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

[Herr Tubthumper]

From their own website.....

http://www.foreignersinuk.co.uk/new...given_free_hiv_treatment_in_england_3811.html

The last paragraph raises some interesting pharmacoeconomic questions. The article seems to suggest this program is undertaken as ultimately it's cost beneficial? Which would make sense as these programs are often are.

 

[cunning fergus]

The last paragraph raises some interesting pharmacoeconomic questions. The article seems to suggest this program is undertaken as ultimately it's cost beneficial? Which would make sense as these programs are often are.

Some interesting logic from you HT.

What is the cheapest option for the taxpayer and NHS?

1) only provide £18,000 p.a. of treatment to anyone who cannot provide credible proof of British citizenship.
2) provide £18,000 p.a. of treatment to anyone who turns up at a hospital with AIDS, regardless of their nationality or residential status.

At the moment you are suggesting 1) is more expensive than 2)?

As an interesting aside, I note the EU has some potential involvement in this policy, note the extract from the conclusion from their meeting with other western countries concerning dealing with the problem of HIV with migrants (page 14).......

http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/HIV-migration-meeting-report.pdf

- Integrate HIV prevention and treatment within a broader health delivery approach to address issues of stigma, racism and discrimination.
- Remove financial barriers to accessing prevention, treatment and care, e.g. migrants included in healthcare coverage/health insurance.
- Ensure providers/clinicians are trained and supported in cultural sensitivity and linguistic capacity to work with migrant populations.
- Integrate migrant health services with social supports (i.e. housing, transport, income).
- Increase sensitivity to possible stigma introduced by increased visibility or targeting of migrants.

Interesting stuff eh.............nothing in here about the host countries taxpayers bearing the cost of all of this sensitivity and generosity.............the mind boggles doesn't it?

Seems to me the only constituency that benefits from such a policy (beyond HIV migrants) would be the big pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS millions of pounds for their medicines...........call me a cynic, but do you think they may be involved with the politicians?

I know..........shame on me for even thinking it...........

 

[cunning fergus]

As I suspected our political class has nothing to do with big business in Healthcare..............

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/p/blog-page.html

That's a relief.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Some interesting logic from you HT.

What is the cheapest option for the taxpayer and NHS?

1) only provide £18,000 p.a. of treatment to anyone who cannot provide credible proof of British citizenship.
2) provide £18,000 p.a. of treatment to anyone who turns up at a hospital with AIDS, regardless of their nationality or residential status.

At the moment you are suggesting 1) is more expensive than 2)?

As an interesting aside, I note the EU has some potential involvement in this policy, note the extract from the conclusion from their meeting with other western countries concerning dealing with the problem of HIV with migrants (page 14).......

http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/HIV-migration-meeting-report.pdf

- Integrate HIV prevention and treatment within a broader health delivery approach to address issues of stigma, racism and discrimination.
- Remove financial barriers to accessing prevention, treatment and care, e.g. migrants included in healthcare coverage/health insurance.
- Ensure providers/clinicians are trained and supported in cultural sensitivity and linguistic capacity to work with migrant populations.
- Integrate migrant health services with social supports (i.e. housing, transport, income).
- Increase sensitivity to possible stigma introduced by increased visibility or targeting of migrants.

Interesting stuff eh.............nothing in here about the host countries taxpayers bearing the cost of all of this sensitivity and generosity.............the mind boggles doesn't it?

Seems to me the only constituency that benefits from such a policy (beyond HIV migrants) would be the big pharmaceutical companies that charge the NHS millions of pounds for their medicines...........call me a cynic, but do you think they may be involved with the politicians?

I know..........shame on me for even thinking it...........

So, in summary, are you saying don't know if this program benefits the UK in the long term?

Here's a suggestion, why don't you trawl the Internet and find out? You're normally very good at posting myriad spurious links to back up your statements so one wonders why you're not doing the same now? You have made a statement about the outlay of treatment and care, albeit from the back of a fag packet, so it's only sensible you provide the full picture.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Intereting article. Makes real the complexities of policy making. No simple answer here. And for me pretending we can be isolated from the world and all it brings is not credible

 

[beorhthelm]

So, in summary, are you saying don't know if this program benefits the UK in the long term?

come off it, what benefit could there be to the UK to treating thousands of non-citizens? if you want to make a altruistic case for the benefit of developing countries, then do so, but economically its diverting money from other services for UK citizens.

 

[cunning fergus]

So, in summary, are you saying don't know if this program benefits the UK in the long term?

Here's a suggestion, why don't you trawl the Internet and find out? You're normally very good at posting myriad spurious links to back up your statements so one wonders why you're not doing the same now? You have made a statement about the outlay of treatment and care, albeit from the back of a fag packet, so it's only sensible you provide the full picture.

Play the ball not the man HT.

Why should UK taxpayers fund NHS treatments at £18,000 p.a. for anyone who turns up in the UK with AIDS? Which is current Govt policy.

Why would any sensible Govt introduce such a policy? It was never in a manifesto or the Queens speech as I recall.

I have provided credible links.........what bit are you struggling with?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Uh...the tax is being spend in the UK. But then again, judging by your post. You're just a typical UKIPper. It's embarrassing.

Typical illogical fallacies from UKIP ilk. Boring, unimaginative and borderline illiterate. That's the UKIP supporter summed in a single line.

OK, putting aside who said it as quite clearly that sends you irrational, how is the NHS funded ? By British taxpayers. So it seems reasonable that those taxpayers get the free at the point of delivery health service they have paid for. Why should people come here and use the service, for free, if they haven't paid in. They shouldn't ( excepting emergency treatment ). What they should have is medical insurance like we have to have to gain access to many other countries medical services. Or indeed an agreement like we have with Australia where UK citizens get free medical care ( just as long as you register first ) because the UK supplies free medical care to Aussies here.

