Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 16:00:47 GMT
So according to the NAO report linked above: If current trends continue and the charging rules remain the same, the Department will not achieve its ambition of recovering up to £500 million of overseas visitor income a year by 2017-18 and faces a potential shortfall in the region of £150 million
As a percentage of the total NHS budget (£116.4 billion*) this is a non story! * source www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspx
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 23, 2016 16:30:39 GMT
So according to the NAO report linked above: If current trends continue and the charging rules remain the same, the Department will not achieve its ambition of recovering up to £500 million of overseas visitor income a year by 2017-18 and faces a potential shortfall in the region of £150 million
As a percentage of the total NHS budget (£116.4 billion*) this is a non story! * source www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/overview.aspxYes, it's autumn budget day!
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Nov 23, 2016 17:26:09 GMT
I have been told by the staff in a children's hospital of cases where a hereditary disease runs in the family of families returning home to their non E U country on an extended holiday and returning with a newish baby which was apparently born to them whilst away. The child received treatment and then disappeared back home! DNA testing, used in the diagnosis of the disease rooted out a few of these cases but how many others have slipped through the net? I'm sure there are a few of these cases but as I've said, is it costing as much as it would cost to carry out ID checks on every patient? Does ANYBODY actually know, or is it just xenophobic scaremongering? Maybe, but what other countries give out free treatment to those from abroad who aren't entitled to it? Are we to assume all these other countries have got their sums wrong? ETA: My guess is that it's a small but growing problem, and without timely attention it'll turn into a BIG problem....
|
|
|
Post by bodger on Nov 23, 2016 17:29:54 GMT
Nobody said that, but if foreigners knew they would be asked for ID it would put off many of the spongers. It cannot be that difficult for at least one person in the line of clerks, nurses and doctors that see you before you get treatment to identify most people who are clearly foreign, or likely to be foreign, from their behaviour and language, and if they have no ID then alarm bells should be ringing. Having spent half my lifetime managing and administering staff and resources (albeit in an entirely different field) in many different countries, setting down clear guidelines to be followed while performing their jobs, I would not find it difficult to require my team to query patients who may not be eligible, and ring the alarm bell when needed. Isn't the whole matter about staff motivation and training? That would been seen as racist - picking on people to justify themselves just because of the way they look and speak. Unless we degenerate into some sort of fascist police state, its a non-starter. We all have to endure fatuous airport security since there is no selection based on appearances. Which is a shame since based on current evidence, if we only stopped people who looked Muslim to screen, we would be just as safe with much less hassle and cost. But that is a non-starter in the U.K. too, although it's what they do in places like Israel. seen as racist by who? so I, a clerk on the A&E admissions desk, ask an obviously foreign person seeking treatment for what appears to be a non-emergency to provide evidence of their ID and their UK GP's name; they can't provide the information and get flustered; I refer the matter to the hospital administrator. that is only being racist in the imagination of a guilty person.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 23, 2016 18:20:06 GMT
That would been seen as racist - picking on people to justify themselves just because of the way they look and speak. Unless we degenerate into some sort of fascist police state, its a non-starter. We all have to endure fatuous airport security since there is no selection based on appearances. Which is a shame since based on current evidence, if we only stopped people who looked Muslim to screen, we would be just as safe with much less hassle and cost. But that is a non-starter in the U.K. too, although it's what they do in places like Israel. seen as racist by who? so I, a clerk on the A&E admissions desk, ask an obviously foreign person seeking treatment for what appears to be a non-emergency to provide evidence of their ID and their UK GP's name; they can't provide the information and get flustered; I refer the matter to the hospital administrator. that is only being racist in the imagination of a guilty person. Seen as racist by anybody who know what "racist" means. You are treating someone differently because of the way you look and speak. ie discriminating on the grounds of race. Your "obviously foreign person" could easily have right of abode in the U.K, be a U.K. taxpayer etc - Birmingham has plenty, for example. It is no different from the police stopping and searching black youths whilst not stopping and searching white youths.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 23, 2016 18:28:38 GMT
seen as racist by who? so I, a clerk on the A&E admissions desk, ask an obviously foreign person seeking treatment for what appears to be a non-emergency to provide evidence of their ID and their UK GP's name; they can't provide the information and get flustered; I refer the matter to the hospital administrator. that is only being racist in the imagination of a guilty person. Seen as racist by anybody who know what "racist" means. You are treating someone differently because of the way you look and speak. ie discriminating on the grounds of race. Your "obviously foreign person" could easily have right of abode in the U.K, be a U.K. taxpayer etc - Birmingham has plenty, for example. It is no different from the police stopping and searching black youths whilst not stopping and searching white youths. Nick, that's bullshit. Checking the eligibility of a person to non-emergency treatment is sensible. As those who are not eligible will be foreign nationals it is only common sense to check particularly people who are obviously not native speakers. To claim this is racist is ludicrous
|
|
|
Post by tex on Nov 23, 2016 18:38:01 GMT
Being British born and contributing to the system for half my life, I am apparently not eligible for NHS treatment having been non resident for over five years!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 18:42:24 GMT
It's irrelevant anyway. If spending per head of population is the number that's gone down that takes no account of what it was spent on. So population goes up spending stays the same = spending per head reduces. You really need to look at your figures. If I am abroad and I need treatment I have to pay, why should jonny foreigner get it for free? In some EU countries even if I have my EHIC I still have to pay, mind you so do the locals.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 23, 2016 18:44:14 GMT
