Migrants must pay more to use NHS, say ministers

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
What does it have to do with the "RW"? It's common sense. The NHS is already struggling financially so why should people be able to come here and have treatment for free? I can't believe that they can have a hip replacement or cataract operation and not have to pay for it.

They shouldn't have to pay for it.Its the NHS and its free for all.
That's the point.

What are you talking about you doughnut?


It's a national health service, not a bloody international one, and it's not free, we say for it so are entitled to use it, while other foreigners don't pay for it and are not entitled to use it.


Although many come here with the sole intention using it for free.

Tommy Monk wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:
They shouldn't have to pay for it.Its the NHS and its free for all.
That's the point.

What are you talking about you doughnut?


It's a national health service, not a bloody international one, and it's not free, we say for it so are entitled to use it, while other foreigners don't pay for it and are not entitled to use it.


Although many come here with the sole intention using it for free.

What an absurd answer, Hospitals are about helping people who are ill and what makes this country great is that we do help people when they are ill, and if they are charged afterwards, then so be it. Which will be in the interest of the NHS to do so considering their budgets are so tight. So all this talk they will not charge is just plain old nonsense. There should be no argument over health cre and what other nations do is not a bench mark, as we are the bench mark for being such a great nation that places care first for people and then allow people to concern over the costs afterwards.

Sounds like Didge is agreeing with Tommy really.

Raggamuffin wrote:Sounds like Didge is agreeing with Tommy really.

I do not think so, he thinks people come here to use it for free, many do not, and his point is they will not charge many of them, which again is absurd, when they can make money.
Again nobody should be denied any health care and if somebody does not have the money and falls ill, we should help them, its as simple as that. Money should not be a barrier to health care, though I have no problem that they do charge foreign people who are not working or from a working family!

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Sounds like Didge is agreeing with Tommy really.

I do not think so, he thinks people come here to use it for free, many do not, and his point is they will not charge many of them, which again is absurd, when they can make money.
Again nobody should be denied any health care and if somebody does not have the money and falls ill, we should help them, its as simple as that. Money should not be a barrier to health care, though I have no problem that they do charge people who are not working or from a working family!

Well some are using it for free obviously otherwise there wouldn't be plans to make them pay more. The costs are not always paid after the treatment - I thought that was apparent. The costs are not being chased because of the cost of chasing them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

I do not think so, he thinks people come here to use it for free, many do not, and his point is they will not charge many of them, which again is absurd, when they can make money.
Again nobody should be denied any health care and if somebody does not have the money and falls ill, we should help them, its as simple as that. Money should not be a barrier to health care, though I have no problem that they do charge people who are not working or from a working family!

Well some are using it for free obviously otherwise there wouldn't be plans to make them pay more. The costs are not always paid after the treatment - I thought that was apparent. The costs are not being chased because of the cost of chasing them.

The evidence points to a very small amount and money is already being recovered, the fact we are a magnet to some of the richest people in the world would show to you thus fact.



And not all of the money is new – the government estimates that £47 million was recovered from this group in 2013/14.

https://fullfact.org/health/nhs_health_tourism_charge_migrants_jeremy_hunt-33848

Hospitals collect less than 30% of money owed, and that is only on money owed that they have actually been able to identify and bill people for. Another large amount never gets billed at all!!!


Interesting read.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10540893/The-far-from-modest-problem-of-health-tourists-costing-us-millions.html

Tommy Monk wrote:Hospitals collect less than 30% of money owed, and that is only on money owed that they have actually been able to identify and bill people for. Another large amount never gets billed at all!!!


Interesting read.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10540893/The-far-from-modest-problem-of-health-tourists-costing-us-millions.html

As seen that is bullshit, read the link I provided, it is around 100 million per year, we collect around 47 million.

I believe the telegraph.....

Tommy Monk wrote:I believe the telegraph.....

Yours is a year out of date!"

Mine is from this week

Still believe the telegraph.... don't think things will have changed that much since the article was published....

Tommy Monk wrote:Still believe the telegraph.... don't think things will have changed that much since the article was published....

Which will be biased yet Fullfact is accredited for not being biased, plus that was written by Gilligan, about the worst reporter they have, who has been caught out many times before. I rate the Telegraph, but not that plonker!
So again mine are up to date

Article was using FOI from the actual hospitals.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Article was using FOI from the actual hospitals.....

