Who will be the Winner in Tonight's big political debate ?

[Machiavelli]

You do realise that you are not supposed to wear those 3-D glasses for all your TV viewing?

This is somewhat of a negative post, but you can easily override that by indicating how you'd rank the debaters, and then I'll be able to know how it went without 3-D glasses.

 

[Soulman]

There is of course a third option to help fund Health Tourism. This is particularly useful when you have times of underinvestment in the NHS. Simply cut existing services to help pay for it, this may be a bit harsh on some of the most vulnerable in society, especially if they have lived here and contributed all their lives and dont have the wealth to seek private options, but if an International Health Service is wanted as opposed to a National Health Service sacrifices need to be made.

Or of course a fourth option, keep health tourism free and make British Nationals who can afford health care pay for it. This would of course end the NHS as we know it and lead to privatisation but as i said its all about sacrifices.

You could use the money that is given to foreign countries for aid, but is not needed/wasted/used for palatial trimmings for leaders etc, and either use the money to treat the HIV in the countries where the health tourism is coming from, or invest it in OUR NHS.

 

[cunning fergus]

There are many on here who dothink we have money to burn. I keep getting told its like a mortage and we can always run deficits in the bad and good times blah blah blah. I am not in that camp but neither i am in the simplistic trade off outline above. It is perfectly credible to say we will incur more expenses if we dont act on diseases that spread.

I don't doubt that these decisions are simple, I doubt that in Govt there are many simple decisions, however that is not the paradigm that our politicians convey their messages to the electorate.

Over the next few weeks Labour will constantly press the Tories about their management of the NHS, and they may well be right, however, while many aspects of the NHS are evidently being cut, like the cancer treatments in the article below, the NHS will continue to provide treatments worth millions of pounds to non UK citizens for free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30787132

When we disagree with a Govt decision like the Bedroom Tax or the invasion of Iraq we rarely throw our hands in the air and say, well I bet that decision was complicated, they know best..........why should this be different?

When it comes down to it, this matter is subject to a number of political moving parts, and the biggest of those is the UK's Immigration Policy.

Remind me what does Ed Miliband keep saying about that when he is asked about Labour's record on immigration these days?

 

[cunning fergus]

Anything I've missed? Er, yes, the answer to my original question about the overall and ultimate financial benefit of this program to the UK.

If you have time google the terms pharmacoeconomics and health economics. If not then think about the thought process behind, say, splashing out for a £50 lock for your £1000 bicycle.

Ah yes, I note how you have journeyed from a position of asserting that the NHS did not have a universal policy for proving millions of pounds worth of treatment for migrants with HIV for free, to justifying the policy on the back of the technical attributes of Pharmacoeconomics.

I will go out on a limb here and suggest (like most of the electorate) that you can stick your pharmaeconomics up your arse.

Australia has this right, as set out in their visa conditions, specifically on HIV, which states.....

"If the applicant is found to be HIV positive, a decision on whether the applicant meets the health requirement will be made on the same grounds as with any other pre-existing medical condition. The main factor to be taken into account is the cost of the condition to the Australian community for health care and community services. Standard pre and post-test counselling must be provided by the doctor who examined the applicant."

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/22health.htm

I see they take into consideration cost as the main factor...............all the more interesting when you consider that Australia was the first country that pioneered health decisions using what kind of approach?

Answers on a postcard please...........

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Or maybe you do know the cost benefit of this decades old cross-party policy and are now trying to save face after your initial half-baked outburst?

Go on then, what is the cost benefit to the UK treating non-UK residents for free ?

 

[Machiavelli]

So, let's get this right, you think the views of a Professor of Oncology from a lLondon hospital, made before a parliamentary committee are worth "jack shit"?

You can prove his assessment is wrong too...........fine be my guest, I will look forward to being disabused by your tome of counter evidence?

You know of course that you have already been hoisted by your own petard...........tell me more about the UK's declining birth rate?

I was of the view that we are in the midst of an unprecedented boom, courtesy of the very immigrants who we rely on to work in the NHS, who never use it...............oh the irony.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rth-rate-leaps-by-18-in-a-decade-9107483.html

I like you Machiavelli you're fun.

