know all British citizens were born in the UK? :P

[Kardan]

I didn't know all British citizens were born in the UK? :P

Technically no, but they are many, many people that are not British citizens that have more than earned their right to NHS health care.

[Aiden]

Technically no, but they are many, many people that are not British citizens that have more than earned their right to NHS health care.

I was under the impression that to stay in our country for a long period of time you had to be a citizen unless under extraordinary circumstances. I guess I was wrong. The way I see it is if you've 'earned' a place in society then you should be able to reap all the benefits that it can give you in return. If someone works, doesn't break the law and is a 'good' person they deserve the NHS.

[AgnesIO]

Given rates among African nations of HIV that isn't too hard a question to work out.

And even worse than allowing them in is this uncosted part: how many people here who are subjects do they then spread the diseases/conditions to?



Giant, huge, ignorant assumption.

Realistically, if you live in an African community in Britain, the chances of you catching HIV whilst IN the UK are going to be dramatically higher. Should we therefore ban all African's, you know, just in case they catch HIV in the UK (as they are considerably more likely to do so than, say, a white, straight male)?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Giant, huge, ignorant assumption.

No, it is real. Check HIV rates in those countries.

Don't create a false drama and act all dramatic over something both you and I know to be true.


Realistically, if you live in an African community in Britain, the chances of you catching HIV whilst IN the UK are going to be dramatically higher. Should we therefore ban all African's, you know, just in case they catch HIV in the UK (as they are considerably more likely to do so than, say, a white, straight male)?

If certain nationalities were more likely (but did not have) to catch and spread dangerous diseases such as HIV, TB then I would certainly take that into account under a cap system when deciding what % of the cap comes from each nationality: as I would with migrant nationality groups which have high unemployment rates even when settled in the United Kingdom. Just as I would take into account the language barriers (if one exists), age, religion, number of children, education levels and so on. If say 20% of all Ugandans went on to catch HIV after settling here, then I would want less Ugandans to avoid the high costs of care.

Does that make me a waycist? a bigot? a nasty pasty? No, that makes me sensible. I want only the best (educated, non-extreme, healthy, young) coming in.

[Firehorse]

@Aiden (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=93224); said only British citizens should have treatment on the NHS for long term issues. I am aware that your posts and the thread overall isn't on about that.

You do realise if someone has lived legally in the UK for 7 or more years they have entitlement to British Citizenship.


It's not idealism if it's already happening, which it is. The NHS was voted the best healthcare service in the world and our economy is improving and predicted to be the strongest in Europe in the near future. It quite clearly is possible since it's already in practice.

Why can it not be idealism if it is already happening? It is already happening but it is happening at a cost. Idealistically the world would have free healthcare and everyone would make a fair and proportionate contribution. The REALITY is far from your idealist view. We in this country pay tax, of which around 18% is used to fund the NHS (a cost far greater than the entire deficit causing us to spiral further into debt). I and others work and pay taxes so the country we live in can be healthy, be defended, and be looked after in a number of other ways such as the streets being policed, firemen being ready to keep us safe, roads and other infrastructure being maintained so as to remain safe and keep the country being able to function.

If I want to help people in other countries I will do so voluntarily through CHARITY. We are NOT responsible for the whole world. If the whole world could fly to the UK to treat their health issues using OUR money, we would be bankrupt within months and then there simply wouldn't be an NHS. If you want to give a large proportion of your income to helping those in need then do so VOLUNTARILY through a charity, it shouldn't mean everybody is forced to pay up. Lots of people in our own country are in hardship as it is.

Our economy may be "improving" but this is all relative. GDP per capita remains significantly lower than it was in 2008. It's all a bit of a farce really. It's like going from being £10,000 in debt to £12,000 in debt and saying "because I'm going into debt at a slower rate than I was before I can now afford to spend more". It's completely idiotic. Why do you think the politicians set the rate of interest at 0.5% down from 5.5%? To reduce the amount of interest having to be paid on all the debt we're in to try to reduce the deficit.
TLDR: Just because a politician tells you things are better than they were does not make it entirely true.

