Possible changes to expat Brits' access to the NHS

[cyborgx]

About time. pensioners especially will have 30 years plus of NH payments

If a person receives a British Government Pension then regardless of abode that person is entitled to free NHS treatment. That is clearly stated on the NHS website.

This proposal, if it goes through will provide free treatment (except for prescriptions) to any British subject even if they have never paid National Insurance contributions and British subjects who have paid NI contributions but are not old enough to draw a Government Pension.

First, it has to happen.

Healthcare for british citizens by birth has never been subject to paying national insurance..

I am a British citizen by birth and was told at a GP office in the UK that if I lived abroad I was not entitled to Free treatment. If I recall correctly, I also checked this on the NHS website. I do not recall any exceptions for "True Brits", or "UK Benefit/Pension Recipients" and my impression was that you would need to prove being back in the UK for more than 6 months before free treatment would be obtained as normal. I do admit that this was about 8 years ago, and my recollections is not 100%

This new amendment seems like it is aimed at resolving exactly this issue (perhaps with the proviso that you have made a minimum amount of NI contributions - which I totally support).

I think to clarify this whole confusion, people need to start quoting CURRENT NHS/Immigration Rules/Laws. It's quite possible that even the current NHS rules conflict with the law in which case the Law prevails.....

I think we'd all like to know the bottom line as it currently stands

[Jip99]

About time. pensioners especially will have 30 years plus of NH payments

If a person receives a British Government Pension then regardless of abode that person is entitled to free NHS treatment. That is clearly stated on the NHS website.

This proposal, if it goes through will provide free treatment (except for prescriptions) to any British subject even if they have never paid National Insurance contributions and British subjects who have paid NI contributions but are not old enough to draw a Government Pension.

First, it has to happen.

Healthcare for british citizens by birth has never been subject to paying national insurance..

I am a British citizen by birth and was told at a GP office in the UK that if I lived abroad I was not entitled to Free treatment. If I recall correctly, I also checked this on the NHS website. I do not recall any exceptions for "True Brits", or "UK Benefit/Pension Recipients" and my impression was that you would need to prove being back in the UK for more than 6 months before free treatment would be obtained as normal. I do admit that this was about 8 years ago, and my recollections is not 100%

This new amendment seems like it is aimed at resolving exactly this issue (perhaps with the proviso that you have made a minimum amount of NI contributions - which I totally support).

I think to clarify this whole confusion, people need to start quoting CURRENT NHS/Immigration Rules/Laws. It's quite possible that even the current NHS rules conflict with the law in which case the Law prevails.....

I think we'd all like to know the bottom line as it currently stands

You are almost right - but you don't have to prove being back 6 months (how would you?) you just need to state the intent.

As you say, the new rules once implemented will create a fair, straight-forward criteria of y7 years NIC to qualify.

[awayego]

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?

Regardless of the appropriateness of the HMR&C definition of 'non-resident', which I am quite happy to be proved wrong on, this link (I hope!) leads to the NHS guidance on entitlement to free treatment for 'non-resident' UK citizens.

http://www.whittington.nhs.uk/document.ashx?id=3227

[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.

Regardless of the appropriateness of the HMR&C definition of 'non-resident', which I am quite happy to be proved wrong on, this link (I hope!) leads to the NHS guidance on entitlement to free treatment for 'non-resident' UK citizens.

http://www.whittington.nhs.uk/document.ashx?id=3227

Well done, although this again only a "leaflet" and contains a disclaimer that it is "not a full statement of the current regulations"

To summarize for UK Citizens:-

3 months living outside of UK (6 months for some pensioners) = No Free NHS Treatment

ONLY EXCEPTIONS:-

WORKING abroad less than 5 years AND have proof of living in UK continuously for 10 years (NOTE the AND - So "True Brits" only gets you an extension to 5 years treatment whilst abroad)

Living in another EEA member state

Receive a UK War Disablement Pension or War Widow's pension

Working for some specific UK Government Organisation overseas, and was recruited in the UK

Working as a Missionary abroad for a UK organization

An exception seems to apply to UK Citizens living abroad concerning A&E. Treatment in A&E is free, but further treatments in othe departments are not.

You could try t argue about "residency" status, as I think technologybytes does above, but it is stated even in the leaflet in many ways to make it VERY CLEAR that if you are not living in the UK (irrespective of your residency status where you actualy reside), you are not entitled to Free Treatment.

In some cases common sense or charity may prevail e.g. arriving with a leg falling off will probably get you treatment, doctors and nurses are only people after all. Some may be willing to bend the rules, others may work on the don't ask don't tell principle, however, its not something you can bank on.

The bottom line seems to be that if you have been living outside of Europe for more than 3 months, you are most likely legally no longer entitled to Free NHS Treatment, and and may be asked to pay for any treatment receive.

If anyone knows of any laws or conflicting legislation or other Government organisation Rules that negate or supercede the above, please do tell.

It would be nice to see the "FULL statement of the current regulations", or if anybody has seen them, please tell if they differ in any way from the summary above.

I for one, hope the new liegislation goes through ASAP, and that they also fix the ridiculous pension fixing soon too!

[Gandtee]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

[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.

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.

If there wasn't an overwhelming supply of minimum wage applicants, the offers wage would rise. Employers only offer minimum if they can.

I am not against minimum wage I am against a limitless supply of labour keeping wages down to the detriment of the indigenous labour supply. Same in Thailand with imported labour.

It serves mainly to boost the profitability of the employer and little else .

[Jip99]

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.

If there wasn't an overwhelming supply of minimum wage applicants, the offers wage would rise. Employers only offer minimum if they can.

I am not against minimum wage I am against a limitless supply of labour keeping wages down to the detriment of the indigenous labour supply. Same in Thailand with imported labour.

It serves mainly to boost the profitability of the employer and little else .

Off topic - but in the case of employing e.g. Poles in the catering industry you are very often getting better quality than the indigenous supply.

Imagine how Thailand might develop if there was freedom of movement of labour across ASEAN countries.

[nontabury]

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

If you return, from day one you are entitled to have your pension payed at the new rate, however if within two yrs, you then come back to Thailand,your pension will revert to the amount you were receiving before you left.

If you do stay in the UK for two yrs or more and then come back to Thailand your pension will again be frozen at the rate on the day of your departure. That's of course if you inform them of your departure.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[sustento]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

What's an 'immigrant pensioner'? Do you mean someone with a brown skin? Anyone getting a full state pension in the UK must have made at least 30 year's qualifying contributions. Most have probably made more. Anyone who's lived and paid in for 30 years is entitled to a pension wherever they came from.

[Gandtee]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

What's an 'immigrant pensioner'? Do you mean someone with a brown skin? Anyone getting a full state pension in the UK must have made at least 30 year's qualifying contributions. Most have probably made more. Anyone who's lived and paid in for 30 years is entitled to a pension wherever they came from.

Perhaps I was out of order citing immigrants getting a state pension. If they have worked for it then certainly they are entitled to it. Skin colour has nothing to do with it. Perhaps I should have been referring to immigrants, or anyone whose family have contributed nothing, and are receiving benefits which I as a onetime tax payer, and people like me paid tax for.

[Gandtee]

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.

I wrote to Nick Clegg before he became Pinocchio and raised the question of Expat pensions. In fairness to him he replied, and said that he "Had raised it with the members and it was not on the top of their agenda". At that time Tony Blair, the other puppet on a string was planning to waste money on an unwarranted attack on Iraq, which resulted in unstabilising the Arab world. What a legacy he has left

.I wrote to Clegg again when I thought he might have gained a bit of power after the election and of course never received an answer.Well,now he didn't need any kudos did he.

[uptheos]

Keep reading all the rules on entitlement to NHS services and you will drive yourself crazy, unless of course you like to go strictly by the rules and declare your life an open book to all and sundry in the UK. I'm going back next month, I will see my GP a day after I'm back, get a referral for free hearing test at Specsavers and hopefully have enough time to get a free hearing aid made before coming back. It will give me a chance to see what the situation is wearing one. I will probably get my usual free eye test whilst there and keep the prescription to bring back. The free bus pass will take a pounding whilst there. Hopefully that's all, but if I collapse on the street I hope they send one of those paramedic teams ASAP or a helicopter....all free of course.

[sustento]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

What's an 'immigrant pensioner'? Do you mean someone with a brown skin? Anyone getting a full state pension in the UK must have made at least 30 year's qualifying contributions. Most have probably made more. Anyone who's lived and paid in for 30 years is entitled to a pension wherever they came from.

Perhaps I was out of order citing immigrants getting a state pension. If they have worked for it then certainly they are entitled to it. Skin colour has nothing to do with it. Perhaps I should have been referring to immigrants, or anyone whose family have contributed nothing, and are receiving benefits which I as a onetime tax payer, and people like me paid tax for.

How can immigrants be taking all our benefits when they're taking all our jobs?

[nontabury]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

What's an 'immigrant pensioner'? Do you mean someone with a brown skin? Anyone getting a full state pension in the UK must have made at least 30 year's qualifying contributions. Most have probably made more. Anyone who's lived and paid in for 30 years is entitled to a pension wherever they came from.

