text:
Free HIV treatment for foreign nationals in England welcomed
Post your comment
Comments on this article are now closed.
Reader comments
Meanwhile UK nationals have their operations cut and delayed at an ever increasing rate, often leading to premature death. NHS = NATIONAL health service, not word heath service. No wonder this countries gone down the drain so rapidly.
I would rather pay extra than be like america where people die because they cannot afford treatment. this woman with terminal cancer was sent to Ghana to die would you be happy with more cases like this?
This is not America . Don`t treat them .Send them home .
Don't treat them. Don't let them in in the first place.
Spanner a reality check for you. The man who uses the term gay plague agrees with you
Haha, they should get together with Keith for a night on the tiles.
Ok, Spanner
So lets say miraculously the immigration policy was much stronger and robust and stringently enforced as from midnight tonight. Great solves quite a few problems. However, what about those immigrants that are already here with HIV? What about those real genuine asylum seekers who have HIV who any reasonable nation would accommodate (either temporarily or permanently) that arise in the future?
In any event the immigration policy will not change overnight and nor will it ever be 100% watertight, so we need some measures to protect public health. It is not acceptable to either let people become worse and die when we can help them, nor is it acceptable to allow the HIV virus to fester in certain aspects of the population and risking the public in general.
How would you suggestr we deal with the public health aspect, just put our heads in the sand?
Spanner, do you include 'overstayers'? and would that mean compulsory HIV tests for all non EU tourists at the border control? I doubt that would do much for the UK tourism market.
@James! Just because some of my views and opinions coincide with a vituperous homophobe does not mean that I am wrong.
Maybe occasionally we just happen to meet mid-way
The bottom line is these people got here by transferring through many countries before they reached these shores. If they flew here directly, then yes, they are our problem; if they didn't then they should be passed back to the country that allowed them through and let them do likewise if necessary. You have heard about "paying forward", well this is paying backwards.
Fair enough that there are aspects of immigration policy that need drastic improvement.
That does not change the fact that there are people here in the UK that are a public health risk to themselves and others if we do not treat them. That public health issue is separate to the immigration issue.
So, Spanner, we should only provide care for "these people" who came on direct flights?. The Italian, stopping in Belgium then France, gets a ferry to Dover, has to be sent back to France for going through too many countries?
In situations like this we should be prepared to show some compassion instead of loading unfortunate people like her onto planes and sending them home to die. Perhaps we could have financed her treatment by diverting the relavent amount of money from the aid to Ghana or asked charities to make a contribution. I do object to people coming here with pre-exisiting conditions hoping to get free care. Britain has reciprocal arrangements with most other European countries so our citizens can be treated in local hospitals should they have an accident or suddenly become ill abroad and vice versa, but other countries like the US demand that you have health cover as part of your travel insurance and it with insurance companies trying to worm their way out of paying up during the current economic climate it is essential that you check the small print.
I do wish they would stop saying it's free. It no cost to non tax payers but if cost me £341.46 a month
No it doesn't. Your £341.46 tax is not solely used for HIV treatment to non tax payers.
Good greif did you read and understand my comment?
In the article it say the HIV treatment is free. It is not free like air there is no charge which I agree with. It's a myth that the NHS is free when all people who work pay for it
So, are you paying £341.46 a month for HIV treatment for non-tax payers, for the NHS, or that's your total monthly tax? See, your comment doesn't make sense.
I think you're getting too worked up about semantics. If I go to a bar and they have 'buy one drink get one "free" ', I don't complain that it is not actually "free", due to the manufacturing costs, the overheads of the bar, etc..
If you are into semantics, one definition for "free" in OED is "given or available without charge" and the example given is "free health care"
Rule number one in life: Nothing is free in this world.
Ultimately everybody in the UK pays for it one way or another, be it taxes, duty or loss of benefits, amenities and services in other quarter in order to pay for it.
Socialism is all well and good on paper, but the buck stops with the common people.
If everyone paid there taxes then it wouldn't if the rich paid there fair share then it would be fair. and anyway the rich can afford their treatment in private healthcare so its the "common people" who use it.
@Hamish: You assume that it is only the 'fat cats' that avoid paying theior taxes, but that is a myth. There is a phenomenal black market of people, both indigenous and immigrant that pay little or no taxes because they are under the radar. It's all too easy to point fingers at big corporates because it satisfies your socialist ego to say "I told you so", but they are not alone. Everyone is at it. (Even Red Ken himself)
However I don't see any working class man scamming their tax to the extent of 7 Billion?
Not everyone is at it either, people manage to slip below the radar, but usually this is because they have slipped through the net of society, however the "fat cats" have the benefit of reaping the benefits of society while paying non of the tax for it.
@ Hamish
Nor do I …
The W/Min gay maffia ride again , cuts for everything else . This could have been stopped in its tracks with exc`n laws into Brit for the infected when the gay plague hit the USA ,rather than the gay set being allowed to put their own self int`t before the good of all .
What a disgusting excuse for a human being you are!
In what way, I have wished ill on none , but sadly facts are facts and exc would have saved many lifes and much suffering for people of all persuasions .
I hope by exc, you mean extradition? and not execution. You should really make yourself clear.
By calling HIV, the "gay plague", really demonstrates your ignorance.
Look here DC78 ,
you are now being pedantic, and you are in danger of going down the unmarried mother to single mother to single parent to arrive at the more sympathy grabbing "lone parent " ie pay all my bills .
Execution, your line of thought ,not mine .
Look here LordEggBlahblah, you write like a child!
So, what the hell does "exc`n laws" mean? I think extradition, but there's no 'c' in that? I am not being pedantic. I'm still scratching my head over "W/Min", do you have a problem completing words or something?
Aprn/ly he usd 2 b a shrthnd typst.
Apologies, have googled your username and having read your comments elsewhere, you are obviously completely bonkers.
Accepted ,I have no problem with your feelings , and would always say -If you don`t believe in free speech for all , you don`t believe in free speech .
Oh cobblers. Many countries did precisely that and banned HIV+ people, but it still got in nonetheless. You could say the same for Bird Flu and Foot & Mouth disease.
You are one reason the NHS is needed for all…check yourself in somewhere. You need help!
Push off, Keith!
I agree with the NHS being free on demand, but doesn't this mean that people who aren't even UK residents can come to a British clinic, get diagnosed, and just come here every 3 months for free drugs? Where does this end?
With the Gov cuts now to be inflicted on " OUR " NHS .
The BBC article does quote the Dept of Health, saying there would be "safeguards against health tourism" and as this article says, there has been no noticeable effect in Scotland and Wales.
As we all know, what this Government says and what it really means are usually two completely different things. How exactly does it intend to implement "safeguards against health tourism" when it still has no control over the numbers of immigrants entering the UK?
Well why don't we just find out how they have managed it in Scotland and Wales without problems rather than all get up on our high horses about something we know little about
Exactly Sister
In any event anyone coming here before this decision who was deported and HIV positive was given 3 months medication to take with them from HMG. I doubt this will significantly add to the cost of the NHS (if at all).
I think its important to separate two distinct arguments in this matter; the immigration issue (which I think most of us would agree needs to be tackled better) and the public health issue. Regardless of how the immirgation is or is not dealt with, there will be some current (and probably others to come) immigrants who are HIV positive who might not be entitled to NHS care. If they are in the UK then they are a public health risk to anyone in the UK who might sexually encounter them or even involved in a road accident and accidental contamination with their blood. Thus, whilst we need to work hard to get our immigration policy right and properly enforced – it is right to protect public health.
Firstly, there is no point just issuing three months medication (at up to £6000 for that alone) just for them to run out later down the road and develop an immunity which will then impede their possible treatment completely.
As for allowing HIV+ people into the country that are not eligible for NHS treatment, if they cannot demonstrate beforehand that they have sufficient medication for the length of their stay, they shouldn't be let in in the first place, simply put, they are not only costing us a fortune, they potentially endangering our indigenous population.
I don't know the fine print on the current deportation policy of giving 3 months suppply of HIV med's to those deportees who clinically require them, but my understanding is that there is an international treaty obligation to do so.
"potentially endangering our indigenous population.".. oooh.. I think I heard that on TV one time, although that was about a woman taking a plant into Australia.
I do see the logic in giving 3 months medication, it gives them time and opportunity to source medication for themselves.
One would have thought if they had planned to emigrate here they would have brought adequate medication in the first place.
Oh. They don't have any? They can't afford it?
I wonder why they came here then?
Perhaps they did not have a diagnosis before they came here?
Stu, just because someone is receiving treatment, does not mean they are no longer infectious. So how does giving incoming pos immigrants and asylum seekers treatments protect our health?
And if presumably the illegal immigrant or whoever knows they are infected and are willfully engaging in unprotected penetrative sex anyway with or without being on a course of treatments (that is what I presume you mean by being a public health risk?), then it's a bloody mess whichever way you look at it…
You are correct, but if they are not receiving treatment then their CD4 is likely to plummet and their viral load rise. If they had to go onto a treatment regime they have been infectious – lets not ensure they get there again and risk us.
The sexual risk you present is only one scenario. The sexual scenario certainly would be a mess!
There is also the risk (although not common hopefully) of transmission in trauma through road accident etc. and contamination of anothers bodily fluids with infected blood.
Lets mitigate the risk.
@ Samuel The risk of forward infection is reduced by 96% where an HIV positive individual has an undetectable viral load – this is the basis upon which "treatment as prevention" has an important role to play.
There is a direct correlation between viral load and infectiousness – so by providing treatment to any +ve individual they become less infectious (who uses condoms for oral sex for instance?)
How can the 96% figure be so precise when a number of variables must surely be at play?
Or is this figure an average, and if so based on what equation?
And is it not irresponsible to make this information so prominent when many gay men are looking for the slightest incentive to bareback?
Will negative men now feel it a risk worth taking to have unprotected sex with a pos guy whose viral load is undetectable?
Similarly two pos guys with undetectable loads, assuming they wrapped up previously to avoid cross-infection?
The stats show there is still a 4% risk of forward infection, so we are effectively back at the roulette wheel.
Potentially not unlike where we were with the emergence of combination therapies, when many gay men interpreted them as a green light to return to bareback sex…
If gay men are looking to bareback they will and they do, that is about behaviour change not public health.
The HTPN study clearly demonstrated that transmission is greatly reduced, condoms are only 97% effective if they are correctly used, which often is not the case. Treatment as prevention is an important public health tool in the effort to reduce the level of virus within the population.
For HIV transmission to occur the virus has to be present in high levels and be of good quality in body fluids – HIV is a delicate virus. Some indviduals on treatment literally have no virus in the blood, semen or anal / vaginal tissues.
The British HIV Association has acknowledged the importance of treatment as prevention in its new draft guidelines, which will have a significant effect of reducing forward transmission.
At undetectable levels superinfection and or drug resistant re-infection is highly unlikely between two undetectable +individuals.
Well said, Rob!
Perhaps you ought to stick your second initial after your first name to distinguish you from Rob the PC loon who is your diametrically opposed opposite where common sense is concerned!
Please don't tell me you als have a sane, level-headed and open-minded shadow called Will also?! :)
Oh dear
Couldnt help yourself could you ….
Stu, Rob and his henchman Will are not unforthcoming in their vicious ongoing attacks against me, partly as a fallout when they came running to YOUR defence several weeks ago.
As I said, fire with fire. I will NOT be bullied and intimidated by knuckle-dragging pond life when I have a right to debate as much as anyone on here.
If and when you start insulting me peace meal you can expect the same back, but I still think – hope – we have reached a new understanding.
You seem to be still attacking me, accusing me of racism where not exists and ridiculing my profession amongst other goads and niggles.
Now, I would prefer sensible measured debate but you seem very keen to agitate.
What have Rob and Will done to deserve you riposte?
Interesting choice of language you use "henchman", "shadow", "dalek", etc etc
You have as much right to debate on here as anyone else, including me or any other person. I agree.
