Kibkom North Cyprus Forum

Just read that UK doctors have voted NOT to charge oversees patients against the will of MPs
So now I can go back to my home country to get treatment ,only problem being that I will be in a big queue of people who have not paid a penny into the system even though I paid all my working life.

Well the doctors won't be able to moan when they are overworked and the hospitals are overflowing with people

Where has this information come from?
Because that would have massive implications not only for GPs. The NHS is underfunded as it is.

13roman58 wrote:Just read that UK doctors have voted NOT to charge oversees patients against the will of MPs
So now I can go back to my home country to get treatment ,only problem being that I will be in a big queue of people who have not paid a penny into the system even though I paid all my working life.

A system like the NHS applies to those who are resident in the UK, not to citizenship or to contribution made to date. Those who are resident both pay in and can take out of the system. Those who paid in whilst being resident but then chose to leave and become non resident in the UK, should not, imo, be entitled to free NHS health care. It is not the 'paying in' that grants entitlement - that is just not how a socialised health care system like the NHS works or can work. If that is the kind of system you want, one where by what you can 'take out' is defined solely by what you as an individual had already paid in up to that point, then you should be arguing for privatisation of all health care in the UK.

The whole NHS / NI contributions are a form of insurance. That you may have paid in to this system for 30 years, whilst taking nothing out in that period is no different from having paid car insurance for 30 years but never made a claim. It just means you have been 'lucky' to have not needed health care or car repair for that matter. That is the way it works. You may well have paid in all your life whilst resident in the UK and at any time in that period should you have needed it, health care would have been provided. When you made the choice to become non resident in the UK, I think that decision should have been made in the knowledge that doing so would mean you are no longer entitled to free health care from the NHS for as long as you remain non UK resident. I think that is the way the system should work.

I 'took out' 16 years of free NHS health care, from my birth in a NHS hospital onwards, before I paid a single penny 'in' to the system. I was entitled to such care because I was resident in the UK in that period and rightly so imo. That entitlement was not related to how much I had previously paid in, or how much my parents had previously paid in on my behalf. Nor was it related to my UK citizenship. It was an entitlement based on residency - just as the obligation to pay NI contributions on my earned income when I eventually did start paying in at 16 years of age was also down to residency and not citizenship or how much I had already 'taken out' up to that point.

That has probably upset a few people here. Sorry but that is how seems to me.

justsayin wrote:Where has this information come from?
Because that would have massive implications not only for GPs. The NHS is underfunded as it is.

Today's daily mail, full story

13roman58 wrote:

justsayin wrote:Where has this information come from?
Because that would have massive implications not only for GPs. The NHS is underfunded as it is.

Today's daily mail, full story

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... itals.html

I think what everybody dislikes about this is that anybody VISITING UK can now use our NHS as and when they like without paying anything. Does this mean that if I need an urgent operation and am not British and I don't reside in Britain I just get on a plane and go to the nearest Hospital?

Hmmm....
We have many superb Drs in U.K. whose place of birth is not the U.K..
Out of interest it would be nice to know the nationalities of the Drs who attended that meeting.
Just had a quick look at the article - 500 delegates there. So not a national vote.
People may be billed but it doesn't mean that they pay. Certainly emergency - or condition that could turn into serious or emergency is treated.

Very well explained Erol. I totally agree.

justsayin wrote:Hmmm....
We have many superb Drs in U.K. whose place of birth is not the U.K..
Out of interest it would be nice to know the nationalities of the Drs who attended that meeting.
Just had a quick look at the article - 500 delegates there. So not a national vote.
People may be billed but it doesn't mean that they pay. Certainly emergency - or condition that could turn into serious or emergency is treated.

If you are 'ordinarily' resident in the UK then you are entitled to NHS health care, if you are not then you are not. That is the system currently in place as I understand it and it seems to me eminently sensible and fair.

If you are not resident but require emergency treatment, then I think a country like the UK should treat such people first and worry about recovering costs after the fact, even though that may mean that in many case such recovery is not possible at all. That seems to me to be the only 'civilised' approach to such situations. I am actually proud that anyone, from anywhere in the world, turning up at a UK NHS hospital with say a broken leg, will get treated before anyone asks them what their residency status is and worries about if they need to be charged or not.

