Reply to: It's all our own fault you know

[hyperD]

The NHS spends £3.8 billion per year on alcohol related illnesses and deep fried Mars bar poisoning as opposed to £279 million on HIV treatment and prevention.

There you go - lets ban the porridge **** then!!!

[John Galt]

I agree Snaw - in fact I think we should agree to disagree. However, I did notice that your report did not say how much treatment tourisam has cost the NHS (or rather you and me)

[snaw]

Snaw, you are being so idealistic here. We cannot be responsible for everyone in the world. I would agree with you that if people live and work in the UK and have full residency then fine they can use the NHS but we cannot be responsible for illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees etc. Why should someone be entitled to something that they have made no contribution to, financial or otherwise? If someone can't afford treatment for an illness or treatment is not available in their country it is not our fault and therefore it is not a problem that we should feel obligated to remedy.

I may well be, but that's my personal moral compass which, like yourself I suspect, no amount of discussion is going to change. I take a different approach, which isn't down to how much they have contributed but simply them living here.

BTW Just browsing through some stuff on this issue since we've got onto it, like it or not and came across the following:

Migration and HIV: the response in the UK
Over the last few years many stories have appeared in the press about the burden migrants with HIV have placed on the National Health Service (NHS). Misinformation about asylum seekers and illegal immigrants has lead to discrimination and stigmatisation of many migrant groups. Stories about "Treatment tourism", suggesting people are coming to the UK purely for free treatment, have led to calls for the mandatory HIV testing of visitors to the UK. From a public heath point of view, according to the United Nations:

"there is no public health rationale for restricting liberty of movement or choice of residence on the grounds of HIV status… any restrictions on these rights based on suspected or real HIV status alone, including HIV screening of international travellers, are discriminatory and cannot be justified by public health concerns.”3

With regard to the burden migrants place on the health system, HIV treatment represents less than 0.1% of the total NHS budget. The NHS spends £3.8 billion per year on alcohol related illnesses as opposed to £279 million on HIV treatment and prevention. Indeed the NHS expenditure on heart disease is £7 billion a year.

Current legislation
In April 2004, in an effort to prevent ‘treatment tourism’, the Government introduced controversial changes to regulations concerning HIV treatment for overseas visitors to the UK. Previously, NHS treatment for all conditions was free for anyone who had lived in the UK for at least 12 months, as well as anyone applying for asylum or the right to remain in the country. This allowed the majority of overseas visitors who required HIV medication to obtain it without charge. The new changes dictate that only those residing in the UK legally have access to HIV treatment without charge. This means that failed asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and those residing in the country ‘without proper authority’ are now excluded from free treatment.

The Government argues that:

“The only people who have anything to fear from [the] change are those who are abusing the system and shouldn’t be here.”4

Yet a number of organisations have argued that the legislation is inhumane and unethical, since the groups affected are among the most vulnerable to HIV in the UK, are too poor to be able to pay for treatment, and often cannot leave the country for fear of persecution – effectively they are stranded without help

[AlfredJPruffock]

Snaw, you are being so idealistic here. We cannot be responsible for everyone in the world. I would agree with you that if people live and work in the UK and have full residency then fine they can use the NHS but we cannot be responsible for illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees etc. Why should someone be entitled to something that they have made no contribution to, financial or otherwise? If someone can't afford treatment for an illness or treatment is not available in their country it is not our fault and therefore it is not a problem that we should feel obligated to remedy.

An interesting ethical dilemma.

My view is that if somebdy from abroad does require urgent medical assistance, then providing that those whom are fully entitled to the NHS service needs are not hindered, then their needs should be granted.

This is why we call Britain, Great Britain and not just another Bloody Country.

However that said,after treatment they must work for free indefinetly for the NHS as a porter etc if they die shortly after treatment then their body must be given for medical research.

There you have it.

[John Galt]

Actually these day's being HIV+ (Technically AIDS is when yer in trouble) is effectively treatable now, with the right drugs.

