Possible tripling of NHS surcharge

[kamenrider]

I have not seen reported on the forum that the 2017 conservative manifesto committed to increasing the nhs surcharge to 600gbp, which in the absence of any further detail, I assume to be an annual equivalent, so a 30 month visa would attract a surcharge of 1500 gbp.

 

My conservative candidate was clued up about the surcharge when I moaned at him before the election, and said the application of the NHS surcharge to spouses was an anomaly, it was intended for non EEA migrant workers.

 

He invited me to write to him, which I did following his election, and he is now in communication with the Home Office. I complained both about the increase and about the lack of any logical basis to applying a workers levy to a spouse. The arguments have been discussed in this forum many times so I wont repeat them here.

 

It occurs to me that given the current state of politics, if just a handful of MPs were lobbied by UK citizens affected by the surcharge some review might be brought about. One person complaining to one MP may well not achieve very much. Or you may say I am just a dreamer…………

 

[Just as a postscript -in researching for my letter I read that NHS charges are not applicable to people who are ordinarily resident in the UK, and most spouses would be in that category, and found that the Immigration Act got over this by having a clause specifying that holders of visas which were time limited would be subject to the surcharge provision of the Act, a bit sneaky].

[rasg]

Interesting. They might even be more interested now they have a tiny majority with the DUP. Who is your MP?

 

Mine is Boris Johnson...

[Flustered]

If you want to score political points, you may be better off on another forum.

 

The proposed surcharge goes towards paying for any NHS treatment. A really low cost health insurance policy under any definition and is for the length of the visa, not per year (and no I will not link this, you can look it up yourself).

 

The increase was only a proposal and will not necessarily be imposed.

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by Flustered

[rasg]

Who are you talking to on your political points remark?

 

It's not that cheap for the NHS if it goes up to £600 pa. I pay £80 per annum for a private plan for my wife with BUPA.

[Flustered]

13 minutes ago, rasg said:

Who are you talking to on your political points remark?

 

It's not that cheap for the NHS if it goes up to £600 pa. I pay £80 per annum for a private plan for my wife with BUPA.

The OP.

 

Even if the charge went up to £600 which is extremely doubtful, it is still excellent value for someone who has not paid into the NHS system.

 

No scheme at £80 with BUPA even exists.Average cost of private insurance in the UK is £1,120 per year. For a very young, healthy person, you can get basic cover for around £300 per year but £80....No way. I was paying £640 per year to BUPA back in 1995.

 

It's about time we (the UK) started getting some money out of non UK/EU nationals to pay towards the costs.

 

And read my first post, it's for the length of the visa, not per annum.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Flustered

[rasg]

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

No scheme at £80 with BUPA even exists.Average cost of private insurance in the UK is £1,120 per year. For a very young, healthy person, you can get basic cover for around £300 per year but £80....No way. I was paying £640 per year to BUPA back in 1995.

Well you are wrong. The policy I have for my wife with BUPA is £80 per annum. It runs out quite soon. I pay around £100 a month but I;m getting on a bit. My wife is not.

 

1 hour ago, Flustered said:

And read my first post, it's for the length of the visa, not per annum.

If it ls for the length of the visa it's £600 for a Settlement visa any way... It wouldn’t be an increase at all.

30 months of FLR was £500.

[theoldgit]

5 hours ago, Flustered said:

Even if the charge went up to £600 which is extremely doubtful, it is still excellent value for someone who has not paid into the NHS system.

 

Two points here, the NHS is funded from general taxation, nobody pays into the NHS system.

 

Many spouses arriving in the UK actually work and will pay tax, and thus will have made a contribution to the NHS coffers, so will be effectively paying for their NHS cover twice. 

[1SteveC]

6 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

 

Two points here, the NHS is funded from general taxation, nobody pays into the NHS system.

 

Many spouses arriving in the UK actually work and will pay tax, and thus will have made a contribution to the NHS coffers, so will be effectively paying for their NHS cover twice. 

