New costs announced for visitor and migrant visa's

[Jay Sata]

The new charges or fees being discussed by the government are to cover healthcare.

You appear to suggest this should be free from the point of arrival for migrants who have never paid in to the system.

£1,000 is a small sum of money these days and as I've pointed out spread over five years amounts to just over £16.00 a week.

Are you trying to tell me that is expensive?

If you have a car, house or contents insurance it's costing more than that.

[7by7]

Jay Sata:

The government already make a profit (at 2012/13 rates, it'll be higher now) of at least £1424 per spouse or partner (plus extra if any children are involved) from visa and LTR fees for family migrants.

These profits don't go toward improving the service of the UKBA (or whatever they're called since the latest name change), much as that service needs it. The money goes into the general exchequer.

Plus the tax their British sponsor has been paying.

Plus any tax they themselves may pay once in the UK and working.

It's not a question of how much the charge is; it's a question of what's right and fair.

You think the government making vast profits from family migration is fair; I don't.

[7by7]

You may say that they (family migrants) have not made a contribution.

Follow that logic and you'd deny NHS care to British children because they'd never made a contribution!

NHS care for children is paid for through the taxes of their parents; so should NHS care for family migrants. Especially as the family migrant themselves will often be working and paying tax once in the UK.

You seem to have missed this; any comment?

[theoldgit]

One off topic removed already, please keep on topic and no more sniping please.

[Jay Sata]

I notice you have not answered the question is £16.00 a week too much?

Professor J Meirion Thomas, a senior consultant in the NHS, makes some interesting points in today's Daily Mail.

Ineligible patients is that British taxpayers are kept on waiting lists and drugs are denied them, while the emergency treatment of overseas visitors takes precedence.

He says the proposed new health care levy of £200 a year for foreigners will rank as the cheapest travel insurance ever devised, especially if it covers family and dependants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2355152/Professor-J-Meirion-Thomas-A-200-wont-stop-foreigners-abusing-NHS-But-I-know-.html

[7by7]

Ought to charge GBP 1,000/year for the first 5 years until they can show they are regular tax payers. And if not, kick them out.

Does that apply to your spouse/partner as well?

If this proposal becomes law; you and your spouse or partner will be included should you ever decide to return to the UK to live.

Unless you are already living in UK together and they already have ILR.

[7by7]

I notice you have not answered the question is £16.00 a week too much?

It's not a question of how much the charge is; it's a question of what's right and fair.

[Jay Sata]

You may say that they (family migrants) have not made a contribution.

Follow that logic and you'd deny NHS care to British children because they'd never made a contribution!

NHS care for children is paid for through the taxes of their parents; so should NHS care for family migrants. Especially as the family migrant themselves will often be working and paying tax once in the UK.

You seem to have missed this; any comment?

My children's health care and schooling was funded by my taxes prior to them being born.

In other words I paid in to the system for many years prior and that's the case with anyone in the UK having children.

You appear to resent paying what I say again is a very small sum for visas and healthcare.

As for claims the Border Agency is making a profit I'd like to know how?

All visa fees go in to the same pot that funds the organisation.

Your argument extended to the motoring costs would prevent fuel duty and car tax being used to support the NHS.

[7by7]

Yes, your children's health care was funded by the taxes you paid before they were born.

Just as my wife's healthcare was funded by the taxes I paid before she arrived in the UK; and the taxes she has paid since.

Whether the UKBA as a whole makes a profit, I don't know and I doubt that such figures are available; although you're welcome to look for them. But visa and LTR applications make vast profits!

These profits go to the exchequer, and the UKBA is funded from the exchequer.

Your argument about fuel duty and car tax would only be relevant if all motorists were being forced to pay an extra £1000 on top to cover their healthcare!

Edited July 4, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

You appear to look at the issue a bit like a buffet where you can take out the portions you like and leave the rest.

Migrant visa fees and a minimum income level of £18,600 are intended to curb immigration to the UK.

I'm not sure if you read the newspapers but it a hot topic at the moment.

If your suggested schemes were introduced we'd see a large spike in the level of migration from India and Pakistan.

The government are trying to address the problem by allowing those of use who marry someone from outside the EU to bring them here if we prove we can support them.

The Government’s Migration Advisory Committee has stated the potential for migrants to displace non-migrant labour.

