NHS Surcharge set to double for UK Settlement Applicants

[theoldgit]

The UK press are reporting that an announcement will be made by Ministers today that the NHS Surcharge payable by applicants seeking settlement will be raised from the current £200 per year to £400 per year.
This fee is paid at the application stage and again at the further leave to remain stage after 30 months, and is payable even if the applicant intends to work and this pay income tax and make National Insurance in their own right.

 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/05/charges-migrants-use-nhs-will-double-raise-millions-health-service/

[ferguston]

English newspaper report.

Possibly only applies to England and Wales.

Scottish Health Service welcomes migrants!

[theoldgit]

11 minutes ago, ferguston said:

English newspaper report.

Possibly only applies to England and Wales.

Scottish Health Service welcomes migrants!

Not so, the processing of UK Visas is not devolved, or indeed is Immigration itself, applicants have to pay the NHS Surcharge wherever they plan to live in the UK.

[SGD]

I say make them pay a darn sight more than this and more the older they are given they will have less time to pay in (if they ever do) and will take more out as they get older.

 

What would be the insurable value of a lifetime's worth of free medical care ? £100,000 ? or more perhaps ?

 

The pension is worth at least that amount too !

 

Not suggesting people pay £100,000 as only 1 in 100,000 would be able to but on principle, perhaps an addition to national insurance might be an answer or a bill if they never work.

[flyingdoc]

Yes, it should indeed be far higher, if it is to be regarded as realistic.

[cricketer]

I agree overseas visitors should have to pay for using the NHS but the problem I have, it's an across the board policy. My wife has been working in the UK for 13 yrs, been paying tax and NI, because she's not passed the Life in the UK Test and moving to the next level, she has to also pay. Something not fair about this.

[baansgr]

Foreigners should have to have insurance regardless of paying NI. No entitlement whatsoever. 

[theoldgit]

Foreigners should have to have insurance regardless of paying NI. No entitlement whatsoever. 

An interesting slant, how do you actually justify people paying for the NHS service twice?
Are suggesting that people, like a previous posters wife who's been living in the UK for a number of years and seems to be paying UK tax and making NI contributions should also pay for NHS treatment for the rest of her life because she's a foreigner?

[oldlakey]

1 hour ago, theoldgit said:

An interesting slant, how do you actually justify people paying for the NHS service twice?
Are suggesting that people, like a previous posters wife who's been living in the UK for a number of years and seems to be paying UK tax and making NI contributions should also pay for NHS treatment for the rest of her life because she's a foreigner?

I would make them pay Tax and NI for ten years minimum then entitlement for all to full NHS and benefits NOT BEFORE

Compulsory insurance for the interim period, then they will find out what real life and pre existing conditions are all about

The previous Posters problem is in her own hands

 

[theoldgit]

@oldlakey, I was actually asking for a justification or even your reasoning, not just what you would adding to what you would do, but never mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[bobrussell]

This just confirms that immigration is an easy target for extra charges.

Not sure if anyone has actually worked out the average cost to the NHS of each person in the UK prior to gaining ILR.

Overall I suspect it remains value for money but I for one would make sure my wife/family took full advantage of every facility offered by the NHS.

However much we dislike these increases there is little chance much will change. Too easy a target for revenue generation.

[oldlakey]

3 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

@oldlakey, I was actually asking for a justification or even your reasoning, not just what you would adding to what you would do, but never mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

My reasons are my justification, everything needs to be paid for

They are not  paying TWICE for anything where do you get the idea that the NI payment or tax is for the NHS only

The NHS is under a fair amount of pressure

Build up a reservoir of money then draw out of the pot, until such time insurance is the way to go as far as the NHS is concerned

Tax you get the use of the same benefits immediately as all other tax payers, security etc etc 

NI contributions will get you a pension if you make enough of them the minimum amount per year is not a tremendous amount of money even now

Everything has to be paid for even the local council services, which you will either pay via rent or direct to the local council

Move to a first world Nanny State and you can reap the benefits but at a price

 

[oldlakey]

15 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

This just confirms that immigration is an easy target for extra charges.

Not sure if anyone has actually worked out the average cost to the NHS of each person in the UK prior to gaining ILR.

Overall I suspect it remains value for money but I for one would make sure my wife/family took full advantage of every facility offered by the NHS.

However much we dislike these increases there is little chance much will change. Too easy a target for revenue generation.

Even after doubling it its the bargain of the century

[rockingrobin]

23 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

My reasons are my justification, everything needs to be paid for

They are not  paying TWICE for anything where do you get the idea that the NI payment or tax is for the NHS only

The NHS is under a fair amount of pressure

Build up a reservoir of money then draw out of the pot, until such time insurance is the way to go as far as the NHS is concerned

Tax you get the use of the same benefits immediately as all other tax payers, security etc etc 

NI contributions will get you a pension if you make enough of them the minimum amount per year is not a tremendous amount of money even now

Everything has to be paid for even the local council services, which you will either pay via rent or direct to the local council

Move to a first world Nanny State and you can reap the benefits but at a price

 

Nobody suggested that NI or tax is hypothecated for the NHS.

