Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

Tbh, I would like the borders shut until Ebola is not a threat.

eddie wrote:
Tbh, I would like the borders shut until Ebola is not a threat.

WHY ???

Why not close your borders to motor cars, tobacco, junk food, exercise equipment, mushrooms, eh eddie..

ALL of which are are far, far bigger threats to your life than Ebola, HIV-AIDs or terrorism "suspects" will ever be !

JUST goes to show how much influence the popular press scaremongering has over there..

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

.........................................

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

     ALL that this sort of nonsense would ever achieve, is persuading even more people to leave such details off their questionnaires at immigration points...

I'm just waiting for Farage to call for the invasion of Poland

We should definately have been screening for HIV/AIDS and stopping people coming here who have it.



If we had then we definately wouldn't have 100,000 people here with it now. Plus all the others who don't even know they have it yet.


The cost of drugs alone is about £1 billion here in UK.

Lone Wolf wrote:

eddie wrote:
Tbh, I would like the borders shut until Ebola is not a threat.

WHY ???

Why not close your borders to motor cars, tobacco, junk food, exercise equipment, mushrooms, eh eddie..

ALL of which are are far, far bigger threats to your life than Ebola, HIV-AIDs or terrorism "suspects" will ever be !

JUST goes to show how much influence the popular press scaremongering has over there..    

I telling you now wolfie, if I get Ebola....I'm coming to sneeze all over you!

Lone Wolf wrote:

eddie wrote:
Tbh, I would like the borders shut until Ebola is not a threat.

WHY ???

Why not close your borders to motor cars, tobacco, junk food, exercise equipment, mushrooms, eh eddie..

ALL of which are are far, far bigger threats to your life than Ebola, HIV-AIDs or terrorism "suspects" will ever be !

JUST goes to show how much influence the popular press scaremongering has over there..    

I telling you now wolfie, if I get Ebola....I'm coming to sneeze all over you!

How about looking at the issue rationally?

Whether we like it or not medical care costs money - the way it is funded in the UK is a payment to government by workers then care free at point of need for for everything.

Sounds brilliant - should be brilliant but the brutal fact of the matter is this system is starting to fail. The demand for care at the point of need costs more than is being paid in.

Every person who enters this country with HIV can access free health care (whether legally or not which is a different issue) but lets take cases where they come to live and work - they are legally entitled to free health care which in pretty much every case is going to cost far more than they pay. (It costs £18,000 a year to treat each person - you would have to be earning over £650,000 a year to pay that much in NI)

In other words we simply cannot afford it.

For those of you like Ben who live in other countries with different health systems please consider if you are prepared to pay the whole cost for someone you have never met never will meet to have medical treatment. Then consider if you are prepared to be told that in paying for this person to have treatment you have agreed you will be refused treatment for yourself.

If - and it is a big if at the moment, the UK sorts out its rules on who pays for what healthcare (UKIPs policy is to make private health insurance a legal requirement for all tourists, visiting workers and immigrants for the first 5 years of their stay) then I have no problem with those with HIV coming here and I am sure Mr Farage would not either. However at the moment I do not believe we can cope.

I am against the importation of highly dangerous and deadly diseases full stop.



We don't allow infected animals in because of the risk to people so why should We allow infected people in who area risk to people?

Probably because they are not a risk.

sphinx wrote:Probably because they are not a risk.

How are they not a risk? They might sleep with someone and give them HIV. Of course, I always say that's partly the fault of the person they sleep with, but that's not much comfort if HIV spreads even more here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:Probably because they are not a risk.

How are they not a risk? They might sleep with someone and give them HIV. Of course, I always say that's partly the fault of the person they sleep with, but that's not much comfort if HIV spreads even more here.

OK then they are no more of a risk than the natives.

HIV is fairly easy to avoid. I have no issues with HIV+ people coming here so long as they are going to pay for their treatment. If we had limitless money I would not have a problem with them coming here to be treated.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How are they not a risk? They might sleep with someone and give them HIV. Of course, I always say that's partly the fault of the person they sleep with, but that's not much comfort if HIV spreads even more here.

OK then they are no more of a risk than the natives.

HIV is fairly easy to avoid.  I have no issues with HIV+ people coming here so long as they are going to pay for their treatment.  If we had limitless money I would not have a problem with them coming here to be treated.

Of course it's easy to avoid, but unhappily a lot of people haven't managed to avoid it, and we don't need any more people getting it.

People getting it is only minimally related to people coming here with it.

sphinx wrote:How about looking at the issue rationally?

Whether we like it or not medical care costs money - the way it is funded in the UK is a payment to government by workers then care free at point of need for for everything.

Sounds brilliant - should be brilliant but the brutal fact of the matter is this system is starting to fail.  The demand for care at the point of need costs more than is being paid in.

Every person who enters this country with HIV can access free health care (whether legally or not which is a different issue) but lets take cases where they come to live and work - they are legally entitled to free health care which in pretty much every case is going to cost far more than they pay. (It costs £18,000 a year to treat each person - you would have to be earning over £650,000 a year to pay that much in NI)

In other words we simply cannot afford it.

For those of you like Ben who live in other countries with different health systems please consider if you are prepared to pay the whole cost for someone you have never met never will meet to have medical treatment.  Then consider if you are prepared to be told that in paying for this person to have treatment you have agreed you will be refused treatment for yourself.

If - and it is a big if at the moment, the UK sorts out its rules on who pays for what healthcare (UKIPs policy is to make private health insurance a legal requirement for all  tourists, visiting workers and immigrants for the first 5 years of their stay) then I have no problem with those with HIV coming here and I am sure Mr Farage would not either.  However at the moment I do not believe we can cope.

Sphinx.

I find that view selfish.
I also think you are ignoring the real problem, that of the cost of the what is charged on the NHS for example with drug companies or how we live in an elitist society, where we fail the people with a view to be selfish with wealth.

What you are saying is only wealthy immigrants can come to the UK, ones who will only be in what is termed as the middle class bracket and upwards. So basically where many people in the world have such conditions, you actually find it is found within the majority of the poorer people of a nation., more so in Africa. Thus those who are in greatest need of the best health care, who already have none, face being the victims of a problem you want to create for them, that they are poor. That have little chance of an education that you had, because they were born into a less wealthy country, than yourself. Is that fair?  Some poor girl who has been raped by a male with HIV, who has some ludicrous belief that if he rapes the girl he will be cured as actually happens in South Africa, is being denied a chance of a better life for one, and being denied the better treatment they deserve.

Not only are they a rape victim but now a victim of poverty, one they are born into. Is it morally right to deny them the chance to come here and work? They can like everyone else contribute with taxes and NI, to have the better treatment they deserve, without unnecessary costs placed onto them. Though your perception is, just because they never had the luxury of a far better education and are poor they should be denied, which to me is completely wrong.


I am more than willing to pay more tax on health, as should others. The view to use the health service struggling, is basically looking at the wrong people to blame and deny. If you want to solve that problem, you look at why it costs so much and why many companies are more interested in profit. You should not use that as a means to deny people a chance to have a better quality of life here in this country.

Sphinx, I doubt I would ever be asked to pay single-handedly for anybody else's health care. However, I wouldn't want a health care system like the UK has, government owned -- I'd prefer the Australian or Canadian system of government-funded.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Sphinx, I doubt I would ever be asked to pay single-handedly for anybody else's health care. However, I wouldn't want a health care system like the UK has, government owned -- I'd prefer the Australian or Canadian system of government-funded.

I would happily take the health care system of either of those - so long as their immigration system came with it.

sphinx wrote:People getting it is only minimally related to people coming here with it.

Maybe. I didn't mean to sound like I want to ban anyone with HIV coming here as that would be a bit harsh. I do think though that they pose a risk, like anyone with an incurable infectious condition.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:How about looking at the issue rationally?

Whether we like it or not medical care costs money - the way it is funded in the UK is a payment to government by workers then care free at point of need for for everything.

Sounds brilliant - should be brilliant but the brutal fact of the matter is this system is starting to fail.  The demand for care at the point of need costs more than is being paid in.

Every person who enters this country with HIV can access free health care (whether legally or not which is a different issue) but lets take cases where they come to live and work - they are legally entitled to free health care which in pretty much every case is going to cost far more than they pay. (It costs £18,000 a year to treat each person - you would have to be earning over £650,000 a year to pay that much in NI)

In other words we simply cannot afford it.

For those of you like Ben who live in other countries with different health systems please consider if you are prepared to pay the whole cost for someone you have never met never will meet to have medical treatment.  Then consider if you are prepared to be told that in paying for this person to have treatment you have agreed you will be refused treatment for yourself.

If - and it is a big if at the moment, the UK sorts out its rules on who pays for what healthcare (UKIPs policy is to make private health insurance a legal requirement for all  tourists, visiting workers and immigrants for the first 5 years of their stay) then I have no problem with those with HIV coming here and I am sure Mr Farage would not either.  However at the moment I do not believe we can cope.

Sphinx.

I find that view selfish.
I also think you are ignoring the real problem, that of the cost of the what is charged on the NHS for example with drug companies or how we live in an elitist society, where we fail the people with a view to be selfish with wealth.

What you are saying is only wealthy immigrants can come to the UK, ones who will only be in what is termed as the middle class bracket and upwards. So basically where many people in the world have such conditions, you actually find it is found within the majority of the poorer people of a nation., more so in Africa. Thus those who are in greatest need of the best health care, who already have none, face being the victims of a problem you want to create for them, that they are poor. That have little chance of an education that you had, because they were born into a less wealthy country, than yourself. Is that fair?  Some poor girl who has been raped by a male with HIV, who has some ludicrous belief that if he rapes the girl he will be cured as actually happens in South Africa, is being denied a chance of a better life for one, and being denied the better treatment they deserve.

Not only are they a rape victim but now a victim of poverty, one they are born into. Is it morally right to deny them the chance to come here and work? They can like everyone else contribute with taxes and NI, to have the better treatment they deserve, without unnecessary costs placed onto them. Though your perception is, just because they never had the luxury of a far better education and are poor they should be denied, which to me is completely wrong.


I am more than willing to pay more tax on health, as should others. The view to use the health service struggling, is basically looking at the wrong people to blame and deny. If you want to solve that problem, you look at why it costs so much and why many companies are more interested in profit. You should not use that as a means to deny people a chance to have a better quality of life here in this country.

I try to deal with what is not what should be. If society was different and drug companies behaved differently we would not be having this discussion. You are trying to assert that because the issue could be changed by changing one of the causes it means that we should attempt to replicate the result of changing one of the causes without changing the cause. Bad idea.

If you read my answer properly you will see that I have not said only wealthy immigrants should be allowed. I have said that unless and until the funding of the health services are adapted to cope with immigration we should not be accepting more people with illnesses we cannot afford to treat.

First fix the funding problem (you may be happy to pay stupid amounts of tax in order that your country can treat illnesses of those who have not paid into the system however the majority would not be. Besides which you could tax everyone person in the country 100% and it would still not be enough to treat all the illnesses of people in other countries) then you can make sensible decisions about who can be treated and how it will be paid for.

I don't think that drug companies can be blamed. It costs a lot of money to develop new drugs, and they need a lot of new drugs for HIV.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:People getting it is only minimally related to people coming here with it.

Maybe. I didn't mean to sound like I want to ban anyone with HIV coming here as that would be a bit harsh. I do think though that they pose a risk, like anyone with an incurable infectious condition.

I do not think it unreasonable to have a moratorium on people with chronic illnesses (not just HIV) coming here without paying for treatment until we have a sustainable funding solution.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Maybe. I didn't mean to sound like I want to ban anyone with HIV coming here as that would be a bit harsh. I do think though that they pose a risk, like anyone with an incurable infectious condition.

I do not think it unreasonable to have a moratorium on people with chronic illnesses (not just HIV) coming here without paying for treatment until we have a sustainable funding solution.  

Agreed. It's all very well saying that poor people should have access to the NHS but it's groaning under the weight of ill people as it is.

Let's only cure the rich, then -- the people who don't need free health care in the first place.

Hey, they should have gotten a job if they didn't want to die!

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sphinx.

I find that view selfish.
I also think you are ignoring the real problem, that of the cost of the what is charged on the NHS for example with drug companies or how we live in an elitist society, where we fail the people with a view to be selfish with wealth.

What you are saying is only wealthy immigrants can come to the UK, ones who will only be in what is termed as the middle class bracket and upwards. So basically where many people in the world have such conditions, you actually find it is found within the majority of the poorer people of a nation., more so in Africa. Thus those who are in greatest need of the best health care, who already have none, face being the victims of a problem you want to create for them, that they are poor. That have little chance of an education that you had, because they were born into a less wealthy country, than yourself. Is that fair?  Some poor girl who has been raped by a male with HIV, who has some ludicrous belief that if he rapes the girl he will be cured as actually happens in South Africa, is being denied a chance of a better life for one, and being denied the better treatment they deserve.

Not only are they a rape victim but now a victim of poverty, one they are born into. Is it morally right to deny them the chance to come here and work? They can like everyone else contribute with taxes and NI, to have the better treatment they deserve, without unnecessary costs placed onto them. Though your perception is, just because they never had the luxury of a far better education and are poor they should be denied, which to me is completely wrong.


I am more than willing to pay more tax on health, as should others. The view to use the health service struggling, is basically looking at the wrong people to blame and deny. If you want to solve that problem, you look at why it costs so much and why many companies are more interested in profit. You should not use that as a means to deny people a chance to have a better quality of life here in this country.

I try to deal with what is not what should be.  If society was different and drug companies behaved differently we would not be having this discussion.  You are trying to assert that because the issue could be changed by changing one of the causes it means that we should attempt to replicate the result of changing one of the causes without changing the cause.  Bad idea.

If you read my answer properly you will see that I have not said only wealthy immigrants should be allowed.  I have said that unless and until the funding of the health services are adapted to cope with immigration we should not be accepting more people with illnesses we cannot afford to treat.

First fix the funding problem (you may be happy to pay stupid amounts of tax in order that your country can treat illnesses of those who have not paid into the system however the majority would not be.  Besides which you could tax everyone person in the country 100% and it would still not be enough to treat all the illnesses of people in other countries) then you can make sensible decisions about who can be treated and how it will be paid for.

The first point of all should be changing views and perceptions in society, because that is the main problem to start with. What you are saying is we need some quick fixes, but avoiding the main problem that this issue will still be here without or without more immigrants coming. It will not solve the problem of the growing cost of the NHS, thus your view is actually ignoring the main problem.

Yes I am happy to pay 40% of my tax, if I earned more would be happy to give more because I still have enough money to spare to live and enjoy my life. You are again avoiding the real issue and making it about an elitist view on who has money, which will not fix the NHS.

The reality and core of the problem here is over inflated prices for drugs, over inflated energy bills etc, the list is endless, in that we need to look at to make the NHS more practical and cost effective not take a selfish stand point. The reality is your argument is going to deny those who most need treatment the most and it is again based around wealth and who has a right to have the same equal rights as you.

They have as much right to have the chance to change their life to come here. Your house does not encompass the whole of the UK, of which you only benefit from due to the collective input of a whole nation. Thus they can do the same and benefit also. Nobody should be denied a right to come here or with your view, to have extra financial burden unfairly placed onto them, because you think immigrants should be discriminated on denying them the same equal rights to health, care that you have.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Let's only cure the rich, then -- the people who don't need free health care in the first place.

Hey, they should have gotten a job if they didn't want to die!

I knew someone would say that.

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDS can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Let's only cure the rich, then -- the people who don't need free health care in the first place.

Hey, they should have gotten a job if they didn't want to die!

I knew someone would say that.

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

Why?

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't think that drug companies can be blamed. It costs a lot of money to develop new drugs, and they need a lot of new drugs for HIV.

UNFORTUNATELY, the "big pharma" expect a full payback on their R&D these days in less than 3 years !

THAT means an annual net profit on each new drug of around, oh 35% plus !

AND their shareholders have come to expect such greedy returns each year..

ONLY a few years ago, they would have been more than happy with ~10%...

Ben there are poor people already in the UK who need health treatment.

Brasidas again I deal with what is not what should be.

Right now every day in the UK decisions are being made about who gets treatment and who does not. Cancer treatments which may be standard in other countries, which have a better survival rate and less side effects are not funded for people who have worked and paid their whole lives while other treatments are funded for those who have not paid anything.

It is not about rich and poor. It is about what has been paid for and by whom.

Would the people in the US stand still if they were told the health insurance they had paid for was going to be used for the health needs of an immigrant while their own needs were not covered? No matter whether they were rich or poor what they had paid would be used to pay for someone who had not paid. That is what the UK is facing right now. People who have paid their taxes and NI are being told their treatment cannot be funded. Yet there is money to fund treatment for new arrivals.

Is it wrong to say that when resources are limited those who have contributed should have more rights than those who have not?

Raggamuffin wrote:............................

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

SO THEN, you know more than the world's HIV-AIDs researchers, do you Raggs ?

NO DOUBT you can tell me why 99% of the world's climate scientists are wrong..
OR HOW smoking is actually good for your health, and promotes growth in children ?

A naive part of me can't believe that hate mongers are using the 'how to eat an elephant?' strategy to spread their message.

This is just one example of how such groups take an entire country towards fascism, 'one bite at a time'.

Before you know it, you've eaten an entire elephant of hate.