MAC found that for every 100 non-EU workers employed in the UK, the number of UK workers fell by 23.

Are you saying that £16.00 a week would be the clincher in not coming to the UK?

Just as my wife's healthcare was funded by the taxes I paid before she arrived in the UK; and the taxes she has paid since.

Your wifes healthcare was not funded by the taxes you paid before she arrived and neither was mine.

My ex wife was born in the UK and worked and paid taxes before we got married. She had paid in to the system for a decade before we met and married.

My current wife has never worked or paid in to the system in the last 13 years but was entitled to healthcare on the day she arrived.

We are not just talking here about those of us with Thai partners but all of those from outside the EU.

Here is a bit of government research for you.

In a single year, 73 per cent of TB cases reported in the UK, almost 60 per cent of newly diagnosed cases of HIV, and 80 per cent of hepatitis B-infected UK blood donors were from those who were born outside of the UK.

.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Jay Sata

[7by7]

Your above post bears absolutely no relationship to anything that I have posted on the subject of the new financial requirement.

Maybe you should read what I have posted again.

I have always said that family migrants should be supported by their sponsor (or others), not by the state.

The old rules ensured this, there was no need to change.

My "suggested schemes" are nothing more than reverting back to the old system. Doing so would not see a "huge spike" in immigration from anywhere.

Your comment about migrants from India and Pakistan show where you true agenda lies!

As I said, it's not the amount, it's the principle.

It is also not £16 per week, it's £1000 per applicant in one lump sum; on top of an application fee of £851 per person.

If I had had to find £3702 in one go for my wife and step daughter to come to the UK and live with me then, to be honest, they wouldn't be here!

As I said, if this government has it's way then only the rich will soon be able to bring their non EEA national family to live with them in the UK.

You obviously don't have a problem with that; I do.

[7by7]

Bit unfair; editing a post after it's been replied to!

If my wife's healthcare was not funded out of the taxes I paid before she arrived, then the same applies to your children; i.e. their healthcare was not funded out of the taxes you paid before they were born.

Can't have it both ways.

Your, uncredited I notice, figures are a strong argument for increasing the number of countries where, like Thailand, visa applicant's who wish to come to the UK for more than 6 months have to have a TB test, and also introducing HIV tests as well.

It's not an argument for this extra fee; unless you can show how many of those concerned had received treatment before they had ILR.

[Jay Sata]

I can't and don't want to comment on your circumstances 7by7 but £3702 to be with a wife and daughter is a bargain in my opinion.

That's only £71 a week and can easily be funded by a spouse taking a small part time job if they wanted.

I've got now gripe with India or Pakistan but the fact is that is where the bulk of family migrants come from.

Speaking yesterday Mark Harper said net migration is now down 163,000 a year.

‘If we do not implement the proper controls, communities can be damaged, resources will be stretched and the benefits that immigration can bring are lost or forgotten.’

You appear to want to use your personal circumstances as a yardstick for visa fees and the proposed medical levy.

[Jay Sata]

I edited because we crossed posts

[Jay Sata]

If my wife's healthcare was not funded out of the taxes I paid before she arrived, then the same applies to your children; i.e. their healthcare was not funded out of the taxes you paid before they were born.

Can't have it both ways.

You missed the point. My ex wife paid tax and NHS contributions prior to the children's birth. As UK citizens we were entitled to free medical care.

A new migrant is not a UK citizen.

The proposed fee of £1000 covers the first five years of a migrants stay prior to becoming a UK citizen.

[sustento]

I notice you have not answered the question is £16.00 a week too much?

Professor J Meirion Thomas, a senior consultant in the NHS, makes some interesting points in today's Daily Mail.

Ineligible patients is that British taxpayers are kept on waiting lists and drugs are denied them, while the emergency treatment of overseas visitors takes precedence.

He says the proposed new health care levy of £200 a year for foreigners will rank as the cheapest travel insurance ever devised, especially if it covers family and dependants.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2355152/Professor-J-Meirion-Thomas-A-200-wont-stop-foreigners-abusing-NHS-But-I-know-.html

£200 a year is actually ~£4 a week.

[Jay Sata]

My mistake I meant £16.00 a month.

In any case it's the price of a pint of beer or less than a pack of cigarettes.