To claim that they will not be paying twice is obviously false.

By providing barriers and disincentives to migrants receiving medical treatment is to put the population at risk. A migrant will pursue a course of self-treatment as opposed to seeking medical treatment, due to the financial and other restraints. Thus the dangers of any contagious disease will be detected late and proliferate its spread.

[oldlakey]

1 minute ago, rockingrobin said:

Nobody suggested that NI or tax is hypothecated for the NHS.

To claim that they will not be paying twice is obviously false.

By providing barriers and disincentives to migrants receiving medical treatment is to put the population at risk. A migrant will pursue a course of self-treatment as opposed to seeking medical treatment, due to the financial and other restraints. Thus the dangers of any contagious disease will be detected late and proliferate its spread.

The answer is obvious then is it not

I dont care either way as I am not there

But one way or another somebody has to pay so why not the recipients, now I know that is a bit difficult for some to countenance  

Make them finance their own treatment with insurance, might even be cheaper than what the UK gov intents charging 55555555

As far as paying twice is concerned its nonsense, those who just arrive get one hell of a deal, why do you think there is a queue

Ten years of contributions no less 

 

 

[Cyclone88]

7 hours ago, theoldgit said:

Not so, the processing of UK Visas is not devolved, or indeed is Immigration itself, applicants have to pay the NHS Surcharge wherever they plan to live in the UK.

Not 100% correct

If they plan to live in The Channel Islands there is no NHS Surcharge at all. 

[theoldgit]

Not 100% correct If they plan to live in The Channel Islands there is no NHS Surcharge at all. 

My response was 100% correct, I was responding to a comment about Scotland which is in the UK, not the Channel Islands which aren’t.

[Cyclone88]

5 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

10 minutes ago, Cyclone88 said:

Not 100% correct If they plan to live in The Channel Islands there is no NHS Surcharge at all. 

 

My response was 100% correct, I was responding to a comment about Scotland which is in the UK, not the Channel Islands which aren’t.

agreed. They are independent.

[Jip99]

5 hours ago, baansgr said:

Foreigners should have to have insurance regardless of paying NI. No entitlement whatsoever. 

 

 

 

Yep.

 

Same should apply in Thailand.

[helloagain]

6 hours ago, theoldgit said:

An interesting slant, how do you actually justify people paying for the NHS service twice?
Are suggesting that people, like a previous posters wife who's been living in the UK for a number of years and seems to be paying UK tax and making NI contributions should also pay for NHS treatment for the rest of her life because she's a foreigner?

How about those that have paid all there working life and now choose to live in la la land and are British have no entitlement to free NHS. 

[bobrussell]

There is nothing wrong with an expectation that a newly arrived person should contribute for a time. I agree that there is not really double payment.

Most arrive having contributed nothing to the NHS. Those that work start to contribute via tax and NI but still have put nothing in the pot.

Even at £400 a year this would have to be better value than insurance. 

Private medical insurance in the UK does not cover GP services nor chronic conditions and it is not uncommon for it to cost £100 a month or more.

In her first year my wife probably cost the NHS a £1000 but in the following decade or more has cost little. No NHS surcharge then or now as she is a British citizen. 

Not much sympathy to be had from the majority of the UK population. 

Clearly will not be welcomed by those aiming to settle in the UK.

 

[Jonmarleesco]

Given those British overseas residents who seek NHS treatment whilst in the U.K. are expected to pay a premium of 50% on the cost, despite many having paid full NI, this should come as no surprise.

[Fish Head Soup]

4 hours ago, bobrussell said:

Clearly will not be welcomed by those aiming to settle in the UK.

Not necessarily. My wife has just applied for a settlement visa last month, we paid the IHS (Immigration Health Surcharge) of £200 per year, as her visa would be valid for 2.5 years we paid £500 charged in USD so was getting on for £600 with exchange rates. I think that is a great deal, and actually way too cheap for what you get. If she gets the visa she will have to apply for FLR (Further Leave to Remain) in approx 2.5 years time, my mother who is on the board of a regional NHS trust has told me that by then it is hoped that it will be a minimum of £600 per year which would mean we would have to pay a further £1,500 on application of FLR, still a good deal but on top of the ridiculous visa fees it is quite a chunk of change but when you consider that the NHS is funded by the the equivalent of £2000 per tax payer per year you really can't complain especially if unfortunate enough to need to use the service for any serious illness or accident.