If you or I go to ANY other country in the world (even within the EU), you need to have your own health insurance to get medical treatment (or EHIC in some circumstances, which is effectively still us paying for treatment in another country and not the other country footing the bill like the UK does when people visit us). Try running a business where you give your products away at a loss, it won't last very long. While the point of the NHS is not to make a profit, it needs to at least be as balanced as possible. Balanced meaning people who have contributed being able to get treatment while those who haven't will have to have their own insurance other than for immediately life-threatening conditions. If you have more people taking out of a system than putting into it then that system will simply fall apart. Basic logic.

Here's another comparison for you: assume food is NHS treatment, your house is the UK and your parents are the government and you are a tax payer (contributor). Let's say I live 10 miles from you and I can afford to only eat bread and soup; I am a little bit hungry and discomforted but am not at risk of dying. I travel to your house to get some food because I know I will get it for free, your parents give me food and then make YOU pay for it. I come back the next day, and the day after, because I need that food (treatment) long term; it ends up costing you (the tax payer) £200 a month to feed me (out of say £1000 a month earnings) and you have NO SAY in this: as long as you live in your parents' house you have no say in the matter because your parents (government) make the rules (law). This is a comparison that you might be able to relate to a little more easily, tax money doesn't appear out of thin air, we work for it. You would have a problem being forced to pay for someone else who you didn't see as your responsibility rather than helping them out of your own free will; this is essentially the same thing.

TLDR: We are not the world's mother, we work and pay tax so we can live in a functioning society. The health problems faced in other countries are the responsibilities of their respective governments. Stop assuming we are so superior to the rest of the world that they become our responsibility. People keep assuming we have this massive surplus of wealth, when we're actually borrowing vast sums of money just to stay afloat!

[The Don]

Why can it not be idealism if it is already happening?

Idealism - The Unrealistic Belief...

It quite clearly isn't unrealistic since it's well, real.

The rest of your post is about helping people in other countries? These people live and work here, they are just as entitled to healthcare as you are.

[Firehorse]

Idealism - The Unrealistic Belief...

It quite clearly isn't unrealistic since it's well, real.

The rest of your post is about helping people in other countries? These people live and work here, they are just as entitled to healthcare as you are.

It is idealism.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it sustainable.

If what is happening now continued to happen indefinitely the entire system would collapse, which makes the situation unrealistic; which is EXACTLY the definition of idealism.

If you start spending 20% more money per month than you make you will eventually run out of money and become bankrupt, you would lose anything of value to whomever you owed money and end up unable to do almost anything involving money whatsoever, apart from maybe beg.

This is the most basic principle of maths. You cannot put one loaf of bread in an empty box and then take out three!

[The Don]

It is idealism.

Just because something is happening doesn't make it sustainable.

If what is happening now continued to happen indefinitely the entire system would collapse, which makes the situation unrealistic; which is EXACTLY the definition of idealism.

If you start spending 20% more money per month than you make you will eventually run out of money and become bankrupt, you would lose anything of value to whomever you owed money and end up unable to do almost anything involving money whatsoever, apart from maybe beg.

This is the most basic principle of maths. You cannot put one loaf of bread in an empty box and then take out three!

You clearly don't understand what idealism is or you're being pedantic. I said "I'm quite proud that if you work and live in this country you are able to receive treatment regardless of class or nationality." which is the truth, Dan called that an idealistic view as if what I said is far from reality. Whether you think our current system is sustainable or not is up for debate (I would argue that it is sustainable because the amount spent on the NHS in comparison to our GDP is negligible), but you can't call something an idealistic view if it's already in practice because the literal definition of idealism is the unrealistic belief in perfection.

[FlyingJesus]

If say 20% of all Ugandans went on to catch HIV after settling here, then I would want less Ugandans to avoid the high costs of care.
...
I want only the best (educated, non-extreme, healthy, young) coming in.