You're fun too Fergus. My point still stands: what one person says isn't worth much (I was somewhat tipsy with my previous characterisation).
And, no, I haven't been hoisted by my own petard. You even concede that birth rates are rising as a result of immigrants. Birth rates have been declining in this country for a long time, for decades. The age of a mother's first child has now gone beyond 30. This is one of the reasons why the average age is increasing although, granted, this is even more so because we're living longer in the UK. But this means that we've got a larger, dependent population, who require the support from care workers. Broadly, there are two ways that this can be resolved (unless we institute in/voluntary euthanasia): bring in more workers; or, increase the birth rate.
Being a feminist, I don't think governments should play too much of a role in influencing birth rates, so that means we need to bring in more workers.
And you know full well that I've never claimed that immigrants don't use the NHS. That would be a stupid statement, so there's no irony there.. I might be inclined to say that they don't use the NHS as much as the indigenous population. But this is only because they are younger than the indigenous population, and therefore a demographic who require the NHS less.

ps I'm going on holiday first thing tomorrow morning -- yippee! -- so won't be able to get back to you.
pps who's Bozza going to vote for?

 

[Machiavelli]

While you are busy gathering your counter evidence to Professor Merrion Thomas, I thought I could help you out. The report below from Public Health England confirms that 2/3rd of heterosexual HIV cases in England are from Africa, about 60,000 people (imagine a full Emirates stadium)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._HIV_annual_report_draft_Final_07-01-2015.pdf

The cost per annum for treating an individual with HIV is approx. £18,000.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-treatment-uk.htm

So, simple maths are that the cost to the NHS is a billion per annum, notwithstanding this situation as a drain on NHS resources.

The increase in treating HIV positive Africans is a trend which has developed in last 10-15 years.

So, let's say for arguments sake circa £10 billion of NHS money has been allocated for these people.

Looking forward to your counter evidence............

Can't be arsed to find counter-evidence. This is because I've got better things to do. It is also because the evidence you've provided in no way disproves my point. My point was about the general contribution and necessity of immigrants to our economy. You're merely dealing with one fairly minor issue.
I still think you're fun, but you've taken a bad turn when it comes to politics.

 

[cunning fergus]

You're fun too Fergus. My point still stands: what one person says isn't worth much (I was somewhat tipsy with my previous characterisation).
And, no, I haven't been hoisted by my own petard. You even concede that birth rates are rising as a result of immigrants. Birth rates have been declining in this country for a long time, for decades. The age of a mother's first child has now gone beyond 30. This is one of the reasons why the average age is increasing although, granted, this is even more so because we're living longer in the UK. But this means that we've got a larger, dependent population, who require the support from care workers. Broadly, there are two ways that this can be resolved (unless we institute in/voluntary euthanasia): bring in more workers; or, increase the birth rate.
Being a feminist, I don't think governments should play too much of a role in influencing birth rates, so that means we need to bring in more workers.
And you know full well that I've never claimed that immigrants don't use the NHS. That would be a stupid statement, so there's no irony there.. I might be inclined to say that they don't use the NHS as much as the indigenous population. But this is only because they are younger than the indigenous population, and therefore a demographic who require the NHS less.

ps I'm going on holiday first thing tomorrow morning -- yippee! -- so won't be able to get back to you.
pps who's Bozza going to vote for?

Good, we can keep it "fun".

A bloke in the pub spouting his views is about health tourism is one person, a professor of surgical oncology who had been invited to provide evidence before a parliamentary committee on health tourism is another person. The fact that you want to conflate the two says more about your objectivity on this matter than mine.

The UK has in the last 15 years or so has had a birth boom........if it's really so low, there should be plenty of room in primary schools, as oppose to unprecedented demand in 40% of councils.......right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32161851

By the way, 25% of those births are to non UK born mums, ergo 25% of NHS maternity costs are to those young immigrants that are not using the NHS like the elderly who have largely paid in the system for the lives, so yes.......oh the irony.

In my view your point about the UK's need for more and more workers is painfully simplistic and means the UK is on a ever rising trajectory that means we will need to exponentially increase migration to cope with an "apparent" ever increasing demand. This is unsustainable.

It's this kind of supercilious we know best attitude that is turning people off the established political parties...........at least those in Scotland have tumbled it.

 

[cunning fergus]

Can't be arsed to find counter-evidence. This is because I've got better things to do. It is also because the evidence you've provided in no way disproves my point. My point was about the general contribution and necessity of immigrants to our economy. You're merely dealing with one fairly minor issue.
I still think you're fun, but you've taken a bad turn when it comes to politics.

Enjoy your holiday, and don't demean yourself or diminish your argument with a tacit innuendo, remember play the ball not the man.

I understand your argument, it is an orthodoxy these days, a veritable sacred cow.

The hard facts here are about how UK taxpayers pay millions to treat tens of thousands of migrants with HIV. You support such a policy I don't........

As someone wise once said, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Enjoy your hols.

 

[Machiavelli]

Good, we can keep it "fun".

A bloke in the pub spouting his views is about health tourism is one person, a professor of surgical oncology who had been invited to provide evidence before a parliamentary committee on health tourism is another person. The fact that you want to conflate the two says more about your objectivity on this matter than mine.