[bobrussell]

There was an estimate on the radio that suggested the amount coming in from a £200 per year charge would cover the NHS running for 20 minutes. This does not take into account the costs of checking eligibility and all the paperwork involved.

This is another 'Daily Mail' special aimed at getting or keeping votes!

There is a real danger that it will cost more to administer than it will collect.

I would be a little more accepting if I was confident the money would be directed straight to the NHS. This only happened on paper when NI levels were raised and I would confidently predict that any income from this levy will be matched by a drop (or 'savings') elsewhere!

Tough on a small group of individuals and probably quite pointless in the grand scheme of things!

[BuriramRes]

You can rubbish the NHS as much as you like until you need it. I wonder how you will cope if you need some serious medical attention in Burriram?

In the UK you are carefully removed from a crashed car by a team of experts and transported by ambulance or helicopter in minutes. In Thailand a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs pull you from the wreck and throw you in the back of an old pick-up.

A friends Thai wife (long term resident and UK citizen) suffered bacterial meningitis a couple of years ago. She spent two weeks in intensive care and several weeks in hospital. Excellent treatment, some of it in a private room, and all free. She reckons she would have died in Thailand.

How do you put a price on that?

I was living for a couple of years in Rye, on the south coast. I went along to the local clinic and because I lived at a house with an odd number in my particular road, I was assigned to this one particular doctor.

I do not go to a doctor very often in AUS but when I do I usually have a list of things to ask the doctor about. I made an appointment & went along to my "assigned" doctor, asked him about the first item on my list & got the wrong answer. I then asked him about the second item & was informed that I had to make a second appointment to ask the second question. I insisted, but it was just like he closed an invisible screen between us.

Two days later I received a letter from the clinic informing me that I had been reassigned to another doctor. That worked out well because the second doctor and I got on really well.

The item that I asked the first so-called doctor was about a small sun cancer that I had on my ankle. He insisted that it was some kind of mold & gave me medicine which was not appropriate. When I returned to AUS I went to a local doctor there, who recognised the spot as a skin cancer & cut the offending tissue out there & then. The oncology report came back confirming the diagnosis. I asked for a copy of the report & wrote to this English doctor with a copy of the said report (but of course I did not get a reply).

I guess the whole thing is, in AUS if you do not like a doctor you simply vote with your feet and go to another one whereas in the UK when you are assigned to a turkey of a doctor you are stuck with that doctor. In the UK the clinics have quotas for the amount they can spend for X-rays and other similar proceedures, so if your clinic is running tight on a particular budget, it does not matter if you need it, you simply do not get it.

The good things about the AUS systems are:

(a) You can choose your own doctors (so the really bad ones simply go out of business)

( You are charged $10 per visit (which stops people going to the doctor simply to be weighed or for a social visit (which used to happen)

© An individual doctor can treat you for free if he judges that you do not have much money (called bulk billing) which means he forgoes the standard fee & simply accepts the standard government fee for that proceedure)

Yes, I am not comparing the great NHS with the Thai system, but simply with the AUS system which is far, far superior.

I did have quite a serious accident here in Satuek - cut my ankle to the bone with a power tool. At the time my wife was away having a massage & we had a young lady (18) looking after the baby we had in the house. I called her and when she saw my foot bleeding all over the place she went yelling to the neighbours. In a matter of minutes we had about 12 people there to help including a guy across the street with his rusty old Utility. They bundled me into that & drove me to the local hospital. I actually had a cracked ankle bone & a flesh wound about 4 inches long. They stitched me up, did a half plaster caste & bandaged me up. It took about 3 weeks to heal over which time I had my bandages replaced each day at the hospital and had the stitches removed eventually. Also had two xrays performed. All in all it cost me about 300B.

Better than going to an NHS hospital and coming out with a disease that you didn't have when you went in. A brother of a friend of mine went into the NHS hospital in Hastings to have a colostomy changed, caught a viral infection there and NEVER came out alive. (How do YOU put a price on that?). The reason that this poor gentleman was so sick is that when he was younger (20) he had bacterial meningitus which was not diagnosed by the NHS and lived many years as an invalid because of that.

Edited July 4, 2013 by BuriramRes

[Jay Sata]

Probably better Bob to have a system whereby the visa validity was linked to a medical insurance policy in the same way car insurance is required to make driving a vehicle legal. However I suspect a commercial medical policy for a migrant will cost more than £200.

