Migrants - Italy making a stand
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
You won't find any reliable fugures because the only outfit that could (legally) collect them, the state, has an active interest in not reporting the 'true' figures becase they want to appear more competent the they actually are in controlling migration and so will do what they can to control any news that might upset the narrative.....
I have personal experience of the workings of some London hospitals (which I know are not necessarily representative of the country as a whole) and can certaininly attest that treatment being provided to persons not entitled to it was certinly 'rife' there.
That you source has to use language like 'rough upper estimate' uses the percentag rather then the figure on hundred of millions and the use of strange terms like 'deliberate health tourism' should be a major red flags to all that the 'true' figure is likely far higher.
So prove me wrong then
It's costing us millions. Millions more than it should be.
I agree. But it will continue to do so, unless we become 100% efficient in recouping ineligible costs.
Given the inefficiency that the NHS is criticised for, I think suffering an attrition of only 0.3% of your annual budget (if those estimates are accurate) on health tourism is actually quite impressive.
So how is it "rife"?
And also as ridiculous as it sounds and seemingly as usual with these large organisations (especially Govt ones), when they look into it they say it would cost more money than you would get to try and enforce/collect the charges that could be made!
You seem to be missing the point that a more effective immigration system would prevent /reduce thoose 'ineligible costs' being incurred in the first place......
Would it? As 'health tourism' is just as much people coming here on holiday and "suddenly" becoming ill and needing treatment. Also ex-pats are included in that figure.
There is also a fairly large amount of EU citizens in that that we could reclaim the money via the EHIC, but don't. It's not just all the bogey man 'immigrant'
I'm not so much making a comment on the immigration system, I agree that making it more effective could be beneficial to this "problem". What I am doing is trying to refute the specific idea that this is the huge "problem" that people make it out to be; I don't think it's helpful to the debate.
Two quick asides:
1) Did you make a post and delete it? I started quoting you on something but then it disappeared. Did you remove it? I don't want to misquote you if that's the case.
2) Is your full stop key broken? I can't remember the last time I saw you end a sentence without several of them, and I really have to ask
Yes it would.... When I travel to some counties I have to show that I have purchased health insurance as part of the immigration controls..... one simple example
Well Yes, but I just pointed out two areas that account for a significant % of that 0.3% who wouldn't need health insurance to enter the country.
Other countries require both ex pats and people on holiday to have compulsory medical insurance or was it a different 'two areas' you were referring to? Otherwise my point still stands.
No, that's fine, I just didn't realise you were including tourists under changing our immigration rules - I was taking a narrower view of what constituted an immigrant.
We still have the problem that the NHS just isn't geared up to take/enforce payments and though that can be changed of course, as I said, they seem to keep saying it would cost more to implement than we would save
I've no problem about closing any loopholes in this or tightening up the system, but the issue has to be enough of one to warrant it to be cost effective.
No, that's fine, I just didn't realise you were including tourists under changing our immigration rules - I was taking a narrower view of what constituted an immigrant.
We still have the problem that the NHS just isn't geared up to take/enforce payments and though that can be changed of course, as I said, they seem to keep saying it would cost more to implement than we would save
I've no problem about closing any loopholes in this or tightening up the system, but the issue has to be enough of one to warrant it to be cost effective.
Precisely. This is why I object to the hyperbole. I don't disagree that there's a problem to be tackled, but focusing all your energy on eliminating it because it's effects may have been massively overestimated ends up being counterproductive.
Permabanned
There's also the fact a lot of taxpayers object to the NHS making it so easy for health tourists to steal from them. I do not want my hard earned money going to the NHS and then used for treating a foreigner who has deliberately and brazenly come here to steal from me and the NHS. Compulsory health insurance cover should be mandatory and provable at the time and point of entry. It's supposed to be a service to this nation and its nationals, not for having its funding squandered on foreign scammers.
Well it appears a leaked copy of an EU proposal to set up a processing facility in North Africa has come to surface. The main issue being there's no indication of where the facilities would be put, due to the instability in Libya.
What's that phrase, "something something, come back and bite you in the ****"?
What's that phrase, "something something, come back and bite you in the ****"?
How does that work in practice? Pre-existing conditions (such as pregnancy) are not normally covered by health insurance.
I've had to get travel insurance with a pre-existing condition, you just declare it and pay a higher premium (if I want to go to the US on holiday now I'll have to hand over a few hundred £s). Obvs if you're suffering from an acute condition or are about to give birth then perhaps it is better to delay your trip.
As far as actually moving to another country is concerned, well "insurance" isn't necessarily really insurance but more like a mandatory contribution where the providers have a legal obligation to provide basic cover so you can in various cases move somewhere knowing full well you're going to be making some imminent claims on your health "insurance".
Permabanned
Well, then they have to pay. Up front.
People will have been proposing it for years but the EU don't care, they're probably only taking it seriously now because their biggest stooge Merkel is under pressure.
They used to have a similar deal with Gadaffi, but the civil war in Libya put paid to that. Since then there's the small issue of finding somewhere/someone with the influence and power to actually make a similar deal, which is the issue.
This isn't a new issue, it's been happening for decades. That said it may be getting worse, and with the rising anti immigration sentiment it's being pushed to the forefront again.
Don
It’ll get a lot worse, both illegal migration and anti-migration feelings, what with global warming and globalisation not likely to benefit those in sub-Sahara Africa, and those will be well aware of the disparity as people are increasingly connected via the internet and media.