Quitting the UK

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Statements like that miss the point.  Forget the UK and focus on England and you come up with the following population stats:

Japan    336.33 per km2

England 413 per km2 (higher than Japan)

Yes, but that's the reason you have to use the whole-UK statistic - like the UK including Scotland, Japan has large areas in the north which are extremely lightly populated, so you're cherry-picking by using the England figure.

The main island of Honshu has a population density of 447/km2, again considerably higher than England - and even that includes fairly large less-populated areas (as does northern England).

Whichever way you look at it, provided you use comparable areas, Japan is more densely populated than the UK.

I agree about the cultural diversity and rate of change points, by the way - but it's important not to try to reduce it just to a 'too many people' or 'Britain is full' argument, because that isn't true.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

Statements like that miss the point.  Forget the UK and focus on England and you come up with the following population stats:

Japan    336.33 per km2

England 413 per km2 (higher than Japan)

Yes, but that's the reason you have to use the whole-UK statistic - like the UK including Scotland, Japan has large areas in the north which are extremely lightly populated, so you're cherry-picking by using the England figure.

The main island of Honshu has a population density of 447/Km2, again considerably higher than England - and even that includes fairly large less-populated areas.

No you don't. The pressure is on England which is a country in it's own right so a comparison is valid. There are large swathes of England with no people . The problem we have is that migration tends to be to a few large urban areas. Only 44 per cent of people in London are now classed as white British. The real pressures are in London, the SE of England and East Anglia. House prices in London are just ridiculous.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

No you don't. The pressure is on England which is a country in it's own right so a comparison is valid. There are large swathes of England with no people . The problem we have is that migration tends to be to a few large urban areas. Only 44 per cent of people in London are now classed as white British. The real pressures are in London, the SE of England and East Anglia. House prices in London are just ridiculous. 

Sorry, I must have edited that while you were replying - I do agree up to a point about the rate of change in urban areas. What I don't agree with - and I suspect this may be because people don't want to appear anti-immigrant or "racist" (which I am *not* accusing anyone here of) - is that idea that the plain numbers are the problem.

Honshu and Hokkaido are also different areas of Japan and are similar to England and Scotland, with similar differences in population densities - we are really very similar nations in many ways, other than that Japan has twice as many people and is more densely populated.

The most serious failure in the UK is to help distribute the immigration properly - as I said earlier, Scotland actually *wants* immigrants - our population is falling. The UK government needs to do something about this, instead of just leaving everyone to fight over the south-east of England. I totally understand that this has caused severe stresses in some areas.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

No you don't. The pressure is on England which is a country in it's own right so a comparison is valid. There are large swathes of England with no people . The problem we have is that migration tends to be to a few large urban areas. Only 44 per cent of people in London are now classed as white British. The real pressures are in London, the SE of England and East Anglia. House prices in London are just ridiculous. 

Sorry, I must have edited that while you were replying - I do agree up to a point about the rate of change in urban areas. What I don't agree with - and I suspect this may be because people don't want to appear anti-immigrant or "racist" (which I am *not* accusing anyone here of) - is that idea that the plain numbers are the problem.

Honshu and Hokkaido are also different areas of Japan and are similar to England and Scotland, with similar differences in population densities - we are really very similar nations in many ways, other than that Japan has twice as many people and is more densely populated.

The most serious failure in the UK is to help distribute the immigration properly - as I said earlier, Scotland actually *wants* immigrants - our population is falling. The UK government needs to do something about this, instead of just leaving everyone to fight over the south-east of England. I totally understand that this has caused severe stresses in some areas.

I agree with you. The problem is migrants will go where the jobs are or where their family or cultural attachments lie. Scotland is not a popular place for migrants. The country took in some Syrian refugees - some got on the first train to London. They didn't like the cold, grey weather and the small town they were stuck in - nothing to do with Scottish hospitality. I read it as shorthand for "we want the bright lights and opportunities to be found in London" ... I don't see there's much you can do ..

