Originally Posted by Middlemore

Is it right that having wisely spent taxpayers money eradicating diseases in this country the NHS now has to pay for the care of immigrants arriving with the same diseases?
I work in a major London hospital a couple of months a year and its usual for around one tenth of the in-patient population to have TB, for example.
We also spent a lot treating malaria, Hep B and C, and a whole range of tropical diseases that have been effectively 'imported' by immigrants. I have seen whole wards occupied by immigrants with TB, straight from the airport. Presumably patients waiting to be admitted for other treatments have to wait?



I also understand that the hospital spends more on interpreters than on patient meals. Would a Brit get free healthcare and a free interpreter if they traveled say to Somalia, Poland or India, where the majority of these folk have come from? If there is no reciprocal arrangement in place, why not?

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/gps-forc...e#.URmznKNdzzk

I have worked in the NHS since 1986, but now believe it to be unsustainable. The number of folk paying NI are seriously outnumbered by the folk using the NHS. Its that simple.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Logic says it is going to be pretty substantial, I seem to remember someone on this board who wanted to pay, but could find no way of being charged. So what chance is there?

Originally Posted by Middlemore

I have worked in the NHS since 1986, but now believe it to be unsustainable. The number of folk paying NI are seriously outnumbered by the folk using the NHS. Its that simple.

Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider

It has ALWAYS been the case that the number of people paying NI are outnumbered by thoe number of people using the NHS. I suspect you wanted to make a different point, but related...?

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

So no evidence that its anything like 10% or more of the NHS budget. No surprise there.

Originally Posted by Boiler

What would your assumption be, or do you have a substantiated link you would care to share.

Originally Posted by Boiler

So by analogy if the US does not keep records of how many died in drone strikes, then it is not a relevant factor in any discussion?

Originally Posted by Boiler

Did you read any of the other posts in this thread?

Originally Posted by Boiler

So I have to produce actual numbers which are not deliberately kept whist for Drone deaths estimates are fine.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Actually I doubt that, but NI just goes into the general fund so not relevant anyway.

Originally Posted by Boiler

Not the sort of information that is likely to be released, just think of the political consequences.

Logic says it is going to be pretty substantial, I seem to remember someone on this board who wanted to pay, but could find no way of being charged. So what chance is there?

Originally Posted by HarryTheSpider

Really? I'm not sure if you actually read the words rather than skim-read and came away with what you THOUGHT you read - not a criticism, as this is something almost all of us do frequently - connected to 'read the question' syndrome at school when taking exams...

Here's my rationale...

The NUMBER of Infants, nursing mothers, pregnant women, kids generally, plus retired plus those not able to work due to disability, plus prisoners, plus the unemployed who are ill and then those in the general working population who are ill...

vs

The working population overall.

I suggest the first is a bigger group, but am open now to the possibility it might not ALWAYS be the case...

But I agree it's moot given NI payments go in to the General Fund.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

So no evidence that its anything like 10% or more of the NHS budget. No surprise there.



The NHS is funded out of general taxation. Almost every adult in the country will be contributing in some way, even if it's through VAT on purchases. Unless over 50 million "health tourists" are using the NHS every year, your assertion is bizarre.

Originally Posted by Middlemore

Whether you have seen it recently or not, the NHS is slowly imploding.
After a decade of reducing A&E waits to 4 hours, its now back up to 12 hours plus, with frail elderly patients stuck in A&Es overnight because there are no beds for them to go to.
Ambulances get stuck in queues waiting to offload patients. The worst queue I have personally seen was 23 ambulances, but most days it sits at around 8 at any one time. That is 8 ambulances unable to respond to other emergencies because they are babysitting patients waiting to get through the hospital doors.

90% of patients are from overseas. Do you feel there is a link between this and the huge numbers of patients attending that are causing the NHS to buckle?

I don't believe its only a London problem, its my understanding the NHS is struggling the most in Lincolnshire.

Do you have a different experience of the NHS, and if so, where?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/healt...s-8422177.html

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

"90 of patients are from overseas". What are you basing this on? And what is your definition of "from overseas"? Are you including legal immigrants in this total?