Equally I will not stand for being bullied by anyone – and that incudes you, Samuel.
Please refrain from your agitation.
Stu, if I may refer you to my new posting at the end of this thread, it should help to explain why you think I may be attacking you when I am not, and of course vice versa.
As for Rob and Will, they actually make me feel like an A-list celebrity so they are not all bad.
I mean, every A-lister has to have a stalker.
And I have TWO!!!!!! :)
Great, so now not only do we get herds of economic migrants, we get inundated with everyone that can't afford medical treatment in their own country piling over here.
HIV medication can cost up to £2000 a month before the doctors and hospitals are involved. Sorry, but charity begins at home and we simply can't afford it.
Hospitals are already pushed to the limit with the meagre budgets they are given and waiting lists are through the roof.
It may be unfortunate and all that but many of these people bring these conditions upon themselves and it is not up to us to issue world-wide handouts to every waif and stray that comes knocking on our door.
Spot on .
DC78 about an hour ago +1
The BBC article does quote the Dept of Health, saying there would be "safeguards against health tourism" and as this article says, there has been no noticeable effect in Scotland and Wales.
"Sorry, but charity begins at home and we simply can't afford it."
Ironic statement when its clearly not at your home, it seems. How do you rate the cost of compassion and humanity, then? And how many is "inundated" anyway?
And even if we do endorse the "charity begins at home" approach – it does nothing to solve the current problem of immigrants currently in the UK with HIV who pose a risk to their own and other peoples health potentially
Compassion and humanity are all relative.
If the US has become the "World's Police" then the UK has become the "World's Social Workers". We already shell out vast amounts of money in foreign aid, and now every foreigner with a grivance, problem or illness is beating a path to OUR door.
The fact that these people often travel through up to a dozen countries, including European ones has to say something, does it not? That either a) we are compassionate and humanist, or b) we are as soft as sh|t and everyone is treating us like mugs.
And what about the cost of compassion and humanity towards people already here who can't get life-saving cancer drugs and other treatments because the Department of Health say they are too expensive?
Or about compassion to you or me who could contract HIV from those illegal immigrants who are already here through a road accident and accidental bodily fluid contamination (or sexual encounter) …
I would like to think the public health protection needed would have compassion for UK citizens and not forego them protection because the risk comes from "Johnny Foreigner"
Weigh up the number of illegal immigrants likely to be in a road accident and spewing blood against the 7800 Brits who are estimated to have died in the UK this winter because they couldn't afford to heat their own homes?
If £7,000 is the cost of treatment for one illegal pos immigrant for one year, that is the equivalent of around 50 of those lives saved assuming £150 per person to light the bottom two rungs of their electric heater for several hours a day throughout the winter.
How on earth do you justify that, Stu?!
I didnt ask about the immirgantt injured or killed in the road accident, although of course as a human being they matter ….
I asked about you being injured or me being injured and contracting HIV
Regardless of other costs, do the government have a duty to protect us as far as they can from public health concerns?
Oh Stu, please!
The risk of HIV infection in a road traffic accident is infinitesimally small (you know doubt have the latest stats?) and vastly disproportionate to a blanket ruling that will see potential millions of pounds over the next decade squandered on administering treatments to all HIV asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and NHS tourists bar none.
It is like Cameron and Clegg have gotten together and realised New Labour didn't blow enough of our money in the first decade of the new millennium to totally financially obliterate the UK, so now they are coming up with even more madcap, crackpot schemes that seem designed to do just that, and to ensure that the British people are enslaved by the banks in debt servitude.
When the NHS is on its knees and can't afford to pay enough nurses to maintain a standard of civility and dignity in our hospital wards, then WTF are these Whitehall traitors playing at making the NHS's work even more burdensome and intolerable?
So you could meet someone in a bar that a) you do not realise is a illegal immirgant and b) who you are attracted to and engage in safer sex and the condom splits.
Sex happens. Road traffic accidents happen. HIV trransmission happens.
You can say it is infinitely small … if it happens to you it would matter.
You had your crow about banks and Cameron and Clegg, issues no one had mentioned on this thread (because they are irrelevant to HIV treatment) …
So you have let off steam …
Now, public health is it a duty of the NHS to protect UK citizens or not?
And I often have statistics and facts … because I find its better that bluster and rhetoric and high blood pressure …
"So you could meet someone in a bar that a) you do not realise is a illegal immirgant and b) who you are attracted to and engage in safer sex and the condom splits…"
OK Stu, and I contend that the possibility of all of those sets of circumstances coming together in whatever scenario over and over is still vastly disproportionate to the vast number of treatments that will have to be handed out to HIV tourists who will be flocking here en masse once word gets out of another handout in Welfare On-Tap UK.
Therefore, what current risk does exist as you purport – and it is not something we ever hear of occurring because it rarely does, otherwise the Daily Mail would be screaming about it – should be allowed to perpetuate because the cost of issuing treatments for such remote transmissions of HIV is still going to be far, far smaller than funding this insane free-for-all of HIV drugs no matter what!
You contend the risk is worth taking.
I contend we know there is more HIV in certain communities including immigrants from certain nations.
Given that identification of any infection is difficult to be certain, the propensity of risk increases in populations where there is higher incidence of HIV.
That to me, makes me believe tnat the public health risk is sufficient to warrant the NHS tackling it.
Well, the two thumbs downs that appeared almost as quickly as I clicked the +ADD COMMENT button says it all, really.
Who could honestly disagree with my above statement of fact?
Zilch compassion, callous disregard, and not a toss for the sanctity of human life.
Just compassion for the PC rulebook which must be followed to the letter.
I presume at that point two people disagreed with you … I have previously simiulataneously had two thumbs down (usually when you are around!) or two thumbs up simultaneously … big deal …
I thought you said you were you going to concentraste on sensible debate .. instead you veer to your paranoia and militancy … sheesh!
When we've learned to be compassionate to those already here, and have learned to treat the elderly and disabled in our hospitals and care homes with dignity and respect, then perhaps we can practise it on those those who flock here for an easier life.
It's just perverse how some on here are happier to see people who have worked and paid taxes their entire lives suffer while money lavished on those who flock here for an easier way of life, some claiming to be seeking asylum.
Our asylum system is the most easily and regularly abused in the world:- meanwhile our elderly can barely afford to heat their homes.
Tell me, Rob and others of a similar mindset. Are you British?
Either way, why do you hate Britain and the British people/way of life so much and seem so determined to run it, its culture and way of life into the ground?
@Smauel B
I would agree with you, the charity begin at home concept does have a lot of sense.
if we do not act then we endanger UK citizens and well as the immigrants …
Yes, they remain infectious with or without these free treatments, Stu, though presumably they are protecting themselves, so where is the risk?
Or are you in fact suggesting that illegal immigrants and asylum seekers wilfully practise unsafe sex and risk infecting people regardless, which they will still do even if on treatments, regardless of whether they have a lower viral load or not?
I think we can safely assume that most do in fact practise safer sex, so the risk to the indigenous population, which you are at extraordinary pains to point out, is grossly exaggerated.
Now, can we get a campaign started to have some of those thousands of pounds designated to those who need to heat their homes for the remainder of the winter?
An average of 80 Brits a day have died so far, or do they not matter because they pose no hint of a risk to the rest of us?
Not even a teeny weeny bit…
The risk of infection of someone who is undetectable with HIV is very low, present but very low, so treatment for those with low CD4 and/or extremely high viral load is clinically appropriate for both that particular patients own health (whether that justifys NHS treatment alone is a reasonable point to debate) AND for public health as it reduces risk of infection to the general populus.
In no way have I suggested that asylum seekers or any form of immigrants are engaging in unsafe sex. They may be, they may not and if they are I doubt it is significantly different in percentage incidence to the general population.
However, condoms fail. Road accidents happen. Other incidents happen where there is a transmission risk. Its burying our head in the sand about public health and safety to do nothing. It might not be something we economically or politically like, but it protects us.
If you want a campaign abo0ut heat in peoples homes, start one (depending on how you …
… structure such a campaign, I may even support you pracitcally).
My having empathy with those who have insufficient heat in their homes does not mean I do not value and recognise the need for good public health. Its not an either or.
Samuel B:" Yes, they remain infectious with or without these free treatments"
Yes and no. Medication reduces viral levels to almost undetectable amounts, (although they still remain) – The point is someone on medication stands a lot less chance of infecting somebody else than if they were left unchecked. So really it is up to someone to weigh up the risks and decide if these people are safe enough to remain or not.
That still doesn't answer the problem of the fact the medication costs a fortune, and it would be cheaper to deport these people.
Wow for once I can agree with most of your analysis Spanner…..who would of thunk it……HIV infection without the prophylaxis of ARV's is far more costly in terms of emergency interventions, so whilst these people are here then we should make the best of a bad situation and give them ARV'S. It costs less and has a public health benefit, very straightforward argument.
The level of immigration as a huge drain on UK resources & is a very different argument to be had. We are where we are and have to deal with issues with HIV in the best way possible, whilst trying to improve the system and make it fit for purpose.
The crux of the matter with ARV's is that they significantly reduce viral load amongst a population group, therefore transmission rates fall – if as Samuel seems to indicate, he does not agree with the viral load / level of infectiousness concept then I can understand the view that providing ARV's is pointless.
Viral load is one of the most important factors in HIV transmission – the virus has to be present in high levels for infection to occur. At < 40 copies of virus/ ml of blood an individual is unlikely to be infectious and therefore unlikely to transmit the virus where there are no other STI's present in either partner.
STI's are a very effective vector for HIV transmission & this should not be underestimated. It has been shown in practice that being undetectable & both partners being STI free means there is very little risk transmission. You either agree or disagree with this, but it is a very important concept in terms of public health and HIV prevention.
@W6 and Spanner
The immigration situation needs dealing with, both to try and prevent as many as possible people arriving illegally or unjustifiably and to try and tackle with the mess that we have where tens of thousands (or more?) overstayers, illegals etc are in Britian due to the lax immigration of the past two decades or more.
Its a situation we have, most of us would prefer not to have it and if we could wave a wand those who should not be here would go back to those countries from where they came. If we are honest though and deal with the problem practically then even if we are 100% effective in managing the problem it is going to take time.
In that time we have a public health risk. That public health risk is mitigated by treating people. Yes it costs money we would prefer not to spend, but it protects UK and other citizens (thats what public health is about!)
Tell me then, Stu, what carries the greatest risk:
The risk of being infected with HIV while engaging in unsafe sex with a pos guy whose viral load is undetectable, or the risk of being in a traffic accident with blood spurting everywhere and contracting the HIV virus in the process?
I think the answer is obvious to just about everyone, but I'm waiting to hear it from you…
Pray tell, why are you waiting to hear it from me?
What thrashing of me and militancy are you going to throw at me now?
What are you going to try and say I believe that is not true but massages your ego of being the bully you always are.
Of course unsafe sex is the biggest risk.
Are you now suggesting that illegal immigrants are engaging in unsafe sex in higher proportions than UK ciitizens (words you tried (recklessly and without any good cause) to put in my mouth earlier on this thread)? For the record I know of no evidence to suggest this – do you?
However trauma is also a risk.
Condom failure is also a risk
There are other risks
You can try diversionary tactics and try and concentrate on immigration failures (which I agree need resolving) but that does not change the fact there is a public health concern.
That public health concern could affect you and me.
You might not care, I do and I am grateful that the NHS has more sense of responsibility to prevent it.
Did you actually read the article or not!?
"The HPA's 2011 report on HIV noted that had the 3,640 HIV diagnoses made in 2010 in the UK been prevented, on contemporary estimates over £1 billion would have been saved in future treatment costs."
Thats SAVING MONEY THEN ISN'T IT….
…bloody kneejerk reactionaries make me sick…(pun intended…)
Sorry, am I missing something here? How is giving illegals and asylum seekers free treatments now saving £1 billion on future treatment costs?