In Hertfordshire people get on trains and go to London and even local construction workers head to the big projects in London. We therefore need EU migrants to fill the jobs which means we need to build more houses, schools and hospitals. There's not the cash. The A1 motorway is two lanes for large stretches and is at a standstill. The County Council hasn't got the money to look into a solution until 2030 and yet 80,000 houses will be built along the route making traffic worse. It's just madness. No wonder Hertfordshire voted for Brexit.

Evilmags

Scotland not a popular place for migrants? You been on a Madrid Edinburgh flight recently or eaten in an edinburgh restaurant. Their are masses of Spanish people there. 

ThePrettyDamned

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

If you work in the NHS you already know the even bigger strain our pathetic, unhealthy and unresponsible population is having on services. 

Because we have an NHS. Insured health care promotes better behaviour (it gets cheaper if you exercise, don't smoke and have a sensible weight). 

And a removal of people who can't afford it from the system. You know, by death.

It might be efficient money-wise, but it certainly isn't better.

Wizzes for you sir. 

Fretwired

Evilmags said:

Scotland not a popular place for migrants? You been on a Madrid Edinburgh flight recently or eaten in an edinburgh restaurant. Their are masses of Spanish people there. 

The Scottish population has remained constant at around 5 million for the last 50 years - there might be the odd hot spot like Edinburgh which is a great European city. However, the population of England in 2011 was 53 million which has risen to 55 million in 2016. Most of the growth has been in London and the surrounding counties.

The Scots have trouble hanging onto their own talented people - you are a case in point.

Evilmags

ThePrettyDamned said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

If you work in the NHS you already know the even bigger strain our pathetic, unhealthy and unresponsible population is having on services. 

Because we have an NHS. Insured health care promotes better behaviour (it gets cheaper if you exercise, don't smoke and have a sensible weight). 

And a removal of people who can't afford it from the system. You know, by death.

It might be efficient money-wise, but it certainly isn't better.

Wizzes for you sir. 

If that were the case why are the longest average life spans in countries with insurance based healthcare system. The US has been a mess for donkey´s years thanks to regulators and the legal profession. SIngapore, Australia ect don´t exactly have streets full of the sick and dyeing. 

If people have no skin in the game they will treat the NHS as a free cure it all and massively abuse it, diverting resources away from those who need them most. For people who could not afford bells and whistles healthcare policies, it would still be cheaper for the state to buy them basic Pru Health or BUPA healthcare plans. 

The NHS is a massive money pitt. As nice an idea as it sounds it´s results/cost delivery is worse than awful. Whereas a business which is well run and funded can never have too many clients, a service funded through tax can never deliver all of its customer´s expectations.

Having spent 20 years in jobs that give medical insurance the worst thing is half of the insured, out of habit or missguided principle, still use a public service. If the UK, given current demographics, wants to have health services for its most vulnerable, it needs to start pushing healthcare plans onto companies and individuals, and start taking stress off the NHS: It will eventually collapse with horrific results otherwise.  

ThePrettyDamned

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

If you work in the NHS you already know the even bigger strain our pathetic, unhealthy and unresponsible population is having on services. 

Because we have an NHS. Insured health care promotes better behaviour (it gets cheaper if you exercise, don't smoke and have a sensible weight). 

And a removal of people who can't afford it from the system. You know, by death.

It might be efficient money-wise, but it certainly isn't better.

Wizzes for you sir. 

If that were the case why are the longest average life spans in countries with insurance based healthcare system. The US has been a mess for donkey´s years thanks to regulators and the legal profession. SIngapore, Australia ect don´t exactly have streets full of the sick and dyeing. 

If people have no skin in the game they will treat the NHS as a free cure it all and massively abuse it, diverting resources away from those who need them most. For people who could not afford bells and whistles healthcare policies, it would still be cheaper for the state to buy them basic Pru Health or BUPA healthcare plans. 

The NHS is a massive money pitt. As nice an idea as it sounds it´s results/cost delivery is worse than awful. Whereas a business which is well run and funded can never have too many clients, a service funded through tax can never deliver all of its customer´s expectations.