 

And NI contributions.

 

Agree, some will work and pay both income tax and NI, but many won't. Also, there should be a qualifying period for those who do work, maybe a year or two - otherwise it is just to easy to use the NHS for medical tourism of sorts.

[oldlakey]

9 hours ago, theoldgit said:

 

Two points here, the NHS is funded from general taxation, nobody pays into the NHS system.

 

Many spouses arriving in the UK actually work and will pay tax, and thus will have made a contribution to the NHS coffers, so will be effectively paying for their NHS cover twice. 

Two many drawing out of the pot simply cant be sustained at present level

They will continue to look for more savings and income, with no group overlooked

 

[7by7]

9 hours ago, 1SteveC said:

Agree, some will work and pay both income tax and NI, but many won't.

But their British partner (sponsor) will, otherwise they would not meet the financial requirement for the initial visa, FLR and then ILR.

 

9 hours ago, 1SteveC said:

Also, there should be a qualifying period for those who do work, maybe a year or two -

Why? If someone is working and paying tax, why should they not receive the benefits of the tax they, and their partner, are paying?

 

9 hours ago, 1SteveC said:

otherwise it is just to easy to use the NHS for medical tourism of sorts.

Visitors are excluded from free NHS treatment, except initial emergency care in an A&E department and a few other exceptions. We are talking about the family members of British citizens who have come to the UK to settle, not visitors.

 

31 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

Two many drawing out of the pot simply cant be sustained at present level

They will continue to look for more savings and income, with no group overlooked

 

Do you include the British children of British citizens in that?

 

After all, they have never paid into the pot.

 

You may, rightly, argue that their parents have; but so have the British partners of those entering the UK with a view to settlement!

[oldlakey]

Just now, 7by7 said:

But their British partner (sponsor) will, otherwise they would not meet the financial requirement for the initial visa, FLR and then ILR.

 

Why? If someone is working and paying tax, why should they not receive the benefits of the tax they, and their partner, are paying?

 

Visitors are excluded from free NHS treatment, except initial emergency care in an A&E department and a few other exceptions. We are talking about the family members of British citizens who have come to the UK to settle, not visitors.

 

Do you include the British children of British citizens in that?

 

After all, they have never paid into the pot.

 

You may, rightly, argue that their parents have; but so have the British partners of those entering the UK with a view to settlement!

Now listen just get off your high horse, I dont personally include anybody in anything

My comment was on the present Financial situation in the UK and nothing else

Its called reality you should try a dose of it sometime

No pension upgrade, the next thing to expect is an attack on the Personal Tax Allowance

The cannon fodder are always first in line, forget any talk about we are all in this together

Hopefully thats cleared the air

Good day to you Sir

 

[7by7]

oldlakey you may consider me to be on a high horse, but this is a subject about which I care deeply.

 

The excessive visa and leave to remain fees introduced by Blair's government and continued since, fees which using the government's own figures are least 4 times the actual processing costs,  mean that family migrants and their sponsors' already make a huge profit for the Exchequer.

 

To demand that family migrants contribute an extra £1100 in total (at the current rate) on top of this is, in my opinion at least, scandalous. A mere sop to the anti immigration lobby; even though it doesn't effect the main target of that lobby, EEA migrants.

 

Maybe you don't care about that, for one reason or another, but even though my wife and step daughter obtained their ILR before these extortionate fees, let alone the NHS surcharge, were introduced, I do.

 

 

[1SteveC]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

oldlakey you may consider me to be on a high horse, but this is a subject about which I care deeply.

 

The excessive visa and leave to remain fees introduced by Blair's government and continued since, fees which using the government's own figures are least 4 times the actual processing costs,  mean that family migrants and their sponsors' already make a huge profit for the Exchequer.