The UK has in the last 15 years or so has had a birth boom........if it's really so low, there should be plenty of room in primary schools, as oppose to unprecedented demand in 40% of councils.......right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32161851

By the way, 25% of those births are to non UK born mums, ergo 25% of NHS maternity costs are to those young immigrants that are not using the NHS like the elderly who have largely paid in the system for the lives, so yes.......oh the irony.

In my view your point about the UK's need for more and more workers is painfully simplistic and means the UK is on a ever rising trajectory that means we will need to exponentially increase migration to cope with an "apparent" ever increasing demand. This is unsustainable.

It's this kind of supercilious we know best attitude that is turning people off the established political parties...........at least those in Scotland have tumbled it.

I'm all for keeping it fun. But let's talk about the same thing, otherwise we'll become a tad tired with one another. None of your points are addressing mine. If you go back and read my comments in our thread, you'll recognise this.
In terms of what you've said in this post:
-- I've never compared a bloke in the pub to your prof in oncology
-- I agree that there's high demand in primary schools: my son is in one, and classroom sizes are increasing; this primarily is down to the fact that the government isn't taking it seriously enough, and would rather manufacture huge concern over a debt crisis rather than fund it
-- I concede that it's immigrants that are giving birth to more children and is related to a point I made in an earlier post, but see that post about who is using the NHS the most. And this has nothing to do with irony
-- it's not the population of the UK that is the thing you want to worry about if sustainability is your concern. If you are concerned about sustainability, can I suggest you vote Green, swot up on climate change, etc, etc
-- as my previous point suggests, I'm a member of an insurgent political party, the Greens, who take their cue from the 2,500 scientists at the IPCC tracking climate change. They probably also have a 'supercilious we know best attitude' too. But I prefer there's to the deniers funded by fossil fuel companies. I'm painfully aware that my views are way off track from the norm, but think in a democracy I should go ahead and air them. And as a democrat, I regard the Scottish referendum campaign to be be one of the finest moments in British democracy during my lifetime.

 

[Machiavelli]

Enjoy your holiday, and don't demean yourself or diminish your argument with a tacit innuendo, remember play the ball not the man.

I understand your argument, it is an orthodoxy these days, a veritable sacred cow.

The hard facts here are about how UK taxpayers pay millions to treat tens of thousands of migrants with HIV. You support such a policy I don't........

As someone wise once said, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Enjoy your hols.

You're fond of saying play the ball, not the man, but will need to explain how I've played the man in that post or provided a tacit innuendo.
And a genuine question: are you a revolutionary? Do you think that uber-establishment man Farage is a revolutionary?

 

[Hampster Gull]

I don't doubt that these decisions are simple, I doubt that in Govt there are many simple decisions, however that is not the paradigm that our politicians convey their messages to the electorate.

Over the next few weeks Labour will constantly press the Tories about their management of the NHS, and they may well be right, however, while many aspects of the NHS are evidently being cut, like the cancer treatments in the article below, the NHS will continue to provide treatments worth millions of pounds to non UK citizens for free.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30787132

When we disagree with a Govt decision like the Bedroom Tax or the invasion of Iraq we rarely throw our hands in the air and say, well I bet that decision was complicated, they know best..........why should this be different?

When it comes down to it, this matter is subject to a number of political moving parts, and the biggest of those is the UK's Immigration Policy.

Remind me what does Ed Miliband keep saying about that when he is asked about Labour's record on immigration these days?

I said nothing about throwing up your hands because a decision is complicated! i said there was a credible rationale for the decision made.

 

[East Preston Gull]

Say what you like about him, but when Farage throws in grenades like this, we really get going. Ukip have done more for political engagement than any other party in our modern times.

 

[cunning fergus]

I said nothing about throwing up your hands because a decision is complicated! i said there was a credible rationale for the decision made.

I know you did HG I agree with you.

My point was that whilst there may be a credible basis behind the decision, that does a) mean it was the only option or b) mean it is fair to taxpayers?

As I explained to HT, Australia will refuse entry to migrants with HIV on the grounds of the cost of treatment to their taxpayers.

Our own politicians could easily implement a similar policy................do you think it would be a vote winner?