Having spent 20 years in jobs that give medical insurance the worst thing is half of the insured, out of habit or missguided principle, still use a public service. If the UK, given current demographics, wants to have health services for its most vulnerable, it needs to start pushing healthcare plans onto companies and individuals, and start taking stress off the NHS: It will eventually collapse with horrific results otherwise.  

Sorry, I don't often talk in depth about my feelings on the NHS. 

I have conflicting opinion formed from my own experience of working wards in a massive hospital. 

I see the good, but I saw and experienced abuse towards staff almost daily, and was admitted to a+e twice myself - once by a patient who was not confused, but wanted a cigarette before I helped everyone else had a wash. I politely declined, which led to a hard slap and a tirade of abuse, a split lip and a cut eye. Of course, she was a patient - she couldn't be blamed. 

So I sympathise with the opinion that having a more privatised system could work. 

The problem is actually cost - the actual cost of care. I don't think most of the population could afford insurance. We have come too far - the population expects to have their dicks held by the government while they piss. 

Or something. 

We need reform. I think too much privatisation would result in catastrophe. I think, in some areas, too much has already occurred. 

The public needs to stop abusing it. The system should prevent it and punish those who do. 

ThePrettyDamned

It's worth noting, as slightly rambling as that post is, the point I am trying to make is that the NHS is massive - and envied the world over. And trust me, we do more things right than wrong. I remember a particularly depressing week - I read a report that a Canadian research team had deemed the NHS to have the best end of life care I  the world, but the very next day the media was reporting how we badly needed end of life care reform because it was too box ticky. 

robgilmo

ThePrettyDamned said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

If you work in the NHS you already know the even bigger strain our pathetic, unhealthy and unresponsible population is having on services. 

Because we have an NHS. Insured health care promotes better behaviour (it gets cheaper if you exercise, don't smoke and have a sensible weight). 

And a removal of people who can't afford it from the system. You know, by death.

It might be efficient money-wise, but it certainly isn't better.

Wizzes for you sir. 

If that were the case why are the longest average life spans in countries with insurance based healthcare system. The US has been a mess for donkey´s years thanks to regulators and the legal profession. SIngapore, Australia ect don´t exactly have streets full of the sick and dyeing. 

If people have no skin in the game they will treat the NHS as a free cure it all and massively abuse it, diverting resources away from those who need them most. For people who could not afford bells and whistles healthcare policies, it would still be cheaper for the state to buy them basic Pru Health or BUPA healthcare plans. 

The NHS is a massive money pitt. As nice an idea as it sounds it´s results/cost delivery is worse than awful. Whereas a business which is well run and funded can never have too many clients, a service funded through tax can never deliver all of its customer´s expectations.

Having spent 20 years in jobs that give medical insurance the worst thing is half of the insured, out of habit or missguided principle, still use a public service. If the UK, given current demographics, wants to have health services for its most vulnerable, it needs to start pushing healthcare plans onto companies and individuals, and start taking stress off the NHS: It will eventually collapse with horrific results otherwise.  

Sorry, I don't often talk in depth about my feelings on the NHS. 

I have conflicting opinion formed from my own experience of working wards in a massive hospital. 

I see the good, but I saw and experienced abuse towards staff almost daily, and was admitted to a+e twice myself - once by a patient who was not confused, but wanted a cigarette before I helped everyone else had a wash. I politely declined, which led to a hard slap and a tirade of abuse, a split lip and a cut eye. Of course, she was a patient - she couldn't be blamed. 

So I sympathise with the opinion that having a more privatised system could work. 

The problem is actually cost - the actual cost of care. I don't think most of the population could afford insurance. We have come too far - the population expects to have their dicks held by the government while they piss. 

Or something. 

We need reform. I think too much privatisation would result in catastrophe. I think, in some areas, too much has already occurred. 

The public needs to stop abusing it. The system should prevent it and punish those who do. 

The government want's to hold our dicks while we piss, its more profitable.

capo4th

Let's send em all to Scotland it took me an hour to drive 7 miles earlier today in leafy Surrey.