 

To demand that family migrants contribute an extra £1100 in total (at the current rate) on top of this is, in my opinion at least, scandalous. A mere sop to the anti immigration lobby; even though it doesn't effect the main target of that lobby, EEA migrants.

 

Maybe you don't care about that, for one reason or another, but even though my wife and step daughter obtained their ILR before these extortionate fees, let alone the NHS surcharge, were introduced, I do.

 

 

 

"already make a huge profit for the Exchequer." - Define huge profit ? I for one think that the fees paid by immigrants to the government are so small as to be inconsequential - maybe you are not aware of how much a country costs to run.

 

"are least 4 times the actual processing costs," - Remember to ask every shop you go in to reduce the cost, just in case they make a profit.

[perthperson]

7 minutes ago, 1SteveC said:

I for one think that the fees paid by immigrants to the government are so small as to be inconsequential

You must be a Brexiter..............

 

How great a charge would satisfy your xenophobia?  ( remember EU foreigners can enter for "free" at the moment!) 

 

Also remember the UKs population is aging and the birth rate comes nowhere near replacement. The UK also suffers from ans acute skill shortage in all STEM occupations but that would not concern you would it? 

 

Are you also intending that all "foreigners"  be deported ?

[7by7]

39 minutes ago, 1SteveC said:

"already make a huge profit for the Exchequer." - Define huge profit ? I for one think that the fees paid by immigrants to the government are so small as to be inconsequential

Current costs and fees taken from the government's own figures:

 

Initial visa: cost £269; fee £1464.

FLR: cost £182; fee £993.

ILR: cost £422; fee £2297.

 

Totals, assuming figures remain the same as current, which they wont as the government always increases the fees above inflation each year:

 

Costs; £873; Fees; £4754; profit £3881 or 444.5%!

 

39 minutes ago, 1SteveC said:

I for one think that the fees paid by immigrants to the government are so small as to be inconsequential - maybe you are not aware of how much a country costs to run.

True; the profits raked in by UKVI are miniscule when compared to the overall budget; but far from miniscule to those who have to pay them.

 

39 minutes ago, 1SteveC said:

"are least 4 times the actual processing costs," - Remember to ask every shop you go in to reduce the cost, just in case they make a profit.

As you can see from the above, when I said "at least 4 times the processing cost" i was wrong: it's more than that!

 

The costs published by the government include, of course, all costs including overheads; so the profit shown is net, not gross. Any shop which made a net profit after all such costs of 444.5% would not attract any business from me! Most retailers, large or small, are lucky to have a net profit of between 5 and 10%.

[oldlakey]

33 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

oldlakey you may consider me to be on a high horse, but this is a subject about which I care deeply.

 

The excessive visa and leave to remain fees introduced by Blair's government and continued since, fees which using the government's own figures are least 4 times the actual processing costs,  mean that family migrants and their sponsors' already make a huge profit for the Exchequer.

 

To demand that family migrants contribute an extra £1100 in total (at the current rate) on top of this is, in my opinion at least, scandalous. A mere sop to the anti immigration lobby; even though it doesn't effect the main target of that lobby, EEA migrants.

 

Maybe you don't care about that, for one reason or another, but even though my wife and step daughter obtained their ILR before these extortionate fees, let alone the NHS surcharge, were introduced, I do.

 

 

I do not have an axe to grind on this particular subject

Only on your misunderstanding of my simple post

Try reading the last line of POST 9 again it might just help

As  a matter of fact I have a brother, plus a nephew with two children who are married to  Thais 

I am well aware of the arduous and obscenely expensive journey to gain a UK passport for the ladies

I fully understand your concern, but please dont make childish assumptions on what I might or might not think based on your initial mistake with my POST 9

Have a nice day 

[bobrussell]

I struggle to find a really fair system that covers NHS costs etc without some form of surcharge.

The visa fees are astronomical for the individual and any profit should be ploughed back into the system. I have never seen figures for the real cost to the NHS of non-EU spouses but I suspect by the time my wife has seen the GP a couple of times and had the basic MOT services a payment of £600 a year would be in favour of the NHS.