Perhaps I was out of order citing immigrants getting a state pension. If they have worked for it then certainly they are entitled to it. Skin colour has nothing to do with it. Perhaps I should have been referring to immigrants, or anyone whose family have contributed nothing, and are receiving benefits which I as a onetime tax payer, and people like me paid tax for.

How can immigrants be taking all our benefits when they're taking all our jobs?

Well this is an exaggeration on both counts. They are not taking all our benefits, due to the number of the native populace also taking a large share of these benefits. Likewise they are only taking some of the jobs, many of which the locals refuse to do as they think it is below them, or/and In many cases it's easier and more financially rewarding for them to claim benefits.

What is happening is the shear number of these immigrants forcing down the wages, mostly of the lower paid. As for benefit claimants, many of these immigrants, legal and illegal are allowed to claim benefits without having to contribute into the system.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[personchester]

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?

During a visit back to the UK the normal UK pension payment will be paid during the time in the UK, when returning back to Thailand the pension will then be frozen again to the same figure as before.

[watso63]

Perhaps giving expats the same pension rights as British and immigrant pensioners will be the next step?? I must stop taking that stuff. I'm hallucinating !

What's an 'immigrant pensioner'? Do you mean someone with a brown skin? Anyone getting a full state pension in the UK must have made at least 30 year's qualifying contributions. Most have probably made more. Anyone who's lived and paid in for 30 years is entitled to a pension wherever they came from.

Perhaps I was out of order citing immigrants getting a state pension. If they have worked for it then certainly they are entitled to it. Skin colour has nothing to do with it. Perhaps I should have been referring to immigrants, or anyone whose family have contributed nothing, and are receiving benefits which I as a onetime tax payer, and people like me paid tax for.

How can immigrants be taking all our benefits when they're taking all our jobs?

Well this is an exaggeration on both counts. They are not taking all our benefits, due to the number of the native populace also taking a large share of these benefits. Likewise they are only taking some of the jobs, many of which the locals refuse to do as they think it is below them, or/and In many cases it's easier and more financially rewarding for them to claim benefits.

What is happening is the shear number of these immigrants forcing down the wages, mostly of the lower paid. As for benefit claimants, many of these immigrants, legal and illegal are allowed to claim benefits without having to contribute into the system.

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Let's not get distracted into a slanging match about immigration v idle scroungers. While the system and the left wing liberal morons in charge that let the non elected eurocrats make the rules, people that are entitled to benefit will always milk what they can.

The main point is the discrimination of a whole group of people that have paid their dues based on where they choose to live in a "globalised world". I and many others benefit healthwise by living in a warmer climate. Whenever I spend a long time walking around in an air conditioned shopping mall, I am reminded of this.

[keithcresswell]

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

[watso63]

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect Thailand1398997790.989666.jpg

Sent from my iPhone using ThaiVisa app

Paying 20% tax on a pension that never increases because it is frozen and actually depreciates due to inflation! Mmmm Gordon Brown would have been proud of that one.

[Expattaff1308]

http://pensionjustice.org/ Join Today

[wineman]

Anyone know if the changes have been made, or when they will be.?

[i claudius]

Anyone know if the changes have been made, or when they will be.?

my doctor made them years ago ,he believes that as i am British and paid in for 48years i deserve his attention .

[trevoromgh]

Anyone know if the changes have been made, or when they will be.?

I am expecting a reply from the Department of Health on the subject shortly as the minister/s were supposed to have agreed the terms for ex-pat exemptions from NHS charging in mid-July 2014 ahead of legislation being published in March 2015. I'll let everyone know the response on this thread when I get one myself.

[In Search of Space]

Anyone know if the changes have been made, or when they will be.?

my doctor made them years ago ,he believes that as i am British and paid in for 48years i deserve his attention .

I would like your doctor to speak to my idiot doctor. I am tax domiciled in UK but work freelance in Middle East, so I spend what time I can in Thailand & remaining in UK when I have to. I have a house in UK, pay council tax, pay income tax, corporation tax etc, if I was a little bit cleverer I could cut a lot out. But I specifically pay tax just in case I ever need NHS services. Last month I was in UK & went to local doctor for a prescription for blood-thinners, I have a DVT condition.

Once I said I had been prescribed the medicine in Dubai, he was reluctant to issue the prescription as I was "resident" overseas, despite me being with the same practice for 26 years, paying tax etc. he made a big deal out of it, saying that although I was resident & paid tax, I may well not qualify for NHS services, although he would give me the prescription because he was a nice guy - he was a young doctor, new to the practice & probably trying to show me how clever he was, so my advice is to make sure you qualify.

I then spoke to the practice receptionist & asked what I should do to ensure services, she told me that the doctor was a twit !

