Possible tripling of NHS surcharge

[7by7]

1 hour ago, oldlakey said:

1 hour 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

 

Sorry, but now I am totally confused.

 

Please enlighten me by explaining how closing the loopholes exploited by visitors to the UK who are not entitled to free, non emergency NHS treatment means that

1 hour ago, oldlakey said:

they will have us by the short and curlies

 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, rasg said:

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

Any visitor to the UK who receives NHS treatment they are not entitled to should be charged for it. If they do not pay before leaving the UK then any future UK visa application, or attempt to enter the UK, will be refused until and unless their bill is paid. 

[oldlakey]

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Sorry, but now I am totally confused.

 

Please enlighten me by explaining how closing the loopholes exploited by visitors to the UK who are not entitled to free, non emergency NHS treatment means that

 

You have been totally confused since you totally misunderstood my first post or had you not noticed

Deal with your own mistake, I have wasted enough time here

Bye Bye

[rasg]

But people coming from outside the EU do need TB tests, for example. Does that count as a communicable disease? And very strangely if you have a Diplomatic passport, you and your family who are coming here, don't need a TB test. TB obviously doesn't affect diplomats...

 

The idea that anybody coming here should have travel insurance makes  a lot of sense to me. It happens in other countries. Why not here?

[7by7]

6 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

You have been totally confused since you totally misunderstood my first post or had you not noticed

Deal with your own mistake, I have wasted enough time here

Bye Bye

Then why not enlighten me and end my confusion?

 

You self contradictory posts have only added to my confusion!

[oldlakey]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Then why not enlighten me and end my confusion?

 

You self contradictory posts have only added to my confusion!

My POSTS 9 + 11 are self explanatory

You jumped in feet first which led to this confrontation

Whatever else I think or get up to does not concern you

 

[kamenrider]

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

 

A generic response as follows, due to getting into a technical tangle-

 

To rasg post 2

Well Boris would surely be a powerful advocate especially if he could find classical references he could draw on, though he may have bigger things on which to focus. My mp is a backbencher, not sure yet to what extent he will take this up.

 

 

To Flustered post 3

The manifesto commitment was ambiguous, lacking sufficient detail, as I said in my original post. There was a commitment to increase the Immigration Skills Charge by 200 per cent, so the possibility of a 300 per cent increase in the surcharge surely cannot be ruled out with the apparent certainty you have. We can all find commentaries that interpret the commitment either way.

 

 

To 7 by 7 post 12

I get quite brassed off about this for the reasons you, and others, give. What I find odd and annoying also is that the Government is not upfront about the charge on spouses. For instance when the surcharge was announced the responsible minister- or should I say the minister responsible- made no reference to the impact upon foreign spouses, only temporary migrants.

 

Our health services will still be available to all those who need them, but now people coming from outside the EEA will make a fair contribution to the costs of healthcare incurred by temporary migrants living in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/migrant-health-surcharge-to-raise-200-million-a-year

 

 

More recently in the Lords a government spokesman again made no mention.

 

My Lords, the House will be aware that the immigration health charge was introduced in April 2015 and is paid by non-European Economic Area temporary migrants who apply for leave to enter for more than six months, or who apply to extend their stay.

Baroness Vere 9 February 2017

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2017-02-09/debates/E053F3BA-4A7A-4E6D-AC11-245E4096176A/Immigration(HealthCharge)(Amendment)Order2017?highlight=nhs surcharge#contribution-2CBFF99E-911D-4642-A0AC-AAAC2AE02B23

 

 

There may be examples to the contrary but they did not come up when I looked into this. I cannot think of a satisfactory explanation for not spelling out the full extent of the charge.

[7by7]

12 hours ago, kamenrider said:

What I find odd and annoying also is that the Government is not upfront about the charge on spouses. For instance when the surcharge was announced the responsible minister- or should I say the minister responsible- made no reference to the impact upon foreign spouses, only temporary migrants.

 

Our health services will still be available to all those who need them, but now people coming from outside the EEA will make a fair contribution to the costs of healthcare incurred by temporary migrants living in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/migrant-health-surcharge-to-raise-200-million-a-year

 

 Unfortunately, as family migrants only have limited leave to remain until they achieve ILR, they are classed as 'temporary' until they do have ILR and so are covered by this.

[Richard W]

On 28/06/2017 at 4:07 PM, 7by7 said:

Any visitor to the UK who receives NHS treatment they are not entitled to should be charged for it. If they do not pay before leaving the UK then any future UK visa application, or attempt to enter the UK, will be refused until and unless their bill is paid. 

Sorry, that doesn't work for British citizens, who I believe are the most expensive set of health tourists.