They can also treat the sick in Scottish hospitals and ease the pressure on London

DLM

AliGorie said: Norway aint got any food banks - no need !.

http://kavlifondet.no/2013/06/feeding-the-needy/

@AliGorie

ThePrettyDamned

robgilmo said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

digitalscream said:

Evilmags said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

If you work in the NHS you already know the even bigger strain our pathetic, unhealthy and unresponsible population is having on services. 

Because we have an NHS. Insured health care promotes better behaviour (it gets cheaper if you exercise, don't smoke and have a sensible weight). 

And a removal of people who can't afford it from the system. You know, by death.

It might be efficient money-wise, but it certainly isn't better.

Wizzes for you sir. 

If that were the case why are the longest average life spans in countries with insurance based healthcare system. The US has been a mess for donkey´s years thanks to regulators and the legal profession. SIngapore, Australia ect don´t exactly have streets full of the sick and dyeing. 

If people have no skin in the game they will treat the NHS as a free cure it all and massively abuse it, diverting resources away from those who need them most. For people who could not afford bells and whistles healthcare policies, it would still be cheaper for the state to buy them basic Pru Health or BUPA healthcare plans. 

The NHS is a massive money pitt. As nice an idea as it sounds it´s results/cost delivery is worse than awful. Whereas a business which is well run and funded can never have too many clients, a service funded through tax can never deliver all of its customer´s expectations.

Having spent 20 years in jobs that give medical insurance the worst thing is half of the insured, out of habit or missguided principle, still use a public service. If the UK, given current demographics, wants to have health services for its most vulnerable, it needs to start pushing healthcare plans onto companies and individuals, and start taking stress off the NHS: It will eventually collapse with horrific results otherwise.  

Sorry, I don't often talk in depth about my feelings on the NHS. 

I have conflicting opinion formed from my own experience of working wards in a massive hospital. 

I see the good, but I saw and experienced abuse towards staff almost daily, and was admitted to a+e twice myself - once by a patient who was not confused, but wanted a cigarette before I helped everyone else had a wash. I politely declined, which led to a hard slap and a tirade of abuse, a split lip and a cut eye. Of course, she was a patient - she couldn't be blamed. 

So I sympathise with the opinion that having a more privatised system could work. 

The problem is actually cost - the actual cost of care. I don't think most of the population could afford insurance. We have come too far - the population expects to have their dicks held by the government while they piss. 

Or something. 

We need reform. I think too much privatisation would result in catastrophe. I think, in some areas, too much has already occurred. 

The public needs to stop abusing it. The system should prevent it and punish those who do. 

The government want's to hold our dicks while we piss, its more profitable.

I am a bit sick of people not having responsibility for their actions, but it's what lets them morally abuse our social systems. 

Something needs to change, but I don't think losing these systems is the answer. I think a reform needs to come with a change in attitudes too.

Chalky

@ThePrettyDamned said the NHS is "envied the world over".

It is not. That is simply jingoistic nonsense, and a lie told to justify shoddy service. Sure, the populations of poor countries wish they had free healthcare but I've never found anyone from a first-world country that wished they had the NHS.  The concept of lengthy queues for healthcare is what they cite the most often as ridiculous, especially for non-life-threatening operations such as hip replacements.  Having to wait a couple of weeks to see a GP is, to them, evidence that the NHS is fundamentally flawed.

ThePrettyDamned

Chalky said:

@ThePrettyDamned said the NHS is "envied the world over".

It is not. That is simply jingoistic nonsense, and a lie told to justify shoddy service. Sure, the populations of poor countries wish they had free healthcare but I've never found anyone from a first-world country that wished they had the NHS.  The concept of lengthy queues for healthcare is what they cite the most often as ridiculous, especially for non-life-threatening operations such as hip replacements.  Having to wait a couple of weeks to see a GP is, to them, evidence that the NHS is fundamentally flawed.

Okay, well, consider my own overseas friends as providing anecdotal evidence then. 

