Possible changes to expat Brits' access to the NHS

[watso63]

This article is very misleading. It tries to oversimplify the situation for British citizens who stay outside the UK, most of which have never immigrated to Thailand (hence NON-Immigrant status) and as such have never emigrated from the UK.

I have lived in Thailand (on NON-immigrant visas) for 13 years, last year I took a short trip to the UK and needed some treatment whilst I was there.. I had to fight for my rights, but in the end the hospital treated me, as was my right.

True Brits staying in Thailand who are not truly resident in Thailand (99% of us) NEVER lose their right to NHS treatment the moment they set foot on british soil, it's just that there is a lot of bad advice offered to them, and they shoot themselves in the foot of they think they reside here, when they do not.

IMO O think you are wrong.

As an expat spending more than 6 months out of the country (the article talks of 3 but I thought it was 6) you do not have an 'entitlement' and the NHS would be within their rights to charge for their services.

However, as uptheos (and others) have pointed out, you will not be denied treatment it.

There is nothing misleading about the article at all it sets out clearly what the requirements are i.e. 7 years NICs.

As an Australian citizen, i find it very difficult to understand this. If one has a Brit passport and has spent most of his/her life in the UK why should they have to pay for treatment. At the same time i read and hear of Europeans just walking into the UK and having all kinds of treatment and hospitalisation completely free. Is this true ?

I cannot believe that any country would treat its nationals so disgustingly.

Then believe...nice to hear from a well mannered Australian person not accusing the British of being a bunch of whining Poms :-)

By the way, the eastern european (mostly) gravy train doesn't just stop there. If you're interested (and it really is interesting) check out UKIP online. Watch the youtube videos of their leader Nigel Farage. Some real gems. Up to you what you make of it all. Enjoy.

Sent from my GT-N5100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 26, 2014 by watso63

[watso63]

People who have paid contributions should always be entitled to care from the NHS when they are in the UK whether as a resident or a visitor. I even think that the NHS should have some responsibility for your health care while you are abroad. I would have loved to retire to Thailand (having contributed to the NHS all my working life) but I have haemophilia which means keeping a stock of expensive blood products for self administration, when every I get a bleed. There should in my view be a way for me to obtain those supplies even whilst out of the country. Health insurance is not an option for anything other than short holidays because they are allowed to exclude pre-existing health conditions and even if they were to accept the risk the premiums would be unaffordable.

Of course you are right. Medical care in Thailand is a lot more cost effective than in the UK. We would be/and are (all expats living in relatively poorer countries) saving the UK vast amounts of money by fending for ourselves whilst we look on from afar, our country of birth going down the toilet.

Sent from my GT-N5100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 26, 2014 by watso63

[attento]

I see loop holes in this statement and my trust in the British government is at an all time low.In my home town they can not afford to keep the street lights on of evening and dont get me started on the audit of the disabled under the guise of benefit reform.It seems every time we get a statement proclaiming a new policy for the benefit of the people its because they have a doozzy of a reform just around the corner, give with one hand and take with the other.

I hope I am wrong but as always i will remain a cynic.

Is the British government responsible for street lighting in your town?

In most parts of the UK, that responsibility remains with the Local Authority.

Edited April 26, 2014 by attento

[personchester]

One wonders why passport applications can not be made via postage anymore in Thailand, it still exists in nearby S.E Asia border countries, thus the question is ... why, why ...

Probably as a result of large numbers of fraudulent attempts to obtain replacement UK passports in Thailand, and the large number of UK passports that are stolen here. Thailand is reputed to be a hub for stolen and falsified documents of all types.

I got my passport replaced during a brief visit to the UK last year. This cost me less than it would have cost to do it here and it was very quick (same day). Remaining validity of your old passport up to 9 months is added to the new one, so the system is suitable for anyone who goes to the UK once a year (as many UK expats do).

If fraudulent passport attempts are taking place in Thailand then it should of course be avoided .

The UK Embassy in Bangkok should therefore sent every two month officials of their passport section to the UK Consulate in Chiang Mai in order to deal with passport renewal, thus to avoid the long an costly travel of the northern Brits to Bangkok.

In addition, many retired Brits are of old age now, and the "four" long travels to Bangkok will be difficult for them, and due to the frozen state pension they can not really afford the expensive travel to Bangkok.

This would be the right solution to deal with the potential fraudulent passport attempts.

