BMA vote not to charge "health tourists"

[IrmaFayLear]

Quite cross about this.

Different of course if someone has a heart attack/car accident, but to turn up specifically to access expensive maternity/cancer etc treatment is not only unacceptable but unsustainable.

Particularly annoyed because the pil's dementia care which they had to self-fund ran into many hundreds of thousands (at a humdrum establishment, too).

It sticks in one's craw to be told constantly that the NHS is crumbling but that an extra couple of billion per year is ok for health tourists.

Lets not play silly buggers. People and the less reputable newsapers are trying to make an issue of this because it concerns foreigners. Im sick of dealing with this nationalist nonsense with kid gloves. Find something that matters.

I agree, Marylou2, that health insurance should be mandatory for visiting the UK, checked upon entry. In fact perhaps airlines could be held liable for costs incurred by passengers; that would shift the responsibility from a UK GP/hospital and make the airlines have a vested interest in being vigilant.

As a UK taxpayer I strongly object to health tourism. If it were all reciprocal then fine, but it's not. 'Free' healthcare will always be abused.

I think those expressing this opinion should have their pay lowered to agree with their opinions and help make it affordable.

I think PissedOffProf explained it really well.

It seems to me that you can't have a fool-proof system without some kind of national registration system that includes British residents.

For example the OP claiming 'health insurance should be mandatory for those visiting the UK'. How are you proposing airlines distinguish between visitors and UK residents? I have a foreign name, a foreign passport, but I live here, pay taxes here and am entitled to use the NHS here. How is the airline supposed to know I am a visitor or a resident? Similarly, how are hospitals and GPs meant to tell the difference? It only works in other countries (that I know off) because everyone, including the locals, are required to show some kind of ID, insurance document etc, when visiting the doctor.

My FIL lives in an EU country with a not-that-good health service. He always comes back to the UK to use the NHS. I see why he does but he should be banned

Many former UK residents have paid tax and NI throughout their working lives and still pay UK tax once they have moved abroad. Why should they be prevented from using the NHS when people
who have never contributed but live in UK are able to do so?

The BMA do not make policy. Do you understand that?

Many former UK residents have paid tax and NI throughout their working lives and still pay UK tax once they have moved abroad. Why should they be prevented from using the NHS when people who have never contributed but live in UK are able to do so?

Because it's the law ? (Putting aside the slight hyperbole ...)

health tourism costs (bearing in mind their biases) divide by the NHS budget for the year the article was written gives 0.25% of total budget.
So why do Germany and the like have a charging system? Why not give up the cost of admin and treat people for free like we do. It would save them money, apparently.

So why do Germany and the like have a charging system? Why not give up the cost of admin and treat people for free like we do. It would save them money, apparently.

What did your MP say when you asked them ?

Whilst the percentage of NHS budget spent on 'health tourists' is small, it has a big importance in many peoples' minds, and affects their opinions towards immigration, Brexit etc. If it is important to a significant proportion of UK population that their NHS resources are protected, then it may be worth addressing that, even if it costs as much or more than it saves to implement a billing system. Decisions are about more than money in vs out. If people don't feel their precious resources are at threat, they may be less worried about immigration and engage their brain before voting

What did your MP say when you asked them?
What sort of response is that?

Which other countries offer free health care like we do?

What sort of response is that?

you asked:

So why do Germany and the like have a charging system? Why not give up the cost of admin and treat people for free like we do. It would save them money, apparently.

and the best placed person to answer with a fact rather than tabloid trope is your MP. Who is also the person you need to change if you don't agree with the present system.

and the best placed person to answer with a fact rather than tabloid trope is your MP.
So when other people make comments you demand facts but when you are asked to defend your position you duck the issue. Have you considered going into politics?

Your PIL should have paid for their dementia care. You seem bitter about that. Aren't our savings to keep us safe and looked after in our old age when we can't look after ourselves? What else were their hundreds of thousands to be spent on at that stage?
But I agree with you about the health tourism.

No one has answered why it should be free to all. There is a difference between a number of people accessing treatment who should in theory be charged but for whatever reason are not, and an actual policy never to seek payment from anyone no matter how extensive, ongoing or expensive their treatment.

OP, perhaps you should read up on some reasoning behind this decision. Making "health tourists" pay will also mean that everyone who does not have proper documentation will also need to pay. This includes refugees, undocumented migrants, victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, very possibly some of the Windrush generation members - both adults and children

Well daid, @PissedOffProf.

Right now, on another thread in this parish, multiple MNers are arguing that it is okay for parents not to register a child's birth, and that it is up the parents if they want their child to be outside the system. Such a child would have no birth certificate and no N.I. number. I have waxed vitriolic on the subject, as is my wont. But what happens to a child like that if they need to prove British citizenship or residence to get NHS treatment?

So when other people make comments you demand facts but when you are asked to defend your position you duck the issue. Have you considered going into politics?

What on earth makes you think I'm not ?

(Besides, my request for facts hasn't been answered anyway ...)

You asked why Germany does things one way. On a UK forum, so getting a comprehensive answer would be ... unlikely. If you really, really, really think I am the best placed person to answer you, I'll try. My German is tad rusty I'm afraid.

Meanwhile, my request was simply to ask for the article mentioned by a poster which stated something contentious.

I think the two instances are apples and oranges. But I'm happy to talk about fruit as long as you like. Including how the UKs 5-a-day policy has been a success in reducing some cases of fruit growers going out of business.

No one has answered why it should be free to all.

Has anyone said it should be free to all ?

Sometimes answers don't come when questions aren't asked ....

Concerning the concept of medical insurance being compulsory for visitors not entitled to NHS care, would something like the existing Advanced Passenger Information system be any use here?

In the absence of ID cards, I'm just thinking it might be a way to ensure these things were in place before problems arose, rather than chasing solutions afterwards?

In the absence of ID cards

Which is the crux of a lot of things. We just don't do ID cards in the UK. Mainly because the scope creep of the last gee-whizz idea was terrifying.

Estimates for deliberate health tourism are between £100 million to £300 million. These are rough figures.

While this may only be a small percentage of the overall NHS budget, the reality is that £300 million would fund some 75,000 caesarean sections or 4 million ten minute GP appointments.

It is an enormous amount of money. Indeed, the total staff costs of my local primary care trust (which runs two hospitals) are around £250 million a year.

No one has answered why it should be free to all

To be fair, a PP mentioned the view of some GPs that it's a political thing - apparently they worry that creating a "payment system" for some would make it too easy to bring in charges for everyone

No it should not be free.

I heard an interview with Dr Appleby on the radio today and it is admission staff who are the first people who would deal with this not the doctors themselves. Our NI contributions have risen in the last couple of years as well.

It's hard enough to obtain an appointment with a GP for the UK residents and it puts more pressure on the NHS.

While this may only be a small percentage of the overall NHS budget, the reality is that £300 million would fund some 75,000 caesarean sections or 4 million ten minute GP appointments.

Or just under one DUP MP.