More NHS woes

[100milesaway]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

About as effective as sending them to Rwanda. 

I'm  sure of that as there would be no takers if it was taken out of their own pockets instead of the public purse.

From Auntie.

[old man]

14 hours ago, ditchman said:

people often forget this........and its not smal ammounts........

And clearly not of concern to the NHS? Easier to leave it be?

[ph5172]

What I can’t work out (aside from the different strictly free at the point of use) is how when I go abroad I am required to obtain adequate insurance even when visiting countries in which are part of the EHIC (or whatever it is this week) scheme. 
Unless I’m actually dying they won’t treat me unless the insurance have given the nod or (from what people are saying) I pay the bill then claim back from EHIC. 
 

the paper recently reported that a London hospital employs more midwives on certain days of the week which coincide with the days a flight land with visitors who are popping over to see their great great cousins cousin for the first time and didn’t realise they were pregnant. 
a similar story with those that realise they don’t feel well when they land on a similar visit and realise they have a life limiting issue requiring immediate intervention. 
 

but then again the estimated cost of this is 300£ million which considering the NHS costs 21£ million an hour to run isn’t a lot in real terms 
 

Edited August 2 by ph5172

[Gordon R]

I see no reason why we can't get health tourists to pay for their treatment before it starts. Whilst exact amounts won't be available, it should be simple enough to take more and refund later.

I have to laugh at the " we do bill them and get some back argument". How many never appear in the records as having to pay at all? Some years ago, I was in hospital, when people were flying in from India to have operations performed by their relative. Whilst here they used NHS facilities and nothing went through the books. A number of nursing staff were outraged, but feared making a fuss. 

[Lloyd90]

23 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Now the new Gov't has offered the Junior Doctors 22% (which their leaders are recommending they reject) - the GP have now voted to 'Work to Rule"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72vp774rp3o

 

They haven’t offered them 22% though, that’s just the way the media has framed it. 
 

They’ve offered them the EQUIVALENT of 22% mixed between a cash payment and an increase of around 7% or something, per year. 
 

The offer is over 2 years. 
 

Even if averaged out, it’s 11% (22/2) … 

 

Considering they were striking about a loss of pay of around 36%+ wasn’t it? 

As always, we can’t get swept away with media headlines and need to compare apples with apples. 
 

I would be surprised if they don’t accept it to be done with all this mess… but we shall see. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Considering they were striking about a loss of pay of around 36%+ wasn’t it? 

Yes, it was I believe 35 or 36%.

6 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

I would be surprised if they don’t accept it to be done with all this mess… but we shall see. 

We shall see - as you say.  Unfortunately - as we may also see over the next 5 years, Labour - with their close connections to (and funding from) the unions, have a track record of making better offers every time an offer is rejected.  The unions know this and long drawn out periods of disruption with a gradual trend towards meeting union demands result.  Hence such events as "The Winter of Discontent".  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent  I would be very surprised if we don't see big inflation problems coming.

In my 45 years or so in private industry, there have been times when pay rises have been well above inflation - mainly due to promotions or job changes, but also many times when inflation has continued, but there have also been no pay rises that year due to 'tough times'.  One of my employers used to have two annual pay reviews;

• The "July review" was an across the board and was designed to reflect inflation and the company's financial performance.  It was typically quite close to inflation, but sometimes was 0 for consecutive years.  It could also include changes in terms of employment (e.g. holiday allowances).
• The "Annual review" was individual and reflected individual role, performance, conduct and job variations including promotions and changes in responsibility.  It was completely variable and could be (though rarely was) negative where responsibilities had changed.  It might also come with other variations such as changes to holidays, perks, cars etc.

There is no 'basic right' to keep up with inflation, though the "July review" was designed to reflect such wider factors, whereas the "Annual Review" was specific to the individual.

[old man]

3 hours ago, ph5172 said:

What I can’t work out (aside from the different strictly free at the point of use) is how when I go abroad I am required to obtain adequate insurance even when visiting countries in which are part of the EHIC (or whatever it is this week) scheme. 
Unless I’m actually dying they won’t treat me unless the insurance have given the nod or (from what people are saying) I pay the bill then claim back from EHIC. 
 

the paper recently reported that a London hospital employs more midwives on certain days of the week which coincide with the days a flight land with visitors who are popping over to see their great great cousins cousin for the first time and didn’t realise they were pregnant. 
a similar story with those that realise they don’t feel well when they land on a similar visit and realise they have a life limiting issue requiring immediate intervention. 
 

but then again the estimated cost of this is 300£ million which considering the NHS costs 21£ million an hour to run isn’t a lot in real terms 
 

There are obviously lots of Doctors out there willing to sign pregnant women as fit to fly to get them in for free birthing and passports for offspring?

[Vince Green]

On 01/08/2024 at 15:09, Flashman said:

It’s a shame that NHS Trusts refuse to collect fees from healthcare tourists. 
The Trusts are allowed to, but historically refused to do it - I guess on the basis that we mug taxpayers must stump up. 

The reason is because the hospitals have no accounts departments to process the charges or even identify who needs to be charged. 

The better system would be to identify at point of entry who is eligible  and who is not. Then directing those who are not eligible away to the private sector.

[Raja Clavata]

On 01/08/2024 at 17:17, 100milesaway said:

Or another idea, why dont  we have an illegal immigrant  tax charged to all of the folks who want them here. From Auntie.

We must live in a different world, who are the folks who want illegal immigrants here, I keep hearing a lot about them but who are they?

[johnphilip]

53 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

We must live in a different world, who are the folks who want illegal immigrants here, I keep hearing a lot about them but who are they?

You all ready know the answer , but you are just trying to prefoke a response. 