If the spouse pays tax and NI then the argument that they should pay a zero or reduced surcharge would seem fair. They have not, however provided the historical payments that UK residents have. Many pay tax/NI for years without using the NHS!

I would love to find any BUPA insurance that is £80 a year. Generally that would cover a monthly direct debit for a youngster. BUPA does not provide 24/7 care nor GP services. £600 is therefore pretty good value especially when pre-existing conditions are covered which is not the case with insurance.

As with everything immigration related, there is going to be a fairer way of doing things but the reality is that there is going to be little sympathy for settlement applicants or their families. The UK is a low wage economy, in part because of the availability of cheap labour and this has caused fundamental resentment that politicians cannot ignore.

 

[perthperson]

9 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

I do not have an axe to grind on this particular subject

Only on your misunderstanding of my simple post

Try reading the last line of POST 9 again it might just help

As  a matter of fact I have a brother, plus a nephew with two children who are married to  Thais 

I am well aware of the arduous and obscenely expensive journey to gain a UK passport for the ladies

I fully understand your concern, but please dont make childish assumptions on what I might or might not think based on your initial mistake with my POST 9

Have a nice day 

"Two many drawing out of the pot simply cant be sustained at present level

They will continue to look for more savings and income, with no group overlooked" 

 

There can be no misunderstanding of that hateful statement.  You belong to   the Keep 'm Out and Deport 'em brigade 

[oldlakey]

8 minutes ago, perthperson said:

"Two many drawing out of the pot simply cant be sustained at present level

They will continue to look for more savings and income, with no group overlooked" 

 

There can be no misunderstanding of that hateful statement.  You belong to   the Keep 'm Out and Deport 'em brigade 

I feel really sorry for you, but my sorrow wont last for more than 5 minutes

 

[rasg]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Visitors are excluded from free NHS treatment, except initial emergency care in an A&E department and a few other exceptions. We are talking about the family members of British citizens who have come to the UK to settle, not visitors.

 

It doesn't stop many of them using it while the medical community don't think it's their job to check who is and isn’t eligible though.

 

Maybe a couple of the admin staff that are really not needed in hospitals should be moved to doing something useful?

[7by7]

2 minutes ago, rasg said:

 

It doesn't stop many of them using it while the medical community don't think it's their job to check who is and isn’t eligible though.

 

Maybe a couple of the admin staff that are really not needed in hospitals should be moved to doing something useful?

I agree that some hospitals could do more to check a patient's eligibility for free treatment before treating them in any non emergency situation. Something which the NHS guidelines require them to do.

 

In most non emergency cases, though, to be treated in a hospital you need to have been referred by a GP.

 

These days most, if not all, GPs require some form of proof of identity and eligibility, such as a passport or birth certificate, before registering a new patient; particularly if that patient hasn't previously been registered with another practice.

 

 

[oldlakey]

3 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I agree that some hospitals could do more to check a patient's eligibility for free treatment before treating them in any non emergency situation. Something which the NHS guidelines require them to do.

 

In most non emergency cases, though, to be treated in a hospital you need to have been referred by a GP.

 

These days most, if not all, GPs require some form of proof of identity and eligibility, such as a passport or birth certificate, before registering a new patient; particularly if that patient hasn't previously been registered with another practice.

 

 

They will eventually close every loophole, and they will have us by the short and curlies

[7by7]

21 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

29 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I agree that some hospitals could do more to check a patient's eligibility for free treatment before treating them in any non emergency situation. Something which the NHS guidelines require them to do.

 

In most non emergency cases, though, to be treated in a hospital you need to have been referred by a GP.

 

These days most, if not all, GPs require some form of proof of identity and eligibility, such as a passport or birth certificate, before registering a new patient; particularly if that patient hasn't previously been registered with another practice.

