UK Residents in Thailand - The harsh truth about the NHS service

[chrissables]

UK residents in Thailand

How can someone be a UK resident if he's living in Thailand?

Did you mean a UK citizen resident in Thailand?

It must be a real challenge for citizens of nanny states to live in a world where you have to pay for things yourself.

Imagine you'll be one of those expats who stiffs a Thai hospital, which means the rest of us have to pay more to cover the costs of deadbeats.

Nanny states do not give anything free to most of there citizens. We pay N.I. National Insurance whether we like it or not. It is automatically deducted from your salary. This is to cover your state pension and hospitals mainly.

It is 12% of your salary, not quite free! In addition an employer has to pay another 13% adding up to 25%. This is before you are taxed! The tax rate is between 20 and 45% depending on your salary.

As you can see, a large amount of money is taken for a "free" nanny state.

[theoldgit]

Covered a million times if you keep a uk address Wetherby or not you pay tax or national insurance you will get free treatment I know I have done this fairly recently. All this scare mungering

You may wish to reacquaint yourself with the relevant paragraph in the DoH guidelines.

3.5 A person is not ordinarily resident in the UK simply because they have British nationality; hold a British passport; are registered with a GP; have an NHS number; own property in the UK; or have paid (or are currently paying) National Insurance contributions and taxes in the UK.

Of course you will always receive life saving treatment free of charge

[retarius]

Lucky for me I've never been outside the EU.

Wonder how they found out she had been living in the USA?

NB : it is all based on examining PASSPORTS. You now have to present them for hospital procedures in the UK - i have done this recently. So it's simple - ah madam you landed in the US in 2010 (for example) and your passport shows no returns to the UK until now (2015), and only short trips to (say) Mexico and Canada in the intervening 5 years. Conclusion : you live in the US !

I went for a mamogram at a teaching hospital in the UK in October...no one asked me to show my passport. Plus you don;t get your passport stamped if you are an ex-pat living in the EU, so how could looking at a passport tell when you have been on and out of the country?

[Farang99]

I still have my old UK medical card, though I have lived in Thailand for many years. Unfortunately the doctor I was registered with has long since retired, and the medical practice has closed!

[Farang99]

I still have my old UK medical card, though I have lived in Thailand for many years. Unfortunately the doctor I was registered with has long since retired, and the medical practice has closed!

[monkey4u]

Yes, it's appalling the way elderly ex pats are treated by the UK government. We don't vote so we're a great target when it comes to saving money. We don't get annual pension increases either, but I suppose we're lucky to get anything. Having worked in France for about 8 years, I get part of my pension (300 euro per month) from France along with the increases and for 80 euro per month get the benefit of French social security health cover worldwide.

We in GB regularly knock the French, but at least they look after their own (and people like me as well).

The same applies in Australia

Leave for more than 6 months and your Medicare is cancelled

[chiang mai]

Lucky for me I've never been outside the EU.

Wonder how they found out she had been living in the USA?

NB : it is all based on examining PASSPORTS. You now have to present them for hospital procedures in the UK - i have done this recently. So it's simple - ah madam you landed in the US in 2010 (for example) and your passport shows no returns to the UK until now (2015), and only short trips to (say) Mexico and Canada in the intervening 5 years. Conclusion : you live in the US !

I went for a mamogram at a teaching hospital in the UK in October...no one asked me to show my passport. Plus you don;t get your passport stamped if you are an ex-pat living in the EU, so how could looking at a passport tell when you have been on and out of the country?

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

[theoldgit]

The Gov.UK website gives this advice regarding eligibility as a returning resident

Citizens who return to the UK on a settled basis will be classed as ordinarily resident, and will be eligible for free NHS care immediately.

The DoH is equally clear in their guidance that a returning ex-pat would be covered from day one, that they may have to satisfy the relevant NHS Trust, I've edited out the irrelevant parts:

3.13 .................There is no minimum period of residence that confers ordinarily resident status.
Chapter 3. Ordinary residence 29
......... For a British citizen or EEA national (and for a nonEEA national with ILR, or a non-EEA national not subject to immigration control), it is perfectly possible to be ordinarily resident here from the day of arrival, when it is clear that that person has, upon arrival, taken up settled residence. In each case, it is for the relevant NHS body to decide whether the criteria within the ordinary residence description are met.