And how is the spread of an easily preventable disease among the indigenous population at all sustainable at the rate HIV is spreading, in the gay community alone?
Aside from the fact that this country cannot afford to be a doss house to all who claim immunity – with only a small fraction ever proving beyond all reasonable doubt to be genuine applicants – what about the endless benefits they will then be lining up for and the five bed/bathroom house in posh parts of London for which they expect to receive tens of thousands of pounds in rent annually to bring their entire clans over?
Typical idiotic left wing rhetoric that everyone sees through now and are rising up in increasing numbers and demanding ENOUGH!
Next insane claim?
Insanity … isnt that usually your area of expertise, SamueL?
Oh dear, here we go again.
And there was I thinking your break had chilled you out somewhat.
I ask a straightforward question of you, nothing nasty, and a question not unlike the many you request of others, and you interpret that as a hostile jibe?
I am lost for words!
Really, let's not go back there again, ok?
I return reasoned debate with reasoned debate and fire with fire as you well know, and as you have seen elsewhere in this thread.
I won't be threatened or intimidated by the extreme left-wing militant tendency who seem to think they own these boards.
Deep breath and (1-2-3) c-h-i-l-llllllll…
Deep breath taken …
Perhaps my biting was because of the wording of your previous question where you seemed to be goading me for reasons I can not fathom.
anyway moving on.
Accepted, and moving on…
I think this is wonderful news. Not only does it show us as a compassionate country, (although I do wonder with some of the comments above) It will also save us money in the long term. So long as the safeguards against health tourism are strong and enforced. It is more cost effective to treat HIV patients, if the infection is caught and treated at an early stage, than it is to treat patients where they have deteriorated so badly, they need round the clock care.
Sorry, but can you please explain with your bizarre pretzel logic how this move could *possibly* save us money? This article has bugger all to do with compassion and everything to do with the patients running the asylum and blowing our cash in any way possible.
To coin a phrase: "Don't make your problem my problem."
"Don't make your problem my problem."
Says it all really
Sure does.
I have enough of my own country to worry about without taking on your crap and other people's.
Explain how exactly you are taking on "my crap"
It is your problem – its a public health problem UNLESS you can wave a magic wand and eradicate the UK of every illegal immirgrant in a spolit second. The risk to public health (including yours if in a road accident and you and another person end up injured and exchange body fluids accidentally) is real.
You can pretend that this is just an immirgation problem and blame it all on the "non-indigenous" but that does not make them, you or me safer. Being responsible about public health and treating them does.
It is my problems because it is MY FCKING COUNTRY and asswipe liberals and lefties like you are flushing it down the pan and selling England by the pound.
@Stu: Please stop being so bloody naive.
If these people are here illegally, they are not going to go to hospital to receive medication for fear of being detected. It is common knowledge that people on HIV meds have a much lower viral count, so present far less risk of infecting others that are not.
If these people are here awaiting assessment, then they can be put on meds, but this could make their life expectancy far worse should they be forced to come off them again if they are sent back home and cannot continue medication.
It really is a case of a 'rock and a hard place', because either way these people are going to have problems, so although you may consider my views rather mercenary, I go with the cheaper option and not give out meds unless they are already on them.
Really. Illegal immigrants EVERY DAY attend A&E, GP surgeries, walk in centres or call 999. The duty of confidentiality of clinicians ensures that they are only reported to authorities in exceptional circumstances (one I am aware of was a visa overstayer who came to the UK to see her brother but developed kidney failure and required dialysis but after 6 months of dialysis the consultant decided to refer to immigration and it was established dialysis was available in her home country free of charge so she was deported).
Its naive if you think health agencies would routinely refer a patient to immigration or if you think people would not seek help or perhaps initially use a false name to get treatment.
None of that deals with the fact that if you go out and have an accident tonight and someone else there also does and you accidentally come into contact with their blood that you are potentially at risk and there is a public health issue.
How do you suggest we deal with the public health matter?
Of course there are immigration questions, but given that there are people in the UK NOW who are not usually entitled to NHS treatment and are a public health risk due to HIV, do you really think it is responsible to you not to give them treatment and you run the risk of contracting HIV because we as a state can not be bothered to tackle it due to the "immigrant" stigma?
That's exactly the point, DC. It is only our lunatic MPs and their vocal minority PC cheerleaders like yourself that make it our problem.
90+ per cent of legal Brits don't want any more of these people coming here en masse, period. Yet you are so dead set on destroying the British identity and way of life, and, in the process, silencing our voice, that it suits you and your PC-programmed drones to keep the borders open.
Oh, wouldn't it be rich if one day you returned home to find it being squatted in by Romanian gypsies, or need to rush to A&E and find a three-hour queue ahead of you comprising illegal immigrants of al persuasions.
Yes, may all the pestilence from the rot your kind's policies are festering rain down on you, DC. What goes around most definitely does come around, trust me…
Most often it does Samuel, and one day it will be your turn for it to come round too …
Well, I have to say I do not practise being a humanitarian in order to accumulate brownie points, Stu.
But it does give a nice glow to think that arguing against injustice, corruption and plain wrong-doing at the cost, and to the detriment, of others is rewarded, somehow…
@Samuel B
That made me chuckle ….
But I always get disappointed by those who seek to be supportive (in whatever manner that presents itself) with the purpose of accumulating brownie points … although as you say sometimes it is good to know that good work is recognised and appreciated …
So what exactly would you do with someone with a failed asylum seeker in the UK with HIV when it too dangerous for them to return to their country.
A. Send them back anyway, B. Let them get AIDS anyway and die in a doorway, C. Give them treatment? Answers on a postcard please!
You have said the word yourself.: FAILED.
They have failed so they should be returned to their point of entry.
ALL applications for visas are handled from outside the UK. You cannot apply for one once you are here.
Showing up on the doorstep with your palms out butters no parsnips with me.
These people NEED to know this.
Yes, and I am curious to know why on earth they would be FAILED, when their country would slaughter them on return?
My question still stands,
A: Send them back anyway to be killed? B: Let them get AIDS and die in a doorway, C: Give them treatment?
Those are the options. The only options.
I judge our immigration department to have determined their situation to the best of their abilities. Therefore if they have failed, it means they are not at the risk they claim to be.
The answer is a) Send them back anyway.
Having a lovely time,
Wish you were here.
PS What's my prize?
So we can bury our head in the sand and pretend the public health risk does not exist because the immigration system is not working. The fact is they are stiull here, they still cause a risk to themselves or others, we need to deal with it. There will be more in the future, we need to be able to protect the public (from wherever they come)
@Stu: Part of the reason the NHS is not working is because it is overrun with immigrants, both legal and otherwise.
This is due to our farcical agreements with the EU, and successive governments not bothering to check on immigration properly.
If we were not in the EU and managed our borders correctly, the only people coming in would be the ones we wanted along with a quota legitimate asylum seekers. That way our hospitals would not be at bursting point, our streets would be safe and our teachers wouldn need to know 20 languages to teach a room full of kids.
I dont disagree with you. You still have not answered how the NHS meet their public duty to reduce this risk to you and me without treating these people?
If they prove to be genuine then why would they be returned home if it was known doing so would represent a clear threat to their life?
I would certainly be demanding to know WHY they insist on settling in England, and tell them no, sorry, we have no money, here's your ticket to continental Europe, try there instead.
100% GENUINE ASYLUM SEEKERS DON'T CHERRY PICK WHERE THEY DESIRE TO LIVE!!! It is like a Somalian family legitimately arriving in the UK, then demanding to be housed in Notting Hill. WHY?!!
If you're at genuine risk of being killed returning to your native land, ANYWHERE is preferable to live, yet they flock here because the UK (still) has the most generous benefits system in Europe.
So again, please don't try that one on us as well, DC, it no longer washes.
With some of the comments here you can be forgiven for thinking one has accidentally landed in the middle of a neo-facists n.a.z.i chat site.
I for one will not support racist twats like the delightful LordEgbertNobacon here, who is living proof that those who are bigoted racists are usually bigoted homophobes. The very term "gay plague" reeks of ignorance, and then its followed up by the aptly named and resident bigot Spanner and his white Britons only nonsense. What a wonderful collection we have here, a real testament to the failure of the British education system. In a word, disgusting.
Let's get a few things straight here:
1) I am a gay man.
2) I am no racist, and I have had many Asian, Jewish and immigrant partners of varying colours.
3)I am a company director who has been self employed for most of my working life which means if you don't work, you don't get paid.
3)I am not a socialist (Quelle Surprise!)
I am not a bigot, but I am a loyal supporter of the United Kingdom, and I refuse to allow leftie tossers hand out our hard-earned cash, values, moral standards and services just to gain a few brownie points. NuLiebour has already wrecked half of it, and now this bunch are out to bugger the other half.
This country is crumbling due to us pandering to the US, Europe and now the Third World whilst it lets its own standards collapse and allows the British way of life to become diluted and destroyed. I have no problem with immigrants as long as they do like the rest of us, work hard, pay your taxes and follow the rules. If you don't like it, fck off elsewhere.
Empire, looting, pillaging, raping and ransacking the whole world over and over and over: Check
Chickens coming home to roost: Uncheck
Since when did we loot and pillage Poland or Nigeria?
Polish and Nigerians are barbarians: Check
Beberts is a lefty blinkered arsehole.
Goodness me, there are some people in here who really hate England and the British way of life.
Suffice it to say their odorous hypocrisy of continuing to live here and draw on its systems and services never fails to amaze and repulse at the same time.
Bollocks are you – you're a complete and utter fascist – you always have been on here…
You are one of the (unfortunately) many regular posters on here who use every single excuse to trot out your standard bigoted line on everything from immigration to Muslims to black people to African Churches to EDL to Boris Johnson & Ken Livingston…You're FULL Of it…
You're clearly an embittered, reactionary, knee-jerking old toad who thinks everyone thinks like he does and if they dont then they're 'worth less'.
Your ongoing twisted rants really PISS ME the fcvk off…
Oh good. That's why I call myself "Spanner" (in the works).
I would rather have that reaction than the blatant apathy and acceptance most people give. Give me 1 wolf over 100 sheep.
Don't worry, Spanner1960. The "racist" chestnut no longer works.
The immigration elephant in the room is too big now and it is all too self-evident that successive governments have created a massive problem in order to disenfranchise the British way of life.
Even Ed Milliband has (finally) acknowledged this, so why on earth Rob is still throwing around the "racist" epithet is wryly amusing.
Rob, the non-vocal majority are beginning to stir and wake up and see the deceit and conceit that has taken place under their noses these past 20 years.
Very soon, I predict, the insanity that has degraded and made second-class citizens of British people will be rooted out and sent packing.
I can see it and, thank God, most of my gay brethren are starting to as well and wondering WTF has been going on?!
I just wouldn't want to be in your and your ilk's shoes when the angry mob comes running…
Very few people would deny that every country should have two forks to its immigration policy i) a migration approach that both enables the coutnry to seek talents that it has in insifficent quantities domestically from other nations and prevents unwanted migrants and ii) a reasonable and faiir approach to genuine asylum seekers (fair to both those in genuine need and the host country – whether than host be temporary or permanent).
Very few people would deny that British immigration has been appallingly managed for probably two decades or more.
There is a fine line on immigration and it is necessary to take care in the use of language to avoid being interpreted as racist. Having been involved in many deportations I have strong views on needing a robust immigration policy.
I think your predictions about British people being rooted out is arguably reactionary. I think Britain is waking up to the need for robust immirgation policies and thus the emerging chaos predicted is unlikely.
The point is, Stu, people like Rob are ashamed to admit to being British.
Their raison d'être is to denigrate this country and all of the great things it did, and does, still stand for.
It's a pernicious disease that has eroded and eaten away at our once proud institutions and demoralised and dispirited millions of good people, including open-minded gays, some of whom don't bother with this forum anymore as it is known for being overrun with ultra-leftist militants who claim to speak for the rest of us.
It is not reactionary to predict what is already in the air and stirring at street level.
