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

[Herr Tubthumper]

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?

You tell me. You brought this up, and brought up just one part of the picture. I have asked you a number of times now, to provide the overall cost benefit but you continue to ignore this and plough other, possibly face saving, fields. And yet again you provide nothing more than supposition.

If you come up with some facts and figures, like the UK figure mentioned above, and also the Aussie figure, I'll view them and let you know my answer. Until then I'm happy to run with a program which numerous PMs have followed.

 

[dingodan]

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

How does spending this money actually save money?

Also, spending money short term to save money long term is all well and good, not when you are in serious debt and financial hardship though.

 

[cunning fergus]

You tell me. You brought this up, and brought up just one part of the picture. I have asked you a number of times now, to provide the overall cost benefit but you continue to ignore this and plough other, possibly face saving, fields. And yet again you provide nothing more than supposition.

If you come up with some facts and figures, like the UK figure mentioned above, and also the Aussie figure, I'll view them and let you know my answer. Until then I'm happy to run with a program which numerous PMs have followed.

On the contrary, you bought up the subject of pharmacoeconomics, which (if you recall) I said you could stick up your arse.

Australia just happened to pioneer healthcare decisions via pharmacoeconomics and they have a policy which reserves the right refuse entry to migrants with HIV on the grounds of cost.

So, there is no need for complex comparison, we know that the UK allows entry to thousands of migrants with HIV which costs the NHS £18,000 a year. The Aussies

If it was more effective under pharmacoeconomics to treat non UK citizens with contagious diseases by importing them to the UK we would have been flying in the victims of Ebola, like we did the UK people who became infected.

It was more effective to treat them where they were.........the same principle should apply for those with AIDS.

 

[cunning fergus]

---

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.

They could also ask if they are prepared to put these people up too............that would take some of the steam out of the housing market.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

On the contrary, you bought up the subject of pharmacoeconomics, which (if you recall) I said you could stick up your arse.

Australia just happened to pioneer healthcare decisions via pharmacoeconomics and they have a policy which reserves the right refuse entry to migrants with HIV on the grounds of cost.

So, there is no need for complex comparison, we know that the UK allows entry to thousands of migrants with HIV which costs the NHS £18,000 a year. The Aussies

If it was more effective under pharmacoeconomics to treat non UK citizens with contagious diseases by importing them to the UK we would have been flying in the victims of Ebola, like we did the UK people who became infected.

It was more effective to treat them where they were.........the same principle should apply for those with AIDS.

It's funny how you typically pepper your posts with links to support your arguments but for some strange reason you're not doing so now, and have resorted to guess work. You can't state two approaches, guess as to which one is correct, and expect us to agree with you. I think you know it doesn't work like this.

PS it was you who brought pharmacoeconomics into the discussion by posting a thread which raised the subject, albeit not in name but certainly in subject.

Your post is weak and I know you know this as your standards are normally much higher.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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

No idea. I've merely been asking questions of Cunning Fergus' various statements and links. I'm interested in what he has to say, but sadly he doesn't seem to have any facts and certainly no figures to back his case. Shame as it's an interesting subject.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

How does spending this money actually save money?

For example, spending a few quid on a padlock for your shed will save you the cost of replacing the lawnmover and all your other gardening tools when someone has lifted them.

 

[cunning fergus]

You tell me. You brought this up, and brought up just one part of the picture. I have asked you a number of times now, to provide the overall cost benefit but you continue to ignore this and plough other, possibly face saving, fields. And yet again you provide nothing more than supposition.

If you come up with some facts and figures, like the UK figure mentioned above, and also the Aussie figure, I'll view them and let you know my answer. Until then I'm happy to run with a program which numerous PMs have followed.

You are too kind HT.

The direction of travel here is that you are asking for evidence that the UK's system of free universal healthcare for all migrants with HIV is "better overall" than Australia's which reserves the right to refuse migrants with HIV entry. A right they maintain due to the cost of treatment.

The links are provided, I have even pasted some of the detail for you..........there is nothing else to add.

The reality on the ground is that trying to get evidence about the abuse of the NHS by migrants is hard, firstly because the NHS does not maintain that data, plus the policy of dishing out UK citizenship to millions of migrants in last few years, removes this constituency from the balance sheet.

Whether that is a deliberate policy or not, who knows, however when your beloved Labour Party were in power they introduced rules limiting the likely abuse of the NHS by migrants.............

http://www.maternityaction.org.uk/w...3/09/maternalandinfanthealthbriefingpaper.pdf

As you will note the paper states.......

"Health tourists are individuals who have come to the UK with the sole purpose of obtaining health care. In 2005, the then Minister for Health, John Hutton, stated that the NHS has not been required to keep figures on this question and so it was not possible to give a definitive assessment of the scale of health tourism."

More importantly, and as I have indicated previously you cannot ignore immigration policy here, yet this paper on limiting abuse of the NHS also states......

"Why don’t we simply send people home?
The arrival of and removal of migrants from the UK is beyond the scope of this brief. We simply look to the responsibility of the state for the welfare of those who live in the UK no matter their legal status. We believe immigration should be managed at borders and not hospital doors."

Me and you have done this dance before, and we both know you don't place the interests of the British working class above their European or global peers, so you are evidently going to feel the same way about British taxpayers.