Orthopaedic surgery, despite the wait list, is probably one of the NHS biggest successes btw. Certainly at addenbrookes, dozens would be performed each week and there are two large wards full of inpatients, as well as the largest outpatient clinic. 

So perhaps hip operations wasn't the best example. Of course, if you wanted to sort this, you could perhaps triple the number of wards and surgeons doing it? 

Edit: I am not denying a problem. I do think that private healthcare from employers needs to be utilised better. I think K we are almost half way on the same side. 

Teetonetal

ThePrettyDamned said:

Chalky said:

@ThePrettyDamned said the NHS is "envied the world over".

It is not. That is simply jingoistic nonsense, and a lie told to justify shoddy service. Sure, the populations of poor countries wish they had free healthcare but I've never found anyone from a first-world country that wished they had the NHS.  The concept of lengthy queues for healthcare is what they cite the most often as ridiculous, especially for non-life-threatening operations such as hip replacements.  Having to wait a couple of weeks to see a GP is, to them, evidence that the NHS is fundamentally flawed.

Okay, well, consider my own overseas friends as providing anecdotal evidence then. 

Orthopaedic surgery, despite the wait list, is probably one of the NHS biggest successes btw. Certainly at addenbrookes, dozens would be performed each week and there are two large wards full of inpatients, as well as the largest outpatient clinic. 

So perhaps hip operations wasn't the best example. Of course, if you wanted to sort this, you could perhaps triple the number of wards and surgeons doing it? 

Edit: I am not denying a problem. I do think that private healthcare from employers needs to be utilised better. I think K we are almost half way on the same side. 

NHS is certainly something that most Expat British people I know say is utterly crap compared to the Swiss system. It's one of the few points that gets agreed on. Our insurance system is not perfect, but I think overall it's a better system than the NHS. The unemployed still get government provided health care and low income families get subsidized health care. The rest of us pay a premium.

I've been hospitalized twice in the UK and twice in Switzerland.. There is no contest in terms of quality and speed of care. My Last visit to the NHS resulted in me being forgotten about for 3 days until the original Dr came back on shift and was WTF are you still doing here... Nobody ever phoned through for a transfer (I had blood poisoning and was out of it)  and even when I was finally treated and discharged they gave me someone else's care pack with the wrong medication in it.

Both our kids were born in Switzerland and again, comparing to my sister in laws experience, the pre - bith - post natal care is worlds apart. Better health care, is definitely a good reason to leave the UK!

The NHS is a wonderful idea, but also a total burden and in it's current state, completely unsustainable, in part because people think it is "free". I don't know how the UK will ever solve this.

TheBigDipper

Teetonetal said:

ThePrettyDamned said:

Chalky said:

@ThePrettyDamned said the NHS is "envied the world over".

It is not. That is simply jingoistic nonsense, and a lie told to justify shoddy service. Sure, the populations of poor countries wish they had free healthcare but I've never found anyone from a first-world country that wished they had the NHS.  The concept of lengthy queues for healthcare is what they cite the most often as ridiculous, especially for non-life-threatening operations such as hip replacements.  Having to wait a couple of weeks to see a GP is, to them, evidence that the NHS is fundamentally flawed.

Okay, well, consider my own overseas friends as providing anecdotal evidence then. 

Orthopaedic surgery, despite the wait list, is probably one of the NHS biggest successes btw. Certainly at addenbrookes, dozens would be performed each week and there are two large wards full of inpatients, as well as the largest outpatient clinic. 

So perhaps hip operations wasn't the best example. Of course, if you wanted to sort this, you could perhaps triple the number of wards and surgeons doing it? 

Edit: I am not denying a problem. I do think that private healthcare from employers needs to be utilised better. I think K we are almost half way on the same side. 

NHS is certainly something that most Expat British people I know say is utterly crap compared to the Swiss system. It's one of the few points that gets agreed on. Our insurance system is not perfect, but I think overall it's a better system than the NHS. The unemployed still get government provided health care and low income families get subsidized health care. The rest of us pay a premium.

I've been hospitalized twice in the UK and twice in Switzerland.. There is no contest in terms of quality and speed of care. My Last visit to the NHS resulted in me being forgotten about for 3 days until the original Dr came back on shift and was WTF are you still doing here... Nobody ever phoned through for a transfer (I had blood poisoning and was out of it)  and even when I was finally treated and discharged they gave me someone else's care pack with the wrong medication in it.

Both our kids were born in Switzerland and again, comparing to my sister in laws experience, the pre - bith - post natal care is worlds apart. Better health care, is definitely a good reason to leave the UK!

The NHS is a wonderful idea, but also a total burden and in it's current state, completely unsustainable, in part because people think it is "free". I don't know how the UK will ever solve this.

In some respect, this is about personal experience, ideology and level playing fields. Many people contributing to this thread are speaking from the perspective of their own "bubble" and their friends within that bubble. What else can they do? 

I'm not going to put my own story into the mix in great specific detail, but I will say that I've experienced healthcare for non-emergency issues through the private system and it was a wonderful experience - like dining at a fine restaurant. The private health insurance that paid for it was part of my compensation package with my employer. It helped me get treatment when it suited me (and them) and we got what we paid for. 

More recently, I've been treated by the NHS for Leukaemia. I'm in complete remission at the moment, but aware that my particular variant is currently incurable, so it will return in a few years and I'll need treatment again to control the disease and keep me alive. First of all, I cannot fault the treatment I've had nor the speed with which I was diagnosed, pulled into the system and treated. Via the Internet, I've also had the opportunity to compare what's happened to me versus people living in other countries (mainly English-speaking, like the USA, Canada, Australia and those countries with a strong history of "everyone speaks English as a second language").

What I have perceived is that people outside the NHS - especially in the USA - have fears about their care that I was totally insulated from, and that must have had an effect on my ability to respond well to my treatment. They worry about finding people to treat them - because their health plans don't help. It's their dollar, so they get to choose - but they don't know how to or who to pick. Standards of specialist knowledge in the people they select seems varied. There is no sense of "team treatment" that I had in the NHS.

Private health companies can set their own fees and decide who they want to treat. They are businesses. They usually duck the provision of all A&E emergency services, for example. A public health SERVICE does not have that luxury, and I for one am very grateful for it. Not only have I benefitted personally from the NHS, but I'm proud to live in the country that has it. 

A couple of personal anecdotes to contribute.

My hospital no longer runs its own pharmacy. That service is now run by Boots, and both patients and the hospital itself have to use them for all drug prescriptions. I had six chemo sessions as part of my treatment, all pre-booked well in advance. For two of those sessions, my treatment was delayed by a few hours (with me sitting in a treatment bay and tying up staff and causing the NHS expense) because the drugs weren't ready. Why? Boots need to make a profit on their contract with the NHS so don't have enough dispensing pharmacists working in their pharmacy. 

I also watched how agency nurses (trained by the NHS but no longer employed by it) tried their best to be effective but needed lots of "environment specific" support from the permanent staff that was a drag on the permies. Not only are we told that they're expensive, but they're not self sufficient, either.

Fretwired

The NHS needs more cash but the waste is staggering.

Government figures reveal the UK has lost more than £6 billion in the past eight years treating foreigners from the European Union in UK hospitals. The UK paid out £6.2 billion to EU countries to cover the treatment of Britons in their hospitals last year – but received only £405million in return from EU countries for treating ill foreigners in the National Health Service.

The deficit works out at £723 million a year or £2 million a day, a figure described by Dr Meirion Thomas, a hospital consultant who blew the whistle on health tourism, as “staggering”. The deficit would be enough to pay the salaries of an additional 2,638 GPs, or abolish prescription charges for everyone in England.

Dr Thomas added: "We need to leave the EU if only to save the NHS from a massive burden of EU patients, all of whom are entitled to full and free NHS care on the basis of freedom of movement and being 'ordinarily resident'. For some EU migrants with a pre-existing illness, the offer of free healthcare is more importand than a job."