[chiang mai]

It seems to me that DoH is passing the buck to individual Trusts when they say that the onus is on the Trust to determine whether the patient is ordinarily resident or not, most interestingly they do use the term "Ordinarily Resident" which is a term used expressly in the governments UK residency rules - do I detect a going around in circles here? So when they talk about the criteria within the ordinary residence description, what description are they referring to, the residency rules - OG perhaps?

But let's take it on face value for the moment:

"it is perfectly possible to be ordinarily resident here from the day of arrival, when it is clear that that person has, upon arrival, taken up settled residence".

It seems to me that this is the key para. which fits nicely with the four ties mentioned earlier, wife/partner/child, accommodation, work, time - perhaps there are other steps such as the disposal of assets in Thailand and the transfer of assets from Thailand to the UK, all of which require pre planning and time to accomplish. It therefore follows (I think) that the decision to return to the UK to use the free services of the NHS is not one that can be made overnight, it takes potentially lengthy lead times to accomplish.

[sandyf]

"The hospital stated that they were legally bound to charge her and there were no exceptions."

Unfortunately there has never been any legal challenge to this statement.

If you take out private insurance or pension there is a policy which is legally binding. If the provider decides to change the terms of the policy it can only be applied to new customers.

For those of us that started paying many years ago, there was never any definitive "policy" in respect of national insurance and since then the government has had no problem making changes and applying those changes to all existing "customers".

If any of the private providers were to attempt something similar, the directors would be entertained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

[Jip99]

Lucky for me I've never been outside the EU.

Wonder how they found out she had been living in the USA?

NB : it is all based on examining PASSPORTS. You now have to present them for hospital procedures in the UK - i have done this recently. So it's simple - ah madam you landed in the US in 2010 (for example) and your passport shows no returns to the UK until now (2015), and only short trips to (say) Mexico and Canada in the intervening 5 years. Conclusion : you live in the US !

I went for a mamogram at a teaching hospital in the UK in October...no one asked me to show my passport. Plus you don;t get your passport stamped if you are an ex-pat living in the EU, so how could looking at a passport tell when you have been on and out of the country?

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

[chiang mai]

NB : it is all based on examining PASSPORTS. You now have to present them for hospital procedures in the UK - i have done this recently. So it's simple - ah madam you landed in the US in 2010 (for example) and your passport shows no returns to the UK until now (2015), and only short trips to (say) Mexico and Canada in the intervening 5 years. Conclusion : you live in the US !

I went for a mamogram at a teaching hospital in the UK in October...no one asked me to show my passport. Plus you don;t get your passport stamped if you are an ex-pat living in the EU, so how could looking at a passport tell when you have been on and out of the country?

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

I like the thinking, except it's difficult to get a second passport without having the first one flagged as lost or stolen (I tried that years ago and paid the price by having it seized on entry at Heathrow).

[chiang mai]

It seems to me that DoH is passing the buck to individual Trusts when they say that the onus is on the Trust to determine whether the patient is ordinarily resident or not, most interestingly they do use the term "Ordinarily Resident" which is a term used expressly in the governments UK residency rules - do I detect a going around in circles here? So when they talk about the criteria within the ordinary residence description, what description are they referring to, the residency rules - OG perhaps?

But let's take it on face value for the moment:

"it is perfectly possible to be ordinarily resident here from the day of arrival, when it is clear that that person has, upon arrival, taken up settled residence".

It seems to me that this is the key para. which fits nicely with the four ties mentioned earlier, wife/partner/child, accommodation, work, time - perhaps there are other steps such as the disposal of assets in Thailand and the transfer of assets from Thailand to the UK, all of which require pre planning and time to accomplish. It therefore follows (I think) that the decision to return to the UK to use the free services of the NHS is not one that can be made overnight, it takes potentially lengthy lead times to accomplish.

I think I've found the answer regarding the DOH interpretation of ordinarily resident, the question they require each trust to ask patients are in a government link provided earlier, the document or tool is found here: OR_Tool__1_.pdf

The above tool asks many of the same questions we've already mentioned and use the same criteria as the residency test for government, with additional questions being asked also - it's well worth a read. A ray of hope is found in the following statement:

The longer a person has been living in the UK the stronger the indication they are ordinarily resident here. A period of 6 months is only a rule of thumb and should be used with caution. It is important to note

that a person can be ordinarily resident from the first day they arrive in the UK if they have genuinely come to settle for the time being

.