[NoshowJones]

This article is very misleading. It tries to oversimplify the situation for British citizens who stay outside the UK, most of which have never immigrated to Thailand (hence NON-Immigrant status) and as such have never emigrated from the UK.

I have lived in Thailand (on NON-immigrant visas) for 13 years, last year I took a short trip to the UK and needed some treatment whilst I was there.. I had to fight for my rights, but in the end the hospital treated me, as was my right.

True Brits staying in Thailand who are not truly resident in Thailand (99% of us) NEVER lose their right to NHS treatment the moment they set foot on british soil, it's just that there is a lot of bad advice offered to them, and they shoot themselves in the foot of they think they reside here, when they do not.

IMO O think you are wrong.

As an expat spending more than 6 months out of the country (the article talks of 3 but I thought it was 6) you do not have an 'entitlement' and the NHS would be within their rights to charge for their services.

However, as uptheos (and others) have pointed out, you will not be denied treatment it.

There is nothing misleading about the article at all it sets out clearly what the requirements are i.e. 7 years NICs.

Forget NHS rules, they mean nothing. Look up the legislation instead, I had to print a copy and take it to the hospital, after 4 hours and a lot of crap from the receptionist they admitted I was correct and I got an apology.

No matter how long you are away, if you are a true brit (not a recent import) and you have not taken up legal residency in another country (as 99% of brits here have not) then 100% of your rights are reinstated the moment you set foot on british soil (you have to state that it's your intention to stay, no evidence of this intent may be requested).

Yes, but saying you were home for good as under the existing rules could only be (strictly speaking) used ONCE. If you have to show your passport when turning up for a hospital appt - which i was for a heart-scan at Papworth - then signs that you left the UK again for a period AFTER you'd said you were home for good would cause problems. That's why the word VISITING (the UK) is at the heart of this proposed change.

As far as I believe, the hospital, the DWP etc, do not have the authority to ask for your passport.

[Maroon Watcher]

...just like "they" do -

"Why do you want to live in Britain?"

"...er", "..."er", "errrrrr?"

When they ask you where you live, just lie, simple.

[Joe Bloggs]

There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)

On the other hand in the case of some Benefits the geographical area for being able to receive them now ends at the 12 mile limit! I know this for a fact as a friend was in receipt of an additional pension for an Industrial Injury. The man worked for a Quango and his employer gave him a tall pair of step-ladders so that he could replace a dud light bulb. When the man was up the ladder one of the rungs gave way and he fell and injured his back. It turned out that pop-rivets that held the rung onto the ladder had failed and even worse was the fact that the ladder was a DIY model that was not legal to use for trade.

The man had the wit to sign the Accident Book before getting in to the ambulance and eventually he was given a pension or Incapacity Benefit of £18 per week. Allegedly he had a letter informing him that the benefit was for life and that it would be payable worldwide. Later there was some down-sizing and there were redundancy offers so he took early retirement and bought a boat. The boat became his new home and he sailed away to the sunshine!

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard) Now in spite of the UK being a member of the European Union and in spite of having signed up for Free Movement it is ILLEGAL to sail a boat beyond the 12 mile limit unless one notifies the authorities. It would appear that the systems real use is the cutting-off of people's benefits which are based on residence. In this case as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile limit the man's £18 per week was cut off! Unfortunately he lost the letter which guaranteed the benefit for life. As he said "Its not as if my bad-back got better as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile line."

Take Care!

[sustento]

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard)

The UK Border Agency were part of the Home Office and were responsible for immigration and customs. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency are part of the Department for Transport and are responsible for civilian maritime search and rescue. Neither of them have any connection or communicate in any way with the Department of Work and Pensions.

[micky1965]

what a load of ball , not read all of the post's but i will tell you my story ..Been living away most of my life i went home walked into a hospital in Oxford never lived there in my life just read it was the best hospital for my condition no questions asked straight to the surgery ward 3 weeks later out of hospital after a 12 hour operation .... Told the surgeon i lived out of the country no problem just said if i have any problems just email him which i have done and he reply's same day ......

[Retiredandhappyhere]

If "fairness" is the issue here, based on the fact that people have paid full N.I. contributions over a lifetime (or less) of work in the UK, why is it that, although I still have to pay full UK tax on my total income at the age of 73, I am denied the annual increases to my State Pension, which I would get were I to live in any one of the EEC countries, simply because I now choose to live in retirement in Thailand.