People are answering back and not feeling intimated anymore by those brandishing words such as "racist" as their stick to bully and silence those daring to exercise their freedom of thought into submission.
Those voices will soon get a lot louder and drown out the insanity of the vocal minority of crackpots, our parliamentary representatives included, who've sold Britain down the river.
I know this is flippant, but given your description of your work in high fashion in one of top department stores in London – I do not exactly imagine you as "part of the hood" and with their finger on the pulse of what is "in the air" or "on the street"
Yes, that is a completely unnecessarily flippant remark, especially considering I am referring to everyday Joe here, not hood-donning thugs and, by implication, I assume you are referring to rioters?!!
The chatter is becoming clearly audible these days, and people of all persuasions and social groups are saying they have had enough.
Well-heeled customers who I serve in my fashion boutique, the store cleaner, my hairdresser… Hell, even the Asian proprietor of my corner shop who came here in the 60s and worked his ass off to earn a decent living and pay his taxes, and a Sikh family I have long embraced as my own, have had enough!
And when you even hear naturalised Brits who were themselves once immigrants bemoaning the appalling immigration policies of today, you know a massive sea change of opinion is in the air and is growing louder by the day.
People are no longer afraid to speak out loudly about it because they no longer fear the PC "racist" loons.
I have no idea where you get the idea I was referring to rioters. In no way shape or form did I intend to give that impression.
You read things into comments that just arent there.
So which chatter is this then, the voices from your walls – if its audible perhaps you should seek some help?
Well you have clearly got your mojo back, Stu.
Come on, when you start mentioning hoods you are doing exactly what you were doing when you asked me how I would tackled the "solution" to the Muslim "problem".
Yes, sly digs that attempt to bait me.
I am absolutely flabbergasted to be quite honest with you.
I welcome you back to these boards after your enforced break and tell you point blank I have no intention of looking back and every intention of moving forward.
Yet you are full of digs at me that force me to defend myself by alluding to your past indiscretions.
If myself and W6 can bite our bottom lips and converse like adult human beings and respect each others' rights to hold those opinions, why can't you do likewise?
I really had hoped that the recent "incident" would have been a learning curve for you. I hope it still can be.
Moving on…
Lets not pretend that you havent been baiting me on this thread.
But yes, lets draw a line …
Just in case you were wondering, I am incredibly proud to be British (probably use the term British more than English – but thats possibly due to part Scottish/Welsh/English ancestry). I am proud of much that has and still does make Britain good – and part of the is things you don't like, but hey I am proud of it anyway.
Well said Rob……put HIV and immigration together in the same article and you get the bigots and protectionists coming out in force, yet as with all sensationalist "daily wail" style headlines it is important to consider the detail and then form an opinion.
Treatment prevents HIV transmission – so this move should be seen in a public health context as are all other communical infections.
As a compassionate society are we really prepared to allow anyone to die or suffer from AIDS in the UK when the cost benefits of treatment with ARV's is acknowledged the world over.
There are wider social costs to be considered, such as family break ups, childcare etc. It is too simplistic to say don't treat these people, they are here and should not be denied life saving treatment.
It's not just a matter of HIV and immigration, it is any long term medical support offered to people that show up, which could be any chronic illness.
The NHS should only provide immediate support for things like A&E. Anything else should be paid for, even things like maternity. We are not a charity.
So the NHS should not be concerned with the public health of UK citizens?
The public health should not have been compromised in the first place with lax immigration procedures and what have you.
Why is it always a case of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted?
Why do governments create these avoidable situations in the first place if not to run the indigenous people into the ground and make them fodder who are easier to control?
However did good old common sense give way to lunatics over-running the asylum?
@Samuel B
You are right it should not have been compromised in the first place.
But it has. That is not the NHS' fault. But it is the NHS duty to protect our public health – yours and mine.
I would prefer we had dealt with this earlier by preventing unwated migrants, but we havent so we need to deal with the coinsequences of a failed immigration policy, one of those consequences is a public health concern.
If you ended up injured in an accident and contaminated blood from a migrant entered an open wound you had and this caused you to contract HIV. If you found out the NHS could have treated the migrant and this may well have reduced the risk to you but they didnt because it was seen as a "case of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted" then I guess you would be unhappy with both the UK immigration policy and enforcement AND the NHS public health team (as well as whoever caused the darn accident!)
"So the NHS should not be concerned with the public health of UK citizens?"
Haven't we been here before quite recently with that style of questioning, Stu?
In order to justify this appalling new policy you twist it around to argue that if we DON'T do it we are all at risk. Hello? Who exactly?
Now let's see, the two main groups of HIV-infected people in the UK remain gay men and African immigrants.
There has been no recorded problem or reported incidences of serial HIV infections into the indigenous population from asylum seekers and illegals over the many years they have been arriving here for free handouts.
The problem doesn't, or didn't, exist, until the government minister responsible yesterday invented it, and in the process gave the green light for HIV tourists to come here en masse.
So from a problem that was virtually, if at all, heard of, this insane government has potentially created an enormous financial burden out of thin air by incentivising pos people to flock here!
You are the one twisting it, nice try at deflection …
You twist it to immigration being the focus … no this story is about public health.
Do you understand what public health is?
Its about protecting people – British people ….
Knock, knock, hello, is Samuel there?
So long as we are perfectly clear. Samuel does not want to protect public health in the UK. It costs too much and its an immigration problem anyway so the NHS shouldnt do anything to protect us as immigration should have done their job. If they didnt its not the NHS fault so if we catch something, tough.
Where did you glena that information that no British born person has been infected by an asylum seeker with HIV?
Just pluck it out of the air?
The evidence for this claim is where?
I thought you would be able to provide that information, Stu since you are the one who admits to reading The Daily Mail.
Now, when was the last time it screamed "BRITS IN MORTAL DANGER FROM ASYLUMS AND ILLEGALS SPREADING HIV SHOCK!"
You know fine well I don't read the Daily Mail.
I thought you were going to engage in constructive debate
To most intelligent people, that incudes backing up ones claims. I don't believe you can prove your claim. I havent sought evidence to refute it. So, unless you can demonstrate it is true what you are saying then to my mind you are speculating. Something you like doing – but you try and pass speculation off as fact.
So if it is a fact, back it up with evidence/
Hel-lo? All of three or four weeks ago you said you looked through the Daily Mail as part of your newspaper reading, along with The Guardian for balance, I presume.
You seem to be revising your own daily routine as you go along, Stu! Do make your mind up as to what you read, where you work, what your stay-at-home situation is about, whether you are back at PN full-time, part-time, or are regulating the number of your postings more conservatively these days (not much sign of that yet, ahem…).
Again, I repeat, where are the headlines screaming that asylums and illegals post an HIV-related health risk to the indigenous population?
Correct, little if any, yet HIV continues to be spread like wildfire among the indigenous gay community and sod all is being done to mitigate that.
Twisted logic every time from the PC militia, but thank goodness voices of sanity are being heard on these boards again.
I'm not a regular reader of the Mail. I mentioned that I have read it amongst a number of other newspapers.
My regular papers at the moment are the Guardian, Telegraph, New Zealand Herald, and Irish Independent.
You know well through a wide range of comments that we have corresponded with that the Mail is not my preferred paper. I am sure you could pick one or two isolated comments where I do mention it as reading the paper. Equally I can pick up on isolated comments you make about other issues …
Now, we seem agreed that immigration needs sorting. We seem to not be that far apart on broad brush strokes of how that could happen. The finer detail there probably would be some disagreement about. In terms of the best route to solve the public health risk that exists you seem to agree that it would have been better resolved if the immigration service had done its job in the first instance and that their failures should not lead to criticism of the NHS for doing …
… their job as professionals in public health to tackle what they as professionals conceive to be a public health concern. You even seem to agree that given the immigration system is unfit for purpose that the NHS public health proposals may be justifiable for those people who are currently in the UK. We disagree about whether this will lead to more people flocking to the UK (I don't agree that its certain that this will have an impact as I believe the attraction is not usually the NHS but the benefit system etc) but I think we agree mroe work needs to be done by the immigration service to ensure that inapporpriate people do not enter the UK. That is work for the immigration service. Public health is work for the NHS and local authorities taking expert advise on data that they hold.
You have tried deflecting my request of evidence instead asking me to prove that you are wrong. No it doesnt work like that, Samuel. You make a claim, someone perceives you as speculatiing and …
… asks you to explain where the facts are that made you form your opinion. You should then either provide the facts or agree that you don't have any, and that whilst you believe your opinion that is what it is, not fact. To deflect and say "well prove me wrong" suggests you are unable to supply factual information to reinforce your argument. You make a stand – prove it, dont ask others to prove you wrong.
So, in any event there is a lot we agree on here, yet you seem keen to argue and ridicule including on issues that bear no relevance to immigration or public health … is that because you just want to stir trouble? What other reason could there be? I genuinely would like to know because I can see no other reasonable explanation.
Same old meaningless words, same old name calling , without substance , the usual Marxist mantra , in the absence of any viable answer .
I rather get the impression your own ideal of education is the one so beloved and used on POWs by the Viet Cong , indoctrination , why do the Idi Amin ilk of your type tend to transfer your own dictatorial traits to others .
You do yourself no favours with your attitude on here.
In some respects, I support your ethos on this, but it is obvious that you are not gay and you see us as the root of all the problem; HIV is a worldwide epidemic and something that each country has to tackle in its own way: Calling this a 'gay plague' is frankly ignorant, dated and homophobic, and you really should look at the bigger picture.
My stance on this is that it is here, and we are one of the few, if the only country that provides a free medical service, so frankly, if you were poor and dying of a terminal disease, where the hell would you head for?
I do sympathise with these people, and it is an awful dilemma, but the bottom line is: there is no more room at the inn.
You are making the assumption that immigrants with HIV are not already costing the NHS money in terms of hospital treatment. The average cost of in- patient bed per day is £225 then add in expensive tests, treatment interventions, specialist consultants and the daily cost is soon ramped up.
Where is the sense in treating TB but not treating HIV in the co-infected. TB is associated with advanced HIV infection, why not treat both and save money in the longer term on both conditions. And there is the public health argument which you seem to gloss over!
You are entitled to your views on immigration, but these people are here and probably here to stay for for several yearsif not indefinitely, so do we just ignore the problem and not use treatment to reduce cost and safeguard public health – perhaps take a wider view rather than your very narrow "I'm alright Jack" world view.
My sexua`y hase no bearing on my attitude, but I will say freely that, my eldest grandson is, and has been "out " since age 8 and has the same place in my heart as any of the others and their friends . The word Homophobic is directed at people far too often and has become overused . He is now 18 ,and I stand by my statement ,it should have been halted at our border decades ago .
Sorry – WHAT shouldhave been 'halted at our border'…?
I do hope you ain't talking about HIV – because, bless you, if you are then you clearly need to do some homework…
If for no other reason than your 'gay grandson' needs to have you knowing more about gay & HIV history than you clearly do (not).
If the word 'homophobia' is directed at people there is actually a reason for it usually…
Lets hope your grandson never has cause to turn to you for your support on this score if you can't handle the word eh?
"t should have been halted at our border decades ago"
More rhetorical nonsense. I see your IQ points is lower then your age.
Sorry, but there wasn't an HIV scanner that bleeped at you last time I went through an airport. Pray tell me precisely HOW you would have screened against a virus that can bury itself so deeply it can sometimes take months of tests to find it?
The US tried to do this and patently failed. The biggest joke was that the initial HIV vector appears to have originated from California in the first place.
"Same old meaningless words, same old name calling , without substance , the usual Marxist mantra , in the absence of any viable answer "
I'm sorry, were you referring to your own garbage comments there? Its hard to tell with racists, they then to be idiots….
Bit of a side note, Can anyone explain:
"Currently, failed asylum seekers who are allowed to remain in England because their country is too dangerous to return to…" If their country is too dangerous to return to, why on earth have they failed the asylum process?
