Politics Thread 6

[satriales]

I think the idea behind a small charge if you're not here for long is to stop people coming here just to have a free operation and then returning home. I know someone from Canada who did that, although I always thought Canada already had free healthcare so I'm not sure why they needed to.

Whether health tourism is actually a big issue that we need to fix or not, I don't know. But I don't think it's racist to oppose it.

It's part of the 'hostile environment' and directly leads to cases like Slyvester Marshall and Taitusi Ratucaucau, a foreign born army veteran, being told to pay tens of thousands of pounds for cancer treatment. Health tourism such as you describe is the tiniest of wedges within a wider health tourism cost.

Based on rough estimates, the cost of treatment for people who deliberately arrive in this country to have NHS treatment via A&E was £60-80m in 2013. The cost of those who have registered with a GP but don't live here all the time (including British born residents who live overseas) was estimated to be £50-200m.

The cost of people simply having to visit A&E and other services while they're on holiday or working here for a short time is something like £1.8b.

Altogether that is 2% of the annual NHS budget for 2013, with the very deliberate, tabloid headline spawning cases of health tourism equating to 0.09% of it. The question simply should be: does it matter?

Does it matter enough to set up surcharge schemes that are already in place from the first Cameron/Clegg government, and add to the cost of moving and living here, to add an extra workload to NHS staff in chasing for immigration papers, and to result in the hardship for those specific cases mentioned above?

And if that thin wedge does matter on principal over the others, why does it? What is it about a relatively inconsequential number of foreigners travelling for treatment that means it requires a very disproportionate response to combat it?

Great post and I agree with it all I just didn't know the numbers to be sure if it really is a big issue or not. There is definitely something to be said about having a health service that doesn't ask questions or demand payment when you turn up, it's focus is purely on treating you.

[Moggy]

twitter.com/henrysmithuk/status/1263394101002674176

Imagine writing that when your boss is Boris Johnson

[KK]

Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has risen to its highest level for 45 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show an estimated 282,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in 2019, the highest since the information was first gathered in 1975.

The ONS says a rise in students from China and India has driven this.

In contrast, the number of people arriving from EU countries for work has "steadily fallen".

In 2019, an estimated 49,000 more EU citizens came to the UK than left - down from the "peak levels" of more than 200,000 in 2015 and early 2016, the ONS says.

In total, an estimated 270,000 more people moved to the UK with an intention to stay for 12 months or more than left the UK in 2019.

The ONS says more than 677,000 people moved to the UK and about 407,000 people left.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52752656

[Knoyleo]

LeGiTiMaTe cOnCeRnS

[<]:^D]

just to make clear i completely disagree with the surcharge, i think its nonsense but not because its racist or not but like Cuttooth says its such a small factor in the budget that complaining about it is shortsighted and detracts from bigger issues. i think we can all agree on that?

[That]

just to make clear i completely disagree with the surcharge, i think its nonsense but not because its racist or not but like Cuttooth says its such a small factor in the budget that complaining about it is shortsighted and detracts from bigger issues. i think we can all agree on that?

Given you accept it is not in reality an issue, what do you think is the real motivation of the people in power who insist it is an issue?

[<]:^D]

i think a lot of it is racism, but its mixed up with a lot of right-wing individualism (what would be called Libertarianism), nationalism, neoliberalism, small-mindedness, preoccupation with cost-detail instead of overall economics etc.

[<]:^D]

i think a lot of it is plonkers looking at budgets and saying 'we can save money here!' instead of realising they could eliminate it as an issue if they raised a certain other tax by 0.0002% at the same time.

[Hexx]

Racist Surcharge is going for NHS workers and cate workers (not their families though based on press release)

Stays for everyone else because it’s ok to be racist against people that don’t have a clap day

The press release makes stomach curl

[satriales]

They must've been worried that Labour's amendment was going to win with lots of Conservative MPs already saying they would back it. Good result anyway.

[Moggy]

i think a lot of it is racism, but its mixed up with a lot of right-wing individualism (what would be called Libertarianism), nationalism, neoliberalism, small-mindedness, preoccupation with cost-detail instead of overall economics etc.

It comes down to pandering to racists. The Tories want to appeal to the racist elements of society by making it look like they are tough on immigrants. That's usually a pretty good way of getting a lot of the country onside.

They were too bloody stupid to sense the mood of the country when it came to NHS workers though. Their cold dead hearts didn't imagine that a proportion of the racists would wake up and realise that they were talking about NHS workers.

[KK]

Because I know you all love a YouGov poll...

NHS Surcharge: Boris Johnson is facing opposition within his own party regarding the NHS surcharge for migrant health and social care workers, with senior Tory MPs calling for it to be scrapped

And a majority of Britons (58%) also feel that immigrant social workers should not have to pay to use the NHS, compared to 30% who think they should

43% of Conservative voters feel the charge should not be paid under these circumstances

NHS Surcharge x2: When asked whether immigrants generally should have to pay for the NHS, the public response is much different

62% say they should have to, compared to only 23% who don’t think they should have to

There is cross party support for immigrants paying the NHS surcharge

Furlough Fruit Picking: Prince Charles has called on students and furloughed workers to pick fruit and vegetables to plug shortages in the labour market caused by the coronavirus outbreak - and Brits are supportive of the message

77% of Brits think this is a fair appeal, compared to only 16% who say it’s unfair

[That]

i think a lot of it is racism, but its mixed up with a lot of right-wing individualism (what would be called Libertarianism), nationalism, neoliberalism, small-mindedness, preoccupation with cost-detail instead of overall economics etc.

i think a lot of it is plonkers looking at budgets and saying 'we can save money here!' instead of realising they could eliminate it as an issue if they raised a certain other tax by 0.0002% at the same time.

Well, you've said a lot there and I don't want to wall-of-text you. To keep it very brief [EDIT: well, moderately brief, but my first draft was way longer!]:
1. Something can be racist, in the sense of having the consequence of disadvantaging people from other ethnic groups, without being all-caps RACIST, like beating someone up for being brown.
2. I think it's difficult to formulate right-libertarianism (a), British nationalism (b), or neoliberalism (c) without being racist.
... (a) See: their obsession with IQ, which is all about thinly-veiled bogus "race science".
... (b) See: their obsession with Anglophonic "cultural similarity".
... (c) See: their obsession with drone-striking schools and hospitals in the Middle-East.
3. Fixating on meaningless fiscal details when a policy is racist deserves to be called out as it normalises racism.
4. To reiterate, we are talking about drastically raising the fees for visas. This is being justified by racist rhetoric, like "they need to make up for draining our resources" ("they" do not). It has a racist end-goal, which is richer, whiter immigration. It's racist. If you get tricked into supporting it for bean-counting reasons you are still supporting something racist.

I think you had a bit of a start when I made fun of Meep because you felt like I was calling him "racist" in the same way a hood-wearing KKK lynch-mobber is racist, like it's some stain on his soul that makes him an evil person. I wasn't, but: he has been somehow hoodwinked into thinking a policy that is definitely racist is better if you only do it a little bit - as if a little bit of racism is ever acceptable - and although I am happy to believe he didn't consciously think of it like that, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that that's a stupid opinion and that he should change it.

[DML]

You gotta say considering he has virtually no power in the current situation, Keir Starmer is running rings around Boris Johnson and creating some real problems for him!

And people wanted Rebecca Long-Bailey...

[That]

Long-Bailey is literally also a lawyer. She specialised in NHS contracts.

I'm sure her approach would have been similar, but she would have been constantly mocked by journalists and her own party while doing it, so I guess I agree the reaction would have been very different. It doesn't feel like that's what you meant though.

[Errkal]

You gotta say considering he has virtually no power in the current situation, Keir Starmer is running rings around Boris Johnson and creating some real problems for him!

And people Corbyn cult and Momentum wanted Rebecca Long-Bailey...

FTFY

[Cuttooth]

It's genuinely exhausting to be pleased at Labour's victory in this case after voting for Starmer and seeing the immediate goading of how the left achieved nothing since 2015.

Properly dumb and pathetic.

[That]

We might never get Corbyn's rent controls, but he will live rent-free in centrists' minds forever.

[<]:^D]

i think a lot of it is racism, but its mixed up with a lot of right-wing individualism (what would be called Libertarianism), nationalism, neoliberalism, small-mindedness, preoccupation with cost-detail instead of overall economics etc.

i think a lot of it is plonkers looking at budgets and saying 'we can save money here!' instead of realising they could eliminate it as an issue if they raised a certain other tax by 0.0002% at the same time.

Well, you've said a lot there and I don't want to wall-of-text you. To keep it very brief [EDIT: well, moderately brief, but my first draft was way longer!]:
1. Something can be racist, in the sense of having the consequence of disadvantaging people from other ethnic groups, without being all-caps RACIST, like beating someone up for being brown.
2. I think it's difficult to formulate right-libertarianism (a), British nationalism (b), or neoliberalism (c) without being racist.
... (a) See: their obsession with IQ, which is all about thinly-veiled bogus "race science".
... (b) See: their obsession with Anglophonic "cultural similarity".
... (c) See: their obsession with drone-striking schools and hospitals in the Middle-East.
3. Fixating on meaningless fiscal details when a policy is racist deserves to be called out as it normalises racism.
4. To reiterate, we are talking about drastically raising the fees for visas. This is being justified by racist rhetoric, like "they need to make up for draining our resources" ("they" do not). It has a racist end-goal, which is richer, whiter immigration. It's racist. If you get tricked into supporting it for bean-counting reasons you are still supporting something racist.

I think you had a bit of a start when I made fun of Meep because you felt like I was calling him "racist" in the same way a hood-wearing KKK lynch-mobber is racist, like it's some stain on his soul that makes him an evil person. I wasn't, but: he has been somehow hoodwinked into thinking a policy that is definitely racist is better if you only do it a little bit - as if a little bit of racism is ever acceptable - and although I am happy to believe he didn't consciously think of it like that, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that that's a stupid opinion and that he should change it.

no thats all fair but i think its quite easy to attribute to malice what is more likely incompetence and stupidity
now to what extent racist policy stems from incompetence and stupidity is another discussion entirely

[Garth]

twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1263535133119963139