rebeccajo

Darling, I am fully aware that the US doesn't have a national health service. We have the 37th best healthcare system (that money can buy) in the world.
It's privatized. Like your buddies the Tories are doing with the NHS.

You know, that NHS that all the dirty migrants are moving to England for.

Keep talking about all the restrictions and limitations that your pals in government are placing on migrants, formula. Keep talking about how the Tories are "fixing" things so everything stays nice and British. So that migrants feel so unwelcome, they wouldn't dream of darkening your shores. If you talk loud enough about it, all the sheeple will be so distracted by the BS that they won't notice the biggest scorching of the UK since Thatcher.

It's not migrants coming to the UK that are raping and taking advantage of the NHS. It's the boys in Westminster.

Pistolpete2

The NHS is only marginally being put more 'into the hands' of private providers than it was under the former Labour Government. Labour and Andy Burnham are disingenuously exploiting the mis-use of the red-hot word privatisation to garner votes and the Guardian would naturally support that. It's up to the media to stand up to the misrepresentations being spewed this way and that in election season - some do and some quite clearly don't, which is a grave disservice to us the voter when we are trying to balance things out to make our voting choice.

It is not being privatised - rather the NHS are themselves buying more services from private businesses where it makes more financial sense for the cash-strapped NHS to do so for the particular service to be provided.

It's exactly the same thing as the Ministry of Defence using SERCo to outsource the provision of certain services to that ministry for greater efficiency. It's called support services.

When profit is built-in and there are still savings and efficiencies to be had, what is the problem, if the services meet the requisite standard?

I'm not aware that the NHS make their own drugs (pharma), zimmer-frames, metal walking aids,,........ if you get my point .

LondonSquirrel

37th best doesn't sound like much to boast about for a country like the USA!

rebeccajo

It's not!

rebeccajo

Ah. So it's the media that is misrepresenting things.

They never do that with migration, do they?

Pistolpete2

I take that to mean the Immigration Act 2014 refers to those who are ordinarily resident as being entitled . The Health Surcharge rulings point to six months being the requisite time in residence for EEA citizens which seems to engrave in stone what the powers that be determine to be ordinary residence which also happens to be the Automatic UK Tax Residence determinant (in the absence of a shorter timeframe) under the Statutory Residence Test.

Previously there was Department of Health commentary that indicated that nine months was required in residence (for those who come and go from time to time) to be guaranteed entitlement to all NHS treatment.

Pistolpete2

Even though I promised myself before I returned to the UK that upon return I would get less involved in the politics if only for peace of mind, I have still made it my business to keep in touch with what is going on here because personally it makes sense to do so. It is no simple task and over time one tends to learn where the biases and agendas are IF one pokes into enough different commentaries to get to the root issues and the real facts from whittled-down reliable sources .

It's a real shame that in spite of the Office of National Statistics providing good detailed information regarding migration and what makes it up, the media are for the most part such muck-rakers that they would rather stir things up than accept their responsibility to inform.

It really is ironic that it is UKIP (particularly when everybody else is posturing to negate the impact of UKIP gaining steam) who have proposed a sensible immigration policy which is focused on the needs of the UK economy rather than votes. That would have been nice ten years ago in the run-up to EU enlargement and we wouldn't be in such a mess today such that we could end-up throwing the baby out with the bath water and leave the EU because migration has become such an inflammatory issue, particularly for previous core Labour voters. Of course, since the majority of inwards migration turns out to be from non-EU countries and much of that is actually returning Brits, the devil is in the detail.

I was intrigued to hear on the TV the other night that the immigration restrictions for spouses of UK citizens wishing to return were put in place to curb abuse due to arranged and sham marriages. I always knew that was a big part of it (the motivation), but never expected to hear it on the TV - Panorama I think it was.

rebeccajo

Wherever there is a developed country with a migration policy (and where isn't there now) there will always be people trying to game the system via marriage to "get in". We have it in the US equally as in the UK. I think if you do a bit of that research you mention in your first paragraph, you'll find it is also a smaller part of the problem than the media represents. Just as health tourism is a smaller problem than it is perceived to be.

In the US we handle the problem of sham marriage in a way that might be considered discriminatory by some. Our government knows statistically the "feeder countries" for sham marriage. And we target the applications for a marriage visa for spouses from those countries with a more stringent process. The face to face interview in those countries is more rigorous and the CO's in those countries grill the beneficiaries sometimes very cruelly.

I think it's quite all right to be on the lookout for sham marriage. While it is a small portion of migration, it's still out there. But there's that baby and bathwater analogy you mentioned. All marriages shouldn't be painted with the same brush. Fiancees/fiances should be scrutinized as should the newly married. But people who have been in long marriages abroad? Not so much. Even if the UK doesn't wish to face-to-face interview all visa applicants, they can still ask for more proof of a bonafide relationship for suspicious cases. As for the financial requirements having a bearing on cutting down on sham marriage, I would call BS on that. Real fraudsters are often looking for a man/woman with a fat wallet. Rich doesn't stop the heart from doing stupid things.

Pistolpete2

In the UK, the 'problem' that the Home Office faced was that from 'statistics' it was able to see where the abuses were and they principally related to a couple of countries in the Asian sub-continent. In light of other issues post 9/11 and the London bombings it 'dealt' with the problem by tarring everybody with the same brush to avoid being seen as being discriminatory. The US doesn't have quite the same problems to face as it isn't a former empire with long-run perceived responsibilities et al.

rebeccajo

It's a modern world and times have changed. Internally England needs to get past its past. The sun long ago set on the British Empire. There's not a major player on the planet that hasn't gotten over this - except England itself.

formula

Lots of new visas have been created to attract migrants to the UK, in recognition of what they will bring to the UK. Some immigrants can now get ILR in 3 years.

Even international students now find it easier to get sponsored as they are finally treated exactly the same as UK and EEA students i.e. the company now doesn't have to offer that graduate job to UK or EEA students first.

By doing this, the UK attracts the brightest and the best. Those migrants that will help the UK.

The routes that have been closed or reformed, are the ones that will now reduce the burden on the UK taxpayer.

formula

In the consultation for the Immigration Bill back in 2012/3 it said the changes were to reduce the burden on the UK taxpayer. Under the old system, someone who was able bodied but didn't work, could bring a foreign partner to the UK and claim extra benefits for them under their own benefit claim.

The fact this new financial requirement is set at poverty level, seems to enforce what the consultaion said.
Poverty level for a couple = 18k
Poverty level for a couple with a 1 child - 26k

They first talked about making the financial requirment to just over 26k, then changed it to just over 18k. Which fits with the poverty level for the benefits Tax Credits.

Sham marriages are dealt with under a different part of the new Act. Under the new marriage rules that started this month. Under the 5 years to ILR and proof they have lived together. Along with the appeal changes under the same act. And the Good Character requirments that started December 2014 but will go back over their history for 10 years plus.

formula

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...ns-to-nhs-care

From April. Some changes and some reinforcing the rules already in place for being billed for using the NHS, for those who have been resident in the UK. Also confirming that free NHS use is not based on nationality.

• Those in receipt of a UK state pension and living in another EEA country get full use of the NHS and full treatment paid for by the UK in the EEA country they are living in.
• Those under state pension age and living in the EEA, will not get free use of the NHS when they visit the UK, nor will the UK pay for their treatment in the EEA country they live in. If they don't work in that EEA country, then they will need to buy full insurance for themselves and their dependants. I assume they will need to use the EHIC of the EEA country they live in to pay for their NHS usage when they visit the UK.
• Former UK residents (that includes UK citizens) living outside the EEA, will not be allowed free NHS when they visit and will need full insurance or they will be billed at 150% NHS costs. They never were allowed free NHS but now the NHS will check and bill, although some hospitals already were doing this. The extra 50% they will be charged for not having insurance, will also be given to the NHS unit giving their treatment (the carrot).
• Confirmation that there is no wait time to use the NHS for returning UK citizens who have returned to the UK to settle.
• Usual exemptions i.e crown servants, armed forces, war graves staff ect.

not2old

Then for many such as for someone such as myself or others, we'd likely qualify & be covered from day one?

Therefore for most, its not all doom & gloom this NHS healthcare surcharge?

And what about those non Brits that worked for 3 years in the UK paid NIC's, left, then continued to pay voluntary NIC's, who on reaching state pension age can waltz back over & start using the free NHS... it just aint right!

Best is, take the Brit that emigrated from UK some 25++ years ago & now at state pension age, collecting even minimum state pension, that spends their time living in the sun & sand of an EU country, that they can still get free healthcare (either NHS or through the EHIC)... it doesn't seem right does it?

As for those under state pension age living & working in the UK that retire early take their EHIC card to live in sunny EU country, then on arrival in that country get themselves a residence card which basically entitles them to a local health card & health services, which when they return to the UK for a visit will have the host country EHIC that entitles them to UK healthcare

Being in the EU is the best possible solution for Brits that have the need for free healthcare

alfista1

Can't complain really for our NHS.

My son is currently with his mum in Uruguay. I'm paying for his health insurance over there even though is he a citizen of Uruguay. Just over 100 GBP a month.

His cousins (both Uruguayan) are 6 and 8 over there. Their father pays about 2500 USD a month just for their schooling and medical cover. OMG!