I think you have answered your own previous question.
Royaume Uni: Null Points.
No, obviously you have much more of an insight than me? Under what circumstances is it right to refuse asylum when it is dangerous to send them back to their country?
When they are economic mig`s and their claims of danger are a crock .
At what point ,if any ,would you look after your own .
When they invariably are discovered to be lying through their back teeth in order to get a cushy little number over here.
…Bloody fascists
…off again…
.. Bloody Socialists
…making damn fool excuses again…
(It's OK, we are socialists so we give EVERYTHING away to make sure we look good, but just ensure we get a big enough sneaky slice of the action so we have enough to fck off to the Bahamas when Britain collapses in ruins.)
very good point, but there are many reasons a persons claim may be refused such as not claiming asylum on immediate entry to the country, or not having the correct identification. it's a different office that decides a country is to dangerous to be returned to. if it was up to the UKBA they'd still return people whatever the conditions in their country of origin
in addition, many asylum claims which are initially turned down are given leave to remain on appeal. this can be for an indefinite period or for a limited number of years
Yeah, once they've flown it past interminable cases with the ECHR et al who don't give a flying toss about international law and just base judgement on ideals instead of real-world situations. These people live in cloud-cuckoo land.
It is wrong to suggest that Foreign Nationals who are subject to immigration controls are not already having an impact in terms of health costs, those that are hospitalised are treated first then the finance is discussed later, if at all.
Many can be co-infected with TB / HIV and the costs of repeated in-patient care far outweighs the cost of prescribing ARV's to prevent complicated HIV infection requiring expensive and lengthy in patient interventions.
Keeping all HIV positive individuals in good health is far more cost effective for the NHS than having to deal with emergency interventions.
Please note that long term costs of HIV care can be reduced and as immigration issues can take many years to resolve the approach to provide ARV's without charges should be welcomed as a way of both safeguarding public health but also HIV service budgets.
I wondered how long it would be before you raised your head above the parapet.
The way I see it, the cost of providing meds that could/would be eventually terminated is far more costly than allowing the disease to take its natural course.
In a nutshell, they are going to die, and giving them a years worth of tablets is going to make no difference medically, but its a huge saving in prescriptions and support.
@ spanner….and in the mean time while they are waiting to die, how many times will these people be hospitalised taking up valuable resources and beds…… Not to mention the personal suffering and other social costs (children etc) – you obviously have no compassion at all – why am I not surprised by your comments, kind of puts you up there with "Keith" in my book!
Of course I have a compassion and the deepest sympathy for these people, but we cannot be the curer of all ills, and we should not be expected to take on every soul that shows up on our doorstep. We only have limited resources and our own people are suffering whilst we continue to desperately attempt to prop up other countries incapable of supporting their own people.
I am all for foreign aid and support, but it has been proven time and again that this money ends up in the wrong pockets, and it is at a time where the UK is already up to its neck in debt, inflation and unemployment, so our own citizens have to come first. It's not a pleasant decision, but it is the only practical one, otherwise we will end up sinking trying to save a drowning man.
So you do not accept the public health argument and the costs associated with people who are already here dying of AIDS?
You are naive if you think ARV's should be withheld and at the same time there is no cost to the NHS while untreated people die of AIDS. We are where we are in terms of immigration ignoring it will in the long run have many costs associated with it.
Are you therefore suggesting that all healthcare should be withheld from individuals subject to immigration control, if not why should HIV be singled out? It makes no sense at all to me.
OK, you say you have compassion, and I take that at face value and believe it. I think your compassion is a good thing – regardless how that transpires and impacts on what we do as individuals or a state (or not).
If we can not afford to acton immigration grounds, thats fine and an argument we can debate ad infinitum – but its a legitimate argument and moral stance to take.
However, protect yourself and other UK citizens from the public health risk that exists within the UK from immigrants who have HIV – lets reduce the risk they potentially cause by treating their virus, whilst we contend with the immigfration backlog. Last time I read an estimate there was enough work to keep the deportation teams going until 2036. We have an immigration problem – no argument, but lets not make us blinked to the public health concerns that this causes and we have to contend with NOW.
Basically, I see no reason in allowing treatment for any illegal immigrant suffering a terminal illness. There simply is no point.
It is in much the same way that the NHS targets children more than pensioners because they have more years ahead. It's comparable to trying to patch up an old banger of a car. You reach a point where it is simply uneconomic and pointless, and you chuck it on the scrap heap.
This may sound very mercenary, but there are limited resources, so they have to be used where they are going to the most effective. Providing palliative care for patients with terminal illnesses is a waste of money in comparative terms where the money could be used to actually save other people's lives.
So, basically you are saying that you and I should not be protected from the risk these people pose to public health?
@ Spanner you are still avoiding the public health issue and the fact that keeping +ve individuals in good health is a better use of NHS resources……..and you still seem to think those subject to immigration controls do not access our healthcare system – they do and therefore we should keep costs to a minimum. ARV's are cost effective in the long term.
As I have previously said immigration cases can take years to resolve, so we need to understand health costs in the wider context.
Sorry, this thread thing is running out of strands:
@Stu: Yes, we need to be protected, but that should be pro-active. Far better to not let people in in the first place than start throwing tablets at them later, and then in many cases deporting them back to somewhere where their meds will then run out (ie: a pointless waste of money)
W6: I hate to say it, but I suspect we already have a cure for HIV/AIDS, but being the cynic I am, I believe the pharma companies hold it back because they can make much more money selling a lifetimes worth of viral suppressors than they could selling a one-shot fix.
If people are already in AIDS status, there is little we can do anyway, so there is no need to take up hospital beds, they should just be allowed to die peacefully at home.
You argument works if you take measures to tackle the immigration of people who arguably should not be here in the first place.
Clearly the UK has not had great immigration enforcement in recent years. Evidence by a work load for deportation teams that will continue to 2036 and by the lax attitude under the coalition to immigration controls at Heathrow (giving two examples)
So, whilst your plan is great in theory if immigration has been constantly controlled; the fact remains it has not.
So, we still have a public health situation that needs managing and saying this is an immigration problem only is burying our head in the sand and potentially putting UK citizens and visitors to the UK at risk.
None of this considers the issue of genuine asylum seekers endorsed by HMG in the future.
Public health can not be dealt with by wishes of how other policies should be. It is a danger issue and we need to act, whether that is palatable to some people or not.
correction *typo* evidenced by …
Spanner shows no compassion or empathy for others and i imagine doesn't feel very good about himself either. how would you hope to be treated if you found yourself in similar circumstances to people needing to seek asylum Spanner? or are you incapable of imagining this?
At what point did I say I have no compassion or empathy?
I am very fortunate to have been born in a rich and civilised country, unlike many. However, if we were to follow many on here including, I suspect, yourself, we wouldn't have much of a country left before long.
Stupid bints like you cannot see the nose in front of your face and think this country is a bottomless pit of money we can just dispense to all and sundry that wander past with their grubby hands out.
Well I hate to break it to you, but life is not like that. This country is up sh|t creek without a paddle and when push comes to shove I look after my own. Or would you care to donate your life savings to Oxfam while you let your own family starve? No, I thought not.
These left wing luvvies go on and on about compassion for those fleeing here claiming asylum, but where is their compassion for British people being denied life-saving drugs because the DoH claims they are too expensive?
And old people being left to die in hospital wards because the Doctors decide to stop dispensing their drugs or the nurses can't even find the humanity to feed them or bath them?
And so on, and so on…
Britain has become a terrifying country if you are mentally disabled or over a certain age.
Where are these folk going to flee to now we have reached a stage where uniformed staff in hospitals decree whether they live or die?
Oh, sorry, you couldn't give a fig because they don't figure in the grand scheme of things.
How on earth did you lot, most of whom I presume were born British, come to hate Britain and the British so?
Firstly, welcome back, Stu. I trust the break has done you some good and we can now look forward to some healthy and robust debate.
It does make sense to treat immigrants that are already here:- a financial bullet we should bite for successive government's lax control of our borders.
But incoming non-EU residents should be pre-tested for HIV, as is standard in many other countries:- otherwise what other "safeguards" are there?
And wasn't it George Osborne just yesterday who said we have run out of money? How does he intend to pay for these treatments otherwise?
And while Western EU countries issue free HIV drugs, what of Eastern EU countries like Romania and Bulgaria?
Anyone know these countries' healthcare policies? If they do not provide freely then we can certainly expect a rising tide of "treatment tourists" from there.
And before anyone screams "racist", wake up! Everyone can see the unfettered immigration elephant in the room clearly now, so that cheap shot no longer works.
Thanks Samuel for the welcome back.
Here are some bits of information you may find interesting. I agree with you that whilst it might grate some to fund the cost of HIV treatment of immigrants already here, it does make solid sense on public health grounds.
"HIV testing in Bulgaria is free of charge for the whole population, and all HIV-positive people receive free of charge antiretroviral therapy, as well as monitoring of this therapy,"
Quote from Dr Tonka Varleva in November 2011. Dr Valerva is Director of the HIV programme in Bulgaria
The Vienna International AIDS conference in 2010 reported that Romania had allocated insufficient resources to tackle the treatment of HIV in the country. It also stated the general response to HIV/AIDS was both insufficient and inadequate.
According to the WHO the following countries are offering free access to ARVs include some possibly surprising countries such as:
Botswana, Brazil, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Thailand, Senegal, Zambia,
Have to say I am not sure that we should test everyone who enters the country for HIV. Where do we stop? Which other conditions would we test for?
The cost would be phenomenal.
We could insist on a medical screening for migrants prior to coming to the UK and use it as part of the assessment process but not for every person entering.
Screening is impractical and expensive, but as I mentioned in another post, HIV+ people should either bring in sufficient meds to cover their stay, or prepay to have the drugs provided. If you don't have either, you don't come in. If you sneak in and get caught, you are unceremoniously booted out with no appeal.
For the record I have not voted your comment up or down. I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts, so I am sitting on the fence in terms of voting on that comment. Fair?
Absolutely. What is past is past. Let's look ahead. We are all entitled to fair comment here.
Hey, I had a great debate with W6 on another thread last week. All good progress, and thanks for the info above! :)
Thanks Samuel.
There is a great deal we agree on.
There are areas I suspect we will never agree!
I hope constructive and reasoned debate is the route forward.
Can I ask you a question that has been bugging me though? Did you really get time off work to contirbute to Pink News?
Blimey. Maybe I should start contributing then.
That would put the cat amongst the pigeons. ;)
Um, as I said Stu, what is past is past, let's hopefully not go back there… ;-)
I would like not to go back there but you still seem very antagonistic Samuel
If I am it is not being directed at you.
If someone is being provocative and antagonistic in what they are saying, then I will return like for like.
I'll accept that as being saying you had no intention of antagonising me. Thank You.
Lets try and keep it that way?
Of course.
Look, I know we are never likely to ever be whispering sweet nothings in each others' ears, nor go for cucumber sandwich picnic in Hyde Park, but we can try our best to maintain a degree of civility towards each other and agree to disagree as and when, and to agree to agree on the rare occasion that occurs.
And if anyone else would like to join the great Stu and Samuel B. love-in, the more the merrier!
*giggles away to self*
Well, I don't knwo whether you are attractive enough or not to warrant sweet nothings … I certainly don't hold your extreme views against you in terms of how physically attractive you may or may not be! But no, cucumber sandwiches -eugh, if you were ever to invite me to a picnic in Hyde Park (or elsewhere) please have someone more appetising in the basket!
I must admit I am struggling with this a bit. I may be reticent to trust you at your word (understandable either side given recent events). I do get an impression that you say you want genuine debate, but I feel there is an undercurrent that you genuinely want to fight. I know I have responded to goads from you when I should not, but perhaps the goads should not have been there in the first place.
Deep breath (again) …
I think Samuel has been on the Bombay Saphire Gin, or has too many bloody Mary's –
"And if anyone else would like to join the great Stu and Samuel B. love-in, the more the merrier!"