They will eventually close every loophole, and they will have us by the short and curlies

 

My post outlines the procedures designed to prevent visitors to the UK from receiving free NHS treatment to which they are not entitled. None of it prevents UK residents, British or not, who are entitled to such treatment from receiving it.

 

Have you misunderstood my post, or do you think visitors should be entitled to free NHS treatment, or at least be able to exploit loopholes to receive such treatment?

[oldlakey]

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

My post outlines the procedures designed to prevent visitors to the UK from receiving free NHS treatment to which they are not entitled. None of it prevents UK residents, British or not, who are entitled to such treatment from receiving it.

 

Have you misunderstood my post, or do you think visitors should be entitled to free NHS treatment, or at least be able to exploit loopholes to receive such treatment?

What I believe, and what happens are not the same, but as I say the loopholes are being closed

Simple is it not

[rasg]

38 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I agree that some hospitals could do more to check a patient's eligibility for free treatment before treating them in any non emergency situation. Something which the NHS guidelines require them to do.

 

In most non emergency cases, though, to be treated in a hospital you need to have been referred by a GP.

 

These days most, if not all, GPs require some form of proof of identity and eligibility, such as a passport or birth certificate, before registering a new patient; particularly if that patient hasn't previously been registered with another practice.

Just because the NHS guidelines require them to do it, doesn’t mean that they do it.

 

True about GPs but I paid my GP £10 for a letter from our doctor for my wife to use for FLR.

 

What about the women who come here specifically to have their babies and never pay for the treatment?

[oldlakey]

2 minutes ago, rasg said:

Just because the NHS guidelines require them to do it, doesn’t mean that they do it.

 

True about GPs but I paid my GP £10 for a letter from our doctor for my wife to use for FLR.

 

What about the women who come here specifically to have their babies and never pay for the treatment?

It will be a while yet before its as tight as a drum but its coming

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, bobrussell said:

I struggle to find a really fair system that covers NHS costs etc without some form of surcharge.

The visa fees are astronomical for the individual and any profit should be ploughed back into the system. I have never seen figures for the real cost to the NHS of non-EU spouses but I suspect by the time my wife has seen the GP a couple of times and had the basic MOT services a payment of £600 a year would be in favour of the NHS.

If the spouse pays tax and NI then the argument that they should pay a zero or reduced surcharge would seem fair. They have not, however provided the historical payments that UK residents have. Many pay tax/NI for years without using the NHS!

I would love to find any BUPA insurance that is £80 a year. Generally that would cover a monthly direct debit for a youngster. BUPA does not provide 24/7 care nor GP services. £600 is therefore pretty good value especially when pre-existing conditions are covered which is not the case with insurance.

As with everything immigration related, there is going to be a fairer way of doing things but the reality is that there is going to be little sympathy for settlement applicants or their families. The UK is a low wage economy, in part because of the availability of cheap labour and this has caused fundamental resentment that politicians cannot ignore.

 

The NHS is meant to be a merit good

Persons who are liable for the NHS charging will simply not visit or seek medical help when they are sick. This in itself poses a risk to the general population, as poeple with communicable diseases will be in contact with  the general public and transmitting the diseases

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, rasg said:

Just because the NHS guidelines require them to do it, doesn’t mean that they do it.

 

True about GPs but I paid my GP £10 for a letter from our doctor for my wife to use for FLR.

 

What about the women who come here specifically to have their babies and never pay for the treatment?

It is law, the guidelines are to help them apply the law

[bobrussell]

But people with communicable diseases are generally excluded from paying anyway.

The list (if interested) is:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/238/schedule/1/made

 

There is no requirement for registration or credit card!

[rockingrobin]

4 minutes ago, bobrussell said:

But people with communicable diseases are generally excluded from paying anyway.

The list (if interested) is:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/238/schedule/1/made

 

There is no requirement for registration or credit card!

Is this not a catch 22, how would that person know without visiting an nhs service and risking a charge.