I highly doubt they're actively being pushed ahead of natural-born citizens, unless their medical condition is contagious or potentially dangerous to people living here. I'd be interested to see a credible source that backs up that claim too. The NHS needs investment, put simply. UKIP are more likely to continue to creeping privatisation and the Conservatives are pledging money they just don't have.
Some healthcare is not free to foreigners but there is an awful lot that is free.....a visit to AandE/drop in centre or GP is free for example......also any drugs/treatment or counciling in the treatment of HIV and several other contagious diseases I believe.....
Okay, I actually researched what is 'free' for 'overseas visitors', and it isn't as bad as people are saying, and possibly imagining. Emergency treatment is free (A&E), which is understandable as I wouldn't be proud living in a country that allows people to bleed to death on the streets. Treatment of 'certain infectious diseases such as STIs' are free on the NHS, which is actually good because that benefits UK citizens anyway and is a precautionary measure. Other measures are compulsory psychiatric treatment and other treatment imposed by a court order, which, again, benefits the citizens as much as the victim. Finally, limited family planning services can be free, but this excludes maternity treatment and abortions. This does not warrant such a misguided public outcry and it's certainly not indicative of immigrants getting a free pass at the NHS, which only covers emergencies and precautions that make British citizens safer. Of course, the myth of widespread 'heath tourism' just distracts people from the main issue regarding the NHS, and that is its gradual privatisation and chronic underinvestment. More reading can be found here for facts, rather than scaremongering: http://www.nhs.uk/nhsengland/aboutnhsservices/uk-visitors/Pages/accessing-nhs-services.aspx
I'm assuming this is the article? I recommend giving it a full read. https://fullfact.org/health/costs_health_tourism-37227 In short, it is roughly estimated that deliberate 'health tourism', in the manner UKIP describe, costs the British taxpayer between £110 million and £280 million a year.
Using your words Bollyx! We do need some flexible jobs in the Economy and ZHC only account for about 2% of the total jobs market. If Labour was so concerned about ZHC why is it that Labour Councils are employing 100s of people on them!
I find the right-wing press' vehement hatred about the possibility of a SNP-Labour alliance very amusing indeed. Personally, I'd much prefer that alliance to a Conservative/UKIP partnership. Either way, it's clear that, from a bargaining perspective, the SNP have showed their hand by ruling out a Tory/SNP alliance, so Labour can afford to take a controlling presence in talks. Miliband appeared to rule out a formal coalition with the SNP anyway, so if it came to needing SNP support in Parliament, he'd probably have their support on a vote-by-vote basis while leading a minority government, depending on the amount of seats his party wins. Sturgeon is a popular figure, both in Scotland and the rest of the UK, for her 'progressive' policies and performances in the debates. I don't think many British people would be too annoyed to have her playing a role in a potential government. I think a more realistic post-Election scenario will be a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, maybe with Caroline Lucas' Green party included to show some environmental credentials and gain an extra seat.
Haha, I know I'm on the opposite side of the fence to most on here, politically speaking. But I cannot believe why any working person would want David Cameron back in Number 10.
disagree entirely, having the SNP/Labour will only mean one thing, that is the SNP holding labour to ransom over every single vote, Is that what we really want in westminster? just imagine the furore it would cause if there was party called the 'English National Party' and the accusations that would follow!