How am i expected to manage on a fixed State Pension, if I live for (say) another 15 years? That would be 23 years with no increase!

A letter to my former constituency MP in the UK and one direct to the Prime Minister's office produced almost identical replies. In answer to my question as to whether the system was FAIR, they both replied that the question had been raised on two occasions with the European Court and on both occasions the Court had ruled that the UK Government "WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW". So that's all right then? It had never occurred to me that they might be breaking a law which they themselves had made, but I had asked if it was FAIR and not if it was LEGAL.

Is there any chance that this too will be reviewed during my lifetime? I hope they hurry up because I am not feeling too good.

[Jip99]

If "fairness" is the issue here, based on the fact that people have paid full N.I. contributions over a lifetime (or less) of work in the UK, why is it that, although I still have to pay full UK tax on my total income at the age of 73, I am denied the annual increases to my State Pension, which I would get were I to live in any one of the EEC countries, simply because I now choose to live in retirement in Thailand.

How am i expected to manage on a fixed State Pension, if I live for (say) another 15 years? That would be 23 years with no increase!

A letter to my former constituency MP in the UK and one direct to the Prime Minister's office produced almost identical replies. In answer to my question as to whether the system was FAIR, they both replied that the question had been raised on two occasions with the European Court and on both occasions the Court had ruled that the UK Government "WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW". So that's all right then? It had never occurred to me that they might be breaking a law which they themselves had made, but I had asked if it was FAIR and not if it was LEGAL.

Is there any chance that this too will be reviewed during my lifetime? I hope they hurry up because I am not feeling too good.

This is worthy of the "UK Pensions" thread - perhaps you could cut and paste this into there.

[In Search of Space]

A friend returned to UK last summer for cancer treatment, at first it was touch-&-go whether NHS would accept him, but luckily after a short period he was OK. I continue to pay minimum contributions and intend to pay in a bit more, just to be on the safe side.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Thank you Jip 99 for your suggestion. I am new here and do not know how to access the "UK Pensions" thread. Can you enlighten me please?

[Travelman868]

I see loop holes in this statement and my trust in the British government is at an all time low.In my home town they can not afford to keep the street lights on of evening and dont get me started on the audit of the disabled under the guise of benefit reform.It seems every time we get a statement proclaiming a new policy for the benefit of the people its because they have a doozzy of a reform just around the corner, give with one hand and take with the other.

I hope I am wrong but as always i will remain a cynic.

You can't go around carrying chips on your shoulder all the time.

I am happy to put cynicism on one side and applaud this announcement. I am equally happy to believe that it will come to fruition - it has passed far enough through the system.

As well as offering a rightful option for British expats, I also hope it means that free treatment is denied to immigrants until they have 'qualified'.

It's worth remembering that some of us still pay UK tax as well as having paid into the system for 40 years.

The problem with the NHS is that it has to provide free treatment if you turn up at casualty.

[Travelman868]

If "fairness" is the issue here, based on the fact that people have paid full N.I. contributions over a lifetime (or less) of work in the UK, why is it that, although I still have to pay full UK tax on my total income at the age of 73, I am denied the annual increases to my State Pension, which I would get were I to live in any one of the EEC countries, simply because I now choose to live in retirement in Thailand.

How am i expected to manage on a fixed State Pension, if I live for (say) another 15 years? That would be 23 years with no increase!

A letter to my former constituency MP in the UK and one direct to the Prime Minister's office produced almost identical replies. In answer to my question as to whether the system was FAIR, they both replied that the question had been raised on two occasions with the European Court and on both occasions the Court had ruled that the UK Government "WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW". So that's all right then? It had never occurred to me that they might be breaking a law which they themselves had made, but I had asked if it was FAIR and not if it was LEGAL.

Is there any chance that this too will be reviewed during my lifetime? I hope they hurry up because I am not feeling too good.

You could go back to the UK every 10 years and stay for 6 months. Tell the pension dept and they should put you on the current rate, then go back

to Thailand

[evadgib]

Thank you Jip 99 for your suggestion. I am new here and do not know how to access the "UK Pensions" thread. Can you enlighten me please?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/540525-uk-pensions/page-58

HTH

Edited April 27, 2014 by evadgib

[sprq]

If "fairness" is the issue here, based on the fact that people have paid full N.I. contributions over a lifetime (or less) of work in the UK, why is it that, although I still have to pay full UK tax on my total income at the age of 73, I am denied the annual increases to my State Pension, which I would get were I to live in any one of the EEC countries, simply because I now choose to live in retirement in Thailand.