As I understand the DM report on the BMA annual conference, this to me just seems like usual DM 'project fear (of immigrants)'. Nothing has changed, the vote was for the BMA to 'lobby the government' to 'overhaul the charging system'. It was not a vote to legislate that anyone from anywhere in the world can and will get free health care from the NHS regardless of the status of the person in terms of being ordinarily resident in the UK or not, which seems to be how the DM has chosen to 'spin' this story. It seems to me the point the BMA are trying to make, is that their members are health care professionals and they should not be required by law to first be some kind of 'immigration officer' that has to decide on someones residency in the UK or not before they can do their actual job of providing health care. Saying that doctors should not first have to establish if someone is resident in the UK or not before they provide health care is not the same thing as saying NHS healthcare should be available free to all worldwide and dependent on nothing.

erol wrote:

justsayin wrote:Hmmm....
We have many superb Drs in U.K. whose place of birth is not the U.K..
Out of interest it would be nice to know the nationalities of the Drs who attended that meeting.
Just had a quick look at the article - 500 delegates there. So not a national vote.
People may be billed but it doesn't mean that they pay. Certainly emergency - or condition that could turn into serious or emergency is treated.

If you are 'ordinarily' resident in the UK then you are entitled to NHS health care, if you are not then you are not. That is the system currently in place as I understand it and it seems to me eminently sensible and fair.

If you are not resident but require emergency treatment, then I think a country like the UK should treat such people first and worry about recovering costs after the fact, even though that may mean that in many case such recovery is not possible at all. That seems to me to be the only 'civilised' approach to such situations. I am actually proud that anyone, from anywhere in the world, turning up at a UK NHS hospital with say a broken leg, will get treated before anyone asks them what their residency status is and worries about if they need to be charged or not.

As I understand the DM report on the BMA annual conference, this to me just seems like usual DM 'project fear (of immigrants)'. Nothing has changed, the vote was for the BMA to 'lobby the government' to 'overhaul the charging system'. It was not a vote to legislate that anyone from anywhere in the world can and will get free health care from the NHS regardless of the status of the person in terms of being ordinarily resident in the UK or not, which seems to be how the DM has chosen to 'spin' this story. It seems to me the point the BMA are trying to make, is that their members are health care professionals and they should not be required by law to first be some kind of 'immigration officer' that has to decide on someones residency in the UK or not before they can do their actual job of providing health care. Saying that doctors should not first have to establish if someone is resident in the UK or not before they provide health care is not the same thing as saying NHS healthcare should be available free to all worldwide and dependent on nothing.

The NHS is wonderful but as usual the only health tourists that won't be able to use it's facilities are those that have made ANY sort of contribution, albeit in the past. It is great that we treat first and worry about money second but sadly in the real world that will mean we are taken advantage of. No doubt we will now get some figures from some "independent" fact agency that says said health tourists only cost the country ten quid a year.

If not for ourselves, let us sort it for the Nigerians

https://www.voanews.com/africa/nigeria- ... rities-say

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: The NHS is wonderful but as usual the only health tourists that won't be able to use it's facilities are those that have made ANY sort of contribution, albeit in the past.

Yeah because a UK citizen that chose to not be resident in the UK and to live elsewhere, thus giving up their entitlement to free NHS treatment, would never try to or manage to cheat the system by pretending to be 'ordinarily resident' when they are not just to get free NHS treatment that they are not entitled to. That is the kind of thing that only 'foreigners' would do I guess ? And people call me naive ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:It is great that we treat first and worry about money second but sadly in the real world that will mean we are taken advantage of. No doubt we will now get some figures from some "independent" fact agency that says said health tourists only cost the country ten quid a year.

Emergency treatment. No one is suggesting that anyone who applies to NHS for say a hip operation, should be treated first before it is established that they are entitled to such treatment. Of course there are no "independent" fact agencies, think tanks, research groups or media outlets like the DM that says health tourism costs the country (to use the same degree of exaggeration) 3/4 of the UK's governments annual expenditure.