If the 2nd part is true then the top line shouldn't make a difference surely - "being Ugandan" may mean a higher likelihood of not having the qualities you're after, but isn't undesirable in itself and so is a very poor factor to make decisions on. Capping the number of people coming in from a certain country could well mean that you're just letting in all the ones that you view as undesirable and keeping the most deserving out :P also you berated me in a thread recently about eugenics ideals for health reasons and yet you're advocating just that (in a far slower, less justifiable way which causes/allows suffering to prevail) right here


You cannot put one loaf of bread in an empty box and then take out three!

TELL IT TO JESUS (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+14:13-21)

[Firehorse]

You clearly don't understand what idealism is or you're being pedantic. I said "I'm quite proud that if you work and live in this country you are able to receive treatment regardless of class or nationality." which is the truth, Dan called that an idealistic view as if what I said is far from reality. Whether you think our current system is sustainable or not is up for debate (I would argue that it is sustainable because the amount spent on the NHS in comparison to our GDP is negligible), but you can't call something an idealistic view if it's already in practice because the literal definition of idealism is the unrealistic belief in perfection.

Dan stated some monetary figures to which you replied:


It quite clearly is possible since it's already in practice.

This implies you believed it is possible to indefinitely financially sustain more money being taken out of a system than being put into it, and this is what I am responding to.

I also believe treatment should be available to anybody in the UK regardless of background with the exception of those who have not already lived here and paid their fair share into the system for a number of years.

What I disagree with and what is completely unsustainable is having a service providing free healthcare the moment someone arrives, who has never contributed and may very well end up costing us money in the long-term.

As Dan said, if someone is contributing say £4000 in tax per annum but they require treatment every year which costs the tax payer £9000, then that is a net loss to the tax payer.

[The Don]

Dan stated some monetary figures to which you replied:



This implies you believed it is possible to indefinitely financially sustain more money being taken out of a system than being put into it, and this is what I am responding to.

I also believe treatment should be available to anybody in the UK regardless of background with the exception of those who have not already lived here and paid their fair share into the system for a number of years.

What I disagree with and what is completely unsustainable is having a service providing free healthcare the moment someone arrives, who has never contributed and may very well end up costing us money in the long-term.

As Dan said, if someone is contributing say £4000 in tax per annum but they require treatment every year which costs the tax payer £9000, then that is a net loss to the tax payer.

Dans example was under the assumption that every immigrant has HIV and earns less than the treatment costs. In the real world most people don't have HIV and don't claim back anywhere near the amount they put in towards the NHS through taxes so the people needing treatment will be subsidised by the taxes of the rest of the population. That's how the NHS has worked for decades.

[Firehorse]

Dans example was under the assumption that every immigrant has HIV and earns less than the treatment costs. In the real world most people don't have HIV and don't claim back anywhere near the amount they put in towards the NHS through taxes so the people needing treatment will be subsidised by the taxes of the rest of the population. That's how the NHS has worked for decades.

So you'd be okay if the number was 5x higher? Maybe 10x higher? Where do you draw the line?

Yes the NHS is designed to work as you described, for the population of Britain which is highly predictable and for which provisions can be easily planned.

The NHS is NOT designed to work for unknown numbers of foreign nationals which cannot be planned for in advance.

The NHS is NOT SIMPLY A MONEY ISSUE. For every bed being used, there is another person who needs that bed, or is moved further down a waiting list. Another person who needs to be seen by a nurse but can't get that attention because as a result of a negative change in the ratio of contribution to expenditure, the NHS has been stripped more thinly. NHS staff had their pay frozen, corners are having to be cut all over the service.

All you need to do is look at the NHS expenditure in 2001 and compare it to today. In 2001 it was £59bn, today it is more than double that amount at £119bn. Have wages doubled in that time to pay for it? No. The population of the UK has not doubled in that time. So what's changed to cause such an increase in expenditure?