[trevoromgh]

I received a reply from the Department of Health namely Earl Howe who is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality in the DoH (whatever that entails!) and he said that they have not yet made a decision (surprise surprise) but would be by then end of the year though he gave no dates (yet more surprise). So in my book he was ‘kicking it into the long grass’ we all hear about so much nowadays. In theory his words mean that within 90 days a decision will be made or the ball will be kicked 50 yards further into the long grass.

My advice would be to contact your MP in the UK and threaten a postal vote for UKIP if he/she does not put them under pressure for a positive decision in favour of ex-pats getting full NHS cover and for this to be made law 'before' the election in May next year. All the parties are now very twitchy about what the Nigel Farage effect will have on the outcome.

In the meantime I shall prod them again in 90 days if no announcement is forthcoming in the meantime, which I seriourly doubt there will be unfortunately.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

I then spoke to the practice receptionist & asked what I should do to ensure services, she told me that the doctor was a twit !

What you should do, learn to keep your mouth shut.

Nobody needs to know where you go, or what you do when you go there.

[mesquite]

I then spoke to the practice receptionist & asked what I should do to ensure services, she told me that the doctor was a twit !

What you should do, learn to keep your mouth shut.

Nobody needs to know where you go, or what you do when you go there.

Good advice all the way around, for everyone.

[citizen33]

I received a reply from the Department of Health namely Earl Howe who is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality in the DoH (whatever that entails!) and he said that they have not yet made a decision (surprise surprise) but would be by then end of the year though he gave no dates (yet more surprise).

Yes, I was looking at this recently and that seems to be the position. The Immigration Act 2014 has now passed through Parliament, but revised guidance on NHS charging rules for overseas visitors has not yet been produced.

The old framework was the National Health Service Act 2006 read with The National Health Service (Overseas Visitors) Regulations 2011 (i.e. regulations made under the provisions of the statute). It seems that at the moment one still needs to consult the 2011 regulations.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/1556/note/made

with the 2012 amendments,

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1586/regulation/2/made

as well as the associated guidance,

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254530/ovs_visitors_guidance_oct13a.pdf

but work out whether this has been affected by the 2014 Immigration Act.

Look here for an interim document which gives guidance on changes to Chapter 5 pending the publication of new guidance.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-overseas-visitors-hospital-charging-regulations

All very complicated I know, but I think some of these original documents were what people were searching for earlier in the thread.

It could be a good time to present. I can't imagine that most hospital Overseas Visitors Managers (OVMs) will be any less confused than we are!

Edited October 2, 2014 by citizen33

[technologybytes]

Most brits in this conversation seem to think that they are resident overseas, more to the point they think that they are resident in Thailand.

to most of you (I'd say 99%) WAKE UP... YOU ARE NOT RESIDENT IN THAILAND. (look at your NON-Immigrant visa, what do you think the NON means)

And if you are not resident in Thailand, then you are not actually an expat now are you !

I have lived in Thailand for more then 13 years, I'm not resident here so when I'm in the UK I would be STUPID if in a doctors surgery when asked if I have resided overseas I said yes.

Actually I WAS stupid last year in a London hospital, I said I had been staying in Thailand and then I had to educate the receptionist and a hospital administrator that my rights to treatment were 100% the moment I set foot on British soil. I had to add that it was my "intention" to stay in the UK. If i'd been a bit less stupid, when asked if I'd resided overseas I would have been truthful and said NO, as Thailand certainly won't make me a resident !

Edited October 7, 2014 by technologybytes

[KittenKong]

Most brits in this conversation seem to think that they are resident overseas, more to the point they think that they are resident in Thailand.

to most of you (I'd say 99%) WAKE UP... YOU ARE NOT RESIDENT IN THAILAND. (look at your NON-Immigrant visa, what do you think the NON means)

And if you are not resident in Thailand, then you are not actually an expat now are you !

I have lived in Thailand for more then 13 years, I'm not resident here so when I'm in the UK I would be STUPID if in a doctors surgery when asked if I have resided overseas I said yes.

Your interpretation of the word "resident" is incorrect.

[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.

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.

If there wasn't an overwhelming supply of minimum wage applicants, the offers wage would rise. Employers only offer minimum if they can.

I am not against minimum wage I am against a limitless supply of labour keeping wages down to the detriment of the indigenous labour supply. Same in Thailand with imported labour.

It serves mainly to boost the profitability of the employer and little else .

Off topic - but in the case of employing e.g. Poles in the catering industry you are very often getting better quality than the indigenous supply.

Imagine how Thailand might develop if there was freedom of movement of labour across ASEAN countries.

For minimum wage, you might be getting better value. But the question is, does the wage rise significantly if the poles or Cambodians are removed from the supply?