Well, mine is way more up to date, and that is a fact

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well some are using it for free obviously otherwise there wouldn't be plans to make them pay more. The costs are not always paid after the treatment - I thought that was apparent. The costs are not being chased because of the cost of chasing them.

The evidence points to a very small amount and money is already being recovered, the fact we are a magnet to some of the richest people in the world would show to you thus fact.



And not all of the money is new – the government estimates that £47 million was recovered from this group in 2013/14.

https://fullfact.org/health/nhs_health_tourism_charge_migrants_jeremy_hunt-33848

Well that's less than half.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:


The evidence points to a very small amount and money is already being recovered, the fact we are a magnet to some of the richest people in the world would show to you thus fact.



And not all of the money is new – the government estimates that £47 million was recovered from this group in 2013/14.

https://fullfact.org/health/nhs_health_tourism_charge_migrants_jeremy_hunt-33848

Well that's less than half.

by 3% wow, that is 47% and is peanuts, when the NHS budget is 96 billion

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well that's less than half.

by 3% wow, that is 47% and is peanuts, when the NHS budget is 96 billion

Well it's still less than half, and it's a large amount of money which could be spent on our own citizens.

So what's this figure from your own link?

But only a fraction of the £460m in chargeable procedures performed every year is currently recovered.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

by 3% wow, that is 47% and is peanuts, when the NHS budget is 96 billion

Well it's still less than half, and it's a large amount of money which could be spent on our own citizens.

In comparison to the budget, no it is tiny, very small indeed.

They are recovering 47%, that is way better than before and it will get better by the new measures if you had bothered to read the link!

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well it's still less than half, and it's a large amount of money which could be spent on our own citizens.

In comparison to the budget, no it is tiny, very small indeed.

They are recovering 47%, that is way better than before and it will get better by the new measures if you had bothered to read the link!

Did you even bother to read the link you posted when you started this thread?

You seem to think that £53 million is pocket money.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:


In comparison to the budget, no it is tiny, very small indeed.

They are recovering 47%, that is way better than before and it will get better by the new measures if you had bothered to read the link!

Did you even bother to link you posted when you started this thread?

You seem to think that £53 million is pocket money.   

In terms of the NHS budget yes it is!

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Did you even bother to link you posted when you started this thread?

You seem to think that £53 million is pocket money.   

In terms of the NHS budget yes it is!

Unbelievable.

Ah, another tiny segment of the budget eh?

Just like all the others - pennies make pounds.

Carrying out operations and anything else - we don't just need to recover the money - what about the training for the staff, the setting up of the equipment, purchase of it?

What about the lives lost due to waiting lists, waiting for ambulances, foreign doctors and nurses who don't care?

Stop them coming in!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:


In terms of the NHS budget yes it is!

Unbelievable.

No just simple maths, I suggest you try some!

BigAndy9 wrote:Ah, another tiny segment of the budget eh?

Just like all the others - pennies make pounds.

Carrying out operations and anything else - we don't just need to recover the money - what about the training for the staff, the setting up of the equipment, purchase of it?

What about the lives lost due to waiting lists, waiting for ambulances, foreign doctors and nurses who don't care?

Stop them coming in!

What about the fact the NHS is run and kept going by a third of foreign people, so using your absurd logic, the NHS would crash within 6 months

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Unbelievable.

No just simple maths, I suggest you try some!

I did the maths. It's unbelievable that you think that amount isn't worth worrying about.

Never mind - go and argue with yourself.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

No just simple maths, I suggest you try some!

I did the maths. It's unbelievable that you think that amount isn't worth worrying about.

Never mind - go and argue with yourself.

No you need to understand what I am saying but I guess that is above your pay grade, so I shall repeat again.

In "terms" of the NHS budget, it is peanuts!

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I did the maths. It's unbelievable that you think that amount isn't worth worrying about.

Never mind - go and argue with yourself.

No you need to understand what I am saying but I guess that is above your pay grade, so I shall repeat again.

In "terms" of the NHS budget, it is peanuts!

I don't give a stuff about your peanuts. You think the money isn't important, and I think it is.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Phildidge wrote:

No you need to understand what I am saying but I guess that is above your pay grade, so I shall repeat again.

In "terms" of the NHS budget, it is peanuts!

I don't give a stuff about your peanuts. You think the money isn't important, and I think it is.

No I understand something about economics, you clearly are clueless.