That's the long and the short of it.

 

[Soulman]

For example, spending a few quid on a padlock for your shed will save you the cost of replacing the lawnmover and all your other gardening tools when someone has lifted them.

A "padlock" on the gold reserves, the amount of immigration, the bankers, the PFI and the NHS tourism under Labours watch, "will save you the cost "........a bit of trimming, pruning and mowing eh.

 

[cunning fergus]

For example, spending a few quid on a padlock for your shed will save you the cost of replacing the lawnmover and all your other gardening tools when someone has lifted them.

Of course this analogy works if you need a shed or a lawnmower to protect in the first place.

If you don't then no need to buy a lock...............

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The reality on the ground is that trying to get evidence about the abuse of the NHS by migrants is hard,

So you finally admit you are making statements which you cannot back up with facts and figures. Excellent, we can both now move on.

 

[Hampster Gull]

So you finally admit you are making statements which you cannot back up with facts and figures. Excellent, we can both now move on.

Dont let rhe lack of facts get in the way of a good argument!

 

[dingodan]

For example, spending a few quid on a padlock for your shed will save you the cost of replacing the lawnmover and all your other gardening tools when someone has lifted them.

Yes, but in your position really the only responsible thing to do would be to sell your lawnmower and gardening tools because you bought them using credit you can't afford.

Saying that you are going to pay to keep them safe and that this is somehow a saving is a complete joke.

This situation is no different to that of a junkie. Cannot possibly consider getting off the junk, that's out of the question. But don't worry though, because it's definitely manageable and under control.

& just like the junkie our avoidance of the pain we have to go through, our inability to do without our fix, is going to eventually kill us.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes, but in your position really the only responsible thing to do would be to sell your lawnmower and gardening tools because you bought them using credit you can't afford.

Saying that you are going to pay to keep them safe and that this is somehow a saving is a complete joke.

This situation is no different to that of a junkie. Cannot possibly consider getting off the junk, that's out of the question. But don't worry though, because it's definitely manageable and under control.

& just like the junkie our avoidance of the pain we have to go through, our inability to do without our fix, is going to eventually kill us.

I can't be arsed to go through this a second time and I'm sure everyone else is bored as well. Scroll back a few pages and read the posts between me and Cunning Fergus. You'll see both sides of the discussion.

 

[beorhthelm]

I can't be arsed to go through this a second time and I'm sure everyone else is bored as well. Scroll back a few pages and read the posts between me and Cunning Fergus. You'll see both sides of the discussion.

tbf you never went through it in the first place, just made an assertion that the money spend saves money down the line, without anything to support it. but then you told us you didnt have any idea of the costs and benefits, so we can park this cant we?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

tbf you never went through it in the first place, just made an assertion that the money spend saves money down the line, without anything to support it. but then you told us you didnt have any idea of the costs and benefits, so we can park this cant we?

May I suggest you also read the previous threads as well. I have made zero assertions. I have merely asked the questions which Cunning Fergus' posts and links have invited.

 

[beorhthelm]

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

reads like an assertion to me. but as you say you have no idea, so its clear you have zero input on the matter. seems cunning fergus point, based on parliamentry procedings, holds more weight and you are just

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

reads like an assertion to me. but as you say you have no idea, so its clear you have zero input on the matter. seems cunning fergus point, based on parliamentry procedings, holds more weight and you are just

You have taken that sentence totally out of context. If you follow all the discussion you'll see I'm hypothesising on Cunning Fergus' comments.

Besides, the party's over. I think everyone is done and gone home albeit in total disagreement. You'll have to go somewhere else for your entertainment.

 

[Hampster Gull]

This has to be the dullest thread I have had he misfortune to read

 

[cunning fergus]

So you finally admit you are making statements which you cannot back up with facts and figures. Excellent, we can both now move on.

Absolutely and unequivocally not, I said it's hard, not impossible.

The evidence I provided earlier on in this thread by way of the Public Health England report into HIV and parliamentary committee minutes provides enough insight (and facts) into the challenge the NHS has dealing with a) policies which treat migrants for free and b) "fraud" by foreign nationals, which is endemic in many areas of treatment........for example:

"Professor Thomas: With maternity tourism the biggest problem is west Africa; there is no doubt about that. Why? We have Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority rules here where only two fertilised ova can be put back at any one IVF cycle. There you can put as many as you like, so they get a high incidence of multiple births. That is one of our big problems in this country. Some of those cases have been highlighted in the papers recently."

I will give you a quick example of women coming with the same name, same age, same address, but different blood groups. As you know, the first thing that happens when you are going to have your baby is that your blood group is tested for rhesus incompatibility. There is obviously identity fraud going on. What I do not understand is why, once that is spotted, the NHS fraud people do not target it and investigate these people. These people know that there is no penalty."

You may want to take Machiavelli's view that this kind of evidence is worth "jack shit" that is up to you, however it is evidently a fact that the NHS is providing millions of pounds worth of treatment to non UK citizens and NONE of the established political parties want to do anything about it.

This situation suits your political narrative, you don't hold the interests of British people above other Europeans and no doubt anyone else.

We won't agree on that basis whether it is this matter or anything else which diminishes the rights of British workers, taxpayers or other institutions.

That is a fact.