[7by7]

8 hours ago, Richard W said:

Sorry, that doesn't work for British citizens, who I believe are the most expensive set of health tourists.

As I'm sure you know, Richard, British expats who are visiting the UK are subject to the same charges as other visitors.

 

It is only if they are returning to resume residence that they are entitled to the whole range of NHS services.

 

Of course, if someone states that they are resuming residence when they are in fact only visiting, it is difficult to prove otherwise.

[perthperson]

I admit to having sympathy for those living abroad with a foreign spouse. The costs involved in seeking UK seeking spousal settlement are, in there totality truly frightening and maybe unaffordable for many.

 

I cannot help but believe we have arrived at this point as a result of past abuses by some and increasing levels of xenophobia within the UK. 

[rasg]

1 hour ago, perthperson said:

I admit to having sympathy for those living abroad with a foreign spouse. The costs involved in seeking UK seeking spousal settlement are, in there totality truly frightening and maybe unaffordable for many.

 

I cannot help but believe we have arrived at this point as a result of past abuses by some and increasing levels of xenophobia within the UK. 

It is not xenophobic to be concerned about the level of immigration to your country. I can walk through my town and every voice I hear is in a different language to my own. Pre 2000 that wasn't the case and the very fabric of many communities has been totally changed.

[perthperson]

Just now, rasg said:

It is not xenophobic to be concerned about the level of immigration to your country. I can walk through my town and every voice I hear is in a different language to my own. Pre 2000 that wasn't the case and the very fabric of many communities has been totally changed.

Thanks. You have just proven the point I was making.

 

I guess you also voted for or support Brexite and want the 'immigrates' kicked out of the country.

[Richard W]

On 28/06/2017 at 4:07 PM, 7by7 said:

Any visitor to the UK who receives NHS treatment they are not entitled to should be charged for it. If they do not pay before leaving the UK then any future UK visa application, or attempt to enter the UK, will be refused until and unless their bill is paid. 

 

12 hours ago, Richard W said:

Sorry, that doesn't work for British citizens, who I believe are the most expensive set of health tourists.

 

3 hours ago, 7by7 said:

As I'm sure you know, Richard, British expats who are visiting the UK are subject to the same charges as other visitors.

 

It is only if they are returning to resume residence that they are entitled to the whole range of NHS services.

 

Of course, if someone states that they are resuming residence when they are in fact only visiting, it is difficult to prove otherwise.

And, so far as I am aware, such citizens will not be refused entry because they owe the NHS money.  Or are you suggesting that they will be impeded by their passports being cancelled?

[rasg]

56 minutes ago, perthperson said:

Thanks. You have just proven the point I was making.

 

I guess you also voted for or support Brexite and want the 'immigrates' kicked out of the country.

NO I haven't. Any normal person who lives here, no matter where they originated probably thinks the same. Things have gone far enough. There are simply enough people here. The NHS and schools are creaking under the strain.

 

I supported Brexit as it's stupidly called but not for the reasons you think. We need a good balanced immigration system just like many other countries around the world.

 

Xenophobic? Hardly. My wife is Thai and many of my friends are from many different countries around the world.

 

It's left wing thing isn't it? Calling everybody racist or xenophobic who feels that there are enough immigrants in this country but that tactic doesn't work any more.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

 

And, so far as I am aware, such citizens will not be refused entry because they owe the NHS money.  Or are you suggesting that they will be impeded by their passports being cancelled?

 That a British citizen cannot be denied entry to the UK is such a basic fact that I assumed you knew it and so it wasn't worth mentioning!

 

That a British citizen cannot have their passport cancelled, unless they were naturalised and meet one of the criteria for losing their citizenship, is also a basic fact I assumed you knew.

 

To educate you further: British citizens entering the UK to settle are also not subject to the IHS surcharge, or any other entry requirements such as the financial one; even if they were born abroad and have never previously set foot in the UK.

[Richard W]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 That a British citizen cannot be denied entry to the UK is such a basic fact that I assumed you knew it and so it wasn't worth mentioning!

So a British citizen visiting the UK for NHS treatment and failing to pay will not be prevented from subsequently re-entering, as you claimed would happen to those who abscond without paying.  (I had thought that you knew that by means of a temporary exclusion order, a British citizen  can be denied entry, even outside a port, without an appointment.  I gather that this hasn't happened yet.)

 

That a British citizen cannot have their passport cancelled, unless they were naturalised and meet one of the criteria for losing their citizenship, is also a basic fact I assumed you knew.

Like 1 + 1 = 3?