It's also amazing how fear can motivate otherwise rational people.

eddie wrote:Tbh, I would like the borders shut until Ebola is not a threat.

Why? It can only be spread by direct contact.

We're talking about a virus that can be eliminated by soap and water, at least outside the body.

sphinx wrote:Ben there are poor people already in the UK who need health treatment.

Brasidas again I deal with what is not what should be.

Right now every day in the UK decisions are being made about who gets treatment and who does not.  Cancer treatments which may be standard in other countries, which have a better survival rate and less side effects are not funded for people who have worked and paid their whole lives while  other treatments are funded for those who have not paid anything.

It is not about rich and poor.  It is about what has been paid for and by whom.

Would the people in the US stand still if they were told the health insurance they had paid for was going to be used for the health needs of an immigrant while their own needs were not covered?  No matter whether they were rich or poor what they had paid would be used to pay for someone who had not paid.  That is what the UK is facing right now.  People who have paid their taxes and NI are being told their treatment cannot be funded.  Yet there is money to fund treatment for new arrivals.

Is it wrong to say that when resources are limited those who have contributed should have more rights than those who have not?

Sphinx you are now diverging onto the many problems already known within the NHS, as if this excuses your philosophy to deny equal rights. Where something is wrong already does not mean it allows for an increase in disparity of rights for people. The reality is your view on cancer treatment of which I agree with you whole heartily, is not a reason to use as a means around immigrants coming here to have access to treatment they deserve no less than people born here. What you should in fact being saying is we need to change this also.

Your second point is now based around how we should adhere if other people also take a selfish moral view point in the US? How again does that make your view right? You are then basing your evidence to deny equality based around others also being morally wrong. This leads me back to actually understanding of the main problem, which is perceptions in society. You change perceptions and actually have people look out collectively for others and not themselves.

Your last point opens up and even bigger can of worms, because those who have paid 100 times more than you have into the same system, who have the same equal access to the NHS as you do, would then allow for them to have greater rights than you have based off again wealth. Those thus wealthier than yourself with your view would then have you at a disadvantage, because their contribution is greater than yours, because they can use the exact same argument you are stating. Just because an individual who rightly should pay more tax because they earns more, does not mean they should have an advantage over you because they pay contribute far more than you.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I knew someone would say that.

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

Why?

Because it wouldn't be true.

I will also remind people UKIP play on the fact they wish to reestablish British values, which they state are based upon Judaeo-Christian values.
Well the last time I read the bible, these religious values encompass a view of equality,, helping the poor, share your wealth, love thy neighbour etc.
So are they really reestablishing British values?
I think the answer to that is most definitely no in this example here.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:............................

I hope you're not suggesting that HIV or AIDs can be cured - that would be a very irresponsible thing to say.

SO THEN, you know more than the world's HIV-AIDs researchers, do you Raggs ?

NO DOUBT you can tell me why 99% of the world's climate scientists are wrong..
OR HOW smoking is actually good for your health, and promotes growth in children ?

Please tell us about the cure for HIV or AIDS then.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Why?

Because it wouldn't be true.

So you are saying it would be impossible to cure?

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:
I don't think that drug companies can be blamed. It costs a lot of money to develop new drugs, and they need a lot of new drugs for HIV.

UNFORTUNATELY, the "big pharma" expect a full payback on their R&D these days in less than 3 years !

THAT means an annual net profit on each new drug of around, oh 35% plus !

AND their shareholders have come to expect such greedy returns each year..

ONLY a few years ago, they would have been more than happy with ~10%...

They spend a lot longer than three years developing a drug, and they need money for new developments, so of course they want payback as soon as possible.

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Because it wouldn't be true.

So you are saying it would be impossible to cure?

Are you saying that there is a cure at the moment? I'd like to hear about that.

sphinx wrote:Ben there are poor people already in the UK who need health treatment.

Brasidas again I deal with what is not what should be.

Right now every day in the UK decisions are being made about who gets treatment and who does not.  Cancer treatments which may be standard in other countries, which have a better survival rate and less side effects are not funded for people who have worked and paid their whole lives while  other treatments are funded for those who have not paid anything.

It is not about rich and poor.  It is about what has been paid for and by whom.

Would the people in the US stand still if they were told the health insurance they had paid for was going to be used for the health needs of an immigrant while their own needs were not covered?  No matter whether they were rich or poor what they had paid would be used to pay for someone who had not paid.  That is what the UK is facing right now.  People who have paid their taxes and NI are being told their treatment cannot be funded.  Yet there is money to fund treatment for new arrivals.

