Foreign patients owe millions to the NHS

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
But from a moral point of view, isn't it also correct to not violate another country's immigration and residency laws? In the United States, we have a huge problem with illegal immigrants entering the country, having babies in our hospitals, filling up our emergency rooms for minor issues, and bringing their drug violence injured and wounded to o ...[text shortened]... ve come there because they don't have health insurance and need a prescription for the flu.

I see what your saying, but the yUS does not have a NHS system does it ?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
ah, but the local customers do pay. they pay taxes when they are fit and healthy so when their bank crashes and they lose their money and/or they become ill and cannot work and therefore cannot pay taxes they won't have to pay for a life saving treatment.

you are saying that each should get treatment according to the amount payed. but this is not possib the cost involved, because of the contribution you made to society or will make in the future.

You raise many questions, so I will reply as best as I can:

ah, but the local customers do pay. they pay taxes when they are fit and healthy so when their bank crashes and they lose their money and/or they become ill and cannot work and therefore cannot pay taxes they won't have to pay for a life saving treatment.

Not sure how the credit crunch relates to the NHS as the NHS as a public funded body. All I suggested was that non-tax payers from another nation shuld take out health insurance before coming over to UK

you are saying that each should get treatment according to the amount payed. but this is not possible. if a guy gets cancer at 23 and his treatment costs many times more than the taxes he payed, should he wait until 35 to get treatment.


No, I am saying if you pay taxes you should get prioroty over non-tax payers from another country that take advantage off the free NHS

the point of a NHS is to create a contract between the government and the people. the people pay some of their earnings even if they are healthy and the government treats all people regardless of how much they payed. Someone is bound to not get his money's worth, either the citizen who pays and not gets sick(which i doubt he should mind at all) or the government who might register some losses. but it creates a feeling of security knowing that if you get sick you will be taken care of, regardless of the cost involved, because of the contribution you made to society or will make in the future.


Again, not sure where you are going, my points relate to non-taxyer from outside of the country using the NHS

Of course the tax contribution in most cases will not meet the treatment costs of some illnesses, but ifyou pay taxes, then you should get free health care

Originally posted by RSMA1234
Sell it to a med students class and pay my RHP year fee with it.........😀

If it was yours, I would just give it to the pigs 😀

I wasn't joking. Do you think that letting the person die is more efficient than giving Zahlanzi a few stitches?

Originally posted by RSMA1234
I see what your saying, but the yUS does not have a NHS system does it ?

It's about the same as socialized medicine since no one is denied treatment (i.e., the government insures the poor and the elderly and provides medical care for the illegals).

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the alternative would be the american way: "pay up front or you don't get the treatment. pay or die, maggot"

the problem with americans is the american way is applied to american taxpayers as well.

That's not the American way. I got my inflamed appendix removed, a hospital bed and a cute little Korean nursie who would sit on my bed and give me morphine while I had my arm around her butt...for free.

I guess she was impressed by the advanced mathematics homework I was doing or something. The contrast with the gangbanger across the room might have helped too. He shattered his legs leaping from the roof of a three story building onto concrete while high on meth or PCP or something and running from the cops. That guy kept whining for more drugs. They wouldn't give them to him.

Originally posted by Palynka
I wasn't joking. Do you think that letting the person die is more efficient than giving Zahlanzi a few stitches?

On the flip side, by spending money on resources for a non-uk person saving their life leads to a reduce on what you can do for the home poplulation, thus potentioal leading to them dieing because if a lack of money already spent?

So who should die ? The non-uk person or the uk person ?

Personally, I think everyone should get free health care reagradless, but the reality is that resources and money are limited, so I would think a situation where by the person takes out health insurance would be the way to go forward......if Itravel to the US, I take out health insurance, otherwise I take my chances at being treated somewhere else

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
It's about the same as socialized medicine since no one is denied treatment (i.e., the government insures the poor and the elderly and provides medical care for the illegals).

So you saying their are two systems in the US ?

One for private and one for free ?

Originally posted by RSMA1234
On the flip side, by spending money on resources for a non-uk person saving their life leads to a reduce on what you can do for the home population, thus potential leading to them dieing because if a lack of money already spent?

So who should die ? The non-uk person or the uk person ?

Personally, I think everyone should get free health care reagradles ...[text shortened]... the US, I take out health insurance, otherwise I take my chances at being treated somewhere else

i don't think that anyone should die. the health care business is not or shouldn't be"we are on a fixed budget here, if we run out of money in november, the sick people in december will be left to die."
health and education should come first. ahead of military, launching another space shuttle, raising the salaries of parliament members(congress) etc.

health care shouldn't be about fixed budget and how much loss or income it generates. the effects are long term, a healthy citizen or even a healthy illegal immigrant is a happy person and might benefit the country later. just as education.

i cannot agree that a government that spends money on military and defense cannot restrain from buying an extra jet fighter so that some people get treated.

Originally posted by RSMA1234
So you saying their are two systems in the US ?

One for private and one for free ?

I wouldn't describe it as a two-tiered system in theory, but that may be the way it shakes out. For example, my employer provides my health insurance, so I can choose the doctors I wish to see. However, if I were in a car crash and required neuro-surgery, I'd wind up in the county hospital, just like everyone else. But, if I were to have elective surgery to relieve a bloodcot, for instance, I could choose the surgeon. If I didn't have health insurance, then I'd have to go to the county hospital, where, in theory, there would be no charge for me. You can see the problem with this system: Some might forgo the expense of health insurance and take their chances with the county hospital.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i don't think that anyone should die. the health care business is not or shouldn't be"we are on a fixed budget here, if we run out of money in november, the sick people in december will be left to die."
health and education should come first. ahead of military, launching another space shuttle, raising the salaries of parliament members(congress) etc.

he d defense cannot restrain from buying an extra jet fighter so that some people get treated.

I see what you are saying, but the reality to me is far different.

Their are limited resouces on this planet and sometime thoses decision need to be made

Survively of the fittest and all that, plus if you increase spending on health care, this will encourage more foregin people to come over for treatment.......personally I donlt think that is fair as the UK taxpayer would be funding the treatment costs for non-nationals

If you have a unlimited budget for healthcare, your free healthcare system will run out of money and resoures very soon.....thats just simple economics

I suppose the extra jet comment really is dependant on the objectives of the goverment in power and their national security charters

It would not be the first time that a goverment has put peoples lives / health after national security issues

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I wouldn't describe it as a two-tiered system in theory, but that may be the way it shakes out. For example, my employer provides my health insurance, so I can choose the doctors I wish to see. However, if I were in a car crash and required neuro-surgery, I'd wind up in the county hospital, just like everyone else. But, if I were to have elective ...[text shortened]... might forgo the expense of health insurance and take their chances with the county hospital.

Make sense