Permabanned
We appear to have a silly situation in the EU then, don't we? Although "silly" is a bit weak. Totally unprecedented and outright dangerous more like.
Migrants - Italy making a stand
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
We appear to have a silly situation in the EU then, don't we? Although "silly" is a bit weak. Totally unprecedented and outright dangerous more like.
That would never have happened. Parliaments across the continent had already decided on no boots on the ground interference in the civil war. Where do you set it up too, in the regime occupied area or the rebels area? Same with the definition of “liberated”, by whom? That said, for the latter many people are returning home when the fighting moves away from their homes, or what’s left of them.
The cost of that military intervention would have been better spent on camps outside the country, where most of the refugees outside the country currently are (Turkey, Lebonan etc).
There’s also the issue of how you move 3/4 of a million people that are already in Europe by that point back.
And explaining that they were already wanting to head to Germany had nothing to do with what should be given to them, rather it was another thing to consider when discussing the actions at the time.
Possibly, possibly not, but we’d only know once a soldier was killed, by which point the political harm would be done. I’m sure ISIS would have been very keen to test the defences if we stuck a few thousand soldiers in Syria right now.
The cost would be astronomical too, relative to just housing people in nearby countries.
That said I’m not necessarily against the idea, I think we should be doing more peace keeping and humanitarian work (not Libya type “peacekeeping”), just pointing out it would have been politically difficult and wouldn’t have been satisfactory to many complaining about immigrants now. Just look at attitudes towards the Aid budget and see what I mean.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
Pregnant women? Disease such as TB, HIV, Hepatitis, flesh eating bacteria, etc
Huge Burden on the NHS, not sure what you have based your statement on.
Maybe I've missed something then, but I didn't think these migrant boats crossing the Med were landing on the beaches of the UK?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,109
You're the one who referenced coming to the UK and NHS usage. Just pointing out if they did indeed come here, the NHS would be used. In fact pregnancy tourism for NHS use is quite an issue.
Well yes, IF they came here, but they aren't.....so they aren't breaking the NHS.
I wasn't talking about hypotheticals but actuals and I didn't bring up about NHS usage, I was replying to people who said immigration IS breaking the NHS and since the context of the immigrants in this thread are the ones coming across the Med then it didn't make sense.
Especially since the type of immigration we do have is propping up the NHS
Health tourism is pretty rife in the NHS. People who contribute nothing but get expensive treatment. When they wanted to clamp down on it the usual suspects kicked up a fuss.
If migrants coming over on boats aren't trying to get to the UK, why are there 1000s of them piling up in Northern France. Driving through parts of it is like driving through a zombie apocalypse at times :/
If migrants coming over on boats aren't trying to get to the UK, why are there 1000s of them piling up in Northern France. Driving through parts of it is like driving through a zombie apocalypse at times :/
Last edited:
The latest research I can find suggests that health tourism costs the NHS ~0.3% as of the end of 2016 (https://fullfact.org/health/health-tourism-whats-cost/)
Unless the definition has changed recently, that's hardly "rife", is it? I know you have a reputation for parroting gutter press hyperbole, but come on.
Trying is not succeeding though is it.
Plus they've been moved on from Northern France on the whole now haven't they? Last I saw they were demolishing the camps, I may be wrong on that though.
Permabanned
They just set up another one, these engineers and doctors are good at hut building and sanitary existence <LOL>
Soldato
Are you saying that Juncker/ EU should have 'ordered' all 28 members to basically invade Syria? I'm sure that would go down well and imagine you'd be one of those crying about it the most.
Or maybe you are saying that EU should have it's own army?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,418
When was the last time you drove through northern France
People really love to post hyperbole...
For reference the budget for the NHS in 2015/16 was estimated at £116,000,000,000 (116 billion).
0.30% of that is £348,000,000 (348 million).
It's not exactly a "small sum" when you put it in a monetary figure is it?
there is a solution to the "zombie" problem - polar bears:
indeed, that's pretty much the same as the extra weekly funding once we leave the EU
For reference the budget for the NHS in 2015/16 was estimated at £116,000,000,000 (116 billion).
0.30% of that is £348,000,000 (348 million).
It's not exactly a "small sum" when you put it in a monetary figure is it?
indeed, that's pretty much the same as the extra weekly funding once we leave the EU
For reference the budget for the NHS in 2015/16 was estimated at £116,000,000,000 (116 billion).