You are a difficult individual to read Samuel, perhaps you do not migrate well from real world to the cyber world! A case of very mis-understood maybe?
Stu, where I perceive insanity where I want to see common sense then I will challenge and gnaw away at that, and vice versa I am sure from your perspective.
You may call it goading, I call it getting to the root of the issue to determine how and why you can hold a certain view that I think is, frankly, nuts.
W6 and I have got into plain straightforward debating because he presents straight facts as gleaned from reports, studies and stats to support his arguments, and does that very well, and usually without getting theoretical or deflecting into other realms.
Now on this thread you accuse me of both deflecting AND baiting:- two of my chief accusations levelled at you previously.
No, my only big mistake since our latest armistice is assuming you would like cucumber sandwiches for our imaginary idyllic picnic in the park, when in this modern age of multicultural diversity some halal jerk chicken, a couple of samosas, onion bhajis and spring rolls should have been included to boot!
'Pre-tested for HIV'…?!!?
Are you mad!?
What exactly would that do then? This is exactly the same kind of bollocks policy that the US originally adopted which has now (thank GOD!) been overturned…
Do you really think that stopping 'non EU' nationals with HIV coming into the country you would limit the spread of HIV?
Thats just bloody idiotic and racist scaremongering/scapegoating.
What 'safeguards' do you want!? …Cause there AREN'T any – other than practising safe sex and taking responsibility for our OWN sexual health.
And I think under the cirumstances calling your comment racist is fair – given that you spin off into 'unfetterted immigration' when you started out talking about HIV…
…Which is it…? Compulsory HIV testing or 'unfettered immigration' that you want to talk about…? Blobbing the two together just demonstrates what you say you're not being…(a kneejerk, reactionary racist)
If there aren't any "safeguards", then what the hell is the government minister doing saying there will be?
And what safeguard could possible work unless those incoming to the UK obtained an HIV test in the country they are coming from shortly before they intend to arrive, and be issued an authentic certificate showing their status?
Yes, it's far from perfect and open to counterfeiting, and obviously would not be relevant for genuine asylum seekers who flee their lands.
But it would not be racist if they had to provide a certificate at the point of entry to prove their neg status, or showed they had significant funds to pay for their own treatments if required and signed a declaration to that effect.
And if they can't fulfil that criteria, send them packing. Why should they be a drain on the indigenous taxpayer?
I can't imagine what other "safeguards" the government could possibly be referring to, possibly because they have no idea either and it's all bull—- as usual.
There is a scenario where I can see the plan for prior testing for HIV would not work (I will deal with this at the end) but in most cases I think it is reasonable.
In most cases for whatever reason someone is visiting the UK (visa to visit relatives, tourism, study or work which is beneficial to the UK) then as part of the assessment process for the visa they could be required to undertake a health clearance at their own expense. For genuine cases of permanent immigrants which are accepted by the UK (for UK interests) then similar checks could also be undertaken.
The one scenario where I think it is problematic is the genuine asylum seeker. They clearly do not seek a visa in advance (usually) and often it is an emergency situation. If the UK agree they have a genuine claim (and the UK is a reasonable place for them to turn to due to a connection to the UK) then we can not easily run such clearances in advance.
Stu are you saying that non EU individuals with an HIV diagnosis traveling to the UK should be denied entry?
Not necessarily.
I think it should be a factor in the decision making though.
You would also consider what the persons general health is, what their income is likely to be, how they would contirbute to the economy, what connections they have to the UK, what affinity they have to the UK etc etc …. especially in the case of longer term working visas …
If they were seeking a shorter term visa, health may have an implication if there was reason to believe they may seek to remain longer than the visa was for. Of course, if they are suspected of being likely to overstay they should be refused in any event but health might be a factor to consider.
To make it clear I would not refuse entry to someone on a tourist visa on health gorunds alone. They would need to demonstrate they were able to finance any health costs associated with their likely stay via insurance or income etc.
"You would also consider what the persons general health is, what their income is likely to be, how they would contirbute to the economy, what connections they have to the UK, what affinity they have to the UK etc etc …. especially in the case of longer term working visas" This makes sense,
it would be a retrograde step to refuse entry because of HIV status. This would be damaging to efforts to reduce discrimination and stigma. It's not something I would ever support.
I can't conceive of a situation where I would support refusal purely on the grounds of HIV status.
In a model where immigration is on the basis of working visas having quotas, then if there are severe restrictions then for example, a HIV negative 36 year old neurosurgeon with financial stability and a job to go to is probably more likely to be accepted than a Hiv positive 24 year old with limited education and financial means and no job to go to. The HIV is considered but not necessarily the sole criteria
I'm not sure how HIV status is relevant at all in the example you provide, I am with you on the the other tests but I am unsure that asking specifically about HIV status would be helpful. If someone is able to work here then they will have access to the NHS and certain non means tested benefits.
I am unclear in your example if the neurosurgeon was +ve would he be discriminated against? (assuming the current ban in the NHS is lifted).
There are a lot of what ifs (including the lifting of NHS ban on significantly invasive procedures for HIV positive clinicians) in these scenarios.
Let me try and put it this way. If I want to emigrate to New Zealand then I need to prove a range of things including criminal record, qualifications, ability to work, finances and health (HIV status would be considered for any application seeking residency or towards seeking naturalisation or citizenship). HIV positive status is more likely (but not certain) to lead to a refusal in New Zealand due to the costs of treatment for the patient that would be incurred by the Kiwi taxpayer. Situations where they may endorse the application to stay in New Zealand when the applicant is HIV positive could either include where they have significant financial means and thus the impact on the Kiwi taxpayer is likely to be negated or where the skill of the applicant is rare and of significant value to New Zealanders and good income …
… and/or financial independence meaning the cost to the Kiwi taxpayer is not as significant.
I do not think New Zealand are unreasonable in this approach. Its being fair to their taxpayers. I do not see why the UK can not have a similar scheme.
I am aware of New Zealand example resting to HIV. I presume that what is important here is any health condition that requires long term treatment would be a factor to consider. For instance would I apply to diabetes?
Personally I do no support the stance taken by countries like New Zealand and I would be against any such move here in the UK – it would be an extremely retrograde step in my view.
I think in the New Zealand case it applies to many health conditions with a significant attributable cost burden to the Kiwi tax payer. Its sensible for it to be related to predictable significant costs. I certainly dont think it should apply to one health condition in isolation.
"Stu are you saying that non EU individuals with an HIV diagnosis traveling to the UK should be denied entry?"
"In most cases for whatever reason someone is visiting the UK (visa to visit relatives, tourism, study or work which is beneficial to the UK) then as part of the assessment process for the visa they could be required to undertake a health clearance at their own expense."
"I think it should be a factor in the decision making though."
Stu, from the sound of it the implication is that HIV would be a factor in your decision-making, otherwise why would you mention a health check?
But then when asked to clarify your stance you felt you had to quickly jump back into line and parrot the accepted PC consensus.
I have seen this happen before many a time, and what it always suggests is that such a person, deep down, has serious reservations about the PC rhetoric and ideology they have been neuro-linguistically programmed into believing…
For a second there I saw Stu snap out of his PC-programmed trance and the real Stu speaking his truth, as I have detected in other postings!
All I will say, Stu, is always speak your truth and don't feel pressured by others into conforming to group speak and playing the PC game. You are made of better stuff than that.
I have long sensed you are a genuinely sound and decent bloke but with a vulnerable side that has been gotten at and told by others what to think.
Indeed, that's where a lot of my frustration towards you stemmed from a few weeks back, because I had seen the same old games play out many times elsewhere.
I genuinely wanted to see you back on these boards and hoped the time off would make you reflect and not fall into old patterns.
Listen, it is your choice how you choose to be:- we won't be going down that road again, I assure you.
But we'll get on like a house of fire if you start being honest with yourself and speaking your truth instead of what others want to hear!
And W6, there is an acute difference between the reprehensible laws that the US introduced banning positive visitors to their shores, and calls for pos asylum seekers and illegal immigrants not to be given free HIV meds here.
The difference being that the US refused entry to positive people who took their own treatments with them:- they weren't going there to the US to be a burden on its healthcare system!
It was morally abhorrent that positive "aliens" who were receiving treatment in their home lands were being banned from the United States. It was discrimination of the highest order.
But the situation that is being created here, whereby incoming people will be a burden on our over-stretched economy by being incentivised into arriving and claiming free treatments willy nilly is a whole different kettle of fish.
I have never denied that the level of immigration is a huge burden, particularly in relation to th NHS…….my argument is that to withhold ARV's is false economy and costs more in the longer term, & because of the chaos in making decisions many of these individuals will be here for any yrs to come – ARV'S are the mst cost effective way of keeping these indviduals alive, plus there s a public health benefit.
NAT have done a great deal of work in this area, & the case for health tourism has not been proven. Why is it just ARV'S that have in the past been withheld, why not all treatment? It was an inconsistent, discriminatory short sighted policy.
Of course health status would be part of the decision making, not the sole part, but it would have an influence. I do not think any of my comments in this part of the thread are inconsistent with that. Nor do I think that considering health issues (as far as practicable) is unreasonable in the majority of cases.
Please do not pretend you know my mind better than I do myself. Your arrogant attitude of suggesting that I am incapable of making my mind up or that I am being inconsistent. If my approach is difficult for you to understand then ask, dont presume.
The only person getting at me (certainly on here) is you.
I am a decent guy. I do have a vulnerable side (which is a good thing). I do not take to being bullied, which is your forte. I constantly feel under attack and ridicule and victimisation from you when we are on the same threads.
The thing is in some areas we are not as far apart on opinions of how to handle problems as you might think.
The implication of your comment "I always tell the truth" is that conversely I do not. I resent this implication.
The reality is you give opinion, rarely facts. I have opinion often backed up with facts. You say facts do not matter. I say if you have an opinion support it with evidence.
I also resent the comment "if you start speaking the truth". Again the implication is that I am lying.
You have already seen that when I made a mistake I admitted it even before you had the chance to say anything. I'm honest, even when I make an error.
I don't want to get back into a scenario like we had a few weeks ago, so please try and measure your comments so that you do not tell me what I think. If you have a doubt, ask me. Do not accuse me of lying, but clarify what I mean if you are unsure. We will get on a lot better if you do.
I agree with Samuel that there is a difference between the US historic policy on barring HIV positive people and pre medical clearance (where practicable).
Speaking the truth and speaking your truth are not true same things, Stu, so you are wrong to imply that I am accusing you of not speaking the truth:- only your truth when you start reciting from a PC hymnbook or process what you are saying through a PC-filter, that's all.
Please, I am old enough and ugly enough to know doublespeak and PC rhetoric when it is staring me squarely in the face!
The reason why I suggested you appear to be one foot in, one foot out, so to speak is that you do occasionally fall out of line with that kind of talk as you did a few comments ago, and for which you were immediately pulled up about your perceived indiscretion and clearly felt you had to jump back into the PC line by back-tracking.
That is not being true to yourself, Stu, nor to anyone reading what you have to say:- not unlike the "Marcus" incident several weeks ago.
But thanks for acknowledging my distinction regarding the US banning of pos people.
Appreciated. :)
You may be old enough and ugly enough … but you are not me so please do not be arrogant and tell me that what I am saying is different to what I believe.
You can call me PC all you like. I know I am not. Whether you believe that or not makes sod all difference to me.
Its not me falling in or falling out of any mindset. I am my own person and my views do not follow a particular school of thought. I find strengths and weaknesses in various different approaches. I choose. I might get it wrong but I will be able to back up my reasoning and reconsider if there is good reason to do so.
You might think because you believe x this makes you y kind person. I don't fit into a mould like that. I don't do labels. I like to understand, comprehend and resolve in my own mind.
You may not believe me, To be honest that doesnt matter to me.
No problem re agreeing with your observation. Where I do agree with you, or anyone else I have no problem in saying.