*throws hands up in the air*

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm all for keeping it fun. But let's talk about the same thing, otherwise we'll become a tad tired with one another. None of your points are addressing mine. If you go back and read my comments in our thread, you'll recognise this.
In terms of what you've said in this post:
-- I've never compared a bloke in the pub to your prof in oncology
-- I agree that there's high demand in primary schools: my son is in one, and classroom sizes are increasing; this primarily is down to the fact that the government isn't taking it seriously enough, and would rather manufacture huge concern over a debt crisis rather than fund it
-- I concede that it's immigrants that are giving birth to more children and is related to a point I made in an earlier post, but see that post about who is using the NHS the most. And this has nothing to do with irony
-- it's not the population of the UK that is the thing you want to worry about if sustainability is your concern. If you are concerned about sustainability, can I suggest you vote Green, swot up on climate change, etc, etc
-- as my previous point suggests, I'm a member of an insurgent political party, the Greens, who take their cue from the 2,500 scientists at the IPCC tracking climate change. They probably also have a 'supercilious we know best attitude' too. But I prefer there's to the deniers funded by fossil fuel companies. I'm painfully aware that my views are way off track from the norm, but think in a democracy I should go ahead and air them. And as a democrat, I regard the Scottish referendum campaign to be be one of the finest moments in British democracy during my lifetime.

Sure, but I entered this thread by referencing a quote from the Professor of Surgical Oncology from the Royal Marsden at a Parliamentary Committee on the abuse of the NHS by immigrants, during which he is on public record as saying that the costs of treating HIV in London were twice as high for NHS than treating cancer patients with Chemotherapy.

You then weighed in stating that he was "one person" who's comments were worth "jack shit".

You may not have said directly that Professor Merrion Thomas was just some bloke in a pub, however that is clearly how you treated his insight.........indeed you also said you could find contradictory evidence, that you now conveniently can't be arsed to find.

I suspect he knows more than you, and with respect it is your own unsupported counter view that is worth "jack shit"

Moving to your public support of the Greens, that is laudable, of course they have their own political objectives, including:

"NY300 We will work to create a world of global inter-responsibility in which the concept of a 'British national' is irrelevant and outdated."

http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/ny.html

It is exactly this kind of ideology that the taxpayer dealing with by underwriting millions of pounds of NHS treatment for migrants with HIV; everyone is the same especially when they are unfortunate enough to have HIV (a human being as Leanne Wood explained on Thursday).

All very well, but let's have this ideology explained to the British taxpayer instead of it shrouded behind celebrating diversity as a consequence of immigration. It is essentially only one group that is paying..........

 

[cunning fergus]

You're fond of saying play the ball, not the man, but will need to explain how I've played the man in that post or provided a tacit innuendo.
And a genuine question: are you a revolutionary? Do you think that uber-establishment man Farage is a revolutionary?

I do, but then you know your motives for posting stuff better than me............I can't help you.

Hardly, I am a working class lad bought up in Moulsecoomb............politics seemed simple then, these days there are ersatz socialists who are really tories.

Farage is a tory, but has policies that chime with Dennis Skinner, Peter Shore and Tony Benn...........so know he is not a revolutionary, but I do think at times (not all) he does speak the TRUTH. Hence all the posts we have had on this thread.

Chin chin.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I know you did HG I agree with you.

My point was that whilst there may be a credible basis behind the decision, that does a) mean it was the only option or b) mean it is fair to taxpayers?

As I explained to HT, Australia will refuse entry to migrants with HIV on the grounds of the cost of treatment to their taxpayers.

Our own politicians could easily implement a similar policy................do you think it would be a vote winner?

*throws hands up in the air*

Spending money to save money further down the line seems fair to me. I'd go further and say it's a sensible prudent approach. I generally support this type of joined up thinking even when it's Tories that are doing it. If you don't like it you can always vote the Tories out

 

[cunning fergus]

Spending money to save money further down the line seems fair to me. I'd go further and say it's a sensible prudent approach. I generally support this type of joined up thinking even when it's Tories that are doing it. If you don't like it you can always vote the Tories out

No doubt, but it can't be cheaper than how Australia deal with potential migrants with HIV.

Ask the British taxpayer what alternative they would prefer.......

A) Unlimited NHS costs to treat migrants with HIV for free, or

B) Refuse entry if they pose an unreasonable cost to the taxpayer.

Remind me, who's interests are MPs serving?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

A young Boris Johnson, showing his support for the Albion, having a spot of lunch before a busy afternoon electioneering.

 

[Red Side Of Sussex]

---

No doubt, but it can't be cheaper than how Australia deal with potential migrants with HIV.

Ask the British taxpayer what alternative they would prefer.......

A) Unlimited NHS costs to treat migrants with HIV for free, or

B) Refuse entry if they pose an unreasonable cost to the taxpayer.

Remind me, who's interests are MPs serving?

We could have a C). If an individual would like to pay for HIV drugs for non British nationals they now can.
The inland revenue will give every tax payer an option to pay more in tax. individuals will just need to tick the box if they are willing to give money from their pay packets towards the treatment non nationals will require.Just tick the box, stick it in the post and money will be deducted from your income.If you don't wish to fund treatment throw this letter in the bin.