Alternatively we could have the system France has, when I've need medical treatment there I've paid for it and then claimed it back from the NHS on return.

It isn't racist to expect people to fund, in some way, their medical treatment. If we allow people to get free medical treatment without some form of payment, however that might be done, then you can expect to see more of those stories about the NHS not being able to afford life saving drugs or indeed an ever more stretched service.

 

[cunning fergus]

Intereting article. Makes real the complexities of policy making. No simple answer here. And for me pretending we can be isolated from the world and all it brings is not credible

No simple answer if we had money to burn, all I am hearing at the moment is that the NHS is in crisis, yet the UK taxpayer is underwriting millions of pound in treatment for non UK citizens to have HIV treatment.

Would you rather a) taxes were raised so that the treatment and policy continues or b) we stop treating non UK citizens for free.

 

[somerset]

1. Miliband -- to think that he was written off
2. Sturgeon -- she's articulate and gave a very distinctive message that wasn't partisan to the Scottish
3. Clegg -- he's good at this sort of thing
4. surprise, surprise Bennett -- really turned things around
5. Cameron -- wooden and hasn't got a message to give going forward
6. Farage -- oh dear Nigel, the bookies and NSC thought you'd win; how narrow, and missed his big moment, watch UKIP fall in the polls ... which is good news for Cameron
7. Wood -- just spoke to the Welsh, and didn't really do that terribly well

Overall, this wasn't a good night for the right. For once, there was an event in which there were more left-wing voices than those from the right and, all of a sudden, there's a different dominant narrative.

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

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

S

Play the ball not the man HT.

Why should UK taxpayers fund NHS treatments at £18,000 p.a. for anyone who turns up in the UK with AIDS? Which is current Govt policy.

Why would any sensible Govt introduce such a policy? It was never in a manifesto or the Queens speech as I recall.

I have provided credible links.........what bit are you struggling with?

Instead of further questions and supersition can you just answer my question. You provided the cost of treatment so can you also provide the value of the benefit. In doing so you might also answer some of you're own questions.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No simple answer if we had money to burn, all I am hearing at the moment is that the NHS is in crisis, yet the UK taxpayer is underwriting millions of pound in treatment for non UK citizens to have HIV treatment.

Would you rather a) taxes were raised so that the treatment and policy continues or b) we stop treating non UK citizens for free.

i will be able to answer when I know the cost benefit of this particular program.

 

[cunning fergus]

S

Instead of further questions and supersition can you just answer my question. You provided the cost of treatment so can you also provide the value of the benefit. In doing so you might also answer some of you're own questions.

Here you go........

For the UK taxpayer I see only cost, there cannot be any benefit for us to underwrite millions of pounds in free NHS treatment to non UK citizens........philanthropy aside.
For the migrant with HIV there is the benefit of free treatment at no no cost to them at all.
For big Pharma companies there is the benefit in increased revenue from the NHS on back of a political decision to offer treatment to anyone in UK with AIDS. No cost.
For politicians there is the benefit of increased wealth from their relationships with big Pharma companies on the backs of UK taxpayers. No cost.

Anything I have missed?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Play the ball not the man HT.

Why should UK taxpayers fund NHS treatments at £18,000 p.a. for anyone who turns up in the UK with AIDS? Which is current Govt policy.

Why would any sensible Govt introduce such a policy? It was never in a manifesto or the Queens speech as I recall.

I have provided credible links.........what bit are you struggling with?

This policy has been in place for decades for diseases like meningitis, malaria, tuberculosis, cholera. HIV was simply added to the list in 2012 by Cameron. As you say, why would any sensible Govt introduce such a policy eh?

 

[Hampster Gull]

No simple answer if we had money to burn, all I am hearing at the moment is that the NHS is in crisis, yet the UK taxpayer is underwriting millions of pound in treatment for non UK citizens to have HIV treatment.

Would you rather a) taxes were raised so that the treatment and policy continues or b) we stop treating non UK citizens for free.

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Here you go........

For the UK taxpayer I see only cost, there cannot be any benefit for us to underwrite millions of pounds in free NHS treatment to non UK citizens........philanthropy aside.
For the migrant with HIV there is the benefit of free treatment at no no cost to them at all.
For big Pharma companies there is the benefit in increased revenue from the NHS on back of a political decision to offer treatment to anyone in UK with AIDS. No cost.
For politicians there is the benefit of increased wealth from their relationships with big Pharma companies on the backs of UK taxpayers. No cost.

Anything I have missed?

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Here you go........

For the UK taxpayer I see only cost, there cannot be any benefit for us to underwrite millions of pounds in free NHS treatment to non UK citizens........philanthropy aside.
For the migrant with HIV there is the benefit of free treatment at no no cost to them at all.
For big Pharma companies there is the benefit in increased revenue from the NHS on back of a political decision to offer treatment to anyone in UK with AIDS. No cost.
For politicians there is the benefit of increased wealth from their relationships with big Pharma companies on the backs of UK taxpayers. No cost.

Anything I have missed?

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?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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.

Thank you. Someone understands.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

For me, Nicola Sturgeon was the most impressive

 

[pastafarian]

No simple answer if we had money to burn, all I am hearing at the moment is that the NHS is in crisis, yet the UK taxpayer is underwriting millions of pound in treatment for non UK citizens to have HIV treatment.

Would you rather a) taxes were raised so that the treatment and policy continues or b) we stop treating non UK citizens for free.

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.