Seen as racist by anybody who know what "racist" means. You are treating someone differently because of the way you look and speak. ie discriminating on the grounds of race. Your "obviously foreign person" could easily have right of abode in the U.K, be a U.K. taxpayer etc - Birmingham has plenty, for example. It is no different from the police stopping and searching black youths whilst not stopping and searching white youths. Nick, that's bullshit. Checking the eligibility of a person to non-emergency treatment is sensible. As those who are not eligible will be foreign nationals it is only common sense to check particularly people who are obviously not native speakers. To claim this is racist is ludicrous I disagree. It is racist for obvious reasons. Try looking up the definition of racist. Anyway the problem lies not with doing this to those who are actually foreigners, it lies with those many people who may seem at first sight to be foreigners - brown skin, funny clothes, no spoken English - but are in fact legally resident in the U.K. There would be outcry if they had to justify themselves every time they went to the doctors / hospital just because of the way they appear. Might as well just make them wear arm bands. Or perhaps tattoos on the forehead would be cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Nov 23, 2016 19:21:16 GMT
Nick, that's bullshit. Checking the eligibility of a person to non-emergency treatment is sensible. As those who are not eligible will be foreign nationals it is only common sense to check particularly people who are obviously not native speakers. To claim this is racist is ludicrous I disagree. It is racist for obvious reasons. Try looking up the definition of racist. Anyway the problem lies not with doing this to those who are actually foreigners, it lies with those many people who may seem at first sight to be foreigners - brown skin, funny clothes, no spoken English - but are in fact legally resident in the U.K. There would be outcry if they had to justify themselves every time they went to the doctors / hospital just because of the way they appear. Might as well just make them wear arm bands. Or perhaps tattoos on the forehead would be cheaper? Sorry Nick, but you are still talking rubbish, they would not have to justify themselves every time they went to the doctors because they would be registered there. Anyone repeat anyone trying to see a doctor where they are not registered has to justify themselves as a NH patient or pay as a private patient. If someone presents themselves at a hospital for non-emergency treatment they should be refused unless they have a referral from a GP or NH centre. Simples. to call sorting out people who should pay from those who should not racist is pure twaddle
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Nov 23, 2016 19:37:54 GMT
I think all due monies from overseas should be pursued. What right does any body have (NHS) to give away other people's money (taxpayers)? If there are concerns about the cost of collecting this money the debts could be passed directly to a collection agency who operate on a 'no collect no fee' basis.
Win:win.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 23, 2016 19:52:55 GMT
It's irrelevant anyway. If spending per head of population is the number that's gone down that takes no account of what it was spent on. So population goes up spending stays the same = spending per head reduces. You really need to look at your figures. If I am abroad and I need treatment I have to pay, why should jonny foreigner get it for free? In some EU countries even if I have my EHIC I still have to pay, mind you so do the locals. The population going up is accounted for in the figures, that's "legal" population entitled to care. What this thread is about is illegal NHS use on top of that. Check your own figures.
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Nov 23, 2016 19:59:38 GMT
I disagree. It is racist for obvious reasons. Try looking up the definition of racist. Anyway the problem lies not with doing this to those who are actually foreigners, it lies with those many people who may seem at first sight to be foreigners - brown skin, funny clothes, no spoken English - but are in fact legally resident in the U.K. There would be outcry if they had to justify themselves every time they went to the doctors / hospital just because of the way they appear. Might as well just make them wear arm bands. Or perhaps tattoos on the forehead would be cheaper? If someone presents themselves at a hospital for non-emergency treatment they should be refused unless they have a referral from a GP or NH centre. Simples. to call sorting out people who should pay from those who should not racist is pure twaddle
Nowhere did I say that sorting out people who should pay from those who should not, is racist. Why do folk invent this stuff to put in other peoples mouths. It's my pet hate on both this and the "other forum". I'm never sure if it is out of mischief or stupidity or laziness (can't be bothered to read other's posts properly). Anyway with that rant out of my system...
Nowhere did I say that sorting out people who should pay from those who should not, is racist. Of course it isn't. What I said is that deciding whether to check people's eligibility or not just by looking/speaking them to see if they are johnny foreigner or not, is racist. If you want to have a system to determine whether or not someone is eligible for free treatment, that system has to apply to everyone. And then the burden may be more costly than the rewards.
Anyway, as you say you can't just walk into a hospital and demand non-emergency treatment, so what is this all about?
I asked Jeff how often in his 20 years as a Haematology Nurse Specialist he has had a "health tourist" wanting treatment for leukaemia / haemophilia / lymphoma etc. His answer is virtually never, he can think of just one person in 20 years. And that caused mayhem since, even though the chap had health insurance, there was no bureaucratic mechanism in the hospital to claim the money back. Having wasted lots of people's time pondering it, in the end they just treated him for free.
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Nov 23, 2016 20:06:52 GMT
What this is about is the money spent on PLANNED treatment for those not entitled to it.
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Nov 23, 2016 21:40:52 GMT
I get the feeling ( I've worked either in or with the NHS for 30 years) that there is the feeling amongst the NHS workers that asking for money is a little distasteful and below them. That medical treatment should be (morally) free is the cornerstone of the NHS so asking for money is "dirty" even though those that are ineligible for free treatment are shafting them big time.
|
|