Needs the same system as here, hold their passport until they pay, simple.

erol wrote: Yeah because a UK citizen that chose to not be resident in the UK and to live elsewhere, thus giving up their entitlement to free NHS treatment, would never try to or manage to cheat the system by pretending to be 'ordinarily resident' when they are not just to get free NHS treatment that they are not entitled to. That is the kind of thing that only 'foreigners' would do I guess ? And people call me naive ?

I'm sure it happens but at least they have made a contribution and no doubt have family that continue to make a contribution. As for your contention that our National Insurance contributions are strictly an insurance policy as such you are being slightly disingenuous there. The NHS receives 80% of its funding from general taxation and many overseas residents continue to pay UK tax.

erol wrote: Emergency treatment. No one is suggesting that anyone who applies to NHS for say a hip operation, should be treated first before it is established that they are entitled to such treatment. Of course there are no "independent" fact agencies, think tanks, research groups or media outlets like the DM that says health tourism costs the country (to use the same degree of exaggeration) 3/4 of the UK's governments annual expenditure.

I don't think anyone has a problem with foreigners receiving emergency treatment free of charge. That is the usual spin that anyone who doesn't want our services taken advantage of wants to leave someone having a heart attack lying in the street.
But anyhow here is a socialist paper exaggerating with a two billion figure.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-11813971
It isn't The Guardian sadly but as it appears The Guardian journalists don't venture outside of Hampsted or Islington they generally miss what is going on as usual.

kerry 6138 wrote:https://fullfact.org/health/health-tour ... -who-pays/

Fullfact? That's always unbiased lol

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/84932 ... ion-Thomas

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I'm sure it happens ...

Well you would not get that impression based on what you originally wrote.

the only health tourists that won't be able to use it's facilities are those that have made ANY sort of contribution, albeit in the past.

I personally would not be at all surprised if the majority of those that exploit the NHS and seek treatment via it by pretending to be resident in the UK when they are not, are in fact former UK residents (citizen or not) that have all paid something 'in' in the past via NI or tax vs those who have never previously been resident in the UK and paid anything in ever. What a UK citizen will always have the right to do, that a non citizen will not have the automatic right to, is to actually chose to become resident in the UK again in order to legitimately qualify for free NHS treatment.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote: but at least they have made a contribution and no doubt have family that continue to make a contribution.

You are either entitled to free NHS treatment or you are not. It really is that simple to me. If you are not and you cheat the system, for me you are cheating the system. To me this is all just 'excuses' as to why its ok, or 'less bad' for a UK expat to cheat the system but not OK for a foreigner to do so. I could decide to do an insurance fraud - if caught would I get mitigation on the basis I validly paid insurance in the past for years and made no claims, or that my family continues to do so in the future ? I would say no. I would say that is a BS excuse. It is, for me , really no different a scenario.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:As for your contention that our National Insurance contributions are strictly an insurance policy as such you are being slightly disingenuous there. The NHS receives 80% of its funding from general taxation and many overseas residents continue to pay UK tax.

Yes it is true that the bulk of the NHS funding comes from general taxation and not NI contributions alone but that is just not the point. Firstly your entitlement is nothing to do with your contribution. Your entitlement is down to residency. That is why it is called the National Health Service and not the British Health Service. Secondly the reason why people may be liable for general UK taxation when they are not resident in the UK is nothing to do with the NHS. It is to do with income. I still have UK based income and I still pay UK taxes on that but I do not pay NI contributions any more. This also cuts both ways as well. Why not argue that someone from I don't know where, who has never been resident in the UK, never paid any UK tax or NI, flys to the UK with the express purpose of trying to get free NHS treatment they are not entitled too, will pay UK taxes like VAT and others whilst they are trying to get their free NHS treatment and thus are also therefore 'paying in'.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:I don't think anyone has a problem with foreigners receiving emergency treatment free of charge. That is the usual spin that anyone who doesn't want our services taken advantage of wants to leave someone having a heart attack lying in the street.

