Nigel Farage was right about health tourism/HIV

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://order-order.com/2015/04/03/ni...cWBMqSBErz2_tA

Nigel Farage was right about health tourism

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 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“.

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:

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.

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 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 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?