If the level of NHS expenditure was today at the level it was in 2001, the deficit would be £30bn and not £90bn.

Dan's comment made reference to one theoretical example of an individual who would cost the tax payer money. There is no suggestion that there was an assumption of every immigrant having HIV; you're deliberately misquoting him to make your point.



Fact: we're in debt, our population is not sustaining the level of spending.
It does make sense to have migrants who are a benefit to the economy.
It does NOT make sense to have migrants who are a detriment to our finances when we already have enough of our own nationals that are a detriment to the public purse.
Every other country in the world does not want you migrating there if you are not a benefit to that country, because it makes perfect common sense. Try moving to Australia/Canada/USA without a degree or a skilled trade they are short of, you would be declined.


Again may I remind you, this is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service.


That's how the NHS has worked for decades.

Correct, and for decades our average net migration was in the region of 30,000, whereas today it is 10x that figure. The average make-up of migrants was also dramatically different to today; a larger proportion were well-educated, who spoke English, had qualifications to fill jobs required by the UK, and were generally in a position to contribute to the economy.

The national debt as a percentage of GDP has also been significantly lower for decades. The situation now is NOT THE SAME as what it used to be for the 50 years before this millennia and cannot be compared as such.

[The Don]

So you'd be okay if the number was 5x higher? Maybe 10x higher? Where do you draw the line?

Yes the NHS is designed to work as you described, for the population of Britain which is highly predictable and for which provisions can be easily planned.

The NHS is NOT designed to work for unknown numbers of foreign nationals which cannot be planned for in advance.

The NHS is NOT SIMPLY A MONEY ISSUE. For every bed being used, there is another person who needs that bed, or is moved further down a waiting list. Another person who needs to be seen by a nurse but can't get that attention because as a result of a negative change in the ratio of contribution to expenditure, the NHS has been stripped more thinly. NHS staff had their pay frozen, corners are having to be cut all over the service.

All you need to do is look at the NHS expenditure in 2001 and compare it to today. In 2001 it was £59bn, today it is more than double that amount at £119bn. Have wages doubled in that time to pay for it? No. The population of the UK has not doubled in that time. So what's changed to cause such an increase in expenditure?

If the level of NHS expenditure was today at the level it was in 2001, the deficit would be £30bn and not £90bn.

Dan's comment made reference to one theoretical example of an individual who would cost the tax payer money. There is no suggestion that there was an assumption of every immigrant having HIV; you're deliberately misquoting him to make your point.



Fact: we're in debt, our population is not sustaining the level of spending.
It does make sense to have migrants who are a benefit to the economy.
It does NOT make sense to have migrants who are a detriment to our finances when we already have enough of our own nationals that are a detriment to the public purse.
Every other country in the world does not want you migrating there if you are not a benefit to that country, because it makes perfect common sense. Try moving to Australia/Canada/USA without a degree or a skilled trade they are short of, you would be declined.


Again may I remind you, this is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service.



Correct, and for decades our average net migration was in the region of 30,000, whereas today it is 10x that figure. The average make-up of migrants was also dramatically different to today; a larger proportion were well-educated, who spoke English, had qualifications to fill jobs required by the UK, and were generally in a position to contribute to the economy.

The national debt as a percentage of GDP has also been significantly lower for decades. The situation now is NOT THE SAME as what it used to be for the 50 years before this millennia and cannot be compared as such.

Look, I really can't be bothered to go into a massive debate over the syntax of Dan's comment. I think if you work/live in this country you should be entitled to health care and fortunately that's the system we have.

[Firehorse]

I think if you work/live in this count you should be entitled to health care and fortunately that's the system we have.

I agree, but I also think there needs to be limitations.

Sure it is for people who live here, but there needs to then be restrictions on who can live here.

Without a criteria we end up supplying a service for free to the entire world whilst forcing people to foot the bill without a choice.

[The Don]

I agree, but I also think there needs to be limitations.

Sure it is for people who live here, but there needs to then be restrictions on who can live here.

Without a criteria we end up supplying a service for free to the entire world whilst forcing people to foot the bill without a choice.

Of course, but that's a different argument :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

If the 2nd part is true then the top line shouldn't make a difference surely - "being Ugandan" may mean a higher likelihood of not having the qualities you're after, but isn't undesirable in itself and so is a very poor factor to make decisions on. Capping the number of people coming in from a certain country could well mean that you're just letting in all the ones that you view as undesirable and keeping the most deserving out :P

It isn't an ideal way to make decisions on how to quota the cap system, however it is the only realistic way of doing so. It is not realistic or sensible to not take into account future HIV/Aids rates among Ugandans applying for immigration based on statistics just as it isn't sensible not to take into account the high rates of fraud/ATM crime amongst Romanians, or the language barrier/corruption rates with Pakistanis. You cannot predict the future, but you can use statistics to work out chances.

Jesus said give me your hungry and your poor, but Jesus was magic. Britain should say: give me your educated, young, willing and healthy.


also you berated me in a thread recently about eugenics ideals for health reasons and yet you're advocating just that (in a far slower, less justifiable way which causes/allows suffering to prevail) right here

The British Crown and its state has a responsibility to its own subjects, we gave responsibilty up for Africa/the world over 60 years ago.


Dans example was under the assumption that every immigrant has HIV and earns less than the treatment costs. In the real world most people don't have HIV and don't claim back anywhere near the amount they put in towards the NHS through taxes so the people needing treatment will be subsidised by the taxes of the rest of the population. That's how the NHS has worked for decades.

Most immigrants, we are told, come in to do the low-wage jobs that British people won't do.

Why does your side constantly make the economic argument for immigration yet won't make it in clear cut instances like this?

[Kardan]

You do realise if someone has lived legally in the UK for 7 or more years they have entitlement to British Citizenship.

And there are plenty of people that deserve treatment on the NHS that have lived here for less than 7 years.

[Firehorse]

And there are plenty of people that deserve treatment on the NHS that have lived here for less than 7 years.

And they can already get that treatment so where's the problem?

[AgnesIO]

No, it is real. Check HIV rates in those countries.

Don't create a false drama and act all dramatic over something both you and I know to be true.



If certain nationalities were more likely (but did not have) to catch and spread dangerous diseases such as HIV, TB then I would certainly take that into account under a cap system when deciding what % of the cap comes from each nationality: as I would with migrant nationality groups which have high unemployment rates even when settled in the United Kingdom. Just as I would take into account the language barriers (if one exists), age, religion, number of children, education levels and so on. If say 20% of all Ugandans went on to catch HIV after settling here, then I would want less Ugandans to avoid the high costs of care.

Does that make me a waycist? a bigot? a nasty pasty? No, that makes me sensible. I want only the best (educated, non-extreme, healthy, young) coming in.


My comment was referring to your whole statement, not about the fact African nations have higher HIV rates.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Nigel Farage backed by 50% of Britons (and 89% of Ukip voters) over HIV comments, YouGov finds.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CB0_qR9W0AAV6Uv.png


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026939/Half-Britons-Farage-HIV-Poll-finds-50-agree-immigrants-not-immediately-receive-free-treatment-arrive-UK.html


A YouGov poll of 1,906 adults found that 50 per cent would support ‘people coming to live in the UK being banned from receiving treatment on the NHS for a period of five years’. Another 34 per cent opposed such a ban.

A second question saw voters asked which statement best reflected their view. In this, 52 per cent thought Mr Farage was ‘right to raise this issue - immigrants with serious conditions like HIV are costing the health service a large amount of money’.


This compared with 37 per cent who picked: ‘Nigel Farage was just scaremongering - compared to the total cost of the NHS this is a drop in the ocean’, and 11 per cent did not know.