 

The grounds for cancellation are rather wider - see https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-issuing-withdrawal-or-refusal-of-passports.

 

Pedantically, your error is demonstrated by http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/41.html; AI was too young to have been naturalised.

 

In response to the next point, did I say they were subject to the IHS surcharge?  British citizens are liable for NHS charges when they are visitors to the UK.

To educate you further: British citizens entering the UK to settle are also not subject to the IHS surcharge, or any other entry requirements such as the financial one; even if they were born abroad and have never previously set foot in the UK.

[7by7]

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

So a British citizen visiting the UK for NHS treatment and failing to pay will not be prevented from subsequently re-entering, as you claimed would happen to those who abscond without paying

 I claimed, rightly, that a visitor who absconded without paying for any chargeable NHS treatment they had received whilst in the UK would have any and all subsequent visa applications automatically refused until and unless they did pay.

 

As British citizens do not require a visa to enter the UK, it is obvious to all except the most pedantic of pedants that I did not include them in this. It is difficult to refuse a visa application when no visa or other entry clearance, whether in advance or at a port of entry, is required!

 

I will concede your point on Temporary Exclusion Orders; which are, as the name suggests, temporary. They exist to temporarily prevent known terrorists who are British citizens from re-entering the UK until they have satisfied certain requirements. You are wrong, it has been used, though so far only once: Rudd admits anti-terror exclusion powers used only once since 2015

 

I will also concede that British citizens can be refused a passport or have an existing one revoked. One reason being, as in the two examples you gave, to prevent suspected terrorists from leaving the UK.

 

But we are not talking about terrorists. Why do you equate British citizens accessing the NHS when they are not legally entitled to with terrorists?

 

I'm not going to bother getting into the difference, and similarities, between Naturalisation and Registration; instead I'll leave the petty point scoring to you.

 

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

 

In response to the next point, did I say they were subject to the IHS surcharge? 

No, but this is a subject about the IHS; in case you hadn't noticed.

 

2 hours ago, Richard W said:

British citizens are liable for NHS charges when they are visitors to the UK.

Yes, I know and said so; but the post you found so objectionable was in response to another member's post about foreigners using the NHS when the terms of their leave in the UK meant they were not entitled to.

 

[theoldgit]

Come on guys, please don't let this thread turn into another of your sniping sessions, it's becoming rather tedious.

[Rob180]

On 6/27/2017 at 9:06 PM, Flustered said:

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.

 

[Rob180]

I assume your comments equate to 'trolling' . Why is £600 excellent value for someone who has not paid into the system? Does that apply to the thousands of EU immigrants who don't work, use the NHS free, don't pay visa fees or English test fees  but come here and claim millions in benefits and send the money home? How much have they paid into the NHS system?

Edited July 22, 2017 by Rob180

[stevenl]

On 7/22/2017 at 8:58 PM, Rob180 said:

I assume your comments equate to 'trolling' . Why is £600 excellent value for someone who has not paid into the system? Does that apply to the thousands of EU immigrants who don't work, use the NHS free, don't pay visa fees or English test fees  but come here and claim millions in benefits and send the money home? How much have they paid into the NHS system?

See post #49.

[bobrussell]

£600 may or may not be excellent value for money but the NHS is not cheap and the full facilities become available on arrival in the UK as a result of paying the NHS surcharge.

As with pretty much everything there are winners and losers. Some will use the NHS a lot whereas others register with a GP and little else. Some UK residents use the NHS a lot and others register with a GP and little else! It is a massive scale 'insurance' policy that allows those that are sick to receive treatment free at the point of contact. It is not free at all of course.

It is not a rip off though.

Most EU nationals are economically active and contribute to the economy and it is only a minority that fleece the system, just as a minority of UK residents fleece the system. These people are frustrating and upsetting for the majority of us but do make compelling reading and viewing which some find impossible to put into any sort of context.

[rasg]

Surely the winners are those who don't have to use the NHS much. In terms of having good health, of course...

[Trevor1809]

On 28/06/2017 at 11:40 AM, 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

 

Then may be it is time to look at Amazon, Google, Apple et al. It certainly bugs me that a couple or years back I paid moor tax than the UK arm of Facebook with a turnover of circa £110 million.

[oldlakey]

1 hour ago, Trevor1809 said:

Then may be it is time to look at Amazon, Google, Apple et al. It certainly bugs me that a couple or years back I paid moor tax than the UK arm of Facebook with a turnover of circa £110 million.

Maybe its time the UK stopped living beyond its means, until it does we can all get ready one way or another

Its not rocket science now is it

The silver lining is the fact that we are all in it together, Oh hang on that scumbag has moved on now though