[Raja Clavata]

It’s a serious question. It’s certainly seems that people who have benefitted from the system in the past, like P.Patel, Cruella B, M.Tousi and countless others aren’t.

I’ve never met a single person here in the U.K. or abroad who thinks illegal immigration is a good thing.

That includes a former Kenyan girlfriend who works as a humanitarian lawyer for UNCHR (she’s worked in Kenya, South Africa, Mozambique, Egypt & Niger).

So, who are these people and on which platforms are they voicing this opinion?

Really quite a straightforward question.

[johnphilip]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

It’s a serious question. It’s certainly seems that people who have benefitted from the system in the past, like P.Patel, Cruella B, M.Tousi and countless others aren’t.

I’ve never met a single person here in the U.K. or abroad who thinks illegal immigration is a good thing.

That includes a former Kenyan girlfriend who works as a humanitarian lawyer for UNCHR (she’s worked in Kenya, South Africa, Mozambique, Egypt & Niger).

So, who are these people and on which platforms are they voicing this opinion?

Really quite a straightforward question.

Those that want them here , are those that can profit by them . Look how how many. Establishment are raided an illegals are arrested.  The increasing fines imposed on these owners . These people crossing the channel  by ilegal means. Were do they get the money from to pay these gangs , how in future will these gangs be rewarded. 

[Raja Clavata]

OK, so we should impose a tax on people who are off the tax radar. Genius.

[johnphilip]

3 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

OK, so we should impose a tax on people who are off the tax radar. Genius.

Were did I say anything about a tax , you asked question I gave an answer  .

[Raja Clavata]

You didn’t but you replied to my querying another poster who referred to tax.

[100milesaway]

7 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

We must live in a different world, who are the folks who want illegal immigrants here, I keep hearing a lot about them but who are they?

The welcome banner wavers and all the infamous luvvies who disappear  at the mear suggestion of them playing a part in doing their bit. ( Gary Lineker, Bob Geldof, Lily Allen Etc.)

Denmark and Sweden are well regretting  their hospitality. 

From Auntie.

[oldypigeonpopper]

34 minutes ago, 100milesaway said:

The welcome banner wavers and all the infamous luvvies who disappear  at the mear suggestion of them playing a part in doing their bit. ( Gary Lineker, Bob Geldof, Lily Allen Etc.)

Denmark and Sweden are well regretting  their hospitality. 

From Auntie.

Hello, Your right on Sweden Auntie, my old school friend lives in Sweden and many city areas it is like going back to the OK Coral era 

[Raja Clavata]

20 hours ago, 100milesaway said:

The welcome banner wavers and all the infamous luvvies who disappear  at the mear suggestion of them playing a part in doing their bit. ( Gary Lineker, Bob Geldof, Lily Allen Etc.)

Denmark and Sweden are well regretting  their hospitality. 

From Auntie.

Yes, virtue signalling from rich people who are isolated from the effects is bad. I’m not a fan of Geldof but he has dedicated a lot of his life to famine relief and the like.

Didn’t Lineker take some immigrants in?

I suspect some of the current welcome banners are purely being waved as a counter measure.

Protesting against those that are already here is relatively pointless and divisive, surely the focus should be on stopping more arriving!?

[100milesaway]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

Yes, virtue signalling from rich people who are isolated from the effects is bad. I’m not a fan of Geldof but he has dedicated a lot of his life to famine relief and the like.

Didn’t Lineker take some immigrants in?

I suspect some of the current welcome banners are purely being waved as a counter measure.

Protesting against those that are already here is relatively pointless and divisive, surely the focus should be on stopping more arriving!?

Stopping the handouts once they are here would go along way for those in peril on the seas but we need mainly to close down all the fake universities and colleges first of all.

From Auntie 

Edited August 4 by 100milesaway

[armsid]

The problem is it needs closing down and re staring from scratch and charging for a and e like in ireland it is 75 euros 25 eu. to see a gp but no one in Gov. wants to grab the poison chalice and sort out the waste in the NHS in its current form

[Raja Clavata]

4 hours ago, 100milesaway said:

Stopping the handouts once they are here would go along way for those in peril on the seas but we need mainly to close down all the fake universities and colleges first of all.

From Auntie 

Once they are here we have no choice but to support their existence in some way. In the alternative we leave them to starve, they undertake criminal behaviour to survive, there’s no where to put them if they’re caught. Vicious circle.

The focus has to be preventing more setting foot on our soil.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Once they are here we have no choice but to support their existence in some way. In the alternative we leave them to starve, they undertake criminal behaviour to survive, there’s no where to put them if they’re caught. Vicious circle.

The focus has to be preventing more setting foot on our soil.

It CERTAINLY does.

[100milesaway]

10 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Once they are here we have no choice but to support their existence in some way. In the alternative we leave them to starve, they undertake criminal behaviour to survive, there’s no where to put them if they’re caught. Vicious circle.

The focus has to be preventing more setting foot on our soil.

If they were put up in tents and fed soup and bread, and not given money and phones, that might help. As I also said close the fake colleges and universities  and deport the ones who pretend to have studied at them. That should stop about half a million of them every year.

From Auntie  

[Vince Green]

On 03/08/2024 at 09:24, Raja Clavata said:

We must live in a different world, who are the folks who want illegal immigrants here, I keep hearing a lot about them but who are they?

Well, the Labour Party for one. Having largely lost the support of their traditional core voters the working class they now depend more on the immigrant vote and the votes of people who depend on benefits to live

[johnphilip]

32 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Well, the Labour Party for one. Having largely lost the support of their traditional core voters the working class they now depend more on the immigrant vote and the votes of people who depend on benefits to live

The only problem with that is , they won't  vote Labour , they will vote for there own Muslim parties