The deportation arguement is essentially one of sending them back to a country where they won't get any treatment, or can't afford to in which case you're effectively condeming them to death.

I'm not suggesting for a second we should treat everyone in the world with a terminal disease, just the ones who live here (However they got here) and who by being sent back will face almost certain death (As opposed to inevitabley dying at some point - it's a facetious line of arguement which I'd have given you more credit than that for) in the relatively near future, but would be treatable if they stayed here.

Nothing to do with NL propoganda, it's a British historical tradition which goes back way before the Labour party was formed, and my moral views on this one have got nothing to do with NL propoganda, cause these too go back to a time way before NL was formed ...

Snaw, you are being so idealistic here. We cannot be responsible for everyone in the world. I would agree with you that if people live and work in the UK and have full residency then fine they can use the NHS but we cannot be responsible for illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees etc. Why should someone be entitled to something that they have made no contribution to, financial or otherwise? If someone can't afford treatment for an illness or treatment is not available in their country it is not our fault and therefore it is not a problem that we should feel obligated to remedy.

[snaw]

Balderdash!!! If they have AIDs they will die (as will we all come to that), you are not 'sending to them to their death'. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then anyone who comes to this country automatically becomes our legal and moral responsibility because they will, one day, die. What about people with any other terminal disease? Should we treat everyone in the world, who doesn't have access to free medical treatment, and then put them up until the end of their days. You have spent too long listening to NL propaganda my friend - emotional blackmail designed to make you feel so bad about the suffering of your fellow man that you will swallow anything.

Actually these day's being HIV+ (Technically AIDS is when yer in trouble) is effectively treatable now, with the right drugs.

The deportation arguement is essentially one of sending them back to a country where they won't get any treatment, or can't afford to in which case you're effectively condeming them to death.

I'm not suggesting for a second we should treat everyone in the world with a terminal disease, just the ones who live here (However they got here) and who by being sent back will face almost certain death (As opposed to inevitabley dying at some point - it's a facetious line of arguement which I'd have given you more credit than that for) in the relatively near future, but would be treatable if they stayed here.

Nothing to do with NL propoganda, it's a British historical tradition which goes back way before the Labour party was formed, and my moral views on this one have got nothing to do with NL propoganda, cause these too go back to a time way before NL was formed ...

[John Galt]

That one I guess is a simple matter for your personal morals. I don't believe we can knowingly send a fellow human being to their certain death. You can make an arguement against them being here in the first place but once they're in they're our legal responsibility, which is where my first point comes in.

Balderdash!!! If they have AIDs they will die (as will we all come to that), you are not 'sending to them to their death'. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then anyone who comes to this country automatically becomes our legal and moral responsibility because they will, one day, die. What about people with any other terminal disease? Should we treat everyone in the world, who doesn't have access to free medical treatment, and then put them up until the end of their days. You have spent too long listening to NL propaganda my friend - emotional blackmail designed to make you feel so bad about the suffering of your fellow man that you will swallow anything.

[andy]

and not to forget that supermarkets who buy fruits and veg from third world country for peanuts sell them at superinflated price.

[sunnysan]

True, yet, and its very rare I agree with His Masters Voice, but illness which are self inflicted such as over consumption of alcohol or smoking are avoidable , we cannot expect the NHS to cater for a massive volume of ipatinets whom are inthis position purely as a consequence of hedonism.

I agree with what he is saying, but not how he is saying it, personal health problems owing to bad dietry habits are an educational issue, and quite frankly politicising it to deflect government responisbility to provide a functional health service is nothing less than underhanded.

It p!sses me off to no end when I see a young mother buying lottery tickets, 2l of fanta, pack of silk cut and a pack of crisps for her toddler to eat. To my mind if people can afford to buy ciggies and booze they can afford to feed themselves and their children healthily. Its a question of priorities.

Its more about an attitude change than anything else. When communities start to change then the lifestyle habits and consequently inviduals health will be positively affected.