[7by7]

Jay Sata;

Again you are missing my points.

You and your ex wife may have paid taxes, but your children hadn't. The logic which says family migrants should pay this charge, or any other form of payment for NHS treatment, because they haven't paid taxes applies equally to children!

It is flawed.

No price would have been too high for me to live with my wife and step daughter, if I could have afforded it. But it would not have been a weekly or monthly amount spread over a period; it would have been, and will be if this proposal becomes law, £3702 in one lump sum!

You may be lucky enough to have that amount of money readily available; many, including me, don't.

If I've not already done so, I should make it clear that I have no objection to such a measure being applied to visitors and temporary migrants such as those entering via the PBS. Although I do agree that compulsory health insurance would be a better idea than this proposal which will almost certainly cost more to administer than it will raise!

What I am saying is it should not apply to family migrants. who already contribute via the profits made on their visa and LTR fees as well as the tax they pay once they are working in the UK. (I am aware that some don't work; but many, probably the majority, based upon those I know of, do. At least until they start a family.)

[7by7]

Another point, many hospitals actively recruit nursing and other staff from abroad as there is a shortfall of suitably qualified people in the UK; many nurses working in my local hospital are from the Philippines.

How many will want to come to work in the NHS when they are told that they have to pay a further £1000 on top of their visa fee?

[sustento]

You can rubbish the NHS as much as you like until you need it. I wonder how you will cope if you need some serious medical attention in Burriram?

In the UK you are carefully removed from a crashed car by a team of experts and transported by ambulance or helicopter in minutes. In Thailand a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs pull you from the wreck and throw you in the back of an old pick-up.

A friends Thai wife (long term resident and UK citizen) suffered bacterial meningitis a couple of years ago. She spent two weeks in intensive care and several weeks in hospital. Excellent treatment, some of it in a private room, and all free. She reckons she would have died in Thailand.

How do you put a price on that?

I was living for a couple of years in Rye, on the south coast. I went along to the local clinic and because I lived at a house with an odd number in my particular road, I was assigned to this one particular doctor.

I do not go to a doctor very often in AUS but when I do I usually have a list of things to ask the doctor about. I made an appointment & went along to my "assigned" doctor, asked him about the first item on my list & got the wrong answer. I then asked him about the second item & was informed that I had to make a second appointment to ask the second question. I insisted, but it was just like he closed an invisible screen between us.

Two days later I received a letter from the clinic informing me that I had been reassigned to another doctor. That worked out well because the second doctor and I got on really well.

The item that I asked the first so-called doctor was about a small sun cancer that I had on my ankle. He insisted that it was some kind of mold & gave me medicine which was not appropriate. When I returned to AUS I went to a local doctor there, who recognised the spot as a skin cancer & cut the offending tissue out there & then. The oncology report came back confirming the diagnosis. I asked for a copy of the report & wrote to this English doctor with a copy of the said report (but of course I did not get a reply).

I guess the whole thing is, in AUS if you do not like a doctor you simply vote with your feet and go to another one whereas in the UK when you are assigned to a turkey of a doctor you are stuck with that doctor. In the UK the clinics have quotas for the amount they can spend for X-rays and other similar proceedures, so if your clinic is running tight on a particular budget, it does not matter if you need it, you simply do not get it.

The good things about the AUS systems are:

(a) You can choose your own doctors (so the really bad ones simply go out of business)

( You are charged $10 per visit (which stops people going to the doctor simply to be weighed or for a social visit (which used to happen)

© An individual doctor can treat you for free if he judges that you do not have much money (called bulk billing) which means he forgoes the standard fee & simply accepts the standard government fee for that proceedure)

Yes, I am not comparing the great NHS with the Thai system, but simply with the AUS system which is far, far superior.

I did have quite a serious accident here in Satuek - cut my ankle to the bone with a power tool. At the time my wife was away having a massage & we had a young lady (18) looking after the baby we had in the house. I called her and when she saw my foot bleeding all over the place she went yelling to the neighbours. In a matter of minutes we had about 12 people there to help including a guy across the street with his rusty old Utility. They bundled me into that & drove me to the local hospital. I actually had a cracked ankle bone & a flesh wound about 4 inches long. They stitched me up, did a half plaster caste & bandaged me up. It took about 3 weeks to heal over which time I had my bandages replaced each day at the hospital and had the stitches removed eventually. Also had two xrays performed. All in all it cost me about 300B.

