dbd33

I don't think I should vote in Canada as I have no substantive connection to the place. (I did vote once, against Kyle Rae, but that was a gesture of personal dislike, not a political statement). I've timed out of voting in the UK and in any case, as long as Thatcher remains dead, I have no compulsion to vote there either. I can't say I mind if other people here want to make the effort to vote in the UK but I fear most would do so only to grab more pension money; it would be unfortunate to have domestic political priorities twisted to the needs of the deserters.

Shard

I don't know what the US allows, but my view holds, that if you're a citizen and permitted to vote, you should not feel any compunction not to. This is different from being in any way obliged to vote, of course.

Jericho79

Interesting discussion.

How is allowing expats to vote any different, in prinicpal, to expats using the NHS when they go back?

JonboyE

The people who care about the issue are making the argument that giving cost of living increases to British state pensioners in Canada (and elsewhere) will actually save the UK money. They say that pensioners become poorer over the years to the point where they can no longer live in Canada and are forced to return to the UK to die. The last years of life are the time of the greatest use of state resources. They project annual cost savings of over $1bn a year by 2024.

It is actually a decent argument. The trouble is that it will be hard to find a politician today who gives a flying one about 2024.

dbd33

It is if you think that the increased amount of pension paid due to indexing is life changing. I doubt that it is, someone unable to pay his or her medical bills in Canada is not likely to be suddenly able to do so in consequence of receiving an indexed pension.

Almost Canadian

One is based upon citizenship and only the only costs to the UK taxpayer are those of administration; the other is based upon residency and has significant costs to the taxpayer

Jericho79

Agreed, accept that one is able/entitled(?)/eligible to use the NHS, even if they dont live there. If I was there on holiday and got hit by a car, I'd receive free treatment, with no expectation of receiving a bill. Many on here would insist that I should try to pay for the costs, despite not being asked to.

The point I'm trying to make is that just because one is eligible to vote (or use the NHS), doesnt necessarily mean that they should.

Shard

I believe the NHS is now phasing out free treatment for non-residents (and that includes British citizens).

rivingtonpike

Someone like me who contributes nothing to UK the "system" financially, could have the casting vote (theoretically) as to what sort of political system would run the UK for the next five years.

The power is in my hands to tilt the very fabric of British society; and I don't even live there.

Pizzawheel

I think you'll find that's already the case. They might just be policing it harder now.

Shard

Yes, actually the policing of existing policies that is slowly being tightened.

ann m

That might very well be the case and with a British accent you would likely not arouse any suspicion of not being a resident.

However, while on holiday there, you are not entitled to free treatment and should ask for a hospital bill as soon as you are up and about again.

Jericho79

Not necessarily: Advice for overseas visitors - The NHS in England - NHS Choices

Some services or treatments carried out in an NHS hospital are exempt from charges, so that they are free to all overseas visitors.
UK hospitals will treat you for most infectious diseases, including sexually transmitted infections (STIs) free of charge, to limit the spread of those diseases. Read the common health questions about infections.
If you are taken to A&E (accident and emergency department), a minor injuries unit or walk-in centre for emergency treatment then this is free of charge. However, if you are admitted to hospital for any other emergency treatment a charge may be incurred.