You were the one that turned my explicit example of emergency treatment being provided first and money collect after, first in to

we treat first and worry about money second

without any mention of 'emergency' as if I was saying that a civilised country should take this approach for any and all treatments, even though I never said that. Then you now have turned my 'emergency - treat first - pay second' in to 'emergency - treat for free', again something I never said or suggested. You do this and then complain about 'spin' from others? I have seen little but 'spin' from you in this discussion to be blunt.

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:But anyhow here is a socialist paper exaggerating with a two billion figure.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... e-11813971
It isn't The Guardian sadly but as it appears The Guardian journalists don't venture outside of Hampsted or Islington they generally miss what is going on as usual.

Your apparent dislike towards anyone you consider 'socialist' seems to be overwhelming your critical faculties ? Was your original argument not that 'socialist' would try and underestimate the figure - was not the original exaggeration from you '10 quid' ? As proof of your assertion that this is the kind of trick socialist play (and of course only socialists) you give an example whereby a left leading paper claims the figure is a high as 2 billion ? Seems to refute your first proposition not confirm it ? In any case that same 'socialist' inspired deceitful lying figure of up to 2 billion can be found everywhere in outlets that no one could claim are 'socialists' just as much as 'socialist' ones. For example https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/1 ... -tourists/

Changing the subject and going off topic - it must be time for another beer or two soon no ?

erol wrote: Well you would not get that impression based on what you originally wrote.

the only health tourists that won't be able to use it's facilities are those that have made ANY sort of contribution, albeit in the past.

My meaning was that I guarantee that ex pats, who have made some contributions, will be stopped but those who have zero connection to the UK will continue to work the system. The race card will be thrown in, as it already has, and I guarantee it will continue.

erol wrote: I personally would not be at all surprised if the majority of those that exploit the NHS and seek treatment via it by pretending to be resident in the UK when they are not.

No way of knowing but it’s obviously going to be The Guardian view.

erol wrote: To me this is all just 'excuses' as to why its ok, or 'less bad' for a UK expat to cheat the system but not OK for a foreigner to do so.

I’m not saying it is ok but it is certainly less bad. One case has made and probably continues to make a contribution to Britain against one who is getting their atlas out and seeing where is best to get a free ride.

erol wrote: Yes it is true that the bulk of the NHS funding comes from general taxation and not NI contributions alone but that is just not the point.

The point you were making was that people made National Insurance contributions and when they stopped making them like in all insurance schemes their benefits stopped. I am just pointing out that as catchy as the analogy is that it isn’t true and National Insurance contributions account for a fifth the the NHS budget.

erol wrote: without any mention of 'emergency' as if I was saying that a civilised country should take this approach for any and all treatments, even though I never said that. Then you now have turned my 'emergency - treat first - pay second' in to 'emergency - treat for free', again something I never said or suggested. You do this and then complain about 'spin' from others? I have seen little but 'spin' from you in this discussion to be blunt.

Like I said I have no problem with emergency treatment being carried out and worry about the money later. I would hate for us to get into the US way where they feel for your credit card before they feel for your pulse but this is the usual moving the goalposts that is done on the NHS. For example, someone might want to tackle some of the chronic waste in the NHS and finds that they can cut a hundred million off the wage bill by amalgamating the jobs of the person who buys scalpels and the person who buys clamps. The left will then say they are planning to cut 4000 nurses which could be paid for by that 100 million. Or tactic 2 which has been deployed here is to use percentages, i.e. 100 million is less than 1% of the NHS budget so not a big deal. Using that rationale you could say that a particular armed robbery only took 0.001% of the cash floating around the economy so let’s let them off.

erol wrote: Your apparent dislike towards anyone you consider 'socialist' seems to be overwhelming your critical faculties ?

I don’t dislike socialists, I’d guess that my background if far more working class than 90% of the Momentum mob, not that I’d call them socialists.
Thing is I acknowledge that socialism doesn’t work. It’s sad but it has never worked and never will.
As with all these arguments each side will either over estimate or underestimate figures. If the left quote 100 million and the right quote 2 billion then common sense will tell you that the figure is in all likelihood 500 million to a billion. But even if I accept it’s a 100 million, it is a lot of money that could be used to benefit people elsewhere.

erol wrote: Changing the subject and going off topic - it must be time for another beer or two soon no ?