How am i expected to manage on a fixed State Pension, if I live for (say) another 15 years? That would be 23 years with no increase!

A letter to my former constituency MP in the UK and one direct to the Prime Minister's office produced almost identical replies. In answer to my question as to whether the system was FAIR, they both replied that the question had been raised on two occasions with the European Court and on both occasions the Court had ruled that the UK Government "WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW". So that's all right then? It had never occurred to me that they might be breaking a law which they themselves had made, but I had asked if it was FAIR and not if it was LEGAL.

Is there any chance that this too will be reviewed during my lifetime? I hope they hurry up because I am not feeling too good.

You could go back to the UK every 10 years and stay for 6 months. Tell the pension dept and they should put you on the current rate, then go back

to Thailand

Tell us more, that's very interesting. Have you any concrete evidence of this happening, any personal examples? Or any links to the relevant ruling on the govt website?

[attento]

There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)

On the other hand in the case of some Benefits the geographical area for being able to receive them now ends at the 12 mile limit! I know this for a fact as a friend was in receipt of an additional pension for an Industrial Injury. The man worked for a Quango and his employer gave him a tall pair of step-ladders so that he could replace a dud light bulb. When the man was up the ladder one of the rungs gave way and he fell and injured his back. It turned out that pop-rivets that held the rung onto the ladder had failed and even worse was the fact that the ladder was a DIY model that was not legal to use for trade.

The man had the wit to sign the Accident Book before getting in to the ambulance and eventually he was given a pension or Incapacity Benefit of £18 per week. Allegedly he had a letter informing him that the benefit was for life and that it would be payable worldwide. Later there was some down-sizing and there were redundancy offers so he took early retirement and bought a boat. The boat became his new home and he sailed away to the sunshine!

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard) Now in spite of the UK being a member of the European Union and in spite of having signed up for Free Movement it is ILLEGAL to sail a boat beyond the 12 mile limit unless one notifies the authorities. It would appear that the systems real use is the cutting-off of people's benefits which are based on residence. In this case as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile limit the man's £18 per week was cut off! Unfortunately he lost the letter which guaranteed the benefit for life. As he said "Its not as if my bad-back got better as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile line."

Take Care!

although I am not familiar with the Law in most countries, I do believe that Customs and/or Coastguard (or whatever the local equivalent) do require authorisation of/from any person leaving or arriving in a country from a 2nd country. I am sure the USA or Australia, for example, don't welcome unannounced seaborne comings and goings. Is not often you get to pass through an airport on an international trip without going through a Customs check. Why should a seaborne departure be any different ? The UK, although a member of the EU, is not a signatory to the Schengen Agreement which allows for unchecked movement between Schengen member states. The UK retains it's border controls ( for the time being ).

However, the treatment of your friend and his pension entitlement is grossly unfair.

(BTW, it is "UK Border Agency". "Control" is implicit but not written )

Edited April 27, 2014 by attento

[sustento]

There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)

On the other hand in the case of some Benefits the geographical area for being able to receive them now ends at the 12 mile limit! I know this for a fact as a friend was in receipt of an additional pension for an Industrial Injury. The man worked for a Quango and his employer gave him a tall pair of step-ladders so that he could replace a dud light bulb. When the man was up the ladder one of the rungs gave way and he fell and injured his back. It turned out that pop-rivets that held the rung onto the ladder had failed and even worse was the fact that the ladder was a DIY model that was not legal to use for trade.

The man had the wit to sign the Accident Book before getting in to the ambulance and eventually he was given a pension or Incapacity Benefit of £18 per week. Allegedly he had a letter informing him that the benefit was for life and that it would be payable worldwide. Later there was some down-sizing and there were redundancy offers so he took early retirement and bought a boat. The boat became his new home and he sailed away to the sunshine!

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard) Now in spite of the UK being a member of the European Union and in spite of having signed up for Free Movement it is ILLEGAL to sail a boat beyond the 12 mile limit unless one notifies the authorities. It would appear that the systems real use is the cutting-off of people's benefits which are based on residence. In this case as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile limit the man's £18 per week was cut off! Unfortunately he lost the letter which guaranteed the benefit for life. As he said "Its not as if my bad-back got better as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile line."

Take Care!

although I am not familiar with the Law in most countries, I do believe that Customs and/or Coastguard (or whatever the local equivalent) do require authorisation of/from any person leaving or arriving in a country from a 2nd country. I am sure the USA or Australia, for example, don't welcome unannounced seaborne comings and goings. Is not often you get to pass through an airport on an international trip without going through a Customs check. Why should a seaborne departure be any different ? The UK, although a member of the EU, is not a signatory to the Schengen Agreement which allows for unchecked movement between Schengen member states. The UK retains it's border controls ( for the time being ).

However, the treatment of your friend and his pension entitlement is grossly unfair.

(BTW, it is "UK Border Agency". "Control" is implicit but not written )

The coastguard in the UK have nothing at all to do with immigration. There are responsible for the safety of life at sea and civilian maritime search and rescue.

The UK Border Agency was abolished in March last year. It has been replaced by two separate organisations - "UK Visas and Immigration" and "The Border Force".

You can get on a boat in the UK and sail off anywhere you please without having to tell anyone. At the moment there are no embarkation controls for anyone leaving the UK either by sea or air. Arriving is a different matter and you will have all the normal immigration controls to pass through however you arrive.

[sydneyjed]

What happens now if you turn up at AE in the UK for treatment and have not resided in the UK for a number of years?In short you will be treated regardless of your status and not turned away (as I was for a gash on my leg).Illegal immigrants are not turned away I was informed so neither will you is what the nurse told me!!

[Jonmarleesco]

Question is, will the government go the whole hog and place restrictions on immigrants - particularly illegal immigrants - as has also been proposed? And will it eventually concede that pensioners who contributed NI all their lives, but live in the 'wrong' country, are entitled to the annual pension increases?

[Jonmarleesco]

There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)

On the other hand in the case of some Benefits the geographical area for being able to receive them now ends at the 12 mile limit! I know this for a fact as a friend was in receipt of an additional pension for an Industrial Injury. The man worked for a Quango and his employer gave him a tall pair of step-ladders so that he could replace a dud light bulb. When the man was up the ladder one of the rungs gave way and he fell and injured his back. It turned out that pop-rivets that held the rung onto the ladder had failed and even worse was the fact that the ladder was a DIY model that was not legal to use for trade.

The man had the wit to sign the Accident Book before getting in to the ambulance and eventually he was given a pension or Incapacity Benefit of £18 per week. Allegedly he had a letter informing him that the benefit was for life and that it would be payable worldwide. Later there was some down-sizing and there were redundancy offers so he took early retirement and bought a boat. The boat became his new home and he sailed away to the sunshine!

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard) Now in spite of the UK being a member of the European Union and in spite of having signed up for Free Movement it is ILLEGAL to sail a boat beyond the 12 mile limit unless one notifies the authorities. It would appear that the systems real use is the cutting-off of people's benefits which are based on residence. In this case as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile limit the man's £18 per week was cut off! Unfortunately he lost the letter which guaranteed the benefit for life. As he said "Its not as if my bad-back got better as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile line."

Take Care!

although I am not familiar with the Law in most countries, I do believe that Customs and/or Coastguard (or whatever the local equivalent) do require authorisation of/from any person leaving or arriving in a country from a 2nd country. I am sure the USA or Australia, for example, don't welcome unannounced seaborne comings and goings. Is not often you get to pass through an airport on an international trip without going through a Customs check. Why should a seaborne departure be any different ? The UK, although a member of the EU, is not a signatory to the Schengen Agreement which allows for unchecked movement between Schengen member states. The UK retains it's border controls ( for the time being ).

However, the treatment of your friend and his pension entitlement is grossly unfair.

(BTW, it is "UK Border Agency". "Control" is implicit but not written )

The coastguard in the UK have nothing at all to do with immigration. There are responsible for the safety of life at sea and civilian maritime search and rescue.

The UK Border Agency was abolished in March last year. It has been replaced by two separate organisations - "UK Visas and Immigration" and "The Border Force".

You can get on a boat in the UK and sail off anywhere you please without having to tell anyone. At the moment there are no embarkation controls for anyone leaving the UK either by sea or air. Arriving is a different matter and you will have all the normal immigration controls to pass through however you arrive.

Obviously not. Otherwise the UK wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem.

[Jonmarleesco]

There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)

On the other hand in the case of some Benefits the geographical area for being able to receive them now ends at the 12 mile limit! I know this for a fact as a friend was in receipt of an additional pension for an Industrial Injury. The man worked for a Quango and his employer gave him a tall pair of step-ladders so that he could replace a dud light bulb. When the man was up the ladder one of the rungs gave way and he fell and injured his back. It turned out that pop-rivets that held the rung onto the ladder had failed and even worse was the fact that the ladder was a DIY model that was not legal to use for trade.

The man had the wit to sign the Accident Book before getting in to the ambulance and eventually he was given a pension or Incapacity Benefit of £18 per week. Allegedly he had a letter informing him that the benefit was for life and that it would be payable worldwide. Later there was some down-sizing and there were redundancy offers so he took early retirement and bought a boat. The boat became his new home and he sailed away to the sunshine!

Some years ago new laws were introduced in the UK and the UK Border Control Agency came into being. (They are like an extra branch of the coastguard) Now in spite of the UK being a member of the European Union and in spite of having signed up for Free Movement it is ILLEGAL to sail a boat beyond the 12 mile limit unless one notifies the authorities. It would appear that the systems real use is the cutting-off of people's benefits which are based on residence. In this case as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile limit the man's £18 per week was cut off! Unfortunately he lost the letter which guaranteed the benefit for life. As he said "Its not as if my bad-back got better as soon as the boat crossed the 12 mile line."

Take Care!

'There is a bit more to what has been going on than is mentioned here. Hearsay evidence indicates that the UK government is wanting to extend its tax-gathering powers wider and wider (note that Uncle Sam taxes American citizens on their worldwide income and one can surmise that Britannia would like to do the same!)'

No hearsay; fact. The UK government, among numerous others, has introduced - or will be introducing - its own version of FACTA.

[Jonmarleesco]

If "fairness" is the issue here, based on the fact that people have paid full N.I. contributions over a lifetime (or less) of work in the UK, why is it that, although I still have to pay full UK tax on my total income at the age of 73, I am denied the annual increases to my State Pension, which I would get were I to live in any one of the EEC countries, simply because I now choose to live in retirement in Thailand.

How am i expected to manage on a fixed State Pension, if I live for (say) another 15 years? That would be 23 years with no increase!

A letter to my former constituency MP in the UK and one direct to the Prime Minister's office produced almost identical replies. In answer to my question as to whether the system was FAIR, they both replied that the question had been raised on two occasions with the European Court and on both occasions the Court had ruled that the UK Government "WAS NOT BREAKING THE LAW". So that's all right then? It had never occurred to me that they might be breaking a law which they themselves had made, but I had asked if it was FAIR and not if it was LEGAL.

Is there any chance that this too will be reviewed during my lifetime? I hope they hurry up because I am not feeling too good.

As suggested by Jip99, try the pensions thread and I will add something to it.

[Thai at Heart]

Absolutely immoral that it was ever debated to not allow access

Yep, and it was Stephen BYERS in the BLAIR administration who brought it in; and originally it was only THREE months out of the country to get barred from free NHS.

Yes indeed. The ability for politicians to do things that effect expats is basically limitless. Of course, they show the rule as preventing access to the NHS by foreigners but the reality is that it prevents access for expats.

Why they don't go down the road of allowing the pension to increase minus VAT I don't know. Yes, the money isn't spent in the UK, but people paid in for a lifetime. Its wrong.

[Thai at Heart]

Question is, will the government go the whole hog and place restrictions on immigrants - particularly illegal immigrants - as has also been proposed? And will it eventually concede that pensioners who contributed NI all their lives, but live in the 'wrong' country, are entitled to the annual pension increases?

Well illegal immigrants are, illegal immigrants.

However, I do have a problem with it appearing that 90% of the people in the service industry in the UK is from central Europe. I am sure the companies love this.

Having a seemingly endless supply of immigrants to whom they can pay minimum wage. I for quite see who benefits from this , other than the employers.

[sustento]

What happens now if you turn up at AE in the UK for treatment and have not resided in the UK for a number of years?

Anyone who turns up at A&E will get initial treatment to stabilise their condition regardless of their nationality or how long they've been in the UK. Ongoing treatment may very well be charged for.

[sustento]

Question is, will the government go the whole hog and place restrictions on immigrants - particularly illegal immigrants - as has also been proposed? And will it eventually concede that pensioners who contributed NI all their lives, but live in the 'wrong' country, are entitled to the annual pension increases?

Well illegal immigrants are, illegal immigrants.

However, I do have a problem with it appearing that 90% of the people in the service industry in the UK is from central Europe. I am sure the companies love this.

