Failed asylum seekers face GP ban
- Thread starter Prince Rhyus
- Start date
likesfish said:
Utter, utter pigshit. At least try to look as if you know what you're talking about.
"Failed asylum seekers"- or, more accurately, people who have been failed by the asylum system- report regularly (either weekly or more usually monthly) to immigration reporting centres. They could be detained and deported at any time when they go to sign. The fact that this doesn't happen to them means that they do, by definition, have a right to be here: planes aren't presently flying to Baghdad, Mogadishu or Massawa.
urbanrevolt
New Member
Plus also making ne section of the population 'illegal' is a divde and rule tactic to make us all worse off by hyperexploiting one part of the population and using it against another.
And it's an attack on a fundmental principle free health care on the basis of need not on the basis of ability to pay or racist criteria- an attack on one is an attack on all.
Bosses want workers to be illegal so they can exploit them more. We should be for health care for all sections of the work force and community.
And it's an attack on a fundmental principle free health care on the basis of need not on the basis of ability to pay or racist criteria- an attack on one is an attack on all.
Bosses want workers to be illegal so they can exploit them more. We should be for health care for all sections of the work force and community.
likesfish said:
What's baffling is the expense people will justify to keep others in misery and poverty. The cost of a deportation works out at around £11,000 per person: detention's massively expensive: the administration of the Border and Immigration Agency's shitty Section 4 regime works out far, far, more expensive than simply allowing people the right to work legally.
Why not just let people go the fucking doctor when they're sick, for fuck's sake?
urbanrevolt
New Member
KeyboardJockey said:
ah, bless! Someone who believes in the system's justice
Pigeon said:
That might sound simple, but if someone turns up at a GP surgery if they have not got an NHS number, an E111 or private insurance cover, the GP practice can't get any money from the government.
(Even idigenous tourists have to prove entitlement at my local GP practice, so money can be claimed from the tourists home area health authority.)
urbanrevolt
New Member
May be but 'failed' asylum seekers are normally allocated NHS numbers in my experience- people living without papers might indeed be in a very difficult position but I suspect most doctors/nurses/hospitals would treat them if they had a medical problem- at least I'd like to think so.
I remember many years ago when I worked in the NHS we treated asylum seekers who had been detained and were asked to keep them on the ward but we took the entirely appropriate decision that we were there to treat medical needs and had no interest in trying to stop such people from leaving- it was more than ten years ago, though
I remember many years ago when I worked in the NHS we treated asylum seekers who had been detained and were asked to keep them on the ward but we took the entirely appropriate decision that we were there to treat medical needs and had no interest in trying to stop such people from leaving- it was more than ten years ago, though
?Pigeon said:
Sorry. My point is ideally i agree with you. But practically your ideas just don't work.
The UK has a limited supply of doctors and dentists. A lot of people will view it as unfair if people from other countries get treated before them,after they or their parents have paid for many years into the system.
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
dessiato said:
Different countries have different agreements. I'm not sure about Portugal, but people from the A8 countries (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia) have to work for a year before they can access anything but emergency treatment on the NHS.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
Didn't the government try something like this previously? 'Section 9' I believe. Failed asylum seekers families were likely to have housing and financial support withdrawn. It was a complete disaster. Seems like this is another 'Look at us we want to appear to be tough on those foreigners' cock waving exercise.
_angel_
.
becky p said:That only works if there is an endless supply of doctors. Now perhaps if we took a few more doctors that the countries these people migrate from?
To be honest if the UK hadn't cocked up it's own procedure for giving junior doctors their first placements we would have an endless supply of doctors.
Like teaching and nursing it seems we are training people and then not offering them jobs as a result. Madness.
becky p said:?
The UK has a limited supply of doctors and dentists. A lot of people will view it as unfair if people from other countries get treated before them,after they or their parents have paid for many years into the system.
Where did I suggest anyone should be seen before anyone else?
There are two possible solutions to the resource question: either fight for more and better resources or set up arbitrary distinctions between those who "deserve" them and those wo don't. I know which side of the fence I'm sitting on.
Pigeon said:
So do you think everybody should be seen simultaneously?
As for arguing for more resources, do you really think that is a good idea?
I am not so sure: economic growth is all very well. But at some point i think you have to consider how existing resources are shared.
becky p said:
Well, indeed you do: but only a lunatic (or a weasel) would try to conclude that the blame for the inequitable distribution of resources can be laid at the door of bloody asylum seekers. Or that it was somehow within the sphere of human decency to deny public healthcare to the sick without the means to pay for it privately.
It's truly, truly mindboggling how keen people are to sign up to the state's self-serving fantasy that our public services would somehow be delivered efficiently and fairly if only it wasn't for the asylum seekers. Or the economic migrants. Or the welfare cheats. Or the single mothers.
All of this crap gets swallowed wholesale then spewed back up to justify the brutalisation of social policy as, inch by inch, we slip into barbarism.
A truly fucking dismal spectacle.
becky p said:
So do you think everybody should be seen simultaneously?
As for arguing for more resources, do you really think that is a good idea?
I am not so sure: economic growth is all very well. But at some point i think you have to consider how existing resources are shared.
Well Pigeon? Any chance of an answer to these questions?
Much as i enjoyed your rant. I am not quite sure who it was aimed at?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
becky p said:Well Pigeon? Any chance of an answer to these questions?
Much as i enjoyed your rant. I am not quite sure who it was aimed at?
Using arguments against economic growth as an excuse not to provide decent healthcare is one if the nuttiest arguments I've seen for a while. You're not one of the RCP/LM lot are you?
shagnasty said:I wonder how much a visit to a doctor would cost the nhs bearing in mind length of consultation .but must be cheaper than an emergency treatment in a hospital because illness was not seen to earlier
I don't know what it would cosy the NHS, but there used to be a list up on the wall of the local GP practice of charges for medical examinations not covered by the NHS. It went from £20 to £250 and this was some years ago.
Donna Ferentes said:
_angel_ said:
"Oh, the Humanity!"
shagnasty said:I wonder how much a visit to a doctor would cost the nhs bearing in mind length of consultation .but must be cheaper than an emergency treatment in a hospital because illness was not seen to earlier
Yes, exactly. A GP visit is a fraction of the cost of going to A&E. Even more so if the LAS is called out.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Treating hiv thousands of pounds a year .
Sigining death certificate hundred pounds ? If you want to get that cruel.
I dont see the answer of what to do with immigrants who have health care needs that will not be met if they are sent back .Guess you do it on case by case basis.
Sigining death certificate hundred pounds ? If you want to get that cruel.
I dont see the answer of what to do with immigrants who have health care needs that will not be met if they are sent back .Guess you do it on case by case basis.
dylanredefined said:
In my honest opinion the answer is to provide healthcare on the basis of need.
We've just bailed out Northern Rock with enough money to run the NHS, for the whole of the UK, for six months, and people are upset about spending a few million on some immigrants...
Similar threads
