Nigel Farage was right about health tourism/HIV

[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 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

[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