[Konini]

Curiously I was in the UK army for 9 years. I think I would qualify for free NHS treatment if I had stayed longer and was recieving a pension from the forces. (I may be wrong on this and perhaps you could correct me).

All in all, no wonder we are getting really cheesed off the way we are being treated. But what you post is factually correct, even though I went to my doctor in the UK last June with a bad infection and was treated without question.

I believe that ex forces used to get 5 years after service, but now it only available to serving and war pensioners - I'm assuming that means WW2 not Falklands/Middle East, although the fairness of that should be debated if correct - I'm not saying the older ones don't deserve it, but if they do why not the others? War is war after all.

(And I went to see my GP in Australia earlier this year, the tax department considers me a resident, Medicare (kind of like NHS) considers me non-resident. There was a similar ludicrous situation in England back in the early 1980's - the DHSS said that Mr K and I were living as man and wife so I wasn't entitled to benefits but the Inland Revenue said we weren't married so we weren't entitled to the married man's tax allowance (I can't remember the proper name for it). As you and I both pay taxes, it would be very hard for any legal action to recover the money to stand up in a court, but it may. We'll have to enjoy it while we can and keep our heads down).

[Henryford]

What you perhaps missed is that she was charged at the rate of 150% of NHS costs, as would any other person in her position be. So whereas immigrants can pay 200 Pounds for government insurance against these costs, indeed they are required to buy such a policy, UK expats are not allowed similar and even worse are seen as a resource to profit from.

It is the scandal of the century and totally outrageous.

It is all part of their race replacement agenda. Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but more evidence appears almost every day.

That's one of the worst conspiracy theories I've ever heard. It has nothing to do with race replacement, it's all about saving money - the NHS, much as we all love it and the services it provides, is not financially sustainable and will all fall in a heap sooner or later. The money pot is only paying the bills because the governments are borrowing more and more - Labour and Tories are guilty.

The NHS was a great idea, 'from the cradle to the grave', and in a utopian society it would be perfect, but the UK isn't perfect and is in so much debt the next generation and the one after that and the one after that will be paying for what we have today. Until the spending stops, future generations will pay for everything the NHS is doing right now. I'm a solid socialist, but can see how the system in the UK (both health related and welfare benefits) are unaffordable, unsustainable and will eventually collapse; probably not within our lifetime, but the kids in primary school today aren't going to have the same benefits that are available today, and will see them working until they are 70 and over and will be paying dearly for the excesses of consecutive governments funding the promises they made before elections to bribe the population into voting for them.

Regardless of how unfair they are, particularly for anyone who is paying taxes on their pensions (and I don't know if this is automatic or how many expats would pay tax), the law says that people who are not resident in UK are not eligible for NHS treatment with a list of exceptions; accident and emergency, being sectioned, being 'tortured, raped or the victim of FGM or trafficking) or resident in a country with a reciprocal agreement such as Australia and NZ and a few others. The laws are pretty much the same in Australia, I think it's 6 months out of the country to lose Medicare.

Fair or not, that's the law and anyone who breaks the law must accept the fact that they are cheating the system. If you want the law to change, you've got to get active in politics.

(I studied politics in UK a lifetime ago, and whatever you do won't make any difference. Trust me.)

I cannot argue with your analysis. The introduction of Private Finance Initiative at the turn of the century is having a terrible effect on the finances of the NHS. It seemed such a good idea at the time - let the private sector build the new shiny hospital and then lease it back to the government for 25-50 years at huge annual cost. I was in politics at the time - in a minor way - and I remember the arguments. "The public don't care where the money comes from, as long as they have a brand new hospital on the doorstep". That's quite understandable and a vote winner, but sadly the chickens have come home to roost. Obviously it also enabled government to avoid having to finance major capital projects in the NHS from current budgets.

Also, I was often informed that the inflationary costs of NHS items was much more than the normal inflation amounts. Clearly the drug companies, medical equipment suppliers and others climbed on this mythical bandwagon.