I didnt change my opinion on anything in this thread. I have consistently said health checks are a reasonable part of an effective immigration process.
Where have I not said this, or where is this unclear?
'Pre-tested for HIV'…?!!?
Are you mad!?
What exactly would that do then? This is exactly the same kind of bollocks policy that the US originally adopted which has now (thank GOD!) been overturned…
Do you really think that stopping 'non EU' nationals with HIV coming into the country you would limit the spread of HIV?
Thats just bloody idiotic and racist scaremongering/scapegoating.
What 'safeguards' do you want!? …Cause there AREN'T any – other than practising safe sex and taking responsibility for our OWN sexual health.
And I think under the cirumstances calling your comment racist is fair – given that you spin off into 'unfetterted immigration' when you started out talking about HIV…
…Which is it…? Compulsory HIV testing or 'unfettered immigration' that you want to talk about…? Blobbing the two together just demonstrates what you say you're not being…(a kneejerk, reactionary racist)
I agree pre-testing is reactionary, unworkable and wrong.
However, those people coming to the UK should have provision to either bring sufficient meds or will have prepaid them before they enter the country, rather than dumping themselves on our doorstep and then dropping that clanger on us.
If they cannot cover themselves, they don't come in, simple as that.
If they are found to have slipped through without meds, then they should be deported for breach of visa requirements.
I think we can require pre testing for genuine migrants who seek a work visa. Other countries including New Zealand and Australia have such requirements.
I do not think it is either right, practical or reasonable to test everyone arriving at each UK airport or seaport (or Eurostar terminal) from abroad …. its a horrendous idea.
I was reading that UK citizens are entitled to free ARVs in many other countires. I don't know how widespread this is or how accurate the report is. If this is the case, surely there should be reciprocal arrangements for people of other coutnries within the UK?
That really depends on the foreign health systems. To my knowledge there are few, if any, that operate like the NHS, and most use various forms of public or private insurance to pay. How that would operate as a reciprocal process I have no idea, but it sounds to me like a logistical nightmare.
What would work better is to have some kind of smartcard that allowed people to get healthcare anywhere in the world and then have it charged to their country of origin. Healthcare should be based on contributions, not place of residence.
Staircase2, I know you are never likely to have much in common with Victor Meldrew, but my goodness, you do sound exactly like him…
The biggest problem with the NHS that is so simple to solve is due diligence.
I recently moved to london and went for my doctors and dental checkup on the NHS. I'm british and I pay NI, but growing up in the states I have an american accent.
Neither the GP nor the dental clinic asked to checked any background info at all.
The simple rule should be if you don't pay NI you don't get access to NHS. Obvious exceptions should apply to children, students, homemaker, etc. The able bodied unemployed should have the 'NI contribution' subsidised, but count towards annual tax income like their jobseekers does. So they end up paying it back when they do earn money in the form of higher income tax
EU nationals should have access due to the E11 reciprocal arrangement. But non EU foreigners not paying NI should not have access to NHS services full stop and since foreign students can afford to pay 10k+ on tuition i think they can afford to pay a reduced fee unless part time working and paying NI.
I have seen foreign nationals refused NHS treatment.
I would why this comment was marked down ….
"The able bodied unemployed should have the 'NI contribution' subsidised, but count towards annual tax income like their jobseekers does. So they end up paying it back when they do earn money in the form of higher income tax"
You've been away too long mate. We're in the mess we are because so many of the able unemployed have little or no intention of getting a job.
Its a generalisation but unfortunately in too many cases true …
I think the good Sister may in fact have been referring to you, Stu…
Definitely open for abuse from Non UK residents.
Hope that it is monitored by the authorities.
This problem happens even with large influx of immigration and temporary visitors/ visas. Must be policed so as not to be abused.
Anne Milton says: "Tough guidance will ensure that this measure is not abused".
Would that be the same tough guidance which controls our borders, bankers' bonuses, MPs' expenses and civil service perks?
Someone must make profit or it wouldn't happen.
I don't want to sound xenophobic but the NHS was set up for the benefit of British people, funded by British taxpayers. If I lived in America I would have to pay for Medicare insurance and even if I visited that country I would have to make sure that my travel insurance covers any sudden illness or accident and I doubt that they would treat me for HIV as it is a long term condition. Therefore why should people from abroad get free healthcare at our expense? If they themselves or their governments were footing the bill I do not mind people coming here to take advantage of superior healthcare facilities but it is time that we put British patients first. By allowing foreigners to take advantage of our welfare facilities will only play into the hands of the extremists.
If you were a UK citiizen in many countires you would be entitled to emergency/urgent and sexual health care in many other countries. If you are saying the NHS is just for the British (not the overseas visitor who is in genuine and immediate need or who presents a public health risk in the UK) then surely the same rights should be withdrawn from UK citizens in Anguila, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Barbados, Belarus, Bosnia & Hercegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, New Zealand, Russia, St Helena, Serbia, Tajikistan, UKraine, Uzbekistan and throughout the EU?
Actually, that isn't true.
You are not even allowed full healthcare in the EU, let alone elsewhere.
I did not refer to full healthcare, I referred to emergency/urgent and sexual health care
Sure, if somebody chops an arm off or gets hit by a bus, that is acceptable, but handing out tablets at £20 a day for years on end is not what I would class as an "emergency".
I agree. Although there has to be a rider, where there is a threat to public health. So, if a person becomes a known contagious risk then it is our duty to treat them (not necessarily because it is the humane thing to do for the individual but because it is beneficial to public health).
This is where the logical extension to ARVs with those who have HIV requiring treatment comes in.
Of course, where visa overstayers and illegal immigrants are concerned the public health would be helped by expeditiously ensuring the removal of those people who should not be in the UK. In the interim where there is a risk to UK public health, we should treat them.
Yes Stu, but British people do not flock to most of those countries en masse. Why would they?
In fact, you could probably number no more than a couple of hundred British people, period, in half of those countries at least.
Whereas the whole world and his dog wants to come to free-handout UK, where even the land mass is a good less than a few of the countries you list.
I don't know what your economic situation is like, Stu, but if you want to be Mother Theresa to the non-indigenous HIV-infected, why don't you take off to Sub Saharan Africa or somewhere and see what practical help you can be there?
But stop wishing the world's ills on the rest of us who are just trying to keep a roof above our heads in this gloomy economic climate and are battling to take care of their own.
I disagree tens of thousands of people from the UK visit Australia, New Zealand and Barbados each year
I have just checked Australia tourism official figures. For the month of December 2011 (one month only) there were 93,000 UK visitors and for the whole of the calendar year 2011 there were 608,300 UK visitors.
New Zealand figures for 2011 were 230,000
Barbados figures were 175000 in 2010
Now thats a milion roughly a year for those three countries, I suspect the rest will be less but for example 68,000 UK ciitizens visited Russia using sea travel (according to FCO figures), it must be hundreds of thousands if you include air travel …
So clearly the reciptocal arrangemnets matter to some UK citizens, so we should also grant them in return.
Yeah, they are tourists. Would you seriously consider somebody that buses and hitch-hikes through North Africa to Greece, Turkey or Italy, and then makes there way across numerous European countries to get here is out to do sightseeing? Get real Stu.
I sympathise with these people. If I was dying (and that is what it is), and couldn't afford treatment in my own country, and I could extend my life by getting halfway across the world in order to receive free treatment, I would find a way to get there come hell or high water.
Self-survival is the natural thing for anybody to do, but we simply cannot handle this, and successions of governments have allowed our immigration policies to become so lax that we are now being overwhelmed with demands. Then half the idiots on here accuse you of being "uncompassionate". These people have a screw loose.
Sure most are either tourists or visiting relatives or having business trips etc. and we have people who come here to visit relatives, come on business and as tourists. There should be reciprocal arrangements where both states invovled agree.
If I went to New Zealand and overstayed my 3 months entitlement to stay (which I would not do!) then I would still be entitled to appropriate emergency/urgent and sexual health care. I would still be entitled to protection under Kiwi law. I would also expect to be removed and/or prosecuted by the NZ authorities.
The health care issue is linked to, but at the same time separate from, immigration. We need to tackle the immigration issues but whilst that is happening we need to tackle the public health issues.
In short just because the immigration system is not fit for purpose does not mean the NHS can ignore its public health responsibilities.
Now now, Stu, you are just being pedantic. I said most countries:- I wasn;t specifically referring to Australia, New Zealand and Barbados.
Rather, at least a dozen of the OTHER countries you listed!!! ;-)
Now you are being pedantic, Australia, NZ and Barbados were clearly in the list ….
Yes Stu, but note my use of the word "most", i.e.:- not all (eg. Austarlia, New Zealand and Barbados). Get it now? Do keep up, dear! ;-)
How about funding money to other countries to help people at their origin? Rather than have 'medical tourists' flock to the UK for free treatment, and increasing the risk of HIV transmission for british citizens. You can't solve the world's problems by having every damn migrant come to England, help the problems in the source country!
Isn't that in part what our multi-billion pound overseas aid budget is intended for?!
They enjoy taking us for mugs, Sarah, that's why.
They feign crocodile tears for the plight of the asylum seekers and other needy subgroups who they love to "victimise" to further their cause, but they couldn't care less whether they are genuine asylum seekers or not nor what happens to them if they are.
They are just following the PC prayer book, and its ultimate aim is to demoralise and degrade the British way of life and dilute its cultural identity so that the people cannot speak back in one, united voice.
That's how we became so easily assimilated into the EU despite the majority being against the federal superstate.
Divide and rule. Hasn't it always been thus?
But we are finding our voice again, that much is clear…
There speaks the voice of wisdom. Let's cut aid to India – whose economy is growing far quicker than ours – and redirect it to providing effective aid to countries that really need the help.
Keep their problems off our doorstep, but be compassionate about how we spend our aid at the same time.
Simple really!
Wouldnt disagree with the call to reduce or eliminate aid to India. The minister I saw trying to justify it on BBCQT a few weeks back couldnt really explain why we should continue with aid (or certainly the level of aid we currently have) to India.
The money could either be diverted to UK funds, other countires in needs or a combination ….
That said, its nothing to do with the public health issue that exists here, right now, and needs addressing now.
With policies like these, it's hardly a wonder this country is skint.
Yesterday's Independent:
"The number of people dying as a result of fuel poverty is three times higher than government estimates suggest, according to new academic research.
"Some 7,800 people die during winter because they can't afford to heat their homes properly, says fuel poverty expert Professor Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster. That works out at 65 deaths a day."
All this talk of compassion in the dishing out of costly HIV drugs to pos failed asylum seekers et al is rather put into perspective by stories like these.
Or possibly not by the abhorrent vocal minority who don't give a toss for the well being for their fellow "racist" Brits.
So you would rather put UK citizens who do not have HIV at risk of contracting HIV because public health isn't important in your view?
Correct, Stu, I would.
Because as I said earlier the risk is infinitesimally small and vastly disproportionate to what this crackpot government is decreeing.
Well, I disagree. Public health is important.
Perhaps you would like to explain to someone why the government didnt feel their life was worth trying to protect. The risk was so small (although no one has been able to agree a specific risk ratio) but we thought it was small, well maybe … but it was small enough so that those who were affected because we hadnt protected them – well they didnt matter, just Briitish citizens who were collateral damage?
I prefer to take the approach where British citizens do matter.
If public health is so important, then why don't you throw your support being those calling for better-funded and more effective HIV prevention instead of free treatment for foreigners?
Is handing out free treatments to illegals and asylums really the most urgent and pressing requirement and effective use of public funds when we are not even making proper provision to prevent the spread of HIV among our own indigenous population?
What insanity decrees that it makes good economic sense to spend millions treating those who should not be here in the first place while depriving HIV prevention services that money to do their jobs effectively and efficiently?
@Samuel B
I do support better prevention, as you well know from previous conversations we have had about HIV.