The problem in the UK IMHO, is that it is expensive to eat healthily, and consequently many people take the economic decision to buy cr@p food so that they can afford other things. While it is cheaper to buy cr@p food, I cannot really see anything changing

[snaw]

OK, why can't we send them back? Sounds harsh I know but what obligation do we have to them? There are many, many people using the NHS who have made no contribution to it and, I include in that, people who have never worked and live on benefits.

No one has said that immigrants (or refugees if you prefer) are the major cause of the demise of the NHS but they make a difficult situation worse.

That one I guess is a simple matter for your personal morals. I don't believe we can knowingly send a fellow human being to their certain death. You can make an arguement against them being here in the first place but once they're in they're our legal responsibility, which is where my first point comes in.

[John Galt]

Cause you're highlighting one insignificant group as being the cause of a much bigger problem. Got no issue with saying refugees coming here for health reasons shouldn't happen, I agree (Even better let's make the drugs available to Africans at a cost they can afford). But once they are in and here with the status then morally we can't send them back to die.

Going from a discussion on our increasingly unhealthy lifestyles and future consequences, the numbers of which discussed run into the tens of millions of people, to jumping to blaming the problems on a few thousand refugees is IMO inflammatory. It doesn't address the issue being discussed, it's not a major factor in any way for the bigger concerns people have with the NHS and if we prevented every single refugee with AIDS coming into the country would have next to no impact on NHS resources or our increasingly greater demands on the system.

OK, why can't we send them back? Sounds harsh I know but what obligation do we have to them? There are many, many people using the NHS who have made no contribution to it and, I include in that, people who have never worked and live on benefits.

No one has said that immigrants (or refugees if you prefer) are the major cause of the demise of the NHS but they make a difficult situation worse.

[TheMonkey]

If the government helped people to feel better about life, rather than victimising them then perhaps the problem would resolve itself.

People have these lifestyles because it is their individual escape...

[snaw]

Why inflammatory Snaw? Why shouldn't we be informed on how our taxes are being spent? If we are having AIDs sufferers coming to this country just to get treatment then it should be highlighted and, more to the point, stopped

Cause you're highlighting one insignificant group as being the cause of a much bigger problem. Got no issue with saying refugees coming here for health reasons shouldn't happen, I agree (Even better let's make the drugs available to Africans at a cost they can afford). But once they are in and here with the status then morally we can't send them back to die.

Going from a discussion on our increasingly unhealthy lifestyles and future consequences, the numbers of which discussed run into the tens of millions of people, to jumping to blaming the problems on a few thousand refugees is IMO inflammatory. It doesn't address the issue being discussed, it's not a major factor in any way for the bigger concerns people have with the NHS and if we prevented every single refugee with AIDS coming into the country would have next to no impact on NHS resources or our increasingly greater demands on the system.

[John Galt]

Could be true then - the official sites don't bracket refugees as a seperate group. Just seems like quite an imflammatory thing to highlight to me, which is kind of ignoring the bigger issues talked about before.

Why inflammatory Snaw? Why shouldn't we be informed on how our taxes are being spent? If we are having AIDs sufferers coming to this country just to get treatment then it should be highlighted and, more to the point, stopped

[snaw]

"Just want to nip this small piece of mistruth in the bud, sounds like a pamphlet stat from the BNP imo."

Hardly from the BMP. This was from Radio 4. The concern was voiced by Health Officials because it is the Home Office who give leave to stay for the Aids reason; but it is the Heath Authorities via the tax payers who have to foot the bill. There were also interviews with Aids victims from Africa who said that they had paid several thousands of pounds for false passports so that that they could get to the UK for there treatment. Of course I can understand them and if it was me I would do the same. However I do think it is wrong to give refugee status and free treatment to aids victims. Hardy BMP talk.

Could be true then - the official sites don't bracket refugees as a seperate group. Just seems like quite an imflammatory thing to highlight to me, which is kind of ignoring the bigger issues talked about before.