Beer would be good. Send me a PM and we’ll sort out a day/time

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:...

erol wrote:...
Changing the subject and going off topic - it must be time for another beer or two soon no ?

Beer would be good. Send me a PM and we’ll sort out a day/time

Please copy me in, as I would like to make arrangements to be washing my hair that day...
- or having a tooth extracted, perhaps...

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:My meaning was that I guarantee that ex pats, who have made some contributions, will be stopped but those who have zero connection to the UK will continue to work the system. The race card will be thrown in, as it already has, and I guarantee it will continue.

Guarantee ? How does that work then ?

What you say above just makes no sense to me ? Are you saying that all the relevant government departments and employees systematically seek to target 'ex pats' trying to abuse free NHS care whilst ignoring anyone who is not an 'ex pat' who does likewise ? If it was the case that it is easier to detect such fraudulent use of the NHS by ex pats than by people who have never been in the UK before, then I could understand a suggestion that the relevant departments and employees go for the 'low hanging fruit'. Yet this is not the case in such scenarios, quite the reverse. So if the 'targeting' of 'ex pats' over others are not the low hanging fruit but in fact the highest fruit, then what else would explain why government departments and employees would systematically target 'ex pats' ? It makes no sense to me. To such a degree that I have to consider it may just be a manifestation of a 'persecution complex'. That you appear absolutely sure that ex pats will be targeted over those who have never been in the UK before, despite there being no hard or compelling evidence this is the case and despite their being no logical reason as to why this would be the case only makes sense in the context of you yourself being an 'ex pat' ?

EnjoyingTheSun wrote:No way of knowing but it’s obviously going to be The Guardian view.

What does your common sense tell in regards to how likely or not it is that a given individual might consider trying to get free health from the NHS without entitlement in the first place and having decided to give it a try how easily or difficult it would be for them to pretend to be UK resident when they are in fact not and get away with it

When comparing two types of individual.

Individual A - previous was resident in the UK but not currently. Has personal experience of UK health system, how it works and the like. Has a NI number. Has contacts and family in the UK and addresses that they can use. Has UK bank account. Speaks English like someone who is either a native speaker or has spent time living in the UK .

Individual B - has never before resided in the UK. Has no personal experience of having used the UK health system. Does not have a NI number. Does not have contacts or family in the UK. Does not have a UK bank account. Speaks English like someone who learnt it as a foreign language but has not used it as a 'day to day' language.

So sure there are a lot more 'type B' individuals in the world than 'type A' but can there be much doubt that the chances that a Type A will first even think to seek to get free NHS treatment they are not entitled and the chance that having decide to try they will succeed has to be massively greater than a Type B person.

Keithcaley wrote:
Please copy me in, as I would like to make arrangements to be washing my hair that day...
- or having a tooth extracted, perhaps...

Keith if you are worried about having to body swerve future things you haven't been invited to I can put your mind at rest ,

Having lived in the TRNC for 8 years, I decided to move nearer the UK for family visits etc So moved to Spain, an EU country with
freedom of movement, supposedly !... After 90 days of this freedom of movement, you are required to register with the authorities
and obtain a Residencia certificate. In order to do this you must have adequate medical cover either by way of Private medical cover
or covered as a pensioner by the UK under the S! certificate whereby the NHS pay for my healthcare in Spain. It is not residency
based as in the UK but as a requirement to get residency.

This means for UK pensioners who live within the EU (currently) the British government pays for our health care but also everyone who resides
in the UK. Somehow seems UK has to pay twice and other countries won't cover you unless you are working.

onslow wrote:This means for UK pensioners who live within the EU (currently) the British government pays for our health care but also everyone who resides in the UK. Somehow seems UK has to pay twice and other countries won't cover you unless you are working.

https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-do ... -costs-eu/

https://www.expatica.com/es/healthcare/ ... em-101467/

I do not pay NI contributions as I am retired, but do pay tax on my pensions. I paid 38 years worth of NI contributions and tax before retirement. The amount I pay now is exactly the same as if I was full time resident in the UK so I believe I should be entitled to the same things as I would be if I were living there.