Nigel Farage was right about health tourism/HIV

[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?

[Kardan]

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

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; 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!