I recognise that this is a specific risk that unfortunately is not easily measurable but nonetheless is a real risk (coming from the segment of the population with the greatest incidence of HIV). I think the NHS are right in seeing it as their duty to protect British people from this risk.
You have missed the point completely like many others in this thread Samuel……there is already a cost for treating individuals subject to HIV to immigration controls when the are hospitalised with complex HIV related illnesses. As I previously mentioned an in patient bed costs £225 per day plus expensive tests, interventions and consultant led care. Expensive repeated stays in hospital far outweigh the cost of treatment. Many of these people may be here for many many years as it stands – treatment is the best use of resources.
It is known the world over that keeping any +ve indviduals on treatment puts less cost pressure on health systems (in our case the NHS).
But that goes back to your dream scenario that everyone who is infected but doesn't know it will come forward, be identified, and expected to practise safer sex for ever more and adhere to the drugs regimen.
Which ain't ever going to happen.
Conversely, those who already know they are infected with HIV in other countries will now make a beeline to the UK specifically for free treatments, and quite probably a lot more besides.
It's a recipe for disaster, as have most health-related policies and a lot more besides been since the Lib Dems crawled into bed with the Tories.
They talk of safeguards. Yeah, right. This system will be open to abuse, just as New Labour (deliberately) miscalculated the number of Eastern Europeans who would flock here in 2004, etc.
Notice how there is no accountability for these massive cock-ups in retrospect. They can say what they like today but tomorrow they will have disappeared through a revolving door and up another greasy pole.
@ Samuel
I think you have mis-understood what I am saying with regard to the NHS costs in relation to individuals subject to immigration controls. Currently there is potentially a very high cost due to increased inpatient costs because ARV's are not available, this can be reduced by providing ARV'S for those immigrants already in the country.
If NHS costs are to be controlled then our immigration policy and border controls must be fit for purpose, I find it odd that HIV was the only communical disease where drug treatment has been restricted. It is a good thing that this has now been overturned, as it was a shortsighted false economy.
Let me repeat what I said at the beginning, that is that if this policy must exist then all people already here should be dispensed treatments accordingly.
My problem is with the supposed "safeguards" put in place to prevent a flood of HIV tourists coming here specifically for treatments when otherwise they wouldn't bother.
I outlined the only safeguard that could possibly prove effective (i.e.:- being tested in their country of origin and providing a certificate to prove zero-status), and everyone responded it could never work.
The irony is that there can be no real safeguards in place to detect such HIV tourists from arriving en masse, so once again our government has created a potential problem that didn't exist and squandered even more of our ever contracting money supply in the process.
Quantitive easing can't be the solution to these wilful cock-ups every time.
Something has to give, and signs are that it is the British people's patience.
I'm not sure you said at the beginnng that you are in favour of treating immigrants with ARV's thereby reducing the cost of overall treatment. I totally get the safeguard thing, and I am not sure how that would work.
My concern is that often HIV and TB go together in this population group so there is a very clear public health risk. In addition the practice of dispersing immigrants around the country is adding to this risk with poor follow up resulting in more specialist care beng required.
My view is that by keeping these people in reasonable health this reduces the overall burden on the UK finances, which does not just involve the cost of ARV's.
And I respect your view entirely, W6. And thanks for articulating it so clearly and concisely.
W6_bloke: "Many of these people may be here for many many years as it stands – treatment is the best use of resources."
Precisely. That is the nub of the argument. Why does it take so long?
If these people have failed they should not be here. How clearer can one be?
Because the system isn't fit for purpose. We have to deal with the treatment of these people in the most cost effective way so providing ARV's is the best use of resources in the current situation.
If the problem (and I agree that it is) is that the immigration system is not fit for purpose, then complaining about the NHS protecting public health and responding to its responisbilities is not the way to tackle it.
So the government creates these problems and the only solutions are to throw even more money at it, which then creates even bigger problems which then need further solutions and more money and so on and so on ad infinitum!
Are you not understanding why people are shouting ENOUGH ALREADY?
This is not a sustainable situation, Stu, and something has to give, lest we become the same third world country these asylums and illegals are running away from.
Even if there's a slight risk to public health, so is being admitted into the NHS these days. Would you honestly allow your 80 year old grandmother to be treated by these people?
So why the faux concern for the possible infections that MAY arise if illegals and asylums don't get treatment when weighed against the rest of us whose lives are at risk all of the time through failed government policies, inadequate HIV prevention education programmes, etc. etc.?
I'm all ears…
Which people would you like me to rule out treating my grandmother, not quite clear who you mean …
@Samuel B
I note you still havent answered who "these people" are … any chance of a clue?
You may choose to pigeon hole me and perceive that my concern is a faux concern, you are wrong. I genuinely am very much concerned about public health. You insinuation that my concern is faux is disappointing.
The solution to this okay Samuel would be for a few more 'British' people to get off their backsides and go out and do an honest days work.
Maybe try winning back a few of the jobs 'given' to immigrants, by actually being more hard working, more reliable, more skilled, and more conscientious than them, and maybe then they could afford to heat their own homes.
The knock on effect from this would be that the country would actually have more money to spend on providing support to those who were genuinely in need, rather than the current system that throws money at bone ideal wasters who spend half the day flicking themselves off to Loose Women complaining that the central heating isn't warm enough.
If we're going to ration our taxes on who we think is deserving, my choice would be give life saving medication to all that need it any day, rather than fund a life of leisure for the homegrown masses who choose not to work
It certainly would help solve some of the problem at the very least.
I am surprised you believe the myth that all English are bone idle, Sister, when a lot of them have been priced out of the job market by the influx of cheap labour from Eastern Europe.
As was always a part of the grand scheme of things, of course, as orchestrated by the PC elite on behalf of the corporations seeking to exploit the workforce.
And for your information, vast swathes of those who sit at home and don't work are housed (on welfare, obviously) in areas such as Bradford and East London, where nary a white face can be seen these days.
Ho bloody hum.
Unfortunately too many people are second and third generation unemployed.
Its not everyone and is a broad stroke generalisation. There are too many who think benefits are thier right and unwilling to even consider work.
I know if I did not have income or a job to return to, I would take minimum wage if I had no alternative (hopefully I would have an alternative) but I would be proud to work. Its also often easier to find a job when you have a job.
You might not be idle, but many British people (emabrrassingly) are.
"You might not be idle, but many British people (emabrrassingly) are."
Hang on, Stu. If I was black and you made the above comment substituting "British" for "black", what does that make you?
Exactly what your ilk have been branding the likes of Spanner and I who have been bemoaning the appalling state on the immigration system for years now!
Hypocrite? Much.
Not in the slightest Samuel
Having worked in communities including those of multi ethnic communities (British and non), priviliedged and deprived … I have witnessed for myself the fact that there are communities where a large proportion of those communities are third and fourth gerneration unemployed. Its a fact. When you talk to these peoples children about their hopes for the future, it includes benefit entitlements and no hope of employment (or motivation to try) in a significant number of cases.
Now you can try and say thats racist, but the families this relate to are from all ethnicities. Its a fact;
You might not have encountered such people in your sheltered life in high fashion of course. You might think that having such a sheltered life is a good thing. I prefer seeing real people too.
So I run an instore boutique while people in your emergency services professions stand by and watch people drown in six inches of water while you run risk assessment checks, "kettle" innocent protesters to stop them exercising their right to march, or simply don't bother giving their elderly patients bed baths, let alone bothering to check that they are not starving and thirsty?
That does not prevent me from being humane, worldly wise and up to date with what is going on in the world.
Please stop trying to pull rank on me all the time. What is wrong with being responsible for running one of the top fashion line concessions in one of the largest London department emporiums?
Start being nice to me, Stu, and I may even consider bestowing on you my not insignificant preferred managerial employee discount…
You just can't help yourself can you.
I was being perfectly polite and pointed out in your sheltered life you may not have met people who are third or fourth generation unemployed.,
You decide to respond with flagrant comments ridiculing 300,000 emergency workers who day in day out put their lives on the line to save people who make ignorant comments like you. There have been mistakes, and rightly so reported in the press (not always factually). When did a mistake you made at work make such an impact on a persons life (thats why emergency services mistakes hit the press, because our mistakes matter).
Also you implied I was racist in a previous post, when I explained this politely and calmly you again seek to fling mud.
I appreciate this is you being nice (compared to previous conduct – and yes yes yes I know I have made mistakes too, but so have you!) … I am trying to be nice and friendly with you, but you continue to goad – perhgaps you don;t even know when you are?
Hi Stu, I think we are both a little guilty of reading things into each others' words which aren't there or aren't intended.
I seriously have no beef unless things get heated and personal as they have done previously.
I notice you have accused me of deflection but if you recall that was a main accusation I levelled at you also previously.
I think you must appreciate the fact – which you can vouch from the times I am able to post here – that I do not have the time to read through absolutely everything on here nor be as thorough as I would like in my responses:- there just aren't enough minutes in my day and PN isn't the most pressing thing in my life.
I will dip into it and participate in a thread that provokes or stimulates me to, and sometimes I will get too absorbed in it and my daily routine goes haywire.
And sometimes the couple of minutes spare I have to post a response may make it appear curt or blunt when than is really just out of circumstance.
Hope that clears things up.
Lets draw a line under things here …
I probably won't be commenting on this thread any longer unless I notice a significant number of extra posts
On that basis, I am unlikely to see your response to this, but please can I ask that you avoid jumping on the emergency services particularly when they are not relevant to the story the cmments are about. Whether its the case or not, it is reasonable to suspect that you are attacking me when you do that. Even if you are not, I am now explaining to you that show I feel, and if you are the reasonable person you say you are then you will acvoid doing htat in the future.
I find it offensive. I seek no thanks for the work I do – it is a job I enjoy doing. You imply the 999 services do not care. I and many others have put our lives on the lines many times. Your comments demean the actions we take. Please don't.
Stu, so you find the truth offensive, therefore you would prefer to silence my right to free speech than to risk your feelings being hurt with the facts?
Well I think your attitude here just about confirms all I have been stating about your PC leanings and intent to impose restrictions on free speech inherent in both your postings and comment articles on PN.
When your favourite paper, The Guardian, features police kettling as its front page lead on at least two occasions, and has also covered abuses and neglect of the elderly in our state hospitals and care homes, as well as those like the poor chappie who drowned in a few inches of pond water while all around pond life, sorry, your chums were finding excuses NOT to wade in and rescue him, well, that just about sums up the insanity and perniciousness of PC that I and others have been venting at these past few years, and particularly of late.
Totally and utterly despicable!
I can't bring myself to read these articles anymore; its depressing. We are in a mess and heading towards a an even bleaker future since our fortunes are inextricably tied up with europe. "No action, no leader and no amount of printed money that can save the world or prevent a hyperinflationary depression. Never in history has the world been in a situation when virtually all industrialised countries are bankrupt." to quote one expert. The NHS and the public sector have to be reformed if we want to survive this economic meltdown. We simply can't afford them anymore as they stand.
These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.
More like this
- Interview: Greg Louganis on gold medals, HIV and Matthew Mitcham 6
- Mr Gay UK pledges portion of winnings to HIV charity 32
- Nigerian health minister says bisexuals "pose a challenge" to HIV efforts 15
- Study finds 30% of UK adults "need more information about HIV" 19
- One in 20 gay men living with HIV as infection rate hits record high 230
Most commented this week
- School threatens to suspend trans student for wearing female uniform 350
- Tens of thousands of people marched in Paris to revoke same-sex marriage today 121
- Trans student has filed a lawsuit against school district for enforcing a bathroom ban 117
- More than a billion people are still living under British anti-gay laws 81
- Caitlyn Jenner responds to governor who ordered her to use men's showers 68
- Trump bumper sticker supports confederate flag beating up LGBT flag 56
- First heterosexual couple in Britain enter civil partnership 54
- Simon Cowell apologises for gay joke 52
- This church kicked out a man for being gay, so he wrote an amazing reply 46
- Simon Cowell accused of homophobia after crude gay joke on X Factor 40