What is more important is money management, which is another matter, and if we help save lives, I think that is way more important than 53 million, which again is such a small sum of the 96 billion we have for the NHS budget, in other words and terms, life is way more important than that amount of money!

Phildidge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't give a stuff about your peanuts. You think the money isn't important, and I think it is.

No I understand something about economics, you clearly are clueless.

What is more important is money management, and if we help save lives, I think that is way more important than 53 million, which again is such a small sum of the 96 billion we have for the NHS budget, in other words and terms, life is way more important than that amount of money!

You really can't debate without being obnoxious, so go and harass someone else who might tolerate it.

Dodge, the telegraph link also says that many are not even billed because they cannot be identified.
The article says that between 10 and 30% of money billed for is recovered.
What is so wrong with having a basic requirement for all who come here to have some health insurance?
Then there is no problem.
In fact medical treatment could be a growth industry here catering for foreign health tourists.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Dodge, the telegraph link also says that many are not even billed because they cannot be identified.
The article says that between 10 and 30% of money billed for is recovered.
What is so wrong with having a basic requirement for all who come here to have some health insurance?
Then there is no problem.
In fact medical treatment could be a growth industry here catering for foreign health tourists.....

Well as seen it is out of date, as seen 47% is recovered, I suggest you get something up to date, that I have.

Again yours is out of date

You're on ignore, so don't bother.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're on ignore, so don't bother.

I told you it would not take long before you would run away like a coward again, and all I did was post some common sense for you. lol