0.30% of that is £348,000,000 (348 million).
It's not exactly a "small sum" when you put it in a monetary figure is it?
No, of course it's not. But the point is, it's not the crippling figure that it's made out to be in the context of NHS spending. So claiming that health tourism is "rife" in an attempt to blame it for the failings of the NHS is little more than pointless hyperbole. Even in an ideal world, where you could reclaim all costs from ineligible patients with 100% efficiency, it would make little difference to the NHS's funding problems.
The reason we use budget percentages as a whole rather than monetary figures is because the astronomical numbers involved in NHS funding lead to huge sounding numbers which some people read out of context. They then blow the issue out of all proportion and claim it's "rife". It adds nothing to the debate.
indeed, that's pretty much the same as the extra weekly funding once we leave the EU
Ahh yes, I forgot. We are definitely going to be £350m a week better off. No concern at all over those figures. In which case, health tourism will be even less of a concern
Last edited:
Much like the figures for benefit fraud I don't find these figures likely to be all that accurate....
Even from your own source
So it's a figure the goverment estimates for 'deliberate health tourism/ taking advantage of the system ' I. E thoose that attend the UK for the purpose of solely/primarily obtaining health care....
1) I don't trust goverment 'estimates' when it comes to immigration because they are all too often directed by ideology and wildly wrong...
(like this one where they were wrong with an actual figure twenty times the 'rough estimate')
And
2) its not just explicit 'health tourism' but all the other use of the NHS by persons not entitled that's the issue.
Last edited:
Permabanned
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...Health-tourism-gaping-wound-NHS.html#comments
"A fellow doctor had the nerve to tell me on national radio yesterday that health tourism is an insignificant problem for the NHS.
Listeners to the Today programme on Radio 4 heard her claim that ineligible patients from overseas account for just 0.3 per cent of the health service’s budget.
That’s what many doctors like to believe. And even if this were the case, 0.3 per cent would amount to some £360 million, enough to pay for thousands more doctors and nurses in our overstretched health service.
But the truth is actually far worse: health tourism costs the NHS in the region of £2 billion. And it is contributing hugely to a crisis in our capacity to provide care as patients are turned away because beds are full and operating theatres are not available."
Full article here, shocking reading. Quite how if I go private I am first asked for my debit card, yet someone can tip on a flight from Africa about to give a complicated birth or with an ongoing complex health issue and no one asks for any payment at all and they eventually walk off never to be seen again...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...N-THOMAS-Health-tourism-gaping-wound-NHS.html
"A fellow doctor had the nerve to tell me on national radio yesterday that health tourism is an insignificant problem for the NHS.
Listeners to the Today programme on Radio 4 heard her claim that ineligible patients from overseas account for just 0.3 per cent of the health service’s budget.
That’s what many doctors like to believe. And even if this were the case, 0.3 per cent would amount to some £360 million, enough to pay for thousands more doctors and nurses in our overstretched health service.
But the truth is actually far worse: health tourism costs the NHS in the region of £2 billion. And it is contributing hugely to a crisis in our capacity to provide care as patients are turned away because beds are full and operating theatres are not available."
Full article here, shocking reading. Quite how if I go private I am first asked for my debit card, yet someone can tip on a flight from Africa about to give a complicated birth or with an ongoing complex health issue and no one asks for any payment at all and they eventually walk off never to be seen again...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...N-THOMAS-Health-tourism-gaping-wound-NHS.html
Yes, I recognise that those figures are just estimates. Still, it's better than claiming it's a huge problem without citing any evidence whatsoever, isn't it? Even if you don't trust the estimates, can you refute them reliably? Can you cite any evidence that the figure is vastly higher? I've been unsuccessful in finding any so far. If you* cant, then what is the basis for claims that health tourism is such an enormous problem?
I don't really have a dog in this fight, but Nasher's post irked me because it was another one where he makes a statement which just seems to parrot the usual tabloid clichés, without any sort of evidence backing up what he's saying, to try and make a point. He has form for this, so I wanted to call him up on it. If he can provide evidence which would justify his assertion, I'll happily apologise and back down. Until then, I maintain that it's baseless hyperbole.
*The royal you.
Last edited: