End of Free NHS for Migrants in Britain

[cpwill]

Because eventually, you run out of other people's money.

Foreigners will have to prove that they are entitled to be in the country before they are given access to GPs and hospitals, while foreign students will have to make a “contribution” to the health service.

The measure will form the centrepiece of tough new legislation designed to reduce numbers entering the country and put pressure on illegal immigrants to leave.

A senior government source said it was an attempt to target “people who have no right to be here”.....



Separately, students from outside Europe will have to pay a £200 levy before they can access the NHS.
Hospitals will be told to step up attempts to pursue “health tourists” for the cost of treatments they receive.
The measures will be outlined in the Immigration Bill, which is due to be put before Parliament within days.
It represents one of the most wide-ranging and ambitious pieces of legislation since the Coalition took office, spanning six Whitehall departments: health, local government, business, and transport, as well as the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
However, it will not affect migrants from inside the European Union, which is now the biggest single source of new arrivals.
Other elements of the Bill include:
• A ban on councils giving social housing to individuals with no connection to an area, with “penalties” if the rules are not followed;
• Fines of up to £3,000 if landlords do not conduct thorough background checks on their tenants to ensure they have a legal right to live in Britain, and fines of up to £20,000 for every illegal worker employed by unscrupulous businesses;
• A victory for The Sunday Telegraph’s campaign to end the farce that sees foreign criminals dodging deportation by appealing using the Human Rights Act.
Instead the law will allow immediate deportation and appeals from outside the country unless criminals can show they face “serious and irreversible harm” in their home countries.

The plans are intended to address what ministers see as public concern over the impact of the migration policies of the last Labour government....

 

[PeteEU]

Miss-leading title to say the least. Ignorant comments as well by the OP... since he seems not to be able to read the article he linked.

 

[Stewart]

Miss-leading title to say the least. Ignorant comments as well by the OP... since he seems not to be able to read the article he linked.

From the Tele?

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

 

[MaggieD]

Miss-leading title to say the least. Ignorant comments as well by the OP... since he seems not to be able to read the article he linked.

Insightful.

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's a pity the Banksters hadn't been so free with other peoples' money.

 

[PeteEU]

Insightful.

Point is it states "migrants" as in all.. not true. Migrants from EU countries are not involved in this.

In fact this pretty much only hits migrants from outside the EU, and so what? These rules should have been in place decades ago.. they are everywhere else pretty much.

 

[cpwill]

Miss-leading title to say the least. Ignorant comments as well by the OP... since he seems not to be able to read the article he linked.

Point is it states "migrants" as in all.. not true. Migrants from EU countries are not involved in this.

Here. I've quoted the section cited in the OP...... it seems you are "not able to read the article linked".

Foreigners will have to prove that they are entitled to be in the country before they are given access to GPs and hospitals, while foreign students will have to make a “contribution” to the health service.

The measure will form the centrepiece of tough new legislation designed to reduce numbers entering the country and put pressure on illegal immigrants to leave.

A senior government source said it was an attempt to target “people who have no right to be here”.....



Separately, students from outside Europe will have to pay a £200 levy before they can access the NHS.
Hospitals will be told to step up attempts to pursue “health tourists” for the cost of treatments they receive.
The measures will be outlined in the Immigration Bill, which is due to be put before Parliament within days.
It represents one of the most wide-ranging and ambitious pieces of legislation since the Coalition took office, spanning six Whitehall departments: health, local government, business, and transport, as well as the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
However, it will not affect migrants from inside the European Union, which is now the biggest single source of new arrivals.
Other elements of the Bill include:
• A ban on councils giving social housing to individuals with no connection to an area, with “penalties” if the rules are not followed;
• Fines of up to £3,000 if landlords do not conduct thorough background checks on their tenants to ensure they have a legal right to live in Britain, and fines of up to £20,000 for every illegal worker employed by unscrupulous businesses;
• A victory for The Sunday Telegraph’s campaign to end the farce that sees foreign criminals dodging deportation by appealing using the Human Rights Act.
Instead the law will allow immediate deportation and appeals from outside the country unless criminals can show they face “serious and irreversible harm” in their home countries.

The plans are intended to address what ministers see as public concern over the impact of the migration policies of the last Labour government....

I hope that helps to cure your premature arrogance.

 

[PeteEU]

Here. I've quoted the section cited in the OP...... it seems you are "not able to read the article linked".




I hope that helps to cure your premature arrogance.

And yet that was not the title of the thread and only a small part of the article. It is a hit piece pure and simple, just as this whole thread is. There is nothing revolutionary with this, and it has nothing to do with "other peoples money" as you stated. The amount of money possibly saved is minimal, and chances are it will cost more money than it saves to enforce.

 

[cpwill]

And yet that was not the title of the thread and only a small part of the article.

:doh You accuse others of dishonesty because you think that something that they discussed in the article should instead have been the title?

Or, more likely, you didn't bother to read what was posted before you responded, and therefore missed that in fact what you brought up was discussed.

Either way, you rate this: :failpail:

A simple occasional admission of "oh, I didn't see that" or "oh, my bad" will do you better than desperate spin.

 

[azgreg]

:doh You accuse others of dishonesty because you think that something that they discussed in the article should instead have been the title?

Or, more likely, you didn't bother to read what was posted before you responded, and therefore missed that in fact what you brought up was discussed.

Either way, you rate this: :failpail:

A simple occasional admission of "oh, I didn't see that" or "oh, my bad" will do you better than desperate spin.

Maybe in the future he would like the entire article posted in the title of your threads. smh

 

[Fenton]

And yet that was not the title of the thread
and only a small part of the article. It is a hit piece pure and simple, just as this whole thread is. There is nothing revolutionary with this, and it has nothing to do with "other peoples money" as you stated. The amount of money possibly saved is minimal, and chances are it will cost more money than it saves to enforce.

The Title ??


Whats stopping you or anyone else from READING the article ?

 

[Chatter]

And yet that was not the title of the thread and only a small part of the article. It is a hit piece pure and simple, just as this whole thread is. There is nothing revolutionary with this, and it has nothing to do with "other peoples money" as you stated. The amount of money possibly saved is minimal, and chances are it will cost more money than it saves to enforce.

Exactly

In 2011-12, the NHS officially spent £33m on treating foreign nationals, £21m of which was recovered. This means that just £12m, or 0.01 per cent of the health service's £109bn annual budget, was lost to "health tourists". In March, when David Cameron raised the issue in his speech on immigration, Hunt claimed the true figure was £200m but produced no evidence to support his claim. But even if we accept the Health Secretary's estimate, this figure accounts for just 0.18 per cent of the NHS budget and that's before we take into account the savings made from British nationals using foreign health services and the administrative cost of the new "crackdown".

How much does "health tourism" actually cost the NHS?

The British Medical Association (BMA) and Royal College of Nursing (RCN) are also against the new charges and checks which they say will be far more expensive in terms of Administration costs than just treating individuals in the first place, and it may be beneficial to society to treat individuals with infectious diseases rather than let them wander the streets untreated.

BMA

BBC News - Reaction to 'health tourism' plans