Better than going to an NHS hospital and coming out with a disease that you didn't have when you went in. A brother of a friend of mine went into the NHS hospital in Hastings to have a colostomy changed, caught a viral infection there and NEVER came out alive. (How do YOU put a price on that?). The reason that this poor gentleman was so sick is that when he was younger (20) he had bacterial meningitus which was not diagnosed by the NHS and lived many years as an invalid because of that.

Things have changed a very great deal in the NHS in the past 13 years.

[Jay Sata]

Another point, many hospitals actively recruit nursing and other staff from abroad as there is a shortfall of suitably qualified people in the UK; many nurses working in my local hospital are from the Philippines.

How many will want to come to work in the NHS when they are told that they have to pay a further £1000 on top of their visa fee?

The answer is plenty. The money they earn in the UK is a fortune compares to that back home.

They are great nurses and the reason they are recruited is the ability to speak English.

Wonderful people doing a great job.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Jay Sata

[Jay Sata]

Jay Sata;

Again you are missing my points.

You and your ex wife may have paid taxes, but your children hadn't. The logic which says family migrants should pay this charge, or any other form of payment for NHS treatment, because they haven't paid taxes applies equally to children!

How can children pay taxes at the point of birth?

We were entitled to free maternity care because we were both British citizens.

A newly landed migrant is not. You appear to suggest some sort of reverse accounting whereby your past taxes fund your new scenario.

As you know it doesn't work like that hence the need for visas etc for a foreign non EU spouse.

You keep referring to profits the UKBA makes on spouse visa's.

How to you arrive at the profit? It's a charge imposed just like vat and tax imposed on fuel when I fill my car.

Are you suggesting HM Revenue and Customs should not make a profit.

If so I'm behind you there

[MAJIC]

About time too and 1000 GBP is nowhere near enough.

I think that 1,000 pounds is a real rip-off since it is such a crap service. Also remember that if the person is working then they will have the same charges deducted from their wages. When I was working in the UK (1996-2000) I was being ripped off at the rate of 800 pounds per month for their no choice so called excellent health care.

"I was being ripped off at the rate of 800 pounds per month for their no choice so called exellent health care.

Can you explain that statement in more detail?

[7by7]

Jay Sata;

Yes, your children were entitled to free NHS care because they were the children of British citizens.

Should not the spouse/partner of a British citizen who has come to live in the UK with that spouse/partner also be entitled?

I believe so, you don't.

No amount of argument will convince me otherwise, and I suspect you are the same.

I have already shown you how the government makes a profit from visa and LTR fees; and how much.

Visa and LTR applications have a cost element involved; the cost of processing the application.

Fee minus cost equals profit.

Simple!

Completely different to VAT etc. which are taxes imposed by the government on top of the price charged by the supplier/retailer; not a fee for using a government service.

Edited to make it clear to whom I am replying.

Edited July 4, 2013 by 7by7

[Jay Sata]

Jay Sata;

Yes, your children were entitled to free NHS care because they were the children of British citizens.

Should not the spouse/partner of a British citizen who has come to live in the UK with that spouse/partner also be entitled?

I believe so, you don't.

The government are not saying they can't have access to the NHS...just asking for a reasonable fee. You may be married to them but they are not UK citizens and so have to meet other rules.

Edited July 4, 2013 by theoldgit
Off topic remark deleted

[7by7]

The proposal says that immigrants can have free access once they have ILR; nothing about restricting access to British citizens only. Have you read the proposal you yourself linked to when you started this topic?

Edited July 4, 2013 by theoldgit
Response to off topic remark

[Jay Sata]

The proposal says that immigrants can have free access once they have ILR; nothing about restricting access to British citizens only. Have you read the proposal you yourself linked to when you started this topic?

They could decide to reside in the spouses country and many do.

The money paid in fees to the Border Agency help fund the whole operation.

Who do you think pays the immigration officer at the airport?

I missed the part about free access on ILR so it's not all bad news.

In fact the free access to the NHS mitigates the money paid for visas.