I pay UK income tax,as you touched on it in your post. So, for tax purposes it's not whether you are resident or not, whereas for NHS treatment, it's not if you are a citizen (or should I say subject) of the UK, but if you are a resident. Now I know the rules differ from one government department to another, but it's this underlying apparent unfairness that rankles many of us.

In the case taken to the European Court of Human Rights some years ago about pensions, I remember the government barrister making two observations that really stuck in my throat.

He referred to ex-pats as "those who choose to absent themselves from the country and make no contribution to its economy" (what's my income tax doing) and..............

"There is a separate argument for the UK pension, which after all is a social security benefit, not to be paid at all to those absentees."

So, that sums up the attitude in a nutshell.!!

Curiously I was in the UK army for 9 years. I think I would qualify for free NHS treatment if I had stayed longer and was recieving a pension from the forces. (I may be wrong on this and perhaps you could correct me).

All in all, no wonder we are getting really cheesed off the way we are being treated. But what you post is factually correct, even though I went to my doctor in the UK last June with a bad infection and was treated without question.

I'm just not going to get screwed up about this any longer, as it will make me ill

PFI was always a crazy idea. It's like buying a new car on your credit card at 30% APR. But of course Brown knew he wouldn't be around to pick up the tab. They could have built these shiny new hospitals with (printed) Government money just as easily and it would have cost far less. It's bizarre when they have no problems with borrowing billions to finance revenue items like Foreign Aid but not capital projects like hospitals.

[Konini]

The clause, " eligible for NHS treatment immediately" upon permanent return still doesn't cut it, the new residency rules do not permit a person to become resident immediately, the soonest that status can be attained is 182 days after arrival.

http://www.cambridgetax.co.uk/ctp/New_Residence_Rules.html

I believe that is one of the things that changed for passport holders - the Cambridge Tax Co page refers to new rules coming in 6 April 2013, they were fiddled with again 6 April 2015. Without going through all the documents I read last night, I am 99% certain that I saw entitlement is there from the day you return - the word that sticks is 'immediately', although it said you may have to show some proof that your return is permanent such as having a one way ticket to UK and disposing of any property or ending a lease overseas.

The waiting period may still be enforced for migrants or other permanent residents who are not UK citizens, to be honest I didn't look as it doesn't concern me or my family - in fact, non of it does really beyond UK having a reciprocal agreement with Aus for visits to GP (I had to go to one last year as I had left behind some prescription only medication, but nobody asked me anything so I didn't tell them anything), but we have worldwide travel insurance anyway.

[Konini]

People who have paid their taxes, NI etc, should do whatever's necessary to beat the system - it can be done.

The most important thing is, tell nobody!!

There is a danger of you being accused of being a 'one trick pony'.

That is because (what I admire most about your posts) you consistently repeat the same message in any thread in which you become involved.

You know as well as I do that all that you suggest goes against what we were brought up to believe. That is that you do as you are told, respect the laws and the law will take care of you. Trust us, we are the government.

BALLOX.

ALL that I was brought up to believe in has turned to rat sh!t.

uptheos is spot on .... "don't tell them anything".... the 'system' is no longer there to help you, YOU have to beat, That sounds SOOOO wromg, but it is how it is.

I am now more convinced than ever that I will claim my state pension from the UK. I am more determined than ever to build a profile that suggests I am UK resident and will make doctors visits, or correspond with the surgery, to support that profile.

I am becoming as determined as uptheos to beat the system because the b'stards controlling the system that I paid into for 35 years IN GOOD FAITH are trying to beat me.

The beliefs that I was brought up on were based on fairness. What we are seeing now in ALL expat dealings is NOT fair.If I have to balance that fairness up by trying to break the rules then I am now prepared to that.

If I fail.............. no I won't go to jail, yes I will get NHS treatment if needed ............... eventually I will simply lose.

Well said - you are correct that all we were brought up to believe in has turned to crap and that we have to sneak to beat the system. We also visit our GP on our annual visit to Aus to establish a profile and so far the Australian government are not talking about linking the systems, but the UK is already linked and is already sharing the info on a manual basis for anyone suspected of not being resident. But, and I can't say this enough times, the databases were designed to be and WILL be fully linked within the next 5 years, so if any expats know that they are going to need a new hip or knee or have some fairly major surgery in the not too far off future and keep putting it off, get your skates on because when they are linked your passport number is not now and will not in the future be needed (my mam has never had a passport or driving licence, that's just one or two more pieces of info which can and will be linked if it exists); if there is a match with your name, date of birth and address you will be flagged for no treatment if that match says you arrived in UK shortly before after a long absence - if there is no match with your address, it will likely be flagged for further investigation to find out exactly who you are. Either way, you lose.