Is it wrong to say that when resources are limited those who have contributed should have more rights than those who have not?

But the UK also depends on immigrants to increase the number of nurses and doctors.

Whom in turn, also contribute to NI and taxation.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

sphinx wrote:Ben there are poor people already in the UK who need health treatment.

Brasidas again I deal with what is not what should be.

Right now every day in the UK decisions are being made about who gets treatment and who does not.  Cancer treatments which may be standard in other countries, which have a better survival rate and less side effects are not funded for people who have worked and paid their whole lives while  other treatments are funded for those who have not paid anything.

It is not about rich and poor.  It is about what has been paid for and by whom.

Would the people in the US stand still if they were told the health insurance they had paid for was going to be used for the health needs of an immigrant while their own needs were not covered?  No matter whether they were rich or poor what they had paid would be used to pay for someone who had not paid.  That is what the UK is facing right now.  People who have paid their taxes and NI are being told their treatment cannot be funded.  Yet there is money to fund treatment for new arrivals.

Is it wrong to say that when resources are limited those who have contributed should have more rights than those who have not?

But the UK also depends on immigrants to increase the number of nurses and doctors.

Whom in turn, also contribute to NI and taxation.

They would be acceptable here by the rational of UKIP, because they fall into the bracket of people of middle class, educated with some money, who could afford to pay.
Though I doubt it would attract them to come and work here, if they were denied equal rights to the health service, when they would be contributing more on top of their tax and NI.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

So you are saying it would be impossible to cure?

Are you saying that there is a cure at the moment? I'd like to hear about that.

No to answer your question. I am asking you if you think it is impossible to find a cure?

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Are you saying that there is a cure at the moment? I'd like to hear about that.

No to answer your question. I am asking you if you think it is impossible to find cure?

Hmmm, well it's a virus and so far nobody has found a way to cure a virus with the use of drugs.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
No to answer your question. I am asking you if you think it is impossible to find cure?

Hmmm, well it's a virus and so far nobody has found a way to cure a virus with the use of drugs.

Yes I am well aware of the present status quo, but would it be impossible to find a cure?

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Hmmm, well it's a virus and so far nobody has found a way to cure a virus with the use of drugs.

Yes I am well aware of the present status quo, but would it be impossible to find a cure?

The best cure for a virus is the body's own immune system, so a possible future cure would be to find a drug which prevents HIV from hiding from the immune system.

I think it's irresponsible for people to talk as if it can be cured at the moment because some people reading that might think it doesn't matter if they get it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes I am well aware of the present status quo, but would it be impossible to find a cure?

The best cure for a virus is the body's own immune system, so a possible future cure would be to find a drug which prevents HIV from hiding from the immune system.

I think it's irresponsible for people to talk as if it can be cured at the moment because some people reading that might think it doesn't matter if they get it.

Sorry but can you answer my question whether you think it would be impossible to ever cure?

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The best cure for a virus is the body's own immune system, so a possible future cure would be to find a drug which prevents HIV from hiding from the immune system.

I think it's irresponsible for people to talk as if it can be cured at the moment because some people reading that might think it doesn't matter if they get it.

Sorry but can you answer my question whether you think it would be impossible to ever cure?

The answer is - I don't know. What's your problem?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Sorry but can you answer my question whether you think it would be impossible to ever cure?

The answer is - I don't know. What's your problem?

Based on your point to the poster Ben, you made out it is irresponsible for people to believe in a cure.
How is it irresponsible, unless you yourself believe it would be impossible to cure?

Brasidas wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The answer is - I don't know. What's your problem?

Based on your point to the poster Ben, you made out it is irresponsible for people to believe in a cure.
How is it irresponsible, unless you yourself believe it would be impossible to cure?

I said there is no cure at the moment, and it's irresponsible to suggest that there is.

you are all missing the point here.....

these people that come here infected and infested with all manner of nasties cost the health service millions, if not billions... The problem ...and its a big one.... is that whilst I may cost the NHS something now and again...I have paid for it via my taxes and NI..these "visitors" havnt, nor are they ever likely to contibute either to the NHS OR in a positive way to society...

Just love how veya and Ben want it to carry on (and no doubt increase...yeah lets pay the health bill for the entire festering 3rd world) no doubt out of a desire to see the NHS fail.

what I DONT understand is why there are twats here that want to see the same....

what part of there is only so much money do you fail to grasp???

we are getting sick of being "de santa clause to de evr'y race" as the song said.......