Within a mile of the Health Secretary’s Whitehall office, two different NHS
buildings illustrate the problems he has in trying to limit what one surgeon
calls the “scourge” of health tourism.
In South Lambeth Road, near Vauxhall, south London, a GP’s surgery has a huge
sign outside proclaiming “New Patients Welcome” in Chinese. There has
recently been an influx of East Asian migrants to the area. A short distance
away, opposite Parliament, is St Thomas’ Hospital.
The local Labour MP, Kate Hoey, says health tourists head straight there from
Heathrow “with something they knew perfectly well they had before they came”.
An NHS surgeon, Prof J Meirion Thomas, says the flow of West African women
flying in to give birth for nothing at St Thomas’ is known by its staff as
the “Lagos shuttle”. As with many issues involving foreigners, some on the
Left dismiss health tourism as an invented problem — an attempt by the
Government to deflect criticism from its own failings by “scapegoating”
others.
Much was made of a report, commissioned by the Department of Health, in
October, which estimated the cost of “pure” health tourism — foreigners
flying in and out for free hospital treatment, plus any associated GP care –
at between £60 million and £80 million a year, a figure described as
“modest” by these critics.
Even £80 million is not that modest, of course — it would pay for 2,000 nurses
— but there are grounds for thinking that the actual cost could be rather
higher. As of last year, freedom of information requests show St Thomas’ and
its sister hospital, Guy’s, alone were owed a total of £8.1 million in
unpaid bills by foreigners.
The hospitals’ latest “integrated performance report” stated that “a large
increase in provisions is required for risk of non-payment of invoices” and
that there was an overspend due to “bad debt provisions of £4.6 million” in
the six months to September.
According to a report by Westminster city council’s health scrutiny committee,
St Thomas’ and Guy’s managed to collect 30 per cent of the money they billed
to health tourists over the past few years. If the calculation was confined
to the same financial year, the council added, they managed just 12.5 per
cent. (The trust insists it “does not recognise” this number, and has a
special team to vigorously pursue unpaid bills. It refuses to comment on the
“Lagos shuttle” allegation.)
Even the 30 per cent figure relates only to health tourists who are noticed
and presented with bills. NHS trusts, says the Government, identify and bill
as few as a third of the health tourists who use their services — so Guy’s
and St Thomas’ could be recovering as little as a 10th of what is owed.
The amounts at stake are not small. According to Westminster, Guy’s and St
Thomas’ NHS Trust recovers approximately £600,000 a year from ineligible
patients, which suggests health tourists could be using about £6 million
worth of services every year at those two hospitals alone.
The frustration of NHS and immigration staff with the problem is also
substantial — and echoes through what little research has been done on the
subject, in particular one striking and previously unreported document from
earlier this year, Visitor and Migrant Use of the NHS in England:
Observations from the Front Line.
“I feel that people coming into hospital from overseas know the rules better
than the hospital staff,” said one NHS overseas visitor officer.
“They lie, we know they do, they lie through their teeth,” said another.
Another document, a 2010 consultation on refusing admission to visitors with
unpaid NHS bills, is also telling. It reveals that in just two years at
Gatwick, an airport with relatively few flights from high-risk countries,
border officials stopped more than 300 foreign women “arriving in an
advanced stage of
pregnancy who evidently intend to access NHS maternity services”.
Even though they were plainly health tourists, most ended up having their
babies on the NHS anyway. “Though there may be grounds to refuse entry,
airlines may refuse to carry them home,” the consultation said glumly. “Our
policy is that, to protect the unborn child, maternity treatment is not
delayed or denied while payment is secured.”
Typically, airlines will not carry women in the last four to six weeks of
pregnancy. The health tourists board in their home countries with fake
doctors’ notes saying they are earlier in their terms. Once in Britain, with
the truth revealed, they rely on the airline being unable to carry them back.
“Sometimes they will come back for their second or third baby,” one
immigration officer told the researchers for Observations from the Front
Line.
“Sometimes they will quite blatantly say, 'I’m coming because the care is
better.’ And once they are here, if they are assessed to a certain
gestation, then we are stuck, really.”
Non-English-speaking patients also take up more time. “All of our patients are
offered a 10-minute appointment, but if they’re of a different nationality,
you have to double it,” one GP’s receptionist told the researchers.
Translators have to be brought in, or got on the phone.
Sometimes health tourists’ language skills appear to depend on the situation,
staff say. One “spoke perfect English until we asked her about her
[eligibility], and then she couldn’t speak English and we had to get a
translator,” a hospital receptionist told the researchers.
One of the reasons why the problem is difficult to quantify is that strictly,
neither Guys and St Thomas’, nor the GP’s surgery in Lambeth, are doing
anything wrong. GPs are allowed — indeed, under some interpretations of the
guidance, required — to treat foreign patients, including illegal migrants
and holiday visitors, free of charge.
Hospitals are supposed to pursue freeloaders, but the incentives against doing
it are so great that it is hardly fair to blame them for not bothering.
If a patient is not identified as a health tourist, hospitals can charge the
taxpayer for them. If they are identified as a health tourist, they cannot.
As Jacqueline Bishop, co-chairman of the NHS’s overseas visitors advisory
group and a hospital overseas visitor officer, says: “I generate a loss,
that is my job. There are NHS trusts out there that do not identify overseas
visitors, because it is not in their best interests.”
But we can have a stab at assessing the problem by looking at the published
financial statements of NHS clinical commissioning groups (CCGs), the 211
local bodies that fund hospitals and GPs.
Many CCGs identify a substantial “risk” to their finances from unpaid bills by
overseas visitors. West London CCG puts it at £2.4 million this year, City &
Hackney the same, Camden at £5 million, Islington at £800,000. The average
of those London commissioning groups which have published figures is just
under £2 million.
There are 32 CCGs in London, so the costs to the taxpayer of overseas visitors
could potentially add up to more than £60 million in the capital alone. Not
all of this will be fly-in, fly-out health tourism, but a substantial amount
will, as it is the most expensive single aspect of the problem.
London has a higher proportion of visitors and foreigners, so figures from its
CCGs will not be typical of the country. But that points to another reason
why we should be concerned about health tourism. Even if we could say, which
we cannot, that the impact in Britain as a whole is small, the impact in
particular places and high-demand specialisms can be severe.
If you need treatment at St Thomas’, but have to wait for hours behind a
cheat, you are unlikely to be reassured that the problem is “modest”.

And, show me something up to date on the numbers?

Hope you have something later Matti, when I am back

Bye

The telegraph article is dated 29 December 2013, so only just over 6 months old.


Hardly out of date dodge.....

Tommy Monk wrote:The telegraph article is dated 29 December 2013, so only just over 6 months old.


Hardly out of date dodge.....

Of course it is out of date, if figures are given after that date, seriously that is silly on your part, mine came out today, that means it has the latest data on the matter.

Wow

Anyway have to go


Bye

Still only about a third of health tourists are even billed at all and less than half of those pay up.


That is a big cost in lost revenue plus the additional costs of chasing these people up.



What is wrong with demanding that anyone who comes here is covered by insurance?


Then everyone pays and there is no problem.