Having a seemingly endless supply of immigrants to whom they can pay minimum wage. I for quite see who benefits from this , other than the employers.

The minimum wage is a minimum wage for all employees regardless of where they come from. It's the legal minimum wage that can be paid. There's nothing to stop Brits from applying for the jobs that you complain that central Europeans are taking. They'd get paid the same wage if they got the job.

[watso63]

Question is, will the government go the whole hog and place restrictions on immigrants - particularly illegal immigrants - as has also been proposed? And will it eventually concede that pensioners who contributed NI all their lives, but live in the 'wrong' country, are entitled to the annual pension increases?

Well illegal immigrants are, illegal immigrants.

However, I do have a problem with it appearing that 90% of the people in the service industry in the UK is from central Europe. I am sure the companies love this.

Having a seemingly endless supply of immigrants to whom they can pay minimum wage. I for quite see who benefits from this , other than the employers.

The minimum wage is a minimum wage for all employees regardless of where they come from. It's the legal minimum wage that can be paid. There's nothing to stop Brits from applying for the jobs that you complain that central Europeans are taking. They'd get paid the same wage if they got the job.

Therein lies one of the biggest problems of the EU. Simply put, labour rates, taxes, goods and services, land and property prices, business rates vary enormously. Manufacturing costs are lower in the poorer regions, so businesses have relocated there. Their people of working age, particularly the young have seized the opportunity to find work in the richer countries. They are prepared to work harder for longer, live many to a room and save money. The UK minimum wage, plus all the benefits on offer is obviously worth all of the effort to leave friends and family behind.

Regarding the NHS it has become very problematic. How on earth is it possible to budget and plan when there is very little control over population movement. For example many moved to the rural areas of Lincolnshire, Norfolk etc.

Expats save the NHS money, but on the downside we are not contributing to the UK's coffers because many of us take our wealth with us and we are not generally buying goods and services therefore not paying VAT and duty.

Before I decided to bail out of the sinking ship Brittania the government came up with a scheme (dunno if it ever got implemented) where you could go private for a treatment/operation. You were to be granted the funds it would cost on the NHS and you were liable for the remainder. My greatest wish would be to offer that to qualifying expats. The main reason being after settling down in a far flung place such as Thailand, we often get a dilemma later in life when private healthcare becomes too expensive or cover is refused. Many have loving families they have to leave behind to go back for treatment or to stay, suffer and sometimes die a death that could have been prevented.

Come on Blighty, cut us some slack. If you've worked, paid taxes, National Insurance contributions to qualify for a full state pension, then respect that a make a covenant to care for your own.

[cyborgx]

This article is very misleading. It tries to oversimplify the situation for British citizens who stay outside the UK, most of which have never immigrated to Thailand (hence NON-Immigrant status) and as such have never emigrated from the UK.

I have lived in Thailand (on NON-immigrant visas) for 13 years, last year I took a short trip to the UK and needed some treatment whilst I was there.. I had to fight for my rights, but in the end the hospital treated me, as was my right.

True Brits staying in Thailand who are not truly resident in Thailand (99% of us) NEVER lose their right to NHS treatment the moment they set foot on british soil, it's just that there is a lot of bad advice offered to them, and they shoot themselves in the foot of they think they reside here, when they do not.

Whilst I agree with your sentiments, the reality, at least in my experience, is different. For one thing as a 'non-resident' by HMC&R definition (who's rules prevail) I am simply not entitled to free health cover if I return to UK, even for a couple of weeks.

Furthermore, the practice manager of my GP's practice in UK confirmed in writing that I was no longer entitled and would have to pay for treatment.

Doubtless, if push came to shove, and I turned up at a hospital in urgent need of treatment, I would receive it regardless of 'rules'.

Unfortunately, it is HMC&R who implement and enforce 'residency' rather than your or my interpretation.

This reform to the rules is long overdue.

Well my experience was in a hospital and not at a GP surgery.

The bottom line is that if you state it's your "intention" to resettle in the UK then you have the same rights as if you never left. This "intention" may be a temporary state of mind and no proof may be requested.

However, I have no idea how this relates to registering at a GP, only getting treatment in a hospital.

If you are in receipt of a state pension then you don't even need to state an intention to stay.

I'd be interested to know where you are getting your information. Since you say it is not NHS rules, and someone has already given you the HMC&R rules that apply, what are you basing your statements on?