If it needs seeing to and you can't afford to get it seen to here, get it sorted out sooner rather than later, because you might just run out of time.

[Jip99]

I went for a mamogram at a teaching hospital in the UK in October...no one asked me to show my passport. Plus you don;t get your passport stamped if you are an ex-pat living in the EU, so how could looking at a passport tell when you have been on and out of the country?

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

I like the thinking, except it's difficult to get a second passport without having the first one flagged as lost or stolen (I tried that years ago and paid the price by having it seized on entry at Heathrow).

Actually, it isn't difficult.

I arranged one for a friend simply on the basis of the number of visits to Cambodia he expected to make.

[Bernard Flint]

UK residents in Thailand

How can someone be a UK resident if he's living in Thailand?

Did you mean a UK citizen resident in Thailand?

It must be a real challenge for citizens of nanny states to live in a world where you have to pay for things yourself.

Imagine you'll be one of those expats who stiffs a Thai hospital, which means the rest of us have to pay more to cover the costs of deadbeats.

Have to agree with you.

Too many live in Thailand without health care, then expect to go to the uk for free treatment. However i thought when one reaches 65, one can have free healthcare,as a british person.This is not new to expect to pay for nhs care, excluding emergency A& E.Get private health care until 70 yo, it costs about 1 beer a day to get cover for 500,000 baht, not a lot to ask for, and the cover will be ok for many things, if not, save money and be prepared to pay,as plenty of expats say how cheap it is to live here.I save about 12,000 baht per month, and been doing that for 10 years now, so a nice little nest agg for any possible problewm, also thats only 400 baht a week, 6 beers less per week?????

[Konini]

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

Physically looking at a passport will not be necessary when the NHS and Home Office (immigration) systems are talking to each other - a second passport and a good line of patter may fool a junior level administration clerk admitting you or making an appointment, but the computer isn't so easily fooled unfortunately.

[Bernard Flint]

The clause, " eligible for NHS treatment immediately" upon permanent return still doesn't cut it, the new residency rules do not permit a person to become resident immediately, the soonest that status can be attained is 182 days after arrival.

http://www.cambridgetax.co.uk/ctp/New_Residence_Rules.html

I believe that is one of the things that changed for passport holders - the Cambridge Tax Co page refers to new rules coming in 6 April 2013, they were fiddled with again 6 April 2015. Without going through all the documents I read last night, I am 99% certain that I saw entitlement is there from the day you return - the word that sticks is 'immediately', although it said you may have to show some proof that your return is permanent such as having a one way ticket to UK and disposing of any property or ending a lease overseas.

The waiting period may still be enforced for migrants or other permanent residents who are not UK citizens, to be honest I didn't look as it doesn't concern me or my family - in fact, non of it does really beyond UK having a reciprocal agreement with Aus for visits to GP (I had to go to one last year as I had left behind some prescription only medication, but nobody asked me anything so I didn't tell them anything), but we have worldwide travel insurance anyway.

Chiang Mai is right, its 6 months, no dole no free nhs, no winter fuel freebies etc etc.Also many long term tourists come to Thailand for more than 1 month per tax year and claim all the freebies, i know ar least 3 people who have been fined 20,000 pounds for this illegal act

[Jip99]

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

Physically looking at a passport will not be necessary when the NHS and Home Office (immigration) systems are talking to each other - a second passport and a good line of patter may fool a junior level administration clerk admitting you or making an appointment, but the computer isn't so easily fooled unfortunately.

I still don't buy that one.

Connectivity between National Health Trusts and the government (irrespective of "the NHS") is implausible and likely a breach of data protection.

Nothing to lose by going with the second passport theory and the worse case scenario is that I pay (or don't).

[Konini]

Looking at passports is just one step in the process, they provide clues as to a persons residency status, a person living in Asia for example will have exit stamps showing they departed Thailand, Also, the rules for people living in Europe can be slightly different because of reciprocal healthcare agreements, the subject in this thread is expats who live in Thailand.