Nothing to say about the Lagos shuttle...???

Tommy Monk wrote:Still only about a third of health tourists are even billed at all and less than half of those pay up.
That is a big cost in lost revenue plus the additional costs of chasing these people up.
What is wrong with demanding that anyone who comes here is covered by insurance?
Then everyone pays and there is no problem.
Nothing to say about the Lagos shuttle...???

I have already answered this points, I have no problem with charging but if people need health assistance, then money should be an object at the time of an issue.
The new ideas will help to ensure money is gotten in advance and with a way to track to recoup and costs.
Again Britain leads the way in showing health should matter more than money

Tommy Monk wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:
They shouldn't have to pay for it.Its the NHS and its free for all.
That's the point.

What are you talking about you doughnut?


It's a national health service, not a bloody international one, and it's not free, we say for it so are entitled to use it, while other foreigners don't pay for it and are not entitled to use it.


Although many come here with the sole intention using it for free.

I am not a doughnut.

I don't think it's right anyone paying for their treatment as the National Health Service is free and (used to be) the envy of the world.

If we start making people pay its a slippery slope and before you know it other people with other circumstances will have to pay and on it will continue.We will end up like America.

What does "doughnut" mean outside of calorific bliss?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:



What are you talking about you doughnut?


It's a national health service, not a bloody international one, and it's not free, we say for it so are entitled to use it, while other foreigners don't pay for it and are not entitled to use it.


Although many come here with the sole intention using it for free.

I am not a doughnut.

I don't think it's right anyone paying for their treatment as the National Health Service is free and (used to be) the envy of the world.

If we start making people pay its a slippery slope and before you know it other people with other circumstances will have to pay and on it will continue.We will end up like America.

Which bit of it's supposed to be free for UK citizens do you not understand?

Do you also understand that people have to pay for it via their taxes? Visitors to this country don't pay tax here.

Ben_Reilly wrote:What does "doughnut" mean outside of calorific bliss?

A daft person.

eddie wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

They shouldn't have to pay for it.Its the NHS and its free for all.
That's the point.

Fluffy you,live in a world that's, well, fluffy!
The NHS isn't free technically as people's taxes pay for it.

Now, if it were just a free-for-all and people just abused the system and the NHS ran itself into the ground....and you,were told, "sorry Fluffy, but you can't have those drugs to save your life (hope this never happens to you!) because we just spent our last thousands on giving that person who doesn't live in this country a new hip."

Wouldn't you feel a little bit pissed off?

I get the basis of your premise Eddie and it seems the government are clamping down on non emergency treatment.

I know you are talking sense but for some reason ( I don't even know why myself  ) I don't feel anyone should ever pay for treatment on the NHS.If people are coming here for for the sole purpose of having free treatment they obviously can't afford it in their own country.

Ben_Reilly wrote:What does "doughnut" mean outside of calorific bliss?

I am addressing this heinous slur   

FluffyBunny wrote:

eddie wrote:

Fluffy you,live in a world that's, well, fluffy!
The NHS isn't free technically as people's taxes pay for it.

Now, if it were just a free-for-all and people just abused the system and the NHS ran itself into the ground....and you,were told, "sorry Fluffy, but you can't have those drugs to save your life (hope this never happens to you!) because we just spent our last thousands on giving that person who doesn't live in this country a new hip."

Wouldn't you feel a little bit pissed off?

I get the basis of your premise Eddie and it seems the government are clamping down on non emergency treatment.

I know you are talking sense but for some reason ( I don't even know why myself  ) I don't feel anyone should ever pay for treatment on the NHS.If people are coming here for for the sole purpose of having free treatment they obviously can't afford it in their own country.

Do you actually understand that money doesn't grow on trees?

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I get the basis of your premise Eddie and it seems the government are clamping down on non emergency treatment.

I know you are talking sense but for some reason ( I don't even know why myself  ) I don't feel anyone should ever pay for treatment on the NHS.If people are coming here for for the sole purpose of having free treatment they obviously can't afford it in their own country.

Do you actually understand that money doesn't grow on trees?

Yes Ragga,I do.

I also understand that film stars and men kicking a round ball around a pitch gets millions upon millions of pounds to do virtually nothing while there are people in society starving,homeless,vulnerable and in need.

Society needs to be completely demolished and started again.

That won't happen of course and idealistic I may be but I don't think the ethos of the NHS should be altered.