 

All the above said, it's really not migrants from outside the EU who are putting the strain on the NHS, it's all just a smokescreen by the incompetent government to appease the little Englanders who like to blame all their failings on immigrants.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Fish Head Soup

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, theoldgit said:

An interesting slant, how do you actually justify people paying for the NHS service twice?
Are suggesting that people, like a previous posters wife who's been living in the UK for a number of years and seems to be paying UK tax and making NI contributions should also pay for NHS treatment for the rest of her life because she's a foreigner?

Full of inequities. A person who retires overseas and then returns (for a visit or short term) to the UK should then have immediate access to NHS services rather than being excluded..

A qualifying period of NHS payments may be the solution, with interim insurance obligation. Or a complete block on immigration.

[theoldgit]

8 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Given those British overseas residents who seek NHS treatment whilst in the U.K. are expected to pay a premium of 50% on the cost, despite many having paid full NI, this should come as no surprise.

Indeed, also totally wrong but again it's because they are easy targets, and HMG are fully aware that there would probably be aware that there would be no backlash from many of the population who believe that those British Citizens living overseas should have no access to the NHS and neither should them immigrants.
You're probably aware that the NHS is funded from general taxation, not NI, and many of these expats still pay UK tax, so contributing to the running of the NHS.

[theoldgit]

10 hours ago, bobrussell said:

There is nothing wrong with an expectation that a newly arrived person should contribute for a time. I agree that there is not really double payment.

Most arrive having contributed nothing to the NHS. Those that work start to contribute via tax and NI but still have put nothing in the pot.

Even at £400 a year this would have to be better value than insurance. 

Private medical insurance in the UK does not cover GP services nor chronic conditions and it is not uncommon for it to cost £100 a month or more.

In her first year my wife probably cost the NHS a £1000 but in the following decade or more has cost little. No NHS surcharge then or now as she is a British citizen. 

Not much sympathy to be had from the majority of the UK population. 

Clearly will not be welcomed by those aiming to settle in the UK.

 

I'm sorry Bob, but of course they could be paying twice, if they are working and paying tax, thus contributing to the running of the NHS having already paid into the system, how could they not be?

I do agree that everyone in the UK should contribute to the running of the NHS, but this one size fits all approach is wrong.
I also agree, and have never said otherwise, that the £200 charge is a bargain, as is £400, but it's the one size fits all approach that I don't agree with, and of course if you have insurance you still have to pay the surcharge.

I'm aware that the UKBA have been trying to persuade HMG to introduce a condition that travel insurance be purchased before a UK visa is issued, as they do in the Schengen Area. HMG haven't supported this as it would only affect visa nationals, not the many other nationalities that enter the UK.  

[ferguston]

Maybe so. Immigration isn't devolved but the Health Service is so any migrant choosing to reside in Scotland has a point to argue on regarding any increased charge.

 

[bobrussell]

On arrival immigrants have contributed nothing towards the cost of the NHS. I don't see anything wrong in a payment to partly cover the costs early in the settlement process. 

Some will work and pay tax/NI. Only a proportion of this will go to the NHS.

The 5 year timescale seems quite appropriate to me. Someone earning and paying a lot of tax can, presumably afford it easily. Those on low pay may well be contributing below 'cost'.

I question the amount being paid. I suspect that even at the new figure it is good value albeit an extra unwelcome cost.

Students have been able to use the NHS free of charge until a payment was introduced. In effect a subsidy by the tax payer.

There are still many benefits to settlement in the UK (free schooling for children for example) so as long as the NHS charge is proportionate to the cost I will give it my support. 

It is only for a five year period and it gives unlimited access to NHS services whatever the cost of treatment.

[rockingrobin]

15 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

On arrival immigrants have contributed nothing towards the cost of the NHS. I don't see anything wrong in a payment to partly cover the costs early in the settlement process. 

Some will work and pay tax/NI. Only a proportion of this will go to the NHS.

The 5 year timescale seems quite appropriate to me. Someone earning and paying a lot of tax can, presumably afford it easily. Those on low pay may well be contributing below 'cost'.

I question the amount being paid. I suspect that even at the new figure it is good value albeit an extra unwelcome cost.

Students have been able to use the NHS free of charge until a payment was introduced. In effect a subsidy by the tax payer.

There are still many benefits to settlement in the UK (free schooling for children for example) so as long as the NHS charge is proportionate to the cost I will give it my support. 

It is only for a five year period and it gives unlimited access to NHS services whatever the cost of treatment.

This fairness argument fails to evaluate that although the British citizen would have paid into the NHS longer than the immigrant, they have also benefitted longer.

The actual ratio of payment to benefited ratio  will be larger for the British citizen because they will have received the benefit of NHS throughout childhood and student life 

[theoldgit]

Post with offensive comments removed.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect