Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

First topic message reminder :

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

Piss off Didge!

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Incorrect, my decision was made off not knowing what I could achieve or do, it was based around trying to help both and I never ducked out. I did what would be practical, when faced by anyone, where they do not have hindsight to know what their actions will do. they will act on instinct based on morality, of which in every scenario, unless you introduce a prejudice will allow for any one person to try and save both.
That is why again your theory has no validity, as it fails to factor in reality.

No you pretended you did not know what you could achieve or do and fooled yourself you were helping both while actually succeeding in making both worse.

You did know.  You were firmly told the facts.  There is one dose.  Only a full dose will work.  Less than full dose results in death.  You could not face those facts and decided to believe they might be wrong.  You ended up with 2 dead when you could have saved a life.

Carry on dressing it up however you like.  You refused to face unpalatable facts and make an unpleasant decision.  You refuse to accept that decisions one or the other are common.  You want the world to always give an option to save both.  That is not the case.

Incorrect again, nobody faces any situation knowing all facts, that is you making up a scenario where nobody would know the facts. Seriously, this is why your view point fails or even understands how a person would even feel faced with such a dilemma, even if they did know the effectiveness of a drug.
So you never presented any facts, you presented something that was never a reality, because nobody goes into a situation knowing in advance what factors would be impossible to know, like saving only one. You are basing an argument based off levels in concentration of a drug as to how it works on people. Do you see how daft that is, when in everyone the level will be different? Whilst some people may need a full dose, others will not based upon pain levels, making it impossible to gauge.

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:Well the reality is we cant afford to pay for health care for all the world. Back to the point of the thread, Farage is completely right to say we shouldn't allow HIV immigrants unless they can afford their health care.

Who said so?
We can afford anything we want, take away money and apply togetherness, what need is their of what anyone can afford? You are failing to look at the real problems, money.
There is many an argument to counter that view, sorry.

Yes that is a fantastic thought but that kind of altruism only works if everyone gives.
Togetherness?1

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Who said so?
We can afford anything we want, take away money and apply togetherness, what need is their of what anyone can afford? You are failing to look at the real problems, money.
There is many an argument to counter that view, sorry.

Yes that is a fantastic thought but that kind of altruism only works if everyone gives.
Togetherness?1

Exactly, where if already some people do give, what is stopping others doing the same?
This thank you for proving my point, where people do already, there is no reason why others cannot do the same

Problem is, we're doing all the giving and others are taking the piss!!!

Brasidas wrote:

Nems wrote:Well the reality is we cant afford to pay for health care for all the world. Back to the point of the thread, Farage is completely right to say we shouldn't allow HIV immigrants unless they can afford their health care.

Who said so?
We can afford anything we want, take away money and apply togetherness, what need is their of what anyone can afford? You are failing to look at the real problems, money.
There is many an argument to counter that view, sorry.

Do you not get that we cannot "take away money" and "apply togetherness"? People have tried it many many times - and it has failed every time.

Money is a symbol of value. Value is not, never has been, and cannot be equal. Togetherness is a fantasy concept dreamed up by people who do not want to admit that human kind is at base an animal the same as any other.

Sure IF we could take away money and apply togetherness we could treat everyone - but we cannot do those things. So we cant.

Look it's nice to be nice to people. It's nice to want to help everyone. If I could, I would.

Truth is, if I have to choose whom to help,it will always be children; I care not the cooler of creed to be honest.

So my solution? I'd never ever turn down a child if money was tight but may turn down an adult (probably and particularly a single adult).

That's my basic and honest opinion.

It's single adults who pay in most and get least out of the system already.....

Tommy Monk wrote:Problem is, we're doing all the giving and others are taking the piss!!!

So you can't get treatment from the NHS -- they turn you away sick, show you the door, take your money and only treat immigrants with HIV?

Yes, treatments and drugs are refused to UK citizens because of limited resources.

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes, treatments and drugs are refused to UK citizens because of limited resources.

Proof?

Plenty of it out there....


Try Google ....

"nhs treatment denied cost"

Or


"NHS denied cost"


"The available evidence suggests that non-permanent residents and visitors to England consumed just under £2bn of NHS services in 2012-13, or about 1.8% of its budget of which £328m was recoverable."



While we also know that....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/immigrants-hiv-true-cost-nhs-international-health-service-treating-patients-come-killer-disease-asks-sue-reid.html



And...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9109658/Foreigners-to-be-offered-free-treatment-for-HIV-on-the-NHS.html

Another week, another claim about the cost of ‘health tourists’ to the UK taxpayer. The front page of today’s Daily Mail claimed that “foreigners using [the] NHS” are running up costs of £2 billion a year.

The headline is a response to the government publishing new research on the use of the NHS by migrants and overseas visitors – in other words, those who aren’t “ordinarily resident” in the UK and therefore aren’t entitled to free healthcare. This group includes temporary migrants, failed asylum seekers and expats (but not immigrants who are settled here).

In response to the £2 billion figure, the Labour party immediately accused the government of spinning the facts, arguing that the authors of the report have described their numbers as “subject to various degrees of uncertainty”.

£2 billion – a breakdown of the bill

Firstly, it’s important to note that the £2 billion is the total cost of the use of the NHS by migrants – those who are temporarily resident here, those who are here illegally, and those who have travelled to the UK with the purpose of obtaining some kind of treatment. This means that we’re not only talking about “health tourists”, which the report specifically defines as those who come to the UK with “deliberate intent” to use the NHS and those “taking advantage” of its services.

The report suggests that – excluding this particular group – migrants and overseas visitors cost the NHS just under £1.8 billion. Temporary residents (including migrants who don’t have permanent residency and UK expats) are responsible for £1.43 billion of this. In addition, irregular migrants (failed asylum seekers and those here illegally) run up £330 million of the £1.8 billion bill.

Then, on top of this £1.8 billion (the so-called “normal use” of the NHS), “there is a plausible range of around £100 million to £300 million attributable to health tourism”. The government has previously quoted the cost of this abuse at anywhere from £20 million to £200 million.

Estimates at best

The report has attempted to model the costs of these different groups to produce an overall total. In order to do this, it has relied on certain assumptions – for example, that migrants and overseas visitors are as likely to use the NHS as UK residents.

The report has taken into account the tariffs for different NHS services – from prescription costs to the price of a visit to A&E. However, the £2 billion total doesn’t allow for the fact that the NHS provides emergency care to anyone free of charge.

The £2 billion figure also includes £260 million incurred by citizens from the European Economic Area (EEA). In theory, the NHS is able to recoup their costs under EU regulations. For other countries outside of the EEA (for example, Australia), there are reciprocal agreements in place that mean the NHS provides free treatment for their citizens. In addition, UK expats (who arguably aren’t “foreigners”) account for £94 million of the £2 billion sum.

Overall, the report makes clear that there is very little data on how migrants and overseas visitors use the NHS. Among other caveats, we find the following:

“The estimates for the irregular migrants are very uncertain and based on on out of date population estimates. The estimates for health tourism, as for any unlawful activity, are impossible to estimate with confidence and are a structured judgement.”

The Conservatives have insisted that this latest research amounts to “clear and widespread evidence” of health tourism. Yet the report to which they’re referring emphasises the paucity of its data and the uncertainty of its estimates. According to this report, the cost of health tourism is not £2 billion but more like a tenth of that.

https://fullfact.org/factchecks/cost_of_health_tourism_nhs-29247

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Who said so?
We can afford anything we want, take away money and apply togetherness, what need is their of what anyone can afford? You are failing to look at the real problems, money.
There is many an argument to counter that view, sorry.

Do you not get that we cannot "take away money" and "apply togetherness"?  People have tried it many many times - and it has failed every time.

Money is a symbol of value.  Value is not, never has been, and cannot be equal.  Togetherness is a fantasy concept dreamed up by people who do not want to admit that human kind is at base an animal the same as any other.

Sure IF we could take away money and apply togetherness we could treat everyone - but we cannot do those things.  So we cant.

Again utterly absurd you are now basing a view if something has not worked the first time we should not even try it which would apply to just about everything.
Money is immaterial and is not needed if people learnt that to work for each other is beneficial to each other. You are basing view of material wealth to live which is not necessary where early societies did without money. To say we cannot do something is making an excuse not to it is not a reason as to why
The simple fact here is you claimed UKIP was claiming to promote equality which as seen here is clearly not the case it is promoting discrimination, appealing to the selfish nature of some humans.

Brasidas wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Do you not get that we cannot "take away money" and "apply togetherness"?  People have tried it many many times - and it has failed every time.

Money is a symbol of value.  Value is not, never has been, and cannot be equal.  Togetherness is a fantasy concept dreamed up by people who do not want to admit that human kind is at base an animal the same as any other.

Sure IF we could take away money and apply togetherness we could treat everyone - but we cannot do those things.  So we cant.

Again utterly absurd you are now basing a view if something has not worked the first time we should not even try it which would apply to just about everything.
Money is immaterial and is not needed if people learnt that to work for each other is beneficial to each other. You are basing view of material wealth to live which is not necessary where early societies did without money. To say we cannot do something is making an excuse not to it is not a reason as to why  
The simple fact here is you claimed UKIP was claiming to promote equality which as seen here is clearly not the case it is promoting discrimination, appealing to the selfish nature of some humans.  

You really do live in a fantasy world dont you?

Money is a symbol of value. Value is not equal and cannot be equal.

I said UKIP was more equal than the EU in that UKIP bases its evaluation on measurable value not race/birthplace.

If you are happy with an organization that selects on race/birthplace then just say so.

sphinx wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Again utterly absurd you are now basing a view if something has not worked the first time we should not even try it which would apply to just about everything.
Money is immaterial and is not needed if people learnt that to work for each other is beneficial to each other. You are basing view of material wealth to live which is not necessary where early societies did without money. To say we cannot do something is making an excuse not to it is not a reason as to why  
The simple fact here is you claimed UKIP was claiming to promote equality which as seen here is clearly not the case it is promoting discrimination, appealing to the selfish nature of some humans.  

You really do live in a fantasy world dont you?

Money is a symbol of value. Value is not equal and cannot be equal.

I said UKIP was more equal than the EU in that UKIP bases its evaluation on measurable value not race/birthplace.

If you are happy with an organization that selects on race/birthplace then just say so.

Argument conceded again, where I know my points are true the other poster gets drawn into poor attempts at insults.
No the UKIP is not more equal, as evaluation does not factor in humanity and to counter this with another body is again showing both have faults and are unequal.
Absurd reply, where do I back the current view point?
I never have, which again proves UKIP do not represent equality or any British Values.

We have about 100,000 people here with hiv/aids, cost of between £10-20,000 a year in drugs, two thirds of those are immigrants.

Tommy Monk wrote:We have about 100,000 people here with hiv/aids, cost of between £10-20,000 a year in drugs, two thirds of those are immigrants.

You are making money a view point to discriminate on, of which of cause is not viable or equality.
Your argument is about not about you not being able to do what medical trained people can do, but off the fact this nation advanced to be able that they could via education based off plunder from other nations it abused.
That is not a viable argument to deny people treatment based on levels of money input, it actually argues in favour of more discrmination.

Don't be a twat dodge.

Tommy Monk wrote:Don't be a twat dodge.

Debate conceded again, no answer to my points, just insults.

Game over.

You are saying we should pay to treat foreigners diseases or it's discrimination....



And you wonder why I call you a twat...???



Tell you what, you give me all of your money..... no???


Why are you discriminating against me??

Tommy Monk wrote:You are saying we should pay to treat foreigners diseases or it's discrimination....



And you wonder why I call you a twat...???



Tell you what, you give me all of your money..... no???


Why are you discriminating against me??

You pay?
Did you say you pay, you like everyone contributes, which again does not qualify you to dictate who can benefit from help. You were advantaged to be born here, an illusion which allows for selfishness, where people think they can decide the fate of others on no more legality than place of birth.
Your arguments on you needing money are even worse, even laughable, as how would you need money being able to respond via an internet, unless you had some material possessions you could use to barter for food. Of course you are not being discriminated because you have no need except a racial need.
Try again

People in this country pay taxes to run services for people in this country.



Others in other countries can do exactly the same for themselves, can't they!?


It is right to restrict disease ridden foreigners coming to This country for the protection of UK citizens and protection of limited NHS resources.

So you are arguing money is more important than people now?

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!

All immigrants to America get free health care then yes?
America doesn't even look after its own unless they can pay.

Nems 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!

All immigrants to America get free health care then yes?
America doesn't even look after its own unless they can pay.

I have argued for years that America needs single-payer health care, Nems. Just because I was born here? Does not mean I support everything the government does. Sigh ... I'd hoped I'd made that clear by now.

@ben
you know the NHS and Medicare represent more than just single payer health care?
Sometimes I wonder do Americans realise our gov't pay the majority of the cost for medical treatment straight out of taxpayer funds.

There are legit arguments to controlling these health systems as they can only be 'free' or extremely low cost if they are not abused. (like the take a penny leave a penny jar)

the reality is welfare (and free health care included) is always a balancing act between meeting community needs and cost associated with them.

@OP
I think Farge's statement is fair from the economist perspective but from a humanitarian perspective there is probably somewhere else that could be cut.. in saying that in a world of finite resources £10-20,000 a year per person can go a long way, and might be better used dealing with some of the issues in Africa that cause HIV to be so prevalent.

Yeah, Veya, that's what I mean. I wonder, did I have a stroke and lose the ability to communicate properly, but it all seems fine to me when I read it back?

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

Ben_Reilly wrote:Yeah, Veya, that's what I mean. I wonder, did I have a stroke and lose the ability to communicate properly, but it all seems fine to me when I read it back?

Single-payer health care is a system in which the government, rather than private insurers, pays for all health care costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care

everyone else just calls it Public health care..... or Normal healthcare
if Private insurers are paying that is Private heath care..... but I guess you call that normal

this is the problem with the health care debate is that the USA is always talking about something different than the rest of us.
-
We don't use the term single payer health care because it makes no sense. the gov't provides a service with taxpayer money that service belongs to the taxpayer/citizen. the idea of payment should be void as you don't pay yourself to use your own stuff.
I wouldn't build a house than charge myself rent to live there so why would I build a hospital and then charge myself to treat me

like any gov't service it is restrained to the funding allocated and Health care is a major part of the budget allocations already.

Single-payer -- all medical expenses are paid by one entity, the government.

I can't help what phrases mean, Veya

But you guys(the USA) just invented that phrase (."Single-Payer System" Year introduced: 1996) to mean a system like Ours that has already had a name for decades before that...
Even the USA used to call it  "universal health care program" until the recent push by Obama... I guess pollsters decided it sounded too communist or some other reason that Americans don't vote for it.

So no one out side of the USA calls it that Never have never will cause it make no sense to anyone outside of the USA and why would something that we have called 'health care' or 'Public health care' suddenly change name because some Americans are thinking of copying it.

And looking into it We don't have Single payer anyway we have
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

Universal health care systems vary according to the degree of government involvement in providing care and/or health insurance. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Australia and the Nordic countries, the government has a high degree of involvement in the commissioning or delivery of health care services and access is based on residence rights, not on the purchase of insurance.

I think that is the key difference

Let me confer with the rest of the American people and we'll try to sort this out.

But just to be clear, I use the phrase "single-payer health care" to mean a system in which the health care of all residents is paid for by tax money. If you'd like, I could start calling it universal health care, or pretty much anything besides Hannah Montana, but I like the phrase "single payer" because it differentiates it from the convoluted American system (into which I was born and given no say, mind you, except for getting to vote once for my representatives) in which health care is paid for by a combination of your employer, your insurance company, yourself and in some cases, the government.

Ben_Reilly wrote:But just to be clear, I use the phrase "single-payer health care" to mean a system in which the health care of all residents is paid for by tax money. If you'd like, I could start calling it universal health care, or pretty much anything besides Hannah Montana, but I like the phrase "single payer" because it differentiates it from the convoluted American system (into which I was born and given no say, mind you, except for getting to vote once for my representatives) in which health care is paid for by a combination of your employer, your insurance company, yourself and in some cases, the government.

well you should work on it

I also think Another BIG part is who owns the hospitals, in the proposed US system or the Canadian system the Hospitals are Private and Paid by the gov't for services preformed. Here and in the UK most hospitals are owned by the gov't and equipped to provide services. *but there are also Private ones, that provide the gov't funded service plus, if you can afford it is is worth it(nicer beds/food etc) and generally seen as the social duty of the better off to pay for private cover, even though our taxes already pay to equip public hospitals.

This is what I was originally pointing out it is actually rather more complex than just 'who pays'.... we try and predict the services required and budget toward them... So in essence we decide how much we need in advance and buy accordingly, SO we paid for 2014's heath care cost in 2013 taxes. although really it is actually like 2 to 3 years in advance, with large infrastructure being paid for over the Preceding decade. Down here we are not too bad off we did budget for the immigration and population growth... I don't think the UK has as accurately predicted it's own requirements thus there is a real problem of their services collapsing due to lack of funding, that actually had to be allocated in the past for use now.

I didn't know that about Australian hospitals; I figured it was probably a lot like Canada (got suckered in because they're both Medicare ).

I know there's more than goes into it; the U.S. is the only first-world nation that lets Big Pharma dictate its own prices, for example. Of course, that's largely a function of the fact that it's not a nation negotiating with the companies in our case, but a bunch of smaller (less powerful) entities.

I've always been an advocate of some form of taxpayer-funded health care system, though I think the NHS sounds like the least appealing option, partly because here we'd have to turn over most of the medical facilities to government ownership, a logistical nightmare. Also, I think I like the idea of a certain amount of market innovation in the health care system, which private ownership would seem to help retain.

Yeah I cant see ours or the UK system ever coming to the USA.

the privatised thing well the innovation is countered by the price gouging, thus either system is much of a muchness. I think it is good here in that because of the relatively high standard of Public Hospitals, private hospitals are really good to convince people they are worth the cost in private insurance. After seeing the difference with My grand father (fell and was taken to Public hospital then transferred to Private a few days later when we got the insurance sorted) I decided to get private insurance for myself. Definitely a lot nicer.

And I think that is also a factor in the success of our system... if Everyone used the public system as they were entitled to then it would probably collapse. BUT the Private system has a good 'cost to quality' ratio so plenty of people (like myself) pay for the safety net and our own Premium care. (plus there are tax incentives)

I think it will happen eventually, there's just so much uphill slogging to do -- before any nationalized system could get any real traction over here, the right wing was in full-out propaganda mode, telling people that nationalized health care would mean that the government would tell doctors they couldn't do business in one town, they'd have to move somewhere else, etc. Britain's devastation after WWII was a blessing in disguise in that sense, because nationalized health care was the only way. They didn't have room to dither on the decision.

I think Obamacare will be a stepping stone, it's already picked up momentum and public approval, and driven down the prices many of us pay. Once people realize we can reform the health care system without the sky falling, the public will be open to further reforms.

It's just like with same-sex marriage -- once one state proved it wasn't the end of the world, others joined and now it's about to be legal for the vast majority of Americans, eight years after the first state legalized it.

Obamacare is a market-based system. True socialized medicine requires a governmental based system. We were heading there with the Affordable Care Act, but the Senate rejected the single payer provision.

Even as a market based system, Obamacare has been able to save huge chunks of money--hence lowering healthcare costs--by eliminating the gouging and profiteering by medical and pharma concerns.

I can see a Canadian like system being a possibility but Like you said, I cant see the Gov't Buying our building the hospitals in the USA.

veya_victaous wrote:I can see a Canadian like system being a possibility but Like you said, I cant see the Gov't Buying our building the hospitals in the USA.

Or being allowed to do it without even more threats of armed insurrection ...

IRONY

+1,000,000

There's a meme with this pic captioned something like "Cool gun, huh? Wanna see me eat it?" But I can't find it.

Nems wrote:

Brasidas wrote:
Actually it has everything to do with this nation once being a super power. The reality is your privileged position would not be a reality, without the wealth plundered from nations that formed the Empire. No industrial revolution would have been a reality, where such plundered allowed for scientific advancement.
Thus nothing you did made Britain as advanced as it is, yet you wish to capitalize on this, to deny others.

That view is killed stone dead by one sentence.

India has a space programme.

AFRAID NOT, Nems ~ that situation doesn't affect the argument one iota !

GERMANY had a space program way back in 1940..
They STILL haven't put a single satellite into orbit by themselves, have they !?! Despite having the 4th largest economy in the world; (like a lot of countries, they have either hired or co-opted other countries to actually launch their satellites for them..).  

ALL that countries like India developing a [so-far-relatively-unproductive] space programme - at the same time as over 80% of their people can't access clean water or decent health and welfare services - shows us is how good they are at misusing their own limited resources..    

Brasidas wrote:
(@ Tommy W. in reply to his usual "me, me, me.." gibberish) :

So you are arguing money is more important than people now?

HASN'T that always been Tommy's position...

ALL that he has ever cared about on here is money, immigration, and his own imaginary white supremacy..
NEVER has he shown one grain of compassion, caring or sympathy for the plight of his fellow human beings!

MUCH easier for his lack of intelligence and comprehension, if he blames all of the poor, the disadvantaged and the exploited for their situations..   While happily ignoring his own contributions adding to the problems that produced those problems in the first place...    

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:

All immigrants to America get free health care then yes?
America doesn't even look after its own unless they can pay.

I have argued for years that America needs single-payer health care, Nems. Just because I was born here? Does not mean I support everything the government does. Sigh ... I'd hoped I'd made that clear by now.

Sigh. Best you direct your efforts to changing Americas system then and stop slagging the Brits of because we don't feel we owe the world a living. In answer to your earlier point. Yes people in this country, from this country, regularly get refused treatment, that includes children. Often we see charity drives to raise money to send a child to the USA for treatment. So do I object to that whilst we fund Aids and HIV treatments for immigrants? You bet your arse I do.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Nems wrote:

That view is killed stone dead by one sentence.

India has a space programme.

AFRAID NOT, Nems ~ that situation doesn't affect the argument one iota !

GERMANY had a space program way back in 1940..
They STILL haven't put a single satellite into orbit by themselves, have they !?! Despite having the 4th largest economy in the world; (like a lot of countries, they have either hired or co-opted other countries to actually launch their satellites for them..).  

ALL that countries like India developing a [so-far-relatively-unproductive] space programme - at the same time as over 80% of their people can't access clean water or decent health and welfare services - shows us is how good they are at misusing their own limited resources..    

Were we sending aid to Germany in 1940?

Nems wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:

All immigrants to America get free health care then yes?
America doesn't even look after its own unless they can pay.

I have argued for years that America needs single-payer health care, Nems. Just because I was born here? Does not mean I support everything the government does. Sigh ... I'd hoped I'd made that clear by now.

Sigh. Best you direct your efforts to changing Americas system then and stop slagging the Brits of because we don't feel we owe the world a living. In answer to your earlier point. Yes people in this country, from this country, regularly get refused treatment, that includes children. Often we see charity drives to raise money to send a child to the USA for treatment. So do I object to that whilst we fund Aids and HIV  treatments for immigrants? You bet your arse I do.

I'll criticize xenophobia or a lack of compassion disguised by concerns over the budget not balancing when I see people doing it anywhere. Though obviously the NHS needs more funding (I understand the Tory cuts of the past few years have been devastating).

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:

Sigh. Best you direct your efforts to changing Americas system then and stop slagging the Brits of because we don't feel we owe the world a living. In answer to your earlier point. Yes people in this country, from this country, regularly get refused treatment, that includes children. Often we see charity drives to raise money to send a child to the USA for treatment. So do I object to that whilst we fund Aids and HIV  treatments for immigrants? You bet your arse I do.

I'll criticize xenophobia or a lack of compassion disguised by concerns over the budget not balancing when I see people doing it anywhere. Though obviously the NHS needs more funding (I understand the Tory cuts of the past few years have been devastating).

They have, and before that labour created tier after tier of management in the NHS. People on £80,000 counting paperclips and not enough nurses being trained and employed so they rely on agency and bank staff at considerable extra expense.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Nems wrote:

That view is killed stone dead by one sentence.

India has a space programme.

AFRAID NOT, Nems ~ that situation doesn't affect the argument one iota !

GERMANY had a space program way back in 1940..
They STILL haven't put a single satellite into orbit by themselves, have they !?! Despite having the 4th largest economy in the world; (like a lot of countries, they have either hired or co-opted other countries to actually launch their satellites for them..).  

ALL that countries like India developing a 0]][so-far-relatively-unproductive][/i] space programme - at the same time as over 80% of their people can't access clean water or decent health and welfare services - shows us is how good they are at misusing their own limited resources..    

shows how little YOU know then wolfie boy........

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nems wrote:

Sigh. Best you direct your efforts to changing Americas system then and stop slagging the Brits of because we don't feel we owe the world a living. In answer to your earlier point. Yes people in this country, from this country, regularly get refused treatment, that includes children. Often we see charity drives to raise money to send a child to the USA for treatment. So do I object to that whilst we fund Aids and HIV  treatments for immigrants? You bet your arse I do.

I'll criticize xenophobia or a lack of compassion disguised by concerns over the budget not balancing when I see people doing it anywhere. Though obviously the NHS needs more funding (I understand the Tory cuts of the past few years have been devastating).

and perhaps as a yank, you should first understand that the NHS is non negotiable and is certainly NOT up for control by the jealous minions of former colonies.....
You cant even look after your OWN ...why do YOU expect us to look after everyone else.....If YOU think that is the right way to go, I suggest you start a movement to do just that ...over there, afterall your economy is many times larger than ours...so you can afford it better....oh....i forgot...you cant afford it can you????