And the NHS is spending £1 billion on four drugs as bill soars. The amount of money that the NHS spends on drugs has surged by nearly 30 per cent in five years, with four treatments now costing the health service more than a billion pounds.

The NHS drug bill rose by 8 per cent to £16.8 billion in the past year alone, up from £13 billion in 2011, latest figures show. Of the thousands of drugs prescribed to patients each year, about £2 billion was spent on ten “blockbuster” drugs, equivalent to more than 10 per cent of the total drugs budget.

The NHS now spends 15 per cent of its £116 billion budget on drugs — up from 11 per cent in 2011.

With a series of new and high-cost medicines due to become available in the next 12 months, senior figures have warned that urgent action is needed to control the bill if other areas of care are not to suffer.

Andrew Hill, from the department of pharmacology at the University of Liverpool, said he was concerned that the NHS was spending too much money on drugs when there were cheaper alternatives available.

“You would be surprised by how unbelievably cheap some of these drugs are to make,” he said. “Some drugs have a list price of £30,000 a year for a drug that costs about £50 to make.”

“The mark up is unbelievable. You’ve got pharmaceutical companies with billions of pounds offshore. Meanwhile we pay these huge amounts of money. The companies say we have got to charge these prices . . . for research and development. They are not spending it on research by and large.”

ThePrettyDamned

Fretwired said:

The NHS needs more cash but the waste is staggering.

Government figures reveal the UK has lost more than £6 billion in the past eight years treating foreigners from the European Union in UK hospitals. The UK paid out £6.2 billion to EU countries to cover the treatment of Britons in their hospitals last year – but received only £405million in return from EU countries for treating ill foreigners in the National Health Service.

The deficit works out at £723 million a year or £2 million a day, a figure described by Dr Meirion Thomas, a hospital consultant who blew the whistle on health tourism, as “staggering”. The deficit would be enough to pay the salaries of an additional 2,638 GPs, or abolish prescription charges for everyone in England.

Dr Thomas added: "We need to leave the EU if only to save the NHS from a massive burden of EU patients, all of whom are entitled to full and free NHS care on the basis of freedom of movement and being 'ordinarily resident'. For some EU migrants with a pre-existing illness, the offer of free healthcare is more importand than a job."

And the NHS is spending £1 billion on four drugs as bill soars. The amount of money that the NHS spends on drugs has surged by nearly 30 per cent in five years, with four treatments now costing the health service more than a billion pounds.

The NHS drug bill rose by 8 per cent to £16.8 billion in the past year alone, up from £13 billion in 2011, latest figures show. Of the thousands of drugs prescribed to patients each year, about £2 billion was spent on ten “blockbuster” drugs, equivalent to more than 10 per cent of the total drugs budget.

The NHS now spends 15 per cent of its £116 billion budget on drugs — up from 11 per cent in 2011.

With a series of new and high-cost medicines due to become available in the next 12 months, senior figures have warned that urgent action is needed to control the bill if other areas of care are not to suffer.

Andrew Hill, from the department of pharmacology at the University of Liverpool, said he was concerned that the NHS was spending too much money on drugs when there were cheaper alternatives available.

“You would be surprised by how unbelievably cheap some of these drugs are to make,” he said. “Some drugs have a list price of £30,000 a year for a drug that costs about £50 to make.”

“The mark up is unbelievable. You’ve got pharmaceutical companies with billions of pounds offshore. Meanwhile we pay these huge amounts of money. The companies say we have got to charge these prices . . . for research and development. They are not spending it on research by and large.”

Yes, but define health tourism. 

For example, my girlfriend was born in England to a mother who was technically American but born in England. My girlfriend has lived in the UK since birth, bar a four month stint when she was four years old. Her mum, who can register as British for £80 (her parents were a Brit and an American and she was born in England), chose to make her American with indefinite leave to remain in the UK. As such, she is entitled to NHS care. 

Do you think she should be? She works here, pays taxes and is currently seeking citizenship (which will come in at about £1300 plus an exam, despite everything, because of that four month stint in the states when she was four). Or is she a health tourist?