There could be a case for a second passport.

The first one primary use, reflecting your actual life (and carrying your visa/extension stamps).

The second one used, as part of the 'planning process' you alluded to, to show occasional travel but nothing to suggest residency elsewhere.

I doubt that a hospital trust will look beyond the first passport presented.

Physically looking at a passport will not be necessary when the NHS and Home Office (immigration) systems are talking to each other - a second passport and a good line of patter may fool a junior level administration clerk admitting you or making an appointment, but the computer isn't so easily fooled unfortunately.

I still don't buy that one.

Connectivity between National Health Trusts and the government (irrespective of "the NHS") is implausible and likely a breach of data protection.

Nothing to lose by going with the second passport theory and the worse case scenario is that I pay (or don't).

The connectivity has been in place for some time and information sharing between the NHS and Home Office is already happening this the PDF file that tells you exactly what info they share so there is no breach of data protection laws. Here is a link to an article in the Guardian about how they have used it to successfully track down illegal immigrants. Not yet automated, but that is definitely coming.

[theoldgit]

May I take the liberty of reminding members of the section in the Forum Rules in respect of numerous follow on quotes;

5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes.

This is an interesting thread and pertinent to many of us, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to follow with the numerous number of nested quotes being repeated time and time again.

I would be grateful if you would refrain from constantly just hitting the reply button.

Thanks

[jinners]

A change made just in April this year, but that's what you get for electing a Conservative government. I'm inclined to think that people get what they deserve when voting for that lot.

I don't have to worry, I've got enough to supply my health care needs, so screw people who haven't : it's the Tory way!

Actually over 4,000,000 in the UK did NOT vote Tory but voted UKIP. I voted for UKIP from Thailand using a proxy voter quite legally but sadly the electoral system in the UK only gave the UKIP one parliamentary seat.

IMHO I think that at the next general election, The Labour party if they are still under Jeremy Corbyn will not win, the Tories who will not be under Big Dave Cameron will lose a lot of seats, the Lib/Dems under Tim Fallon (I had to look who it was on Wikipedia) shot their bolt last time probably don't stand much chance either. The SNP under Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond probably won't do that much out of Scotland.

To me that leaves Nigel Farage with UKIP, the Green Party under Natalie Bennett and a hodgepodge of other parties with no clear ideas or directions to fight the Tories.

For myself I truly believe that if UKIP don't win they will be a very strong opposition party to the winners.

Then perhaps things may start to get better for us expats and for the UK as a whole.

Agreed, and I did the same. Be interesting to see the level of propaganda put out coming closer to the EU referendum

[evadgib]

1. War Pensions:

Anyone receiving regular payments for injuries under AFPS 75 or AFCS 05 and their dependents appear to be covered while in UK according to NHS rules seen two days ago. Normal (time served) pensioners could also argue that their commitment to the reserve (until 60 but unlikely to be called after 55) places them within the criteria for 'crown service', given that failure to respond when called was still punishable by law at the time of the invasion of Iraq (since repealed).

2. Passports/Computers:

Posters seem to have overlooked the effect that several years of annual extns plus the odd expiry / replacement of passport & extn will have on any home database. If 'Big Bruvver' is operating as suggested we are highly unlikely to be their highest priority & given the age of some of you they will assume from your lack of movement since last being flagged that you have since taken up playing the harp

Edited December 19, 2015 by evadgib

[SattahipBri]

I went to hospital recently and they never asked if I was a resident as I suppose it was assumed and no passport was asked for or mentioned.

[mizztraveller]

@billd766, This sounds brilliant. Can you also post the section of the manifesto that states where the money will come from.

Edited December 19, 2015 by theoldgit
Excessive quotes removed, please read post #145

[chiang mai]

Different trusts in different parts of the country, experiences will vary I suppose. It would be interesting to try and understand which trusts are proactive on this issue and which are not, my guess is that the ones sited in areas with high levels of immigrants probably are.

[billd766]

@billd766, This sounds brilliant. Can you also post the section of the manifesto that states where the money will come from.

Not being in the EU and thus saving I don't know how many billions per year.

Cutting back on foreign aid is another area.

Why not read the manifesto yourself. I posted a link to it.

You could also read the Labour